It is amusing (or maybe the word I want is pathetic?) given that bills to 'repeal Obamacare' were part and parcel of GOP legislative agenda for the past 7 years and they voted successfully on such measures slightly more frequently than every 7th week over that 7 year span. Yet here, given almost the same 7 week time frame, they fell short, and now 7 weeks later, seem to be short again. Also not a surprise: they are blaming the Dems, despite holding majorities in both chambers and controlling the White House. And it's actual coincidence that I needed to use the number 7 7 times to make this point.
It's also amusing (in a slightly less happy sense of the word) that the language the GOP are using to justify this legislative agenda is oddly accurate in describing the current ACA. It is flawed. It is expensive. It does need work. If a legitimate polling outfit asked questions about the current law, they would find a majority supporting change. What a legitimate polling firm would also do is ask questions to filter that opinion of change.
For this next part, I shall MAKE NUMBERS UP, not go track down actually polling data. I am making a point about "getting it," not the actual numbers.
SO they would sort into folks who really support something like the GOP plan (repeal & replace with something that has 'freedom' and 'access' and tax breaks... over 15%?), folks who want to scrap one part but keep the rest (another nearly 15%, and no unified agreement on which parts to keep or scrap), and folks who vocally support something like single payer (over 25%?) plus folks who support progressive tweaks to the existing model and would also accept single payer, but think it's an un-winnable fight (nearly 30%?). The GOP sees the bottom line on such a poll and declares more than 4 out of 5 of Americans don't like Obamacare. Technically that is true, but fails to contemplate the "why"... and the problem the GOP are running into is that the folks who want some kind of change to the existing law are still a sizable bipartisan majority in support of the status quo if the alternative is the actual GOP plan. When you lump the people who thinks something goes too far with the people who think something doesn't go far enough into a single group who 'agree the something does whatever it does in a less than ideal way,' you also are guaranteed that they will not agree on how to fix it. Apparently nuanced understanding of complicated policy is hard. Who knew?
She probably did.
On the topic of costs, I know a few things anecdotally that speak to perceptions that are out there. My employer pays for coverage for myself, wife, and son. That comes out to just under $1500 a month for a plan that is considered 'adequate' under current law. The family deductible is $1500 and the annual out of pocket cap is $10,000. Some things are covered at 80/20 until that cap is hit, regardless of the deductible status (I always pay about $1000 for an MRI--my policy covers diagnostic imaging, fully... apparently MRIs aren't diagnostic imaging--unless it's in the same benefit year, AFTER the 5 day hospital stay for brain surgery...then it's free :)). Some things are covered at 100% regardless of the deductible, BUT are only allowed once a year, regardless of the cap. So, if I have my annual 100% covered visit in late September one year and in early September the following year, I will pay full for the second visit, even if I've reached my annual out of pocket cap.
I'd really hate to know what an entire lifetime of dealing with a congenital heart disease would do to a family's finances, I've only had my brain thing since I was 40. Hopefully Billy Kimmel will never need to find out. But I also know that according to Mo Brooks, a GOP lawmaker from Alabama, three hour old Billy Kimmel needed to be leading a "good" life, so he'd stay healthy and not have a pre-existing condition. I suppose he could also move.
A lot was said about having access being the goal. As opposed to having coverage being the goal or as opposed to getting care being the goal. If I am self-employed, making the same income but paying $1500 a month for my current coverage, I'd be at or below 0% income to savings. If I had 0 or negative savings and then had an additional $10k in medical bills, I'd be bankrupt. And that is COVERED and INSURED under current law. So I'd definitely argue that changes need to be made. I'd be one of the over 4 in 5. But if the GOP proposal went through and I qualified for identical coverage, the projected cost would be up from 2/5th of my monthly after tax income to 3/5ths+ of same. That presumes the now-twice surgically treated adenoma doesn't disqualify me from coverage at all or scales my costs up, which is not at all a given. Access to insurance is the same as having access to a Lexus or BMW or Tesla. I can test drive the heck out of either. Can't actually put down the coin to BUY one, but I have access.
And hey, why stop with talking about health care, insurance coverage, and the insensitive and inhumane approach now being pursued in DC when I could also bring up education policy, or overt contemplation of revoking portions of the First Amendment, or cancelling School Lunch Standards, or having a rudimentary grasp of history, or knowing who the despotic dictators are and how to NOT invite them 'round to dinner. But I actually would rather go dig a hole in the back yard and then go to the dentist for the THIRD time today... so that's the plan.
No comments :
Post a Comment