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.
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… Read more »
Hello young ones.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »