Barack Obama
Republican Party
Healthcare Reform

Why are Republicans against healthcare reform as outlined by Obama?

373839

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
Answered
2014-03-16 12:57:22
2014-03-16 12:57:22

1. POWER: It is about limiting the power and control of the government over the people. Republicans fear that control over healthcare choices is just the beginning to control ove citizens' lives.

2. IDEOLOGY: Republicans are center/conservative and Democrats are center/liberals. They disagree with each other. The conservatives ideology is the government should have less control over citizens' lives. They also strongly believe a person's success and advancement is attributed solely to dedication and hard work. In other words, if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. That is why it is very difficult for a republican to feel obligated to pay more taxes for health insurance for someone who they feel has a bad work ethic or who wants to over eat, smoke and chose not to be healthy.

3. TAXATION FOR WEALTHY: Most Republicans do not want higher taxes for the wealthy; those making more than $250,000 per year, as they will be the ones paying for most government spending...e.g the heathcare bill.

Republicans also state that it is the wealthy that create jobs by investing and that if their taxes are raised, there will be less investing and job creation. While this thinking is not incorrect in of itself, 60% - 80% of job creation comes from small businesses, not large corporations. If the government wanted to give tax breaks to stimulate job creation, the breaks should go to small businesses and startups.

Also, the upper class spends 75 cents for every dollar they earn (and save 25 cents), while the lower class spends 95 cents for every dollar they earn (and save 5 cents). So if tax breaks are giving to stimulate the economy, the theory is that it should go to the poor, since they are more likely to spend it. The reason being is that they need to for necessities.

4. FEAR OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE: Republicans believe the healthcare system in America needs reform, but feel the best solution is not to hand it over to the government. Although the Obama plan is not socialized medicine, it appears in time employers will dump their employees into an "exchange/public option" and most people will eventually be enrolled in the one payer system. Long Lines, Death panels, deciding what medicine you should get etc...

5. BUDGET DEFICIT: Republicans believe the American government is nearly bankrupt. Although Obama and the CBO has stated the health care bill will reduce government expenses. There may be a moderate risk it does not and the government may have to take on more debt. The deficit is already high. As our government has had to borrow money from other countries such as China, which must be paid back with added interest.

6. FOUNDING PRINCIPLES: America, was founded on the principles of absolute minimalist government, both economically and socially, and was intended to be run as capitalistically as possible. Republicans believe our Constitution strictly forbids the federal government's interference into our personal and economic decisions, including healthcare.

Excellent answers above, but also consider:

Re: 1 ~ Yes. The needs of sick and dying Americans are being ignored and the US people are being politically manipulated to foster a small number of politicians' job security and bank accounts and Big Insurance.

2. Most people who are under-insured or uninsured today in the US are hard working, tax paying, currently employed people. Some have lost coverage due to the loss of a job during the economic crisis, but they are actively seeking employment, they aren't just lazy and wanting a free ride. The indigent (and those who may choose to be lazy and not work) are covered already by Medicaid, a form of nationalized healthcare similar to Medicare (insurance for the elderly and disabled). They are self-employed, work for a company that doesn't offer health benefits, or live pay check to pay check and simply can not afford the rapidly rising cost of insurance or healthcare in the US.

3. Clearly, the "Trickle Down" economic theory has been proven to be wrong. While the wealthy were given tax breaks during the Bush administration's time in office, the economy was in the absolute worst crisis with job loss, loss of healthcare coverage, and the theory that giving tax breaks to the wealthy will increase the number of jobs and improve the economy has clearly been shown to be incorrect.

4. "Death Panels" are a figment of someone's imagination. They were dreamed up by someone who clearly did not read the proposed plans and who did not understand healthcare. I know as a nurse that they don't exist, they have never been proposed as part of any reform package, and the lies spread about them have done a huge disservice to the American people. They were lies used as part of a tactic to promote fear and to distort the truth. A public option is not socialized medicine.

5. The government budget office has agreed that the original Obama proposal would not increase the deficit. To say that we won't cover health care for dying Americans because there is a "risk" that it will cost too much and add to the huge deficit left from the Bush administration (who had a surplus when they took office) even though studies do not support that risk, seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. On the one hand we spend gazillions on war to supposedly prevent the threat that another American may die at the hand of terrorists, while at the same time we refuse to fund health care for thousands of Americans who are literally dying daily because they have no way to pay for the high costs of health care (through no fault of their own).

