Saturday, November 09, 2013

ACA and its goofs

I've been reading the complaints, a lot of places, on ACA and have some of my own thoughts. Before an attempt was made to fix our health situation in this country, anybody with a really serious illness could quickly find themselves told they used up their lifetime allotment of coverage. It wasn't that their payment would go up but that also they couldn't buy it. Yes, this was happening-- talk about death panels. 
So putting all these people with a lifetime issue onto insurance plans was bound to up somebody's cost and Obama never should have said everybody who likes their insurance can keep it. He should have said-- anybody with good coverage and even then it was a risky promise given insurance corporations and their desire to make big profit.

There are glitches in what's out there and it's not just in the website. I read that people in some resort areas have ended up with higher rates than is fair since the rates are computed on the tourists as well as themselves and a lot of these regions (the article was on one in Colorado) have people living in them without anywhere near the income the tourists have who visit. This should be fixed and I'm sure it's not just happened in Colorado.
One complaint that I think is ridiculous is -- I'm a 50 year old man and why should I be forced to carry maternity coverage. Well why should a 70 year old woman have to pay for coverage for Viagra, prostate exams, or vasectomies? Basically this kind of thinking leads to focused coverage on whatever we most think we might get and that's not how insurance companies have ever worked. Having lived most of my life with corporate insurance systems, those programs covered pregnancy and vasectomies as part of a total package rather than well I'll buy cancer coverage but don't need heart attack prevention. 
Is the existing system right for how it's computing rates? Sounds to me like not. Was Obama too busy fighting off those who wanted to shut down the whole government to put a lot of time into ACA? Definitely and that reminds me of when Republicans impeached Clinton over a blow-job taking attention off the rise of al Qaeda. Republicans are proud of making him incapable of acting as one of their goals; so should they be surprised when he isn't able to put enough time into something important? Our whole system is geared to Dems making Republicans fail and Repubs making Dems fail. This seems like a business where both partners want the other to not succeed at anything. Seem smart? Not to me.
 Obama can't and never should have been expected to micromanage everything. He trusted others and some of the problem is a desire to keep insurance profits high for the economy. They are the true middlemen in this.

My husband and I are on Medicare given our age and not only did our Medicare not go up, neither did the supplement we buy through United. For that, we get more coverage than we had. I have never though worried as much about elders like myself. I am an oldie. I worry for the younger generations and want to figure out how you insure those with serious health issues and make sure everybody gets basic preventative help like for high bp, cholesterol, etc. I want to see children, like my friend's granddaughter with epilepsy, able to get health care all of her life instead of seeing it used up before she reaches 18. I want to see people go to a regular doctor (means training more of them) for preventative care rather than showing up in an ER.

What I think and have for some time is we'd be better off with Medicare for all. For those who think Obama's program is socialism, it's not. It's corporatism. It keeps the insurance companies making big bucks off those policies. Obama didn't want to ding the economy by taking them and their jobs out of the system. He also never had the votes with all those blue dog democrats. So we got what we have-- half-assed (pardon my french).
 Medicare enables people to buy extra coverage, like we do, doesn't force it though, and gives basic coverage to all in the program. I'd push us all onto that (except veterans who should be given the choice to stay with the VA or switch) and that includes Congress but it won't happen with so many people not understanding what socialism actually is (when government owns the means of production). 
 And accusing this of being fascism ignores that there were two elections. When Obama ran in '08, he ran on doing this and got elected. When he ran in '12, same thing. The fact that people don't like the election results doesn't mean he dictated it. Unlike bush who didn't run on going to war with Iraq, Obama ran on this one. I know the Repubs are busy trying to block a lot of voters based on that very fact but they are the ones who don't believe in democracy-- not those who ran on what they would do and their ideas won!


Ingineer66 said...

Saying he can't be a fascist because he was elected. Hitler was elected too and I think most everyone would agree that he was a fascist even though he was in the National Socialist Party.

Rain Trueax said...

