Earlier today, I was appalled by a comment I read on Facebook:
The penalty in Mass is higher than that proposed by Obama, but that misses the point. There are now 5 million more people added to health care roles. There arent enough doctors and nurses to provide care hence care will be rationed. Those over 60 such as myself will now have the govt tell us when and if we are able to get care.First of all, this all started on the wall of a young friend (about 21 years old) where my friend had posted a question:
I have a question for all of my republican friends who oppose obamacare (which I am against myself) exactly how is Romneycare any different?First somebody said:
Easy. Healthcare is a state issue. if MA wants healthcare MA can have it. I have zero issues with that. Romney understood his state's rights. The people in his state wanted it and they are willing to pay more taxes for it. All of that is well within the rights of a state. It is NOT a federal issue, which is what Obama made it. My issue is not with healthcare, it is with FEDERAL healthcare.To which I replied:
Re: State Issue --- "Unfortunately for that line of argument, the tax penalty levied under RomneyCare on those who refuse to buy health insurance differs from that under ObamaCare only by degree, and not in a way friendly to Romney. You see, the maximum tax penalty in RomneyCare, at $1,212, is considerably higher than the maximum of $695 under ObamaCare."So then comes a long the guy who says that there aren't enough doctors so it is bad to add more people to the health care system by providing them coverage because now he won't be able to get good care. In trying to craft my response, I searched the Internet, where I found this blog post:
Megyn Kelly hosted a panel of doctors to discuss the Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care) yesterday – and I’m sure you’ll be shocked to know that all three of them opposed it. But what really was shocking was their reasoning that it would create too many patients which would negatively impact those who already have coverage. Rather than consider ways to increase health care providers, they all seemed to think the solution was to make sure there weren’t too many health care consumers. In other words, people should go without treatment so that those who already have coverage are not inconvenienced. Even worse, the doctors complained that too many people would “overuse” medical services.I realize this guy probably suffers from Fox Geezer Syndrome, but I would like to help stop him from passing it on to my friend and others. I've included my response to the post on my friend's wall below the orange squiggle. However, I would appreciate any suggestions, correction, or ideas on how I might have crafted a better response.
The doctors complained that there’s already an “excess of patients,” that our system is “unsustainable as it is. We have emergency rooms are teeming as it is.”
But my personal favorite was that Obama Care makes medical care “too easy to overuse. They’re making insurance which should be for a rainy day too easy to overuse. You can use it even if you’re not sick.”
That’s right, this is a doctor complaining that people might seek medical attention too often if it’s too available and affordable.
You said you're over 60. Are you over 65 yet and on medicare? Medicare is a government program that runs efficiently at a 3% profit as opposed to a private insurance company that makes a huge profit. Some of those companies pay the CEOs millions a year in salary. Of course, now the Affordable Care Act limits that profit to 20% because if they don't spend at least 80% of premiums on actual health care they have to send out rebates for the difference (Over $1.1 Billion in rebates going out this August).
Personally, I am 55 and I have no insurance right now. I have pre-existing conditions and can't afford the $1,200/month in premiums to get private health insurance. Now that Affordable Care Act has been found constitutional, I am going to be able to get private insurance at an affordable rate. Since I will be buying health insurance now, I won't have to pay that penalty because it only applies to people who refuse to get coverage. And that higher price in Massachusetts? 98% of people there have health care coverage, so not a whole lot of them are paying it ether. Oh, and in Massachusetts, their health care costs have gone down and their premiums have gone down because almost everybody is covered.
Do you think it would be better that people without insurance continue to go uninsured and continue to get a free ride, and just show up at emergency rooms where they don't have to pay? Guess who ends up paying their bill? You. Because the hospital has to get the money somewhere, so they increase the charges to people who can pay, and then the insurance companies raise premiums. If everybody has coverage, then the insurance premiums go down for everybody because there are no more free riders. The proof is what has happened in Massachusetts.
So thanks for letting me know that you don't want me to get insurance and would rather that I and others like me stay away from the doctor because there are not enough care givers to go around, and you for some reason deserve to get care while other people in this country shouldn't get care at all. If I get sick, what do you suggest I do? Die fast? You claim that Obamacare sets up Death Panels, and yet you prefer the Death Panels of the Private Insurance Industry that set life-time limits on the amount of care people could get, and refused to give coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and often decide which treatments and procedures they will not cover.
Also, just so you know, despite what you learned watching Fox News, there was going to be a Physician Shortage in this country before the Affordable Care Act was passed. However, people will be able to get preventative care and stay healthier thanks to ACA.