It's thanks to ingineer, that I got back in here. I wasn't that sure ranting was a good thing. BUT there is so much to rant about and not the least of which is the sea change we are having with attempting to finally get all Americans access to basic health care. Yeah I know they call it ObamaCare to be derogatory or even he does to try and take credit but this is a bigger idea than one man-- leader or not.
Basically the issue of insurance has been so distorted by the right wing that I think a lot of people have lost all sense of what it means. Currently the attitude is someone has it to get, from the premiums they paid, an equal amount of services. Excuse me but that's not why we carry any insurance.
Home owner insurances are hoping we will never use any of what we paid in. We pay it for the chance we might have a catastrophic event from fire to tornadoes to landslides. We try to carry all the insurance types for our region and sometimes find we didn't carry enough when, what the insurance company classifies as an act of God, was not explicitly mentioned in our policy. The truth is we don't want to use it. We hope we will never use it. We pay it as insurance and through a lifetime hoping we will not. We also know our premiums will cover those who did need to use it and the majority of Americans are glad it is that way. So I don't live in a tornado zone and understand, that the insurance companies that cover homes there will be using my premiums to do it. Good.
Same with auto insurance. We get it. We maintain it. Yeah the law makes it a fine if we drive and don't have it, but we can carry minimal coverage. Or like us, carry a lot. We have it hoping we never need it and frankly we haven't.
Health insurance though is being sold as something different by the christianist/libertarian wing of the Republican party. Every man for himself-- and if I don't get full value for my premium, I was cheated.
Well, my husband and I bought insurance as soon as we got out of college (HMOs have been our choice which some hate for that gatekeeper that decides what specialist you can see). I am sure we've gotten very little back for all those years of premiums because we've been lucky. Oh there've been a couple of incidents, two babies, one surgery for me, broken knee for husband, appendectomy for high school age son-- but we have had little reason to need insurance all those years. We had it hoping we would not need it.
Hopefully I don't need to add life insurance is the same deal especially for young people-- which we also carried to protect our young family.
I won't say that the Affordable Care Act has been perfect. It's been fought tooth an nail by the Republicans who have voted what 50 times to try to undo it in the House while they know until they have a Republican Senate and President won't do one bit of good. Oh wait, it does make righties glow with delight. Never mind it's a waste of time to do the vote. Waste isn't a big deal when it's Congress, I guess.
Oregon still can't get its act together even after years of doing a program that helped the low income here get maintenance type health care. It then got an extension for another month because it hired someone to do the job who bungled it.
ACA had a miserable roll out and still has a computer system that couldn't handle all those who waited for the last minute to sign up. The idea of paying a penalty if you choose to not have health insurance is little understood or explained. Basically it was to help cover the cost of the program if young people refused to sign up-- and their care if they find diabetes or an accident or a ton of other things you never count on, suddenly shows up in their family and they didn't have coverage. Of course only through ACA could they buy it with an existing condition or keep it if their cancer coverage overran the limit the corporation had said was your cut off point!
Obama made, in my view, some mistakes also in trusting states to each manage their own. That was a paean to the right wing-- not that he ever satisfies them. States rights, dontchaknow. Well the end result has been the 'red' states, those who most tend to elect every right wing nut job, those who get the most benefits for their tax dollar-- as in more back than their state paid out-- those same rightie leaders haven't wanted it to work and hence their states have suffered the most in the roll out. Politics over citizens.
He made another mistake in wanting the insurance corporations to keep making their big bucks. If the country had gone straight to Medicare for all, covering minimum needs and then allowing people to buy more if they wanted (which is what most seniors like us currently do) with a choice of policies, the cost of the basic coverage would have been way reduced. Sorry for you who think government always costs more but Medicare has been managed at a very low cost while private insurance corporations charge far more for their services, which have nothing to do with giving actual care.
But he wanted to compromise. He wanted to make corporations happy. Frankly he also didn't have the Dems willing to support single payer. They are also in the pocket of the corporations-- which will only grow thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision to open up more floodgates of money from those who want an oligarchy.
Yes, allowing people to have insurance might mean some run to the doctor when they don't need to go. That's the nature of humans. Some get reassurance from a doctor's visit. Others, like my husband and me, go only when we have to and take care of most of our health problems on our own with our experience to suggest ways (when that fails, we do go in). Do we resent those who use the premium money that we paid in while we don't need it? Hell no, we are grateful we don't have to!
I think the right wingers, who are so upset at people getting routine health care before it reaches the ER situation with a condition that could have been dealt with preventatively, for those who think this all is such a bad idea that people get insurance-- look up the meaning of the word!