I am not a big fan of socialized medicine, of government health care, etc.
But, it seems like if the law is Unconstitutional, it will be repealed by the courts, No? If it is truly unconstitutional, the Republicans need not repeal it, as that will take of itself at the USSC.
Not saying they won't repeal it or if it is, or is not, constitutional. I just always thought constitutionality is a judicial function, not a legislative function, Yes?
Most who read the bill, or subscribe to services that provide analysis of the bills, realize that a lot of blowing and carrying on is being made by both sides. From the side spouting all the problems it might potentially create and from the side promoting all the problems that it solves.
It will not solve all the proponents say, and it will not bring the doom that the opponents say. But, it sure has made for some good political gamesmanship. Again, from both sides.
The solutions to the problems of coverage and affordability are not addressed that well in this bill, as both sides don't want to take on the tough stuff. The tough stuff really isn't that tough, but it has a big money trail attached to it.
The group who is going to take it on the chin are the health care providers. How the medical associations got steam rolled so bad by insurance company lobbies, is beyond me.
We are really talking about insurance, both cost of insurance and access to insurance.
We are not talking about access to care, as in this country, we have access to care, even if you are uninsured. If you go to the ER, you are going to get taken care of, whether you are legal resident or illegal, rich or poor, dying or merely need a couple stitches.
Brudno have hit it on the head when he mentioned the insurance companies. I have a different spin on it than he does. Not saying I am right, just a different perspective.
And I am not talking about your local agent, but the big companies whose policies these agents sell and who insure the risk pools of groups.
Why does the insurance industry fight when the customer wants the ability to pool risk based on whatever group they decided, such a belonging to a church, attending a school, affiliation with a certain trade association, etc.?
More importantly, why do they fight so hard to prevent pooling of risk across state lines?
Why do they fight so hard to keep groups small as possible and as isolated as possible?
Pretty easy answer - Because they can make more profit that way and dissect their risk better that way. I don't blame them for wanting such laws to help their profits. I do blame politicians for bowing down to the insurance industry to accommodate these requests at the cost to the other side.
The insurance companies have driven this final health care bill more than any group. And because of that, they will come out smelling good.
The employers will take a hit, the employees will take a hit, the small agency will take a hit, the doctors will take a hit. You name it, most everyone takes a hit except insurance companies, drug companies to a lesser degree, and the trial lawyers.
I am all about insurance companies being able to make a profit. They are profit-based entities, but make them compete on a level playing field.
Don't pass laws that restrict pooling of risk. Pooling of risk helps the insured. The larger the pool, the lower the risk to any one individual and the lower the premium. The smaller the pool, the higher the risk, and the higher the premium.
Why government wants to intervene on behalf of insurance companies and keep risk pools smaller and more isolated, is beyond me. Well, not really beyond me. It is pretty simple. That is what helps the insurance companies who are some of their biggest donors.
Insurance is the pooling of risk and paying toward a common fund for such risk. That is why they call it insurance.
When you let one side of the risk equation write all the rules, guess who is going to win? The guy who is given the pen to craft the bill.
Sorry to hear about your son, Rocky Dog. I hope something can be worked out.
This entire insurance issue has become a big deal for me. I am uninsurable. Without being part of a group, no one will touch me. Not anything I did, just a condition I have.
So, I am part of a small group at my old CPA firm. My premium is $1,500 per month for me, wife, and son. It has a high deductible, no vision or dental coverage. I have to work "X" hours per week to maintain that coverage, though the Mayo recommends I not work that many hours. What to do? I work that many hours.
I would love to be part of a bigger group, but the insurance industry has passed laws where we cannot form groups across state lines. How messed up is that? Would lower the cost of MT groups, or groups in other rural places, if we could form national groups. But, right now, that is not allowed.
Why does the group have to be employer based, in most instances? Why can't we form insurance groups for other purposes or along other activities?
For those who do not meet the set work hour requirements due to health or a multitude of other issues, they end up on the outside looking in. They could probably afford some premium and contribute to the risk pool. But, by not having a group to belong to, they are completely priced out of the system.
Yet, when these people get sick or need care, they get it at the ER. Guess who pays for that? You and I, in the form of taxes, or costs passed on to us who are lucky enough to be in the system.
The insurance company sure doesn't pay for it. What a surprise.
I could self insure, the way some very large employers and unions do, but with 12 employees, self-insurance is not an option.
So, I am at the mercy of the insurance companies until someone in DC decides they are going to make the insurance companies play on a level field. This new bill is supposed to change a lot of things. It will help some, but not help others.
Nothing would solve more problems as easily as health insurance reform. Not health care reform, but health insurance reform.
And if health insurance companies need the ability to rate policy risk by smoking, alcoholism, drug use, obesity, or some other controllable condition such as life insurance companies do, that would be fine with me. But, for some reason I don't see that happening any time soon.
I don't mind paying my premiums. I am fortunate to be in a situation where I can afford it, but it hurts to pay that much each month.
There are much easier solutions to this, but the spineless lapdogs in DC will never take on the most obvious solutions. That would dry up the money trail from their Insider Friends.
When I read or hear rants about health care on either side, I either get pissed, or just tune it out. It is not as difficult to make progress toward a solution as the folks in DC make it.
It is just difficult if you put up the sideboards that you are not wiling to gore the ox of someone who is benefiting from the status quo.
I have ZERO sympathy for health insurance companies. They already have the table slanted so far to their benefit.
I guess the other part I find so amusing, or maybe hypocritical, is that the Republicans talk about smaller government, helping small business, and getting the government out of business, things a right of center guy like me can relate to. But when they get to DC, they sure are happy to open the doors to let their donors get a helping hand from government and lay the pipe to small business when push comes to shove.
Sorry for the rant. I might be completely out in the weeds on this one, and if so, I am sure someone will point out the error in my thinking. Just so fed up that we cannot move on toward true solutions, but rather use an issue as important as health insurance access as a means to carry out political ideals ..... on both sides.
And the Rocky Dog's of the world take the hit because of it.
