The last few days as I’ve been waking up for work, the radio has been playing live clips of the Supreme Court’s hearing on the Affordable Care Act, a health care law commonly referred to as “Obamacare.” I feel, even when trying to research the subject and discuss it with acquaintances whose expertise I value, I keep getting the picture in segments. So I wanted to present how I see the Affordable Care Act and open up the subject to any Good Feed readers that have more details to fill in.
The heart of Obamacare is a mandate that makes health insurance like car insurance, a necessity for owners of a vehicle who want to use it as well. The difference being, obviously, we have to use our bodies, and cannot park them in a garage when we can’t pay the insurance bills.
The government’s issue is trying to handle the bills that people without insurance accumulate. Ideally, when a problem occurs with our bodies, like with our cars, our bills do not become someone else’s bills. Conservatives calls this socialism, because when you are healthy, your insurance payments are paying for someone else’s bills. However, when possible, most people try to stay on a health insurance plan even when they’re healthy knowing that waiting to get insurance till you’re sick carries exorbitant penalties.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the mandate, and today they dealt with the individual parts of the Affordable Care Act.
Some of the parts include an extension of Medicaid to people under 65 that would have states footing a huge bill by 2014. In fact, the case that put the Affordable Care Act in front of the Supreme Court is being brought by 26 States.
Today, Obama’s 2012 campaign released a graphic that presented how the Affordable Care Act will prohibit gender discrimination for the price of health care. The graphic, which displays a map of the United States, appears to make the claim that some states, such as Arkansas, make women pay 76-100% more for health insurance than men. I am really unsure of how this will come about, but am guessing it has to do a provision in the act that puts premiums on a sliding scale based on an individual’s income, as opposed to gender. I would love any input on the sliding scale provision or gender equality claims.
One of the biggest parts of the Affordable Care Act, as I see it, is a clause that prohibits denial of claims or coverage due to pre-existing conditions. As someone who has bounced around from my parents’ insurance, to student insurance, to government insurance (through Peace Corps), I am forever concerned that one day I’m going to find myself saddled with huge bills due to some pre-existing condition. Or at worst, completely unable to get insurance at all.
At this point, “Obamacare” looks great to me. I have a car, and I pay a little extra every month to participate in a governmentally-mandated program that insures that if something out of my control happens to that property I care so much about, ultimately, it will get fixed.
Why wouldn’t I do as much, if not more, for my body?
Also, before I open this for comments, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – does she make good zingers, or the best zingers? I could listen to her on the radio every morning.
About John Dwyer
Health care reform in some aspect was certainly needed, but this would do more harm than good. When I was working full time (I’m a SAHD now) we crunched the numbers and Obamacare would have cost the company more money. When it was being debated the administration said it wasn’t a tax, yet they’ve since defended it as a tax. It’s similar to the flag burning issue for me. Only an idiot would want to burn a flag, it accomplishes nothing, but you should have the right to do so. Everyone should have some form of health care, yet if you don’t want to then it’s your right not to do so.
The biggest problem with the mandate is there’s no limiting principle in the bill. This is the first time the use of the commerce clause is being used to force EVERY citizen to use (buy if you can afford) a private product. Yes, they mandate car insurance, but you do have the option to not own a car. Without the limiting principle, it gives the government unlimited power when it comes to commerce, and since the constitution only grants enumerated rights to the government, it would be overreaching once the precedent is set. They ‘could’ say that you need to get a gym membership because it keeps you healthier. If GM needs another bailout, they can force the next new car buy to be a GM. In a consumer based economy, everything is run through commerce. Yes, the examples might be extreme, but it would grant them the power once the precedent is set.
Do we need healthcare reform? Absolutely. What we don’t need is a rushed bill that could be dangerous. Even if we believe those powers would never be used, the possibility of them is why the constitution limits government.
Hello young ones.
I really don’t understand the American public’s (Republican perspective) willingness to deny health care to those most in need and to those with pre-existing conditions. Having to deal with a medical insurance industry whose bottom line is profits, profits, profits who will actively research a patient/subscribers medical history to find literally anything in order to deny insurance. If you haven’t disclosed that back say 40 years ago as a child you were exposed to chicken pox, then automatic denial and cancellation of insurance. A health care system where insurance rates are costly, never fixed and continually rising yet riddled with conditions and exceptions. A public who views government funded social policies to be socialistic and bordering on communism.
I am A Canadian and proud that we have such a phenomenal heath care system. Yes, it is totally funded by the government and our tax dollars, but it does provide universal health care to all regardless of age, sex, socioeconomic ranking, pre-existing conditions et al. Just to clear up some misconceptions:
1. I NEVER have to pay a cent towards my medical/hospital care, and have actually never even seen a bill. If I am rushed to Emergency for a broken arm, or receive a double lung and heart transplant, I never ever see a bill nor pay a dime. And that would even apply to a homeless person.
2. I have my own personally selected family doctor (NOT government mandated) and when it comes to medical procedures have the ability to get a second or third opinion etc and can choose my own specialist.
3. My wait times are no longer than anywhere else. When I had my heart attack 7 years ago I had zero wait time and was up on the table for surgery immediately. When I have a book ed CT Scan or MRI I am usually serviced with days or at most a few weeks. But if my specialist requests an immediate MRI, then I am in there that day or the next.
4. Our health care professionals, doctors, specialists are among the finest in the world.
5. ALL appointments, support services, and programs and visitations etc are totally cost-free.
6. There is no limit on how many visits I make to a doctor, to emergency, to a hospital etc.
7. One NEVER has to worry about pre-existing conditions or past heath issues at all
8. Just knowing that me and my family’s heath care is there without question, utilizes only the best doctors, nurses and specialists and the best that technology can provide, all without ANY cost whatsoever, is humbling yes, but is also comforting and gratifying.
Yes, this is social policy at its best, and no we in Canada are not a fascist nor communist state. We have every right and freedom that Americans have. Actually, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms goes well beyond the American Bill of Rights.
And NO, we are not a ‘nanny’ state, but a country who can boast of the best health care and education system globally, who sees the relevance of government and the freedom of the masses to make choices.