by Hal Eaton » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:56 am
As usual, I have neither the time, nor the interest, nor the worry over $, nor the financial/medical/psychological education to offer a reasoned post on this thread.
So I'll go with principles instead of charts, put-downs, emotional word battles, references to "he said, you said, I said," or exhausting differences of opinion as to how I personally will either enjoy or reject Obamacare.
Item: Obamacare was rammed down the throats of the American public, the majority of whom did not want the attempted solution to our medical insurance situation.
1. I don't know who invented the term "Obamacare," but it was a masterful coinage to gain support for a publicized effort to play on the common man's (and woman's) dislike for the POTUS, whether the antipathy was based on politics, race, financial stress, or whatever. The name of the Congress-passed law was the ACA - - the Affordable Care Act. A recent you-tube man-on-the-street video showed that many people were firmly against "Obamacare," while claiming they were in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Of the supposed 16,000 pages of the Act, not many of us have any real idea of the true nature of the legalities, costs, or even the aim of the law. Instead, we (both the public and the politicians) take cute pot-shots at the situation, guided, for the most part, by the lady news "reporters" on the various TV news "shows" (obviously chosen for their blond hair, healthy looks, and commitment to the owners' political ties).
2. Obama tried to reform a failed medical coverage situation in which millions of people (those without influence, whether financially or politically) were unable to enjoy the benefits of medical care. Those who bray against the effort obviously have little regard for the woes of the uninsured, since they have offered no solution to the problem. (I've got mine, so don't bother me.)
3. As is nearly always the case, we pass laws, unsure of their ultimate effect. So we make changes, alterations, corrections as needed - - as we have done with Social Security, Medicare, Medic-Aid, Income Tax, National Security, Homeland Security, etc., etc., etc. Only on rare occasions do we reject a law because of its inequities, proven liabilities, or unfairness; almost never do we lose sight of the principles involved.
Item: Briefly mentioned on this thread: the single-payer solution to the question at issue. While arguments against the government's "intrusion" into the mix are offered routinely, there are many reasons to probe the efficacy of such an effort. The system - - Medicare - - is mostly in place, and could be expanded to cover almost everybody. Whatever the cost, it would be covered by a change in the tax structure, which would be far less than the declared costs of ACA. Fears, such as abuses by both patients and practitioners, are expected (and experienced) already. Remember, too, that such a system is already in place for all members of the Armed Forces (and their families), and for some 3 million retired veterans (and families). (And members of Congress?!!!)
It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -- Thomas Paine