Obama Health Care Plan Explained: Pros And Cons?

It seems everyone is against the Obama Health Care Plan but it sounds good. I've been getting all kinds of opinions telling me about this bill Obama is trying to pass. Much of what they say I find very hard to believe. Can you explain it to me?
What are the details and the pros and cons of Obama's health care plan? I just need a summary to understand it.
I know his plan is for universal health care (via providing insurance), not socialized health care. however, nothing is perfect, what are some of the downsides? What are the pros and cons of the plan?Please don't post analysis, just real facts.

asked by Mario in Politics | 69321 views | 02-22-2010 at 01:43 PM

Up until now I have been completely against Obama's plan and now I stand on neutral ground. Let me explain the facts.

Obama, and Democratic congressional leaders argue that by reducing health care costs, a universal health insurance plan would actually help reduce the national deficit.

We already have a government-run health care system, it's called Medicare. It stinks. The only way to "improve" it is to scrap it. They tried to improve it a couple of years ago, remember, with adding prescriptions, and the result was worse than before.


As described by Jacob Hacker of the Economic Policy Institute, the national health insurance plan – “Health Care for America” – attempts to provide affordable health insurance to all non-elderly Americans through a combination of a new Medicare-like program provided by the government and existing employer-provided health plans.

Pros and Cons

Pro: It will give more people access to health care. Additionally, it's far superior than McCain's health plan, which would have been a disaster; anyone with a preexisting condition would have been completely screwed under McCain's plan because they wouldn't have been able to afford their skyrocketing premiums.

Con: It will obviously cost some taxpayer money, but the amount is TRIVIAL compared to the money spent on the Iraq War and the Bush bailout.

Pro: Everyone can get the cheap meds they need
Con: Extremely long wait times for MRI's, CAT Scans, and especially surgery

Pro: Medications are a set price (that is, medications, like other medical treatments, are free at the point of use, but the patient pays a small prescription charge: here, it's free in Wales [and for children, the elderly and people with certain conditions], and in other countries in the UK it's up to £7.20, which is approximately $12).

Con: Your taxes (and everyone else's) all go to one organization, meaning that you can't dictate who gets helped by your money.

Currently although the country spends $2 trillion a year for health care, 46 million people don’t have health coverage, according to the Wall Street Journal.
President Obama stated that without a single payer system it is impossible to insure 100% of all Americans. He implied that a public option plan would be acceptable and that something along that line was in the works in Congress. He also stated that Republicans are putting out misinformation about health care and these proposed plans.

What would all this cost, and who will pay?

That hasn’t really been ironed out yet. One prime target: the wealthy. One proposal would limit itemized tax deductions for families earning more than $250,000 a year, according to the Journal. Other ideas are imposing a surtax on wealthy individuals, or taxing sugary drinks and soda.

answered by Allie | 02-22-2010 at 02:00 PM

So i heard that they are trying to put chips in our bodies and they would act as a health insurance card. What is the whole thing and idea behind this "chip?"

answered by Guest | 11-30-2010 at 02:37 PM

Whoever asked about the chips... you're an idiot.

answered by Guest | 12-12-2010 at 06:09 PM

I heard they were gonna transform the top of the capital building into a giant radio transmitter that will be used to control our thoughts. It's on page 405b of the healthcare bill. FOR REAL!

...chips in our bodies. That's not even a good false rumor.

answered by Guest | 12-13-2010 at 11:30 AM

Regarding pg 405 B, I saw nothing regarding chips and a radio transmitter which sounds like a ridiculous fabrication by anti-Obama people. This is an extremely complex bill. I am ignorant to many of the facts.

Unfortunately, most people out there, including people in our Congress, are just as ignorant. I do know there are positives and that both sides have legitimate concerns. I have heard opponents in government of this bill basing their opinions on blatantly false "facts". Unfortunately, there are actually people out there that believe that President Obama is the "Anti-Christ" and is on a mission to destroy the world. Based on this ridiculous premise, they only listen to the rhetoric and false information that certain networks, political, and religious leaders preach to them.

This misinformation gets taken as fact for so many. My point, we have to filter all information very carefully. If we don't know something as a substantiated fact, we should all refrain from making assumptions until we do the research ourselves. Starting any sentence with "I heard" is a major red flag. Let's not "hear", let's know. We can then form our "own" views, whatever they are.

answered by Guest | 12-22-2010 at 02:29 PM

Read the law. You will then know what you have to fear. My coverage was reduced this year and my premiums went up over 50%.

That's a problem. We already had bare bones coverage at a steep price...now it's worse, and the law does not take full effect until 2014.

I have no objection to everyone having access to health insurance, but let then all get jobs to pay for it. If they are on welfare they already have gov't ins. It's called Medicaid.

answered by Guest | 01-10-2011 at 03:39 AM

To the person who posted on 1-10. I love your logic: "The current system is bad and getting worse, therefore we better not change it." !!

answered by Guest | 02-24-2011 at 05:10 PM

bad idea
Let's start this off so there are no questions at the end.

I am a 20 year old white male who is for the most part healthy. I currently have health insurance through my parents and it covers my parents, my little sister and myself. It works great and sure we may complain about the yearly limits and what not, but nothings perfect. But this health care plan is preposterous. This year my parents are claiming between 1 and 200,000(give or take) combined on their taxes. My dad is a blue collar worker, meaning he gets out every day and either sweats or freezes for the money he makes. My mother works in the tourism industry as a director of operations. I forget now but in the next few years I will not be covered under my parents health insurance. Now this year i made roughly 10,000 and I know that i won't be able to afford health insurance. Alright now that's the history onto the argument.

This health care plan is no different then medicaid now, except to make it "affordable." They are going to make the rates from what i can understand one standard rate. If you cannot afford this rate you will receive a tax credit, if you still cannot afford it you will receive a voucher.

I have a question what's the difference between that and what we have now? What happens if you can't afford the health care but don't qualify for the tax credit or the voucher. Many working class people believe that this plan is going to benefit them. WRONG! Your going to be in the same boat as you were before, and unfortunately its still sinking.

Next. How is the government going to pay for all the procedures with such low rates that not everyone has to pay apparently? By charging the people who made something of themselves and work hard for their money. In what way, or for that matter, what world is that "fair?" Why should their taxes go up, why should they have to give away their hard worked money for the people who WON'T work. So once again if your in the working class, your getting the short end of the stick. You might get health insurance and the monthly rate might be low but at the end of the year when your paying three times the amount in taxes compared to the 30 year old whose ambitions consist of either Wal-Mart or McDonald's see how much you like it. Also your hole just got a little bigger.

Also don't forget what happens when you need an emergency heart transplant and you have to wait 3 months because all the people on foodstamps and welfare are ahead of you in life. Oops you, a valuable member of society, died. Hole's still growing.

Now lets bring back how much I make a year, 10,000. I am a full time student, which i pay for because I don't qualify for financial aid, which is my point. I don't qualify for financial aid for school, so why should I think that I qualify for any sort of tax deduction or voucher. Also this year i owe over 1000 dollars on my tax returns and have health insurance for the time being. So if you give me the decision between pay 1000 and have health insurance for the next few years or pay 3000 a year plus a monthly rate and have insurance indefinitely. I think the choice is a pretty simple one. I don't know about you but my boat sank.

Lastly, I have no problem helping out fellow man. But why should I help you if you don't deserve it. If you have healthcare you should have to submit a drug test and have at least a part time job so that you can attempt to pay for your own healthcare.