6. I believe that most Americans believe that our government was founded on principles that also promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first of that being LIFE, we watch as fellow Americans die due to lack of necessary care because they can not afford it regardless of how hard they work. No other civilized country puts such a low priority on their people's healthcare needs. The fact is that currently, 45,000 people die each year in the US due to a lack of health care insurance. (See link below to Reuters article).

Fear of Socialized Medicine: The healthcare system in America clearly needs reform, but quite possibly the worst possible choice of solutions to this problem is to hand it over to our government, which has earned an almost impeccable record for failure and tendency towards corruption. A few countries that have socialized medicine run their programs quite well. Without exception though, none of those few countries have debts anywhere even close to the size of America's, and several of them have no debt. By and large though, the countries which have nationalized health care have seen a marked decline in quality and availability of healthcare. In short, socialized medicine has proven to be an unsuccessful venture in countries throughout the world.

The heath care reform that President Obama is proposing is in no way a government takeover. That is simply a scare tactic the Republicans are using to essentially scare the people out of agreeing with the reform. And when people say that the government has "an almost impeccable record for failure and tendency towards corruption" that again is an opinion with very little fact behind it. There are very corrupt corporations, some of which control health insurance. They right now deny to insure patients with pre-existing conditions so they can make more money, one of the very reasons Obama is calling for this reform.

Government run programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid and the Veterans Administration, are actually considered by many to be very well run and organized. We use that system for our senior citizens, the financially indigent, and our veterans. And lets not forget that corrupt elected officials are indeed elected by the public and can be impeached. Corrupt CEOs of corporations cannot be either of those things.

The countries that have socialized medicine can afford to have healthcare for all of their citizens, rich or poor. The USA as of now has a healthcare system that denies its middle to lower class citizens healthcare depending on how much they can afford. We have welfare, public schools, and other publicly funded programs to help people live with basic necessities they can't afford on their own. Why should healthcare be any different?

That is why we have a government that takes care of programs that the people need or that capitalism should have no part in. The government-controlled healthcare Public OPTION that is being proposed may have a slight decrease in quality but that is why it is an option. Others can choose to stay with their existing healthcare plans, and those who can't afford that can choose the government option.

I would also add that many congressmen and congresswomen get significant donations from the Health Care Insurance companies, mainly conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans who end up being the swing votes for reform.

Although I do believe that Obama is making the right decisions in this reform, I do believe that he is having some issues. Basically, Obama needs a little more George W. Bush in him. He has an idea but doesn't know how to put it into action, he is being too much of a wimp about it. He needs to give the republicans a little more input about the situation. He needs to explain that public OPTION means, OPTION! you do not have use this free health care system you will still be able to get service by Red Cross and etc.

The State of the Union speech was at the capitol building in Washington DC. I think that the republicans disagree with president Obama because the republicans have different beliefs about healthcare system, war in Iraq and the economy. The democrats are for Obama. Also I think most ideas might be for the democrats so that is bad for the republicans.

_____________________________________________________________________

I live in Massachusetts, the only state in the Union that currently has a public option. I am self-employed, and before Mass. undertook health-care reform I was paying $450 for private Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance. When I went to sign up with the state, I learned I could get THE EXACT SAME INSURANCE FOR $100 less! I ended up not taking it, though, because there was an even cheaper option, for $250 a month.

I have had the $250 coverage for at least a year now, and am very happy with it. It does have a sort of high deductible - $2,000 - but even if I paid out the whole deductible, my total annual cost would only be $5,000; whereas with BCBS, my monthly premiums alone would have been $5,400. So at a minimum I'm saving $400 a year. Co-pays are the same as I was paying before. I don't take any medications regularly, but the few times I've gotten prescriptions they cost about the same as on my old plan. And all the doctors and nurses have been very good so far; I don't have a single complaint about this plan.

