yes & no

1374034516_8619_affordable care actFor years I’ve wrestled with Obamacare.  Call it Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, the “healthcare security act” — each of which I’ve heard a person utilize when it’s most politically expedient.  When the bill was perceived popular, some made certain to name it after the President; others were resolute in avoiding any name recognition.  Once the act became far less popular, the utilization of the term totally changed.  Geepers.  Talk about Washington hypocrisy.  It’s rampant.  For both parties.  (Please allow me one more “geepers.”)

But after the new healthcare law officially passed its 4th anniversary (note that I didn’t say “celebrated,” as it’s not a term generally thought to be compatible with the law), I believe I’ve finally discerned the Intramuralist’s bottom line on why this bill bugs me so.  It’s no secret, friends; after reading the proposal, the Intramuralist has long thought the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unwise policy.  While it addresses some significant problems within the application of healthcare, it also creates a whole new host of serious snags.

The snags are significant…

Rising costs…

Cancelled policies…

Loss of doctors and hospitals…

Poor execution of enrollment…

Mandates, taxes, and fines…

More mandates, taxes, and fines…

Arbitrary and inconsistent implementation…

Making people pay for services they don’t need…

Etc., etc., etc…

These are just a few of the snags.  Still, none of the above are my primary problem.  None are why the bill bugs me so.

Economically, I don’t believe the bill is wise.  You can’t expect to cover more people more effectively and efficiently, give them more stuff, and for the care to somehow cost less.  That doesn’t make economic sense.  Again, however, such is not my primary problem.

The bill is still not popular.  Current polling data puts support of the bill at no more than 40-42%, while now 54-56% oppose the law.  Granted, the Intramuralist has never been driven by popularity.

As stated here multiple times previously, the bill was passed via a strictly partisan vote.  Only one party voted for this law.  I don’t like any law crafted in such a way; however, still not my bottom line.

My bottom line problem with this law is actually rather simple.  It has nothing to do with economic theory nor the nuances within healthcare.  It’s basic.  Perhaps its one of those “all I really need to know” things from kindergarden.  It’s easy.  But it’s true.

I was always taught to let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no.  It’s not rocket science.  In other words, we should mean what we say and say what we mean.  So much rhetoric and salesmanship was used to make us want this bill.  It was not honest, transparent conversation.  From being able to “keep your doctors” to “liking the plan once we found out what’s in it,” all seems designed to sell us on something the majority of us don’t want.  Even if the majority wanted it, the Intramuralist will never be attracted to the politician whose “yes” and “no” mean something other than “yes” and “no.”  That bugs me.  Still.

Respectfully,

AR

One Reply to “yes & no”

  1. A trick I’ve picked up over the years is that when they give a bill a fancy name, it often means the exact opposite. Hence, the “Affordable” Care Act….

Comments are closed.