The affordable care act... oh this is a hot bed issue for many reasons.
I think first and foremost is that this act does nothing to provide the American public with health care...
It is a law which makes Health insurance "affordable" and accessible to all US citizens.
health insurance does not equal health care.
I know the law is packed full of consumer protections from some poor practices that used to be employed by the insurance companies and I applaud that, but it is important first and foremost to grasp that health insurance does not equal health care.
I have always found the concept of health care insurance odd. We insure our house, car boat fill in the blank from accidents. There are fires, collisions and fill in the blank.
We are insuring ourselves like car boat house but the thing is we do not accidentally get old or pregnant (no matter what the kids say) We may accidently break our arms. But most of the time our car insurance companies pay medical bills when accidents happen. Or home owners insurance covers the medical bills.
So see the whole idea of affordable health care is great but this is not affordable health care this is affordable health insurance and health insurance is well a silly concept.
Wouldn't you say a person that goes to a doctor and finds out they have an incurable disease or cancer is like an unexpected event? So in a way we are insuring ourselves like the items mentioned above because those illness usually aren't foreseen- like accidents.
Say you don't have health care and out of the blue you find out you have cancer. Under the old law-if you didn't have insurance before the unexpected event your out of luck-sell your car and house because your going to pay out of pocket !
Also, if you've ever lost a job or switched jobs-you had to wait 90-6mths to qualify for your new employers health care plan. During that time you had to pay for care out of pocket and COBRA is much more expensive than the ACA. Under the ACA you no longer have to wait and if you lose your job your still covered and they have subsides to help cover the cost (if your state expended medicaid).
The legislation isn't perfect but it's much better than the old legislation.
oh there are definitely accidents with health concerns but then health insurance has to and does outline what is an "accident" what is "cosmetic care" is an insurance company obligated then to cover a patient who smoked and got cancer?
These are questions and claim come up because it is health insurance and not health care.
The legislation is not perfect it is needed and honestly there should be more. I look forward to a day when the United States department of health and human services actually treats everyone's health needs.
Let's set aside personal emotions about the ACA and focus on actual data. There are an estimated 1.5% of Americans that have pre-existing conditions which we could have given a $10,000 dollar subsidy which would cost about 10% of what this bad legislation cost. Legislation could have also been done to cover people losing there job 90 days to six months also with lower costs. Tort reform and the ability to sell insurance across state lines with increase competition and lower the cost too. I know this from personal experience because I was stationed in Colorado in 1986 and I winded up purchasing car insurance from my home state instead of Colorado because it was cheaper. If President Obama had lead like he said he would by reaching across part lines he would have influenced Nancy Pelosi to send HR3400 to the floor for a vote in
July 2009. This legislation was sponsored by a Doctor; Rep Tom Price from Georgia and was sent to committee Pelosi and buried in the sand. This bill would have passes resoundingly and Obama would have gotten the credit for leading. I have followed this legislation from its inception and it's bad governing which main purpose is the ability to control peoples lives instead of giving us the opportunity to do so ourselves. HR 3400 was 300 pages long and HR3200 is
over 2500 pages that hardly anyone read before passage. Nancy Pelosi" We must pass the bill to find out what's in it" Now we know and most of us don't like it.
oh yeah see I think the presidents lack of diplomacy and negotiation skills resulted in this legislation as opposed to better legislation or even a better dialogue about health care in this nation.
Shannalat: Don't let anybody intimidate you. Speak your mind - no matter which "side" of the argument you may favor.
As far as "conservative recruits" - from the election projections (albeit 8 months early), it looks like they are gaining "recruits" by leaps and bounds as people find out what the real ObamaCare deal is. One BIG question has always been:
Where will the money come from to pay for the program?
The Obama administration's answer has been that the program will essentially pay for itself in reduced health care costs and premiums on the young and the "uninsured" that were expected to enter the marketplace and add money that was not previously there. Forget about the botched roll-out of the web site. The Obama administration says that is now "fixed." If you believe them, then these results can't be good for the Democrats or the program:
Funky is exactly correct: There is no question that health care reform was needed. The uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions needed help. The problem is - which is the main point I have been stressing all along :
OBAMACARE WAS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.
Instead of having this incredibly screwed-up launch and now all of these "fixes," the Democrats could have worked with Republicans from the beginning to craft the law to iron out these issues. Shoot - basically most of the stuff the Republicans predicted about flaws in the law have come true, and the delays in the implementation of certain provisions of the law that they wanted are the delays the Obama administration IS NOW IMPLEMENTING.
The difference is that the Democrats have been dragged kicking and screaming into legislative modifications they should have seen necessary from the beginning, and the main reason for the delays is NOT to "help the American people," it's to minimize the damage to their candidates in the upcoming election.
Shan: Be very wary of Sebe. He has some 'prime' land hidden out in the Gumbranch area due for development that he wants to sell you. I am surprised he hasn't approached you yet. He is very good at making his case be it politics or real estate.
Be Careful. Better yet...Be Afraid, be very afraid.
Nice try, Jimmy. Obviously you are trying to "recruit" our newest blogger. I'm sure she will consider the facts and come to her own conclusions.
For the record: I own no land other than that on which my single family dwelling is situated in Hinesville. And I am not selling it.
As for the vast majority of my posts (and somewhat paraphrasing Boozy Barley Blair from "The Russia House"):
*By and large, the information I post here is NOT "my" information - a lot of it is extracted from news and opinion sources. When I do this, I use that information to illustrate my own points.
*Also, what I post here a lot of the time is intended to be "food for thought," and is intended simply to provoke/stimulate a dialogue. I may not even agree with some of the sources I post. Generally, the reader will know which "side" of an issue I'm on.
*In any case, I'm not selling anything.
*And, lastly, I don't give a flip whether anyone "buys" my opinions or not.
But what I do care about is that people are fully informed and have an opportunity to see all sides of an issue and the facts. In many cases - especially with the way the media is set up and the political party in national power - the "opposing view" needs a little help.
I have taken it upon myself to give the opposing view all the help I can.