This is my argument I know there is a lot I probably missed some main topics. So please feel free to post any arguments. I am an open minded person so please make a valid point, if you can find one.

answered by Vincent | 03-04-2011 at 02:24 AM

Health care is going to continue to cost us more and more money as long as we continue to have unrealistic expectations for the performance of the aging body that is not taken care of appropriately on a daily basis: exercise, adequate sleep, good nutrition, daily laughter, and supportive family and friends.

Health care costs will continue to rise as long as fear of health conditions drive people to the emergency room rather than into their own doctors' offices.

Health care costs will continue to rise as long as "well-meaning" friends/family frighten patients by telling them of deadly scenarios "just like your case". Maybe the well-meaning friend should bear the cost of the medical care when someone is frightened into seeking that care.

Health care prices need to be posted on emergency room walls. People often know how sick they really feel. Is the way they are feeling really worth the cost of an emergency room visit? Did they even speak with their family doctor first before going to the emergency room?

Doctors have to be paid to think and to teach the patient about health as well as the present illness.

Lawyers should be kept out of medical care. they aren't there during the decision-making process. if injury occurs, there should be a compensation allocated by the state. omitting legal fees will also save money.
Eliminate "physician extenders," the doctor needs to see each patient. The doctor learns from each patient and thus becomes a better doctor and the patient feels he/she has received good treatment.

answered by Guestlynne | 09-14-2011 at 09:03 PM

To the student:
To the 20 year old student: The Obama plan allows you to stay on your parent's plan until you are 27. Therefore, nothing has to change for seven years for you. You stay on the plan you have now. Without Obama's plan you would have been stuck getting your own insurance well before then.

Most of the comments above are quite wrong. What I will describe has not yet taken effect, but it will in a couple years:

The Obama plan creates a minimum level of health insurance that everyone must get. If you have insurance, your plan probably already meets the minimum requirements. If it doesn't, your health insurer will make some modifications to your plan to bring it up to par.

When everyone is covered, the theory is that, as a whole, insurance prices will go down because younger, healthier people will be paying into the system. When tens of millions are uninsured, as they are now, most of those people end up not paying their bill if they get sick. This drives up everyone's rates because hospitals must jack up the bill on people who are paying to make up for the uninsured people.

If everyone is paying in at the beginning, each person's costs go down because they are spread out more evenly among the population. Right now we are in a situation where it is actually can make sense, money-wise, to not get health insurance and, if you get sick, you either declare bankruptcy (and don't pay the bill) or die (and don't pay the bill). Getting people to buy in ahead of time is the theoretical solution.

If your employer is above a certain size it must offer you health insurance. If your employer is small enough that it doesn't offer insurance, or you don't have a job, you can get subsidized insurance at a reduced rate or apply for Medicaid. Medicaid will be open to more people to help everyone get insurance.

Employers will also be given more tax breaks for offering insurance, some of which have already taken effect and have been shown to raise the numbers of small employers offering insurance in some states.

There will also be insurance exchanges that will help pool people together.

Under the current system, if a small employer or individual tries to buy health insurance it will be more expensive because if one person gets sick there are fewer other people to help spread the cost. Also, insurance companies know that many small businesses and individuals only try to get insurance if they think they are likely to need it (because it is too expensive). The Obama plan will make companies in the exchanges give the same plan to everyone, which spreads the cost around to the entire exchange. And as previously stated, because everyone must buy insurance, the insurance companies will worry less about people only trying to get insurance if they are likely to get sick, which makes their costs higher.

I hope this helps.

answered by Brett | 09-15-2011 at 08:02 PM

I don't agree with the 20 year old student at all. I think you got it all wrong man, in what country do you think you're living?

answered by Guest | 09-19-2011 at 08:03 PM

About the chips in the body, that is in fact a real idea among scientists but I doubt it will happen any time soon. It is much like the chips that they can implant under a dogs skin with all of the owners contact information on it. They would be completely safe and most likely located in the forearm for easy access by medical professionals.

answered by Guest | 11-09-2011 at 04:57 PM

Thread Tools
vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.