Why Replace Obamacare with Anything?
Obamacare,
like almost everything the government is in charge of, is undoubtedly a
disaster and needs to be repealed. Why should it be replaced with
anything? We already have an extensive Medicaid program, which was
supposedly designed to provide a safety net for those unable to afford
insurance. Like most if not all government programs, it is rife with
fraud and abuses.
Medicare is another disaster. The majority of people think this is a free government program that pays 80% of everything. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Seniors pay for Medicare, and Medicare pays for 80% of what Medicare thinks you should have been billed. For example, if your doctor charges you $200 for an annual exam, Medicare might decide that you should have been charged only $100, and it will pay 80%, or $80, of that amount. The Medicare enrollee is left with a bill for $120. That's why almost all seniors have what is called "gap" insurance, a secondary insurance, which can be costly but pays most or all of the gap left between what you are billed and what Medicare pays. The same holds true for all medical testing and hospitalizations.
One of the popular narratives for replacing Obamacare is that so many people were uninsured before its passage and need to be insured. What I haven't heard is who these people are. I know that a good portion of them are young people who choose not to have health insurance. Since when did the government decide how a person should live his life? And should it?
Another portion are those with pre-existing conditions. Unless someone was born with congenital defects, these people are also mostly those who chose not to have insurance until they acquired a medical problem; were without insurance; and found that insurance, once they had this problem, was very costly. There may be some companies, if you are going from job to job, who will not cover you if you have a pre-existing condition, but I'm not aware of any.
Compare health insurance with car insurance. If you feel you are an incredibly safe driver and choose not to have any, or adequate, insurance, what happens if you are in a serious and costly collision? It certainly isn't the responsibility of the government to bail you out for your poor choice. And if you try, after this costly collision, to increase your auto insurance or get insurance, you will probably find yourself in a high-risk pool paying incredible amounts of money. No one expects the American taxpayers to pay for your poor decisions.
So why should the American taxpayers pay for your poor medical decisions? They shouldn't.
Another thing touted as popular is keeping children on their parents' policy until they are 26 years old. This sounds good, but 26-year-olds are not children. By all indices, they are adults. Yes, a lot of them are still living at home – but why? What are they doing with their money? Looking at the adult children of people I know, they are having a wonderful time, spending their money on cars I can't afford at 72 because I realize that Medicare pays very little of hospital bills and I need a good secondary insurance, clothes, and miscellaneous other things. These young people are the ones who probably, when they turn 26, won't get their own insurance. Again, should the taxpayers be responsible for their poor decisions and priorities?
It seems to be all about priorities. There are certain things in life that should be a priority. Medical insurance should be one of those. There's an idea for a mandatory high school class – what is a priority and how to establish those priorities. But that would be a sensible, worthwhile class and definitely not part of the liberal agenda.
Another reason against government health care is that, legally, no one is ever turned away from a hospital based on ability to pay. I spent years working in information technology with hospital accounting. I know not only how many millions of dollars in only free care were provided by the hospital, but how many millions of dollars were written off as bad debts and how many debts were worked out with patients for a nominal monthly charge – with no late fees or charges. If a hospital accepts Medicare and Medicaid, it is required to provide a certain amount of "charitable" care or risk losing its funding from these sources. Not only that, but every hospital I have been associated with has staff who specifically assist people who are uninsured to apply for Medicaid.
There is no magic formula for deciding what any individual needs in health insurance, just as there isn't a magic formula for deciding what type of auto insurance an individual needs. This is a personal decision and should be made by the persons directly involved – not the government and definitely not by Congress, whose members live in their elitist bubble and have a wonderful health care program and know almost nothing about medical insurance.
Government insurance is just another step toward socialized medicine, where the government will be deciding not only what type and amount of insurance you need, but how you should be cared for.
Medicare is another disaster. The majority of people think this is a free government program that pays 80% of everything. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Seniors pay for Medicare, and Medicare pays for 80% of what Medicare thinks you should have been billed. For example, if your doctor charges you $200 for an annual exam, Medicare might decide that you should have been charged only $100, and it will pay 80%, or $80, of that amount. The Medicare enrollee is left with a bill for $120. That's why almost all seniors have what is called "gap" insurance, a secondary insurance, which can be costly but pays most or all of the gap left between what you are billed and what Medicare pays. The same holds true for all medical testing and hospitalizations.
One of the popular narratives for replacing Obamacare is that so many people were uninsured before its passage and need to be insured. What I haven't heard is who these people are. I know that a good portion of them are young people who choose not to have health insurance. Since when did the government decide how a person should live his life? And should it?
Another portion are those with pre-existing conditions. Unless someone was born with congenital defects, these people are also mostly those who chose not to have insurance until they acquired a medical problem; were without insurance; and found that insurance, once they had this problem, was very costly. There may be some companies, if you are going from job to job, who will not cover you if you have a pre-existing condition, but I'm not aware of any.
Compare health insurance with car insurance. If you feel you are an incredibly safe driver and choose not to have any, or adequate, insurance, what happens if you are in a serious and costly collision? It certainly isn't the responsibility of the government to bail you out for your poor choice. And if you try, after this costly collision, to increase your auto insurance or get insurance, you will probably find yourself in a high-risk pool paying incredible amounts of money. No one expects the American taxpayers to pay for your poor decisions.
So why should the American taxpayers pay for your poor medical decisions? They shouldn't.
Another thing touted as popular is keeping children on their parents' policy until they are 26 years old. This sounds good, but 26-year-olds are not children. By all indices, they are adults. Yes, a lot of them are still living at home – but why? What are they doing with their money? Looking at the adult children of people I know, they are having a wonderful time, spending their money on cars I can't afford at 72 because I realize that Medicare pays very little of hospital bills and I need a good secondary insurance, clothes, and miscellaneous other things. These young people are the ones who probably, when they turn 26, won't get their own insurance. Again, should the taxpayers be responsible for their poor decisions and priorities?
It seems to be all about priorities. There are certain things in life that should be a priority. Medical insurance should be one of those. There's an idea for a mandatory high school class – what is a priority and how to establish those priorities. But that would be a sensible, worthwhile class and definitely not part of the liberal agenda.
Another reason against government health care is that, legally, no one is ever turned away from a hospital based on ability to pay. I spent years working in information technology with hospital accounting. I know not only how many millions of dollars in only free care were provided by the hospital, but how many millions of dollars were written off as bad debts and how many debts were worked out with patients for a nominal monthly charge – with no late fees or charges. If a hospital accepts Medicare and Medicaid, it is required to provide a certain amount of "charitable" care or risk losing its funding from these sources. Not only that, but every hospital I have been associated with has staff who specifically assist people who are uninsured to apply for Medicaid.
There is no magic formula for deciding what any individual needs in health insurance, just as there isn't a magic formula for deciding what type of auto insurance an individual needs. This is a personal decision and should be made by the persons directly involved – not the government and definitely not by Congress, whose members live in their elitist bubble and have a wonderful health care program and know almost nothing about medical insurance.
Government insurance is just another step toward socialized medicine, where the government will be deciding not only what type and amount of insurance you need, but how you should be cared for.
No comments:
Post a Comment