Weighing in at nearly 3,500 comments, Matt Miller’s piece about sketchy Republican anti-Obamacare logic is getting the most action on our page today. Miller writes that a recent GOP talking point has arisen calling Obamacare unfair because under it the young subsidize the old. Miller points out that the same charge can be leveled against health insurance in general. But the GOP, Miller dryly notes, is not arguing against insurance in general. Ding! That’s the end of round one.
The logic makes no sense to Miller, and plenty of commenters can’t parse out the Republican thinking on this point either.
mpolatchek has a deeply cynical view of Republicans, but can’t use it to explain their opposition to Obamacare:
In most domestic issues I find the hand of the supposed oligarchy in the Republican position. It always seems like the deal is to help the wealthy get wealthier. You can see this in their tax ideas and their anti-regulation rhetoric. It is hard to see the point of their hatred of Obamacare. Politics is about negotiating self-interest. What interest is served by working against health insurance coverage? It is not as if the republicans ever offered or plan to offer anything like universal coverage. It is not like they have any plan to reduce health care costs. What is the payoff for this? Do they really think they can be a national majority party by continuing to allow runaway health care costs to serve fewer and fewer people (those who can afford the prohibitive costs of private insurance?) What could they possibly get out of this?
reussere doesn’t get it either:
It’s like the Republicans suddenly decided to oppose free markets, or capitalism. Neither of these things can exist without insurance. There are no uninsured trucks, ships, or in fact any modern type of transport of material that doesn’t require insurance.
glaucomatose sees cognitive dissonance:
The real irony is that, in the 2012 GOP primary debates, the focus was on how irresponsible it was for young, healthy people for whom health insurance was available to be uninsured. The actual question that elicited the “Let him die!” reaction was what should happen if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it, and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months. Two years ago that young person was a pathetic, irresponsible fool who deserved to die for not having health insurance; today, the GOP is telling that same young person not to have health insurance. And still without offering an answer as to what should actually happen to him if he’s unlucky enough to get sick.
Jazzman7 says that we all have an interest in health care for young people, even if they’re healthy:
Just as well-maintained equipment runs longer and more trouble free, people who are guided by medical caretakers through their life cycle tend to be healthier, more energetic, and more effective in their societies.
flyover22 could fix the problem by making an insurance plan exclusively for young healthies, one with low premiums and a high deductible:
With ObamaCare my son will have the same healthcare plan as I, hint hint, there is an age and health difference. How much nicer it would be if he could get a better deal on health insurance like he can on life insurance at a young age when he is starting a family instead of paying for me and millions like me.
thinkbetternow can finally explain the GOP’s reasoning — Obamacare will apparently consist of zero actual doctors:
NO ONE gets healthcare under socialized medicine. You get waiting lists and doctor shortages.
Kurtmudgeon1 has an explanation as well. The reasoning Miller cited, from a VP at Freedom Works, was an Obama plot all along. He is forcing people to make illogical arguments in order to hide Obamacare’s flaws:
Sounds to me like the “Obamacare youth hoax” means that the healthy young are not registering in the numbers ACA needs, so Obama needs a scapegoat, and he sure knows who to lead the attack. Is there any flawed decision by Obama that cannot be blamed on Republicans?
ihill1 thinks Kurtmudgeon has a pretty good point, except:
Open enrollment doesn’t even begin until October 1st. So yes, you’re correct: they’re not “registering” in the numbers needed yet…because NO ONE can “register” yet.
Ah, but who came up with that registration date? OBAMA. It IS his fault nobody’s registering. Ding.