The lead story in yesterday's Boston Globe said that according to the Boston Foundation, one of the oldest and largest community foundations in the country and publisher of independentresearch, cities and towns in Massachusetts would save "tens of millions of dollars in health care costs for employees, retirees, and elected officials by joining the state's much larger, more flexible health care system." (ref 1)

I can understand why elected Republicans don't want health care reform - for the reasons listed above - but what I can't understand is why people in this country continually vote against their own economic interests by electing people who are pushing big businesses that let the already obscenely rich get richer on the backs of working Americans. Health insurance companies are FOR-PROFIT entities; don't blame them when they hike your rates by 30 to 39 percent, as happened recently to some customers in California (ref 2). Don't blame them when you can't get insurance because you're diabetic, or had your gall bladder out three years ago, or have breast cancer. They're just trying to make sure they make the most money they can for their shareholders; that's why they're in business. It's just like with any other kind of insurance: They'll find any reason they can to get out of paying. You keep paying them every month; but when you need them, they won't be there. Their allegiance is to the bottom line, not to you. Government (or, in Republican-speak, "BIG government" - sounds scarier that way) is the only thing that can keep companies like this in check, by REGULATING their practices. Without regulations, credit card companies, banks, and, yes, insurers, have no watchdog. The media can report all they want about the abuses of such companies, but it won't make a dent as long as there are no consequences for their steal-from-the-little-guy practices. There needs to be someone keeping them from the worst abuses - and it's called government. Because you better believe if you ever have an argument over payment with an insurer, you are the one who's going to lose.

P.S. Check out the American Journal of Medicine's report on how 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies are caused by medical problems - up from 46.2 percent in 2001. "Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations," it says. "Three-quarters had health insurance." (ref 3) There's something very wrong with this picture.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"our government, which has earned an almost impeccable record for failure and tendency towards corruption..."

That's because it was allowed, especially under Bush, but also really started in the days of Nixon, grew in the Reagan Era, and cemented itself in the "W" years.

Failure has to do with the people appointed by the President. Inevitable, if the President is conservative, he hates government and will put the most incompetent people in positions of power, and point to their failures as part of the "government sucks" plan. If the President is liberal, he will try to put people in power who can do the most good, but again is sabotaged by the lobbyists and former CEOs of big corporations who have already made a name for themselves there.

Basically, what needs to happen, is that many of those people need to be fired and jailed, and the people who love this country (i.e., want to get back to what Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson helped create) need to step up and take it back. Since Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and all them weren't the wealthiest men in the colonies, we don't need govt by the rich. Since our founding fathers were not religious, we don't need that kind of govt either. Anyone who wants to know...their writings can be found online. Study them, don't just take someone's word for it.

We need a public option, a Medicare-like system that helps everyone, and cuts the insurance companies out of the deal. One that doesn't criminalize those who don't have insurance. That is funded by whatever props up Britain and Denmark and Sweden and all those other countries that offer their people free healthcare.

More Republican Views & Opinion

Deficit: The American government is bankrupt. We simply cannot afford to take on these enormous debts of public welfare. It is irresponsible for our government to borrow even more money from China, which must be paid back with added interest.

Constitution: America, unarguably, was founded on the principles of absolute minimalist government, both economically and socially, and was intended to be run as capitalistically as possible. Our Constitution strictly forbids the federal government's interference into our personal and economic decisions, and our government's recent shift to Socialism.

Fear of Socialized Medicine: The healthcare system in America clearly needs reform, but quite possibly the worst possible choice of solutions to this problem is to hand it over to our government, which has earned an almost impeccable record for failure and tendency towards corruption. A few countries that have socialized medicine run their programs quite well. Without exception though, none of those few countries have debts anywhere even close to the size of America's, and several of them have no debt. By and large though, the countries which have nationalized health care have seen a marked decline in quality and availability of healthcare. In short, socialized medicine has proven to be an unsuccessful venture in countries throughout the world.

The heath care reform that President Obama is proposing is in no way a government takeover. That is simply a scare tactic the Republicans are using to essentially scare the people out of agreeing with the reform. And when people say that the government has "an almost impeccable record for failure and tendency towards corruption" that again is an opinion with very little fact behind it. There are very corrupt corporations, some of which control health insurance. They right now deny to insure patients with pre-existing conditions so they can make more money, one of the very reasons Obama is calling for this reform. Government run programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are actually considered by many to be very well run and organized. We use that system for our senior citizens and our veterans. And lets not forget that corrupt elected officials are indeed elected by the public and can be impeached. Corrupt CEOs of corporations cannot be either of those things.

The countries that have socialized medicine can afford to have healthcare for all of their citizens, rich or poor. The USA as of now has a healthcare system that denies its middle to lower class citizens healthcare depending on how much they can afford. We have welfare, public schools, and other publicly funded programs to help people live with basic necessities they can't afford on their own. Why should healthcare be any different? That is why we have a government that takes care of programs that the people need or that capitalism should have no part in. The government controlled healthcare OPTION that is being proposed may have a slight decrease in quality but that is why it is an option. Other can choose to stay with their existing healthcare plans, and those who can't afford that can choose the government option.

