But this here blog, well it's like a private conversation...which you, gentle reader, are welcome to walk away from.
So I'd just like to say that I sure hope the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act tomorrow. Because it sure has been aggravating to not pay any co-pays when I take my kids in for well-child checks. And I think it is despicable that kids in this country with pre-existing conditions can get health care. I mean, that just should not happen in this day and age. And we were warned about what would happen with this nonsense. I called to make my kid a doctor's appointment the other day and I had to wait a whole week and a half to have her seen! They might have said they could see her same day if she were actually sick and didn't just need a well-child check, but I'm ready to be done with all this health-care rationing. That has gotta be unConstitutional!
Sigh.
But now in all seriousness. We all know that hospitals are required by law (Constitutional!) to treat you if you show up in need of treatment. They have to. They can not say no. It doesn't matter if you march in announcing "I am uninsured and don't plan to pay you a dime ever!" If you are in labor, or in need of medical treatment, they have to treat you. But the government can't make you have insurance right? (Constitutional?...UnConstitutional?...tomorrow will tell...for now.) So who do you suppose pays for the folks who, whether by personal choice or not, don't have insurance and show up at the hospital doors? That, my friends, would be you. And me. And everyone else who DOES have insurance and pays taxes etc. It seems only logical that if we can't require people to have insurance then we can't require hospitals to treat you if you don't have any way to pay them. Right? "Sorry that your dear dad is having a heart attack. Please stay outside on the sidewalk. We only treat insured patients here. Thank you." Or maybe little Timmy is bleeding from a head wound from the car wreck you just got in (you know, while driving your car, which you are required by law to insure). Quick! Pull up a youtube how-to video and stitch the poor little guy up!
Maybe that doesn't sit quite right with you. Maybe a person's a person no matter how small (or rich, or poor, or uninsured). Maybe people deserve to have medical treatment because they are members of this human race with us (and some are winning that race and some are not). Maybe it isn't little Timmy's fault he was born with a genetic condition that is going to make his entire life much harder than mine or yours. Why should he get to have insurance? And when he doesn't have insurance (because no one will take him), why should a hospital have to treat him? We know he can't pay. Which means you and I are gonna have to pick up the costs one way or another. And he ain't my kid. So it ain't my problem. Because I've got insurance. Thanks to my job (which I hope I still have tomorrow). And I shouldn't have to pay for sick people that can't bother to insure themselves (because I'm healthy...today).
Because America is not a country for the weak. Literally. We don't want you.
And maybe someone once said to give us your tired and poor. But we're done with them now. And the wretched refuse of your teeming shore? - shudder -
(And please...I paid good money to sit through a semester of Con Law so I am quite aware of what is in the Constitution and what isn't...whether this is ruled Constitutional or unConstitutional tomorrow has nothing to do with what the Constitution does or does not say.)
And now that I am writing to an empty room I shall bid myself adieu.
8 comments:
I kind of wonder what the response would have been if instead of fining people who don't buy insurance to instead slightly raise taxes and then make X dollars tax-deductible if spent on a qualified health insurance plan. It would be, essentially, exactly the same thing, but for some reason that probably wouldn't be interpreted as "forcing everyone to have insurance."
And it amazes me how many people 1. believe that hospitals can simply turn people away if they can't pay and 2. want to live in a country where that's OK.
It seems like a lot of the problems we have as a country stem from an stunning lack of empathy.
When this law passed, I was at BYU and I knew a number of people who were openly complaining about how Obama is of the devil and how can the government pass such a blatant violation of their rights to be uninsured?!
I started asking people if they knew what was in the bill, or what, exactly, they were so opposed to. Then I started finding no one who could answer that question without harping back on "the principle!" of a government violation of privacy.
I read as much as I could on the bill, and determined that I agree with most of it. 1) people with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance 2) unemployed graduates should be able to keep health insurance 3) everyone who is insured pays for the health care of the uninsured anyway, so this is an attempt to make everyone accountable.
Despite the "scary legal precedence" and the rhetoric about violating personal freedoms, I don't think there is much to argue about in the factual substance of the law.
I think it will be similar to NCLB-- many people don't like it (in that case, I am in the opposition), but it was passed and upheld, and at the end of the day, no one wants to touch it because it's so polarizing and no one can decide on anything better.
Once people start receiving the benefits of the health care law and realize it's not evil, I don't think any politician will touch it (besides complaining that it's bad).
And that's my 2 cents of political analysis.
...and why isn't the GOP arguing that without the health care mandate, people are getting "free handouts" of medical care, shouldered by the rest of us? Just like people shouldn't be getting welfare that hard-working people have to pay for, people shouldn't be getting free health care paid for by the rest of us. That seems like a GOP angle; it seems like they could interpret it as supporting their own party if they chose to.
And now I'm done. And I've probably angered all your more conservative readers.
Had to fix my typo - Mollie, if you want to have a good time go read the current comments on Romney's facebook status. A vast majority of them are along the lines of "why should I have to pay for lazy, uninsured people!" I am a more than a little confused how they draw this conclusion. If you already have insurance then you are in compliance. If you don't then you are one of those "lazy, uninsured people" that the law will require to have insurance. We already pay for all those uninsured people every time you pay your own insurance premium, go to a hospital, or set foot in a doctor's office. Others say that you can't force me to buy a "product" that I don't want and will never use. My response to that is summed up by Justice Ginsburg who said "It is not your free choice" to stay out of the health care market for life. I mean, why don't more people just choose not to get sick? What is wrong with them? Ok, maybe if you are of a religion that forbids medical care and you sustain yourself on your family farm and never use any public services...maybe then you shouldn't be required to carry insurance...oh wait, there is an exception for that.
Doug and I both LOVED this! So happy about the ruling today. Couldn't agree more with all the comments too. The thing that gets me though is that I guarantee when we start actually seeing the effects of this in 10 years or so people will be praising whoever is the current president (and not Obama) for making it happen!
Commie!
I am hoping that perhaps the birth of at least one of my children will not cost me an arm and a leg because I won't also be paying for all those babies who are born to women without insurance.
$6 for ONE pill of Tylenol. Seriously? Hope all you uninsured moms are enjoying your Tylenol! It's on me!
Post a Comment