by PLAYER57832 on Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:15 am
OF COURSE Obamacare is an insurance grab, a way for insurance to make more money.
BUT.. for all those who crtiize, how about admitting YOUR Part in the mess.
#1. All the claims about dropping coverage, high prices, etc -- ALL of those issues existed long before the Affordable Care Act was passed. The Act did not fully fix those issues, but it did not, as the opponents like to claim create those problems.
#2. DITTO all claims about the Act causing insurance to limit networks, etc. Those things were already happening. Ironically, in many cases these limited networks are actually creating some positive solution -- they are allowing far more people to obtain cheaper coverage. Granted its nice to pretend that our former system offered unlimited access to the most skilled people in the country for everyone, but the reality was never that. That reality may not be nice, but at least now we are beginning to deal with truth instead of fiction.
#3. Talk of being "forced to pay for other people's coverage" , "being forced to pay for procedures against an individual's religion", etc, etc. ALL ignore that this IS the current system we have if you get employer based insurance. The only change was to those not having employer based insurance. Basically, for all the rhetoric, the exchanges simply
#4.The opponents like to point out that some individual policies are being cancelled.. but they ignore that insurers could simply refuse to cover ANYONE with a "pre-existing" condition, once they had even a day's gap in coverage AND they were able to deny coverage fully to anyone who had reached their lifetime limit... that, by-the-way included a LOT of disabled kids.
#5. Policies are going up in price, BUT... that was happenign before as well. At least now, people can be secure in knowing that they will get coverage if they pay. Prior, insurance companies often took payment only to deny treatements and cancel policies retro-actively for seemingly spurious reasons. AND, there is a tangible limit to the prices insurance can charge. Most of the payments must go to health care, not just to administrative costs and stockholder bonuses.
#6. The current opponents are the ones who made the REAL solutions -- true universal, single-payor systems, limits based fully on data, tackling very hard isses at the beginning and end of life - impossible. At some point, even Tea Partiers have to face the fact that healthcare is not unlimited... AND that you cannot BOTH claim the right to dictate the care other people obtain AND refuse to pay for that care. No one likes the discussion of when a child is so highly disabled their life is just not tenable. No one likes deciding that it really is time to just pull the plug on Grandma... BUT, in today's techological world, those issues have to be tackled and not just by the most extreme relitious positions. Saying "all life is sacred" sounds great, but when you face current realities of spending billions of dollars to keep non-functioning kids merely alive while denying dental care (and even college educations) to millions of healthy kids, not to mention pending realities (now sci-fi, but not that far off) of clones, cyborgs, artificial wombs, etc..... well, God did not create that system. As far as I am concerned the only ones who can legitimately "opt out" are those holding to Christian Scientist type ideas that God decides ALL. You are free to declare God decides when you truly LET God decide, not when you want to only take what you like and not what you dislike. God allowed death (to claim otherwise is to claim God is not in control of our Earth), pretending its our job to deny death is ignorance, not faith.
#7. for all its faults (and yes, there ARE many), it STILL offers improvement over what we had before.
Not everyone can get the policies they like... but that was true before as well.
Some policies are too expensive... again, true before as well. Opponents say that now those "choosing" not to be covered have to pay a penalty. However, part of the issue here is that some states, including Pennsylvania, have governors that refused to expand Medicaid, which was supposed to pick up some of those mostly single, working individuals.
AGAIN.. the real answer is a true universal system, the very type of system that opponents of the Affordable Care act pushed to make sure was NOT part of the act.
AND, with a universal care system comes the need to really look at ways to cut costs. Thankfully, some of these are being implemented, albiet by the insurance companies. (who at least now DO have to pass on some of their savings to people, cannot just raise rates without limits). Approaches are varied, but they include limiting networks, looking more clearly at effectiveness of treatments. Giving patients more choice in end of life decisions.
