The Not-so-Affordable Care Act

imagesThe government has been back up and running for about two weeks, but the disagreements over Obamacare are far from over.  Government healthcare has gotten off to quite the shaky start, beginning with many issues with the federal website used to sign up for the program.  However, much more than just improved tech support will be needed to fix the deep-seeded problems with the Affordable Care Act.

The first issue with Obamacare comes directly in its official name: the Affordable Care Act.  The truth is, for a majority of middle-class Americans, this new healthcare will not be affordable.  Citizens will now be forced to purchase insurance with government-madated qualifications of coverage, whether they need this coverage or not.  This is a direct out-of-pocket cost for those who do not qualify for government subsidies due to their incomes.  Because of these requirements of coverage, premiums are skyrocketing, and clients’ policies are being dropped.  An average forty-year-old male will see an increase of ninety-nine percent on their premiums, and females’ increase sixty-two percent, while also facing higher deductibles and co-pays. Premiums are also expected to increase even further if not enough young and healthy people sign up for the program, which is a major fear as many are being dissuaded from signing up due to the technological issues.

One major benefit being proclaimed for Obamacare is the fact that those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage or be charged unreasonably higher rates.  On the surface, this is obviously a good thing, as most people are not in favor of denying those with serious illnesses.  However, the cost from this is going to be coming from taxpayers who are in good health.  Why should those who do not need as much medical coverage and do not require medical attention or procedures be forced to pay more to account for those who do?

When proposing Obamacare, President Obama promised that those who already had insurance could keep their current plans and doctors.  As the program has gone into effect, this has proved to be a complete lie.  Plans are being dropped left and right due to not complying with different standards set by the government, with millions of people being required to purchase more comprehensive, yet more expensive, insurance policies.  Clients also may not be able to keep their same doctors, as insurance companies have limited the selection of doctors in exchange plans in order to reduce premiums.  For example, large academic medical centers, which often provide the best treatment and most qualified doctors, are being excluded due to their expenses.

While health care reform is needed in this country, it clearly has not been attempted in an efficient or effective manner.  Obamacare, while not the official name for this act, is the more fitting title, as this program has proved to be anything but affordable.








17 thoughts on “The Not-so-Affordable Care Act

  • October 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    Glad to see a second opinion. I feel like statistics would have enriched the article, rather than simply saying a majority of middle class Americans can not afford it.

  • November 1, 2013 at 8:31 AM

    Could not have said this any better myself. Excellent article.

  • November 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    You clearly don’t understand why this law was put into effect, do you? “…whether they need this coverage or not…” Everyone needs coverage, ER visits are not free. When someone cannot pay for a visit, their cost gets tacked on to another person who has health insurance, forcing them to pay for another person’s visit. The Affordable Care Act makes it so there are no extra fees from those who could not afford Healthcare. Also, I would like to add, that unlike your claim “…complete lie. Plans are being dropped left and right due to not complying with different standards set by the government…” Those who have received letters that their plans have been dropped, was because their plans did not comply with the standards under the Affordable Care Act, these plans did not provide real coverage, and those people who were dropped would have much better coverage for the price if they switched. The other problem with your argument is the fact that you claim the prices are “not affordable”, I would like to point out that the price of affordable healthcare now, is less than you pay every month for your cell phone service, which is in fact not a necessity despite what those of you who spend too much of your time on Facebook might think, so instead of saying you can’t “afford” the price, why not look at things you really need, like the ability to go to a hospital, and receive care without the worry of breaking the bank.

    I find your title of “Obamacare” disrespectful and the law should be referred to under it’s official title, The Affordable Healthcare Act.


    • November 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      Under the circumstances that this is a school editorial, your comment is simply unnecessary. This article was meant to state the authors opinion and was solely meant to promote discussion. Just because of a disagreement in what was said, that does not mean the the authors opinion was wrong. Worst of all you wouldn’t even provide a name. Using a hidden alias solely to hate on a child’s view on a controversial topic is terrible. Judging from your language of calling students ‘you guys’ I conclude you are a parent and should know better than to tell a student that their opinions and views are wrong.

      • November 11, 2013 at 7:48 AM

        all i’m going to do here is quote what you have said i don’t need to say any more

        “I would have much preferred a non-opinionated breakdown of the topic. Questions of the political nature should not be addressed in such a one sided manor that focuses solely on disproving another’s opinion… ”

        Everything you said here is the opposite of what you said on the other “Obamacare” article,you did have more in your comment from before but if you’re going to hate on one you may as well hate on both 🙂

      • November 11, 2013 at 7:53 AM

        I do also believe that “Obamacare” will turn out just fine. When you mentioned the people that aren’t sick and don’t need the coverage will be paying for the really sick people, my understanding of “Obamacare” was that it will be run like an insurance company to an extent. they make money from the healthy people and that money is used to fund the not so healthy people

        • November 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM

          You misinterpreted my reply to your comment. I am not saying either opinion is right, but your attack on an opinion is unnecessary. Do I feel that this should not be on the article, yes, but that does not mean that either opinion is more right than the other.