I would also add that many congressmen and congresswomen get significant donations from the Health Care Insurance companies, mainly conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans who end up being the swing votes for reform.

Although I do believe that Obama is making the right decisions in this reform, i do believe that he is having some issues. Basically, Obama needs a little more George W. Bush in him. He has an idea but doesn't know how to put it into action, he is being too much of a wimp about it. He needs to give the republicans a little more input about the situation. He needs to explain that public OPTION means, OPTION! you do not have use this free health care system you will still be able to get service by Red Cross and etc.

Even if you want universal health care, this bill is not the anwer. It is poorly written, , muchly incomprehensible, hundreds of pages long, contains "pork" not related to health care and passed the Senate only because of a political manouver and passed the House by about 5 votes with many Democrats against it. I doubt that anyone actually read it all the way through.

Many Republicans stand behind the same concepts that President Obama is making at the moment. The massive cost, limited benefit and the crippling of the U.S. economy all are so apparent that even President Obama himself has delayed implementing many portions of this bill.

The reality is that the only reason Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", is that Obama proposed it. Everything else they present as reasons are a smokescreen at best. Prior to Obama taking office, many Republicans were proposing near-identical reforms.

BTW, this nation absolutely was not "founded on the principles of absolute minimalist government" and capitalism is nowhere to be found in the nation's founding principles. Historical revisionism is not a valid argument.

001
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0

Related Questions


they think it is a government take over of their health care plan.

No, Republicans have been vocally opposed to the bill, and even though it passed and was upheld by the Supreme Court, they still want to repeal it. This is surprising, given that many of the ideas it contains were originally championed by Republicans, and the law itself is modeled after a law Mitt Romney created when he was governor of Massachusetts.

no, immigrants do not benefit from the healthcare bill

Yes. I think, generally, Democrats, as a party, would like reform, but I am sure there are individuals who may not. Just as a number of Republicans I know would like reform as well, but the Republicans, as a party, does not seem to be in it as much.

Opponents (some of whom were not Republicans), supported a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit returns a bill to its reporting committee. A motion to commit without instructions, if itself passed, effectively reverses passage of the bill.

Larry King Live - 1985 Healthcare Reform Debate was released on: USA: 11 August 2009

The president controversially planned to reform healthcare.

The concept of healthcare reform is the idea of making access to affordable healthcare universal. From President Obama's speech: It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government.

Cleveland won the Presidency with the combined support of Democrats and reform Republicans, the "Mugwumps," who disliked the record of his opponent James G. Blaine of Maine.

Castro\'s reforms were based on on Lenin-Marxist socialist system.

Obamacare is not healthcare reform at all. It does not address healthcare costs nor the way in which payments are made for medical services. It does not restrict the costs of malpractice litigation. It does not reduce the incentive to order needless tests. The other problem is the cost of administering and enforcing the complicated provisions of the mandatory insurance programs.

Republicans were seen as a party of reform. They supported abolition, temperance, and other reforms. Were mostly Protestants who defended American morals and values

The Republic Party is strongly against the new health reform laws in the US. Every other party in the US is against the new health reform, except the Democrats.

The major issues in the era of republicans in 1860-1932 were civil war, slavery, reform, depression, reconstruction, and imperialism.

Radical Republicans in Congress offered moderate calls for reform.

Im not sure but you can always google it to find out

3 Reasons: Corporate rights: The Republicans represent corporate America, a public option is likely to hurt insurance corporations. They think it will reduce care: Republicans think that if more people have health care the less everyone will get. Political points: If they manage to block the Health reform bill, they will score big political "points" for their next election.

Nixon's biggest reform attempts were to healthcare. He proposed the federalization of Medicaid for poor families, and federal support for HMOs.

There are two levels of government that help fund healthcare. The federal government supplies the state government with funds to provide healthcare to people that can not otherwise afford it under the new healthcare reform.

Milton's involvement with the politics of the 1600s and did much to promote radical reform against the:

In 1912, America was still entirely capitalist. "Healthcare" (which usually refers to state-run health insurance) would have been laughed out of congress in 1912.

Chair the National Task Force on Healthcare Reform


Copyright ยฉ 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.