Why is health care reform bad?

Answer 1

It is not. US health care needs to be reformed. Even the Insurance companies agree on this matter. But, some Americans do not like this particular reform bill or some features of it. Others do not understand it to even make an informed decision on the issue, but are still being persuaded by opinions, beliefs and not necessarily good information to be against it.

Some think that it should have included more reforms, such as Tort reform, allowing risk pooling, and reforms to allow insurance companies to sell plans across state lines (thus more competition). Others think that this is only a way for insurance companies to bypass various state laws that require coverage of things for those living in that state that the insurance companies would rather not have to cover. There are those who believe that each individual would need to do an in depth study of each plan under those circumstances to find the one that covers what they need instead of being able to rely on the state insurance commission and state laws as the means to be sure they get what they think they are paying for.

The current health care bill, The Affordable Care Act, that a bipartisan Congress created and passed, has parts that are universally appreciated and that will help many people. See the related questions below for some more examples. (These include the removal of restrictions of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Removal of lifetime maximums which had allowed insurance companies to drop coverage on people in a health care crisis when they needed it most but when the costs of care were over a cap amount. Extending coverage of the parents' plans to include dependents/children until the age of 26 so that those in college are no longer uninsured until they graduate and start receiving income of their own, etc. It has provided coverage for many more women and children, to name only a few of the universally well liked parts.)

Although, as mentioned above, it does not open up insurance sales across states, which many people supported for the competitive premiums angle, but which others did not support because it would eliminate the individual state coverage mandates, there are still those who say the current bill takes away from state rights and individual liberty. This is certainly an area of dispute.

Some worry if the American people can afford it, others say we cannot afford to be without it. Some indicate that they believe if there has to be additional spending, then let it be for providing health care for our own, our fellow Americans. They would prefer spending for that instead of providing all the billions of dollars to the war machine.

It is also against the constitution according to enough people that a Supreme Court decision is going to be made on that point soon. However there are equally as many or more citizens, state Attorneys General, local courts and attorneys and Constitutional scholars who say it does not conflict with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case and a decision will be forthcoming.

Some argue on the constitutionality issue that "goods" are not included in entitlements in the US, and they classify health care as goods and disagree with the reform for that reason. They say, just like you cannot have a right to shoelaces and calenders, you should not expect and cannot have a right to health care because it is a "good". Many other people strongly disagree and argue that, although every one does not need broccoli, shoelaces, and calendars, every single human on the planet needs health care. They believe it is a basic human need that governments should be involved in providing and regulating no differently than they provide and regulate in areas of other basic needs such as fire protection, water and sewage, police protection, food inspection and other services for the people. They state this is more efficient, effective and affordable when provided on a nation-wide scale than when it is on a smaller scale or made possible only by each individual for themselves.

Those opposed to the bill see it as government invasion in the private sector.

The counter argument is that there is a proven need for government oversight and direct involvement in the private sector, for example in the health care arena and certainly in the financial, banking and oil production markets as we have painfully found what they will do when no one is properly watching and regulating them. That has been demonstrated by the negligent oil spills and related lack of oversight, and also by the many Horror stories about inept health insurance companies inappropriately refusing coverage to covered critically ill patients leading to their deaths, etc. And it has been demonstrated with our recent financial and banking system failures, fraud and which was also due to lack of regulation.

See the related questions below.