  • November 4, 2013 at 8:04 AM

    Its nice to see two arguments, but this one seems much less fleshed out than the other article.

    • November 6, 2013 at 10:15 PM

      I respecfully disagree with your comments. First off, I did not say all coverage was unnecessary. The very wording was “this coverage,” as in specific mandated portions of coverage. For example, post-menopausal women being required to pay for coverage including birthcontrol and pregnancy care, even though both of these are biologically unneeded. (this is just one example out of a myriad of other scenarios) Also, the coverage that was dropped was not “not real coverage.” As Americans, we live in a free-market society, where people should be able to make their own economic decisions, including deciding how much medical insurance they personally need, a right which they have been stripped of, and when promised their policies would not change, they were then dropped and forced to repurchase MORE EXPENSIVE insurance that they did not want. Moreover, your statement that healthcare is more affordable than a cellphone bill is both erroneous and a far too broad generalization. If these comments were meant directly at me, the author, I am completely offended by both your rudeness and assumptions, when you do not know me, my family, or my background. My father suffered a heart attack and other cardiac complications in recent years, along with a fractured skull and subsequent issues including a hernia requiring surgery last fall, and I know and value firsthand the ability of being able to receive hospital care. However, I also know how my family struggled financially due to the amounts we were required to pay. Had these injuries happened after Obamacare went into effect, we would have “broken the bank” as you put it, due to the major increases in our co-pays and deductibles due to the new law. So in the future try to refrain from making insulting, condescending statements with no factual basis just because someone has a different political belief than you.

      P.S. I find your snap judgments and assumptions posted anonymously far more disrespectful than using the name Obamacare, which has been used not only by every major news outlet in the country, but also many politicians themselves.

      • November 6, 2013 at 10:16 PM

        the above comment was meant as a reply to the anonymous poster, not commenter Liz,

  • November 5, 2013 at 12:42 PM

    I agree with the above statement

  • November 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM

    I disagree. Obamacare is very beneficial and will turn out great.

  • November 7, 2013 at 9:18 AM

    What you all do not seem to understand is that HEALTHCARE IS NOT FREE, The Affordable Care Act helps people like me who is dealing with constant medical problems and needs The Affordable Care Act. So basically you are saying that people who have so much money that they do not know what to do with it should not have to pay to keep others alive. You’re saying that you care more about yourself than you do about others, talk about greedy!! The summary of this article basically states that people do not like change and that is why everyone is so against President Obama. He is trying to change things and we do not like that. We like our country in economic depression and that is wrong!!!!

  • November 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    One of the most interesting questions about the health care overhaul now moving through Congress is how it would affect young adults. That legislation would force most or all Americans to purchase health insurance (an “individual mandate”) and would impose price controls on health insurance (“community rating”) that would limit insurers’ ability to offer lower premiums to low-risk enrollees.

    Those provisions would drive premiums down for 55-year-olds but would drive them up for 25-year-olds—who are then implicitly subsidizing older adults. According to the Urban Institute, many young people could see their premiums double, whereas premiums for older adults could be cut in half.

    Massachusetts benefits from another type of subsidy that props up its regime of mandates and price controls: large subsidies from the federal government. In contrast, the United States as a whole has no external party it can exploit to subsidize a nationwide Massachusetts-style health care overhaul—unless Congress finances that overhaul through additional deficit spending, which is really just another way of taxing the young to subsidize the old.

    The irony is that Barack Obama won the presidency with 66 percent of the vote among adults aged 18 to 29. That’s a larger share than any presidential candidate has won in decades. Yet his health care overhaul could impose its greatest burdens on young adults.

    • November 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM

      Cory, I don’t mean to be rude to you, we need to help people like you. But some people’s parents work in the healthcare system . The effect of ObamaCare on them (employee’s of health care providers) are now starting to suffer the consequences since the burden is falling on the hospital. No bonuses ,no raises, cut pay, cut jobs. To some people ObamaCare is putting them in horrible positions. we need to have a healthcare act that helps everyone. 🙂

  • November 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

    I think that we should all just try and get along. ‘MURICA!!

  • November 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM

    It’s a opinion article, some people are going to get offended. That’s kind of the point.

Comments are closed.

Menu Title