I am saying he was elected to do what he did. Hitler was not or did I read my history book wrong? you elected GW Bush who didn't tell you what he had in mind while he plotted a war, ignored anything that warned about a potential terrorist attack (sounding a lot like what we go) and who got a tax cut that he didn't pay for leading to the huge deficit (that he ran on but did you republicans really believe you could slash taxes and not increase the debt?). Obama ran twice on what he's done. Are you aware of what a fascist is? They use patriotism and religiosity to get people to do what they want. Sound like anybody you know? Fascists also don't allow disagreement and are dictators. I still say you listen too much to right wing nutcase pundits whether their names are Limbaugh or not.

Rain Trueax said...

Some might argue Obama should have been more of a dictator instead of going along with Republicans on not having Medicare for all (except the VA which incidentally is run by the government but that the vets should have the right to choose as they earned it) which is where we likely should have gone with the option to buy supplemental coverage. Medicare costs less to run than the commercial insurances. Currently it looks to me like the insurance corporations are trying to ruin this to keep their profits high. What a surprise.

Rain Trueax said...

You have a guy running right now for president by shutting down the government this summer who sounds a lot like Hitler when he talks, same kind of voice. You do know who I mean, i bet. got the same high pitched voice, and uses those things I said... bet you like him...

Ingineer66 said...

I assume you mean Cruz. He seems like he could be an egomaniacal jerk. I am not a fan of the government shut down. Although the Republicans were called anarchists and all kinds of other names for wanting to delay ACA now OBAma has delayed it and wants to change it. I guess he must be an anarchist too.

As for my candidate for President, I want General Mattis to run. I don't even know if he is a Democrat or Republican, I just want him to be Presidnet.

Rain Trueax said...

I've never heard of him. I favor Sherrod Brown on the democrat side. he won't likely have a chance.

There are more glitches in the health care act that need to be fixed. I don't like the 50% higher premium in some states for smokers. Yes, it can lead to illnesses but so can obesity, too much sugar, alcohol, etc. So where to the health police stop?

Should have gone for Medicare for all to cover basic needs then let people buy a supplement which if the insurance companies want to charge you more for it since you are 10 lbs underweight or 30 lbs over, let them do it. They didn't go for it out of fear it'd be called socialism and they didn't want to take the profits from the insurance corps. So here we are with a mess (another not good part is charging higher premiums to those who live in resort areas where the resident population doesn't make as much money but they factored in the richer tourists who are there part of the year. A lot of nuttiness probably in that 2000 pages. Simple solution-- medicare for all to cover basics, which is what this was supposedly about. It still wouldn't be socialism. That's the VA where the doctors work for the government-- it is cheaper to provide care.

If Obama doesn't fix this, he won't like what he gets in 2014! But frankly Republicans aren't trying to fix it; so who is the good guy in this? The one who wants to make it so people can get reasonable coverage or the ones trying to keep the prices high so corporations make big bucks!

Ingineer66 said...

Could have gone with the VA type system for everybody that didn't have insurance. Problem solved and wouldn't need 2500 pages of laws and 10,000 pages of HHS regulations to manage it. You and I should run the country.

Rain Trueax said...

lol Too practical :) A lot of this was to make more money for the insurance companies and until they recognize they can't do it without a lot of problems and not even solving the original one, they won't do anything practical. What we need is a real moderate who has a reasonable view of morality laws but is pragmatic on spending. Those guys/gals never rise to the top of either party! And frankly the extremists in both parties dislike moderates pretty much more than anything else as it's power they want.

Rain Trueax said...

Wow, I just looked up that General Mattis, no wonder he was called "Mad Dog". Liberals would go nuts with what he said but since I am just starting into a book where the hero is a cavalry officer, I liked them. Good fighting wisdom. Custer would have liked them too ;)

In the book before this one, one character asked this guy who will be the hero in book four if there could ever be peace between the Indians and the whites and he said, when there's a clear victory. I suspect that's how it is with a lot of things and one thing that's fouling up our country right now-- not a clear cut victory on anything. I wouldn't dare put his quotes in facebook as they'd likely find them irritating as hell but I want to save them somewhere and here is elected. I suspicion I could like him but the problem with a general running the country is they are used to telling people to do things and they have to do it. Government doesn't run that way. It'd be real frustrating for him and probably make it hard to really succeed. Government is its own bubble. -- 16 best James "Mad Dog" Mattis quotes