Tag: patient affordable care act

Posted on

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

Posted on

truth in advertising

Here’s the challenge…

 

No matter the merits…

No matter the goodness…

No matter the efficiency…

No matter the cost…

 

Instead of engaging in dialogue that encourages actual, objective analysis, we instead attempt to seduce audiences into thinking all is good or all is not.  In other words, we don’t fairly evaluate the merits of an issue, policy, or proposal.  We don’t examine efficiency.  We instead spend more effort and energy into “talking people into things.”

 

This summer “Organizing for Action” — the organizational successor to Pres. Obama’s campaign arm — began advertising their perceived positives regarding Obamacare…

 

“The truth is, Americans are already seeing the benefits…

Better coverage and lower costs.  That’s what Obamacare means for them.”

 

Are the above statements true?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But “Organizing for Action” is spending over a million dollars on their current cable television ad buy in order to appeal to us emotionally — and thus convince us such is true.

 

As one who has watched the healthcare debate closely and carefully studied the legislation, my sense is that the above claims cannot be made with certainty.  However, such misses the point of today’s post.  This is not an analysis of the merits of the newly imposed Patient Affordable Care Act.

 

The point is that many (on multiple issues) encourage little to no honest dialogue.  There are seemingly few attempts to forthrightly decipher what is good and what is not… what will work and what will not… and what works for one person but for another will absolutely not…

 

Instead of objective analysis, far too often our goal seems to manipulate the audience — bypassing any unbiased examination — bypassing total truth in advertising — and emotionally convince others that our perspective is entirely accurate and good.  In other words, once again, we stink at dialogue.  Actually, we don’t stink; we simply skip the step.

 

Let’s instead ask better questions.  Let’s work to inform, discuss, and help all affected comprehend.  Let’s understand the positives and pitfalls together — as both exist and both are relevant.

 

Let’s do that instead of spending massive money on emotional appeal.

 

True, the current ad buy is only an approximate million dollars by a political action committee.  That number, however, can be added to the federal government’s previous tens of millions of dollars — taxpayer dollars — spent hiring PR firms to promote the law.  Something tells me that such can’t be all good either.

 

Dialogue would be better.  By far.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the decision

Today the Supreme Court will reveal their ruling on the Patient Affordable Care Act/”Obamacare.”  It is one of the most watched judicial decisions of the last few decades.

 

Four potential outcomes exist:  (1) the entire law will be upheld; (2) the entire law will be repealed; (3) the individual mandate will be repealed; or (4) the mandate and more will be repealed.  If outcomes (1) or (2) occur, my sense is a microphone will somehow magically appear before the President and leading partisans today, who will then claim either victory or the agony of America’s defeat.  Whoever falls on the ‘agony of defeat side’ will also then be tempted to demonize the court.  Note:  we have a habit of demonizing those with whom we profoundly disagree — or at least those who seemingly stand in the way of our desired progress.

 

As a blogger, ‘tis time for me to be done with healthcare analysis.  For 3 years, after reading the law and presenting multiple concerns, I am still no expert.  Then again, many who possess passionate opinions of this law — many who even voted for it — are also not experts; they didn’t even read the bill.  Friends, I don’t understand that.  That practice fights against every ethical bone in my body.  Legislators supported this law not knowing the specifics that were in it — not analyzing the totality of the legislation’s impact; they then voted based on party lines.  A bill now estimated to cost $1.76 TRILLION over the next decade (according to the nonpartisan CBO) was supported by those who never studied the specifics of what they were voting on.  Wow.  Let me pause once more… wow.  I care not the issue.  I care not if I support the issue.  To vote along party lines for a bill that expensive and never read is in my opinion, irresponsible.  We live in a representative democracy.  Our legislators cannot claim to represent us well without reading the bill.

 

This irresponsibility has been apparent from multiple, additional aspects…  as articulated in the Intramuralist’s frustration voiced in February of 2010:

 

… I am frustrated that individual coverage is mandated.  Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were harshly criticized for such advocacy during their respective campaigns. [Granted, Edwards is criticized even more harshly now.]

 

… I am frustrated that multiple times throughout this process, individual cost-increasing “deals” have been included in order to secure 1 legislator’s vote.

 

… I am frustrated that discussions are only broadcast publicly when a supermajority fails to exist.

 

… I am frustrated that these deals, closed door meetings, and solely partisan efforts cease only with a single senatorial seat change [after the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)].  

 

… I am frustrated with increased costs, taxes, and debt.

 

… I am frustrated that some believe the end justifies the means, thereby advocating misapplication of the reconciliation procedure [a budgetary tactic utilized to pass the policy when the Democrat’s impenetrable supermajority was lost].

 

 

Truth is, I believe the President was correct this week when he said, “You know, it’s fashionable right