Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Why ‘Obamacare’ isn’t for us

MCT
MCT

Health care reform has been a very prevalent topic in our media, especially now that November is right around the corner, and the presidential election within reach. President Barack Obama passed a bill calling for universal health care, which many are referring to as “Obamacare.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the bill’s formal name) is arguably the biggest legacy that  Obama has left in his four years in the White House, and is possibly his biggest mistake.

Obama ran on the campaign slogan “Change we can believe in.” He wanted to bring “quality, affordable coverage for all.” Some of the main parts of this health care promise were guaranteed eligibility, easy enrollment, acceptance of pre-existing conditions and portability and choice. Unfortunately, not all of these goals were achieved through this bill. Taking part in Obamacare is required for most American citizens, and proof of this enrollment must be attached to your income taxes each year, and if this is not provided with the taxes, the IRS can penalize you for it. However, this is not applicable to every United States citizen. Those serving under collective bargaining agreements in unions would be exempt of the mandate, come Jan. 1, 2014. The total number of people being exempt from Obamacare is 4 million, which is roughly 3 percent of our population, including over 1,200 businesses, according to the Health and Human Services Department.

Obama wanted to create universal health care so that there would be affordable health care for all. But how he planned on making this affordable is what is making people angry. Obamacare may be the most expensive bill passed in United States history. The bill is requiring states to pay for families’ health care that do not make more than 138 percent above the poverty line, which comes out to be just over $30,000 for your average American family. The government will cover 100 percent of the cost for the first three years, and then 90 percent for the years following. But how is the government going to pay for all this you ask? The answer is simple – taxes. The average American family will have to pay $95 per person for the first year. However, if an individual makes over $500,000 a year, it will cost him or her about $12,500 in taxes. Some people are considering just paying the tax but using different health care. This would be worth it for middle class Americans for the first few years, but once the taxes increase in 2014 to 2 percent and 2015 to 2.5 percent, it would be cheaper to take the government’s health care.

With Obamacare being relatively cheap to those who sign up for it, it can potentially take away jobs from the United States economy. It doesn’t make any sense for someone who is paying taxes – which are being used to pay for Obamacare – to also pay for their own medical insurance. People will just drop their insurances, which would lead to insurance agents and providers being laid off, since they no longer have any customers. Also, it would make sense if employers dropped their health care coverage of employees. With the United States government supplying health care using the money we must pay, employers might as well drop their health care plans and have the government pick up the tab. If this does indeed happen, more people than expected would be thrown onto the government’s plan.

Possibly the most arguable part of Obamacare and the part that most people disagree with is how it takes away from natural competition. The basic definition of capitalism is that ownership of the economic system belongs to the individuals, not the government. Many people claim that this could be considered socialism, and hurt the American economy because it takes away the natural competition of capitalism.  Proponents of this bill claim that the free market did not work, and that the government must now find the answer to fixing our health care crisis.  The ignorance of a statement such as this comes from the mere fact that our economy has never truly had a free market health care system in which the private sector finds the ultimate solution, like that of most problems our country has faced.  If private institutions were able to compete for the trust of their customers, rather than the customers being forced into a designed program, then the price of the health care would automatically be reduced in order to make the most profit and obtain the most customers.

When presented to Congress and the American public, a promise was made that this would not be a tax.  After the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling that dubbed this bill to be constitutional, we now know that this is the largest tax increase in American history. If Mitt Romney wins the upcoming election in November, along with a majority Republican Congress, this bill can be repealed. If this is not the case, this health heacare bill will be another tax burden put on our future generations.

Christopher McKnight is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (13)
More to Discover

Comments (13)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • O

    Oral careSep 3, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Simply wish to say your article is as amazing.
    The clearness to your submit is just great and
    that i can assume you’re knowledgeable on this subject.
    Fine together with your permission let me to snatch your feed to stay updated with
    forthcoming post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please keep up the gratifying work.

    Reply
  • J

    jeff o.Sep 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    “Possibly the most arguable part of Obamacare and the part that most people disagree with is how it takes away from natural competition.”

    I don’t think there should be capitalist competition over people’s health.

    Reply
  • G

    Guest-commentSep 21, 2012 at 7:45 am

    hristopher.. I haven’t really explored YOUR NUMBERS – in depth, but I disagree with you on the basis of my experience living outside the US. As an expatriate, I have universal coverage in another country – Israel, but I have also worked in Canada and had similar universal coverage there. You don’t address THE FACT that healthcare coverage is not only cheaper, but better in these countries and available to the poor, as well as the rich.

    You can pull the wool over the eyes of people who have ZERO experience with universal healthcare, hey.. but NOT over the eyes of people who’ve been outside the box.

    Reply
  • S

    Saut PtevensSep 19, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Brain, I agree with you. My issue is this:

    “When I was a student at Umass the collegian was a way to share ideas about the world around us, not a radical, far right, anti-patriotic campaign against our government and against our great nation.”

    Which reads as “The Collegian is supposed to be a collection of diverse ideas unless they happen to lean right.”

    I disagree with the author, even though I timidly lean right. The article is as poorly thought out as any from Tudoreanu, Anderson, Rainsford, etc.

    But I doubt he’s a radical, and he’s certainly not anti-patriotic. That’s just asinine.

    Reply
  • B

    Brian D.Sep 18, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    Calm down, “Saul Ptevens”. If you haven’t noticed, nearly every single political opinion piece in the Collegian gets large numbers of comments from people of the OPPOSITE opinion, who are very upset with the writer. It’s normal – after all, you’re not going to write a comment if all you have to say is “I agree”.

    Reply
  • K

    Kurt ColemanSep 18, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    Christopher, your article is false in it’s claim that”Some people are considering just paying the tax but using different health care.” The mandate is a tax on people who DO NOT have healthcare. If you have private healthcare, then you have healthcare, you are exempt from the tax. You then go on to say “This would be worth it for middle class Americans for the first few years, but once the taxes increase in 2014 to 2 percent and 2015 to 2.5 percent, it would be cheaper to take the government’s health care.” That is precisely President Obama’s point, people who are sucking on the system and using Emergency Rooms as their primary care physician, in effect increasing costs for everyone, will now take the government health care, and in theory long term healthcare costs and associated taxes can benefit.

    Reply
  • S

    Saul PtevensSep 18, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Shame on you! How DARE YOU write an OPINION PIECE that doesn’t agree with the views of Mike Tudoreanu or Billy Rainsford! THIS IS AMERICA! WHEN I WENT TO UMASS CONSERVATIVES WERE FREE TO BE QUIET AND FALL IN LINE!!!

    Reply
  • B

    BenSep 18, 2012 at 12:46 am

    > People will just drop their insurances, which would lead to insurance agents and providers being laid off, since they no longer have any customers.

    What a bizarre contention, even taken at face value. ‘Never do anything which might threaten jobs in any sector anywhere at any time. (Unless they’re teacher jobs!)’

    Reply
  • P

    Paul StevensSep 17, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    Dear Christopher,
    I am appalled by some of the points you bring up in this article. When I was a student at Umass the collegian was a way to share ideas about the world around us, not a radical, far right, anti-patriotic campaign against our government and against our great nation. I sincerely hope you change your point of view and at least give some recognition to your fellow Americans who need “Obamacare”. The world doesnt revolve around the privileged.

    Reply
  • C

    CaitlinSep 17, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Let us also not forget some of the terrible things that these ‘endangered’ insurance corporations could do to people before Obama-care. This includes, but is not by any means limited to, refusing to cover cancer treatments, refusing people based upon pre-existing conditions (cancer, pregnancy, having had a c section….), or refusing to cover emergency medical care. Private health insurance is also incredibly expensive in most cases, so a family or individual below, at, or near the poverty line has very little chance of being able to buy it.
    In my opinion, access to quality health care is a basic human right. Any taxes spent on ensuring that that right is protected are taxes well spent. “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.” I would argue that universal healthcare is a necessity for a civilized society.

    Reply
  • M

    MattSep 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Your assertion that people and businesses will start dropping private service in favor of government run health care is completely unfounded. One of the main points of the law is that there is no “public option” of government run service available to Americans for purchase. Private insurance will be how the majority of Americans will still be getting their insurance, besides those who qualify for the already existing program of Medicare.

    It is too bad that no one at the collegian fact checked this article because it is misleading and blatantly lying in some parts

    Reply
  • J

    joelSep 17, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Um,”After the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling that dubbed this bill to be constitutional, we now know that this is the largest tax increase in American history.”

    No – it is a tax increase only on those who don’t have their own insurance. I already have my own insurance. So my taxes aren’t affected. If you don’t have insurance, then I’m already subsidizing your health care through the fact that your choice means my premiums and costs are higher. It seems fair that you should subsidize my tax bill by paying a bit more tax since I’m subsidizing your health care by paying a bit more in insurance and health care costs.

    Reply
  • J

    JamieSep 17, 2012 at 12:30 am

    Christopher, you make several untrue assertions in your article.
    .
    1. Our economy DID have a “truly free market health care system in which the private sector finds the ultimate solution.” That was precisely what we had before 1965, when Medicare and Medicaid were created. And it didn’t work. The majority of Americans did not have health insurance, and could not afford health care.
    In the REALLY old days, not having health insurance wasn’t such a big deal because medicine was quite primitive and doctors couldn’t do much for you anyway. For example, before antibiotics became widely available in the 1940s, you had a very high chance of dying if you went to a hospital. But once medicine advanced to the point where it COULD help save millions of lives, the lack of health coverage for so many people became unacceptable. And since the free market had NEVER delivered adequate health coverage, all advanced countries (including the US) created some sort of government health program. The US program (Medicare + Medicaid) was the smallest, with the least government intervention and the most capitalist elements.
    .
    2. Even with Obamacare, the health system in the US remains the most capitalist, most profit-driven and most market-based among all rich countries. The only countries with a more capitalist health system than America are third world nations who can’t afford anything better.
    .
    3. This is not “the largest tax increase in American history”, not by a long shot. As you mentioned, the total tax increase (by 2015), for the richest individuals, will be 2.5 percent. Given that the Bush tax cuts alone reduced the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans by 4.6% (from 39.6 percent to 35 percent), Obamacare doesn’t even bring taxes back up to pre-Bush levels.
    .
    4. The real burden on future generations is debt, not taxes, and the best way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes back to where they were 20 or 30 years ago. Under Reagan, for example – you like Reagan, right? – the richest people had a marginal income tax rate of 50%. Now it’s only 35%, as I said before.

    Reply