First, I am struggling to see how this is "affordable care." From my perspective, it is "affordable" health insurance with the "affordable" part being in question. From all that I have heard and read, there is nothing in this law that will improve the "care" part of health care.
From my "suspicious" perspective, it looks to me like the government surveyed the insurance industry and said, "Hey, that industry is a pure profit industry. They never lose money. We need some of that." And, you know what? They may be right, at least from an outsider's perspective, as it appears that the insurance industry never does lose money. Rates go up when you have a claim and stay the same when you do not. But, I am content because at least I am getting quality care for my money right now.
Second, the word "affordable" is suspicious in its use in this law. In my opinion, it is duplicitous to even suggest such an idea in a law invoked by the government. And, now, in it its initial stage, the law is many things but less expensive is not one of those things. Let's see... in your insurance experience, has any of you ever experienced a reduction in price? I thought so. So, if it is costly now what, then, will the future hold?
And, finally, in a industry where prices are "somewhat" controlled by competition and differing policies, how high will prices go with the elimination of those differing policies? The law has already forced the cancellation of many policies, even current policies of people happy with their policy. The law demands that all policies being offered met certain "higher" standards, which will certainly elevated prices by eliminating less expensive sub-coverage policies. I am not speculating; I am merely repeating the facts as being reported. However, eliminating variety eliminates competition and never reduces prices; instead, it leads to higher prices. Remember, it is still illegal in this country for businesses to have a monopolist advantage in the marketplace for that very reason.
Back to our initial issue, health care does need change. There are parts of this law that have been needed for a long time, but these parts are offset by the monstrosity of the law itself and its invasive nature. There are millions who can not afford health care or have chosen not to get it for one reason or another. The new law now makes it illegal to not have health care "insurance" regardless of whether you want it or not. The law does provide subsidies and incentives for those falling below the poverty line who cannot afford it on their own, but it will not be the government that pays this difference. It will be you, and it will be me; those of us who have had insurance will pay this difference.
There is one issue that no one has mentioned, and it is this: this law will add millions of new patients to a health system that will have no real structural change to it. The law does not add one doctor or one clinic or one hospital to the system's structure. It only adds patients. How will adding more patients without adding more doctors, nurses and hospitals work? It will certainly lower quality. And, there are numerous reports of physicians preparing to leave the field all together in direct response to the demands of this law. Considering all these issues, I can only assume that the quality of health care will certainly drop while prices rise.
If the issue was really about health care then why did we not make any changes to improve the provision of care? Why did we, instead, invoke a law that is centered squarely on insurance, and then, task the IRS with overseeing this law? Remember the IRS, there the ones that targeted conservative groups applying for tax exempt status in a discriminatory manner. The IRS knows nothing about health care, but they do know how to collect money and impose law. Again, my suspicious perspective takes over and wonders if this law is not so much about health as it is about government?
Some of you will say, "Ah, your just a frustrated Republican." You are wrong. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I am an Independent who views both parties as one. There is no separating the two in my eyes. I no longer see a two party system. I see a one party system, and that one party is called... politician. When push comes to shove, politicians choose themselves. This law is the clearest example I have seen of a government choosing itself over its people. Remember, this law does not apply to politicians; they get to keep their current health insurance.
Here it comes... my soapbox. I am stepping on it for a moment...
You may call me a pessimist, but let me suggest one line of thinking to consider before you issue me that label. In the last several years, the government has come down hard on the wealthy, demanding that they pay more in taxes and be subjected to more rules and regulations. The wealthy have become, at least to the government and to the media, the enemy and the "reason" for all our current societal ills. And, just for the record, I am not wealthy nor am I from money. But, let me ask each of you a few questions. What group pays no tax? What group has insurance for life? What group has unchecked power to change law and lower regulations, which were two of the main causes of the housing fallout several years ago? What group has been part of the only entity that has grown over the last five years? What group has become even wealthier in the last five years? No, that group is not the wealthy; it is the politician. Are you looking for someone to blame? Well, walk into the bathroom and look in the mirror. You and I vote for them, and you and I continue to vote for them every election.
OK, I am now stepping off of my soapbox. I must admit, I do feel better.
Back to the issue of this post. Here are three questions that flow out of the law and the promises made to all of us prior to the law's rollout. They are three simple and straight forward questions, but be warned; your answers, like mine, could lead you to more questions, unless, of course, you do not ask questions. Which, might just be hazardous to your health, and with health care costs sky-rocketing, I am not sure that any of us can afford not to ask questions any longer?
Will this law improve the structure of the health care system?
Is there anything in this law that makes us healthier by virtue of medical practice or medicine?
Does the law make health care more affordable? (And, your answer cannot be yes just because those who had no insurance now get insurance; this still costs money too.)
No comments:
Post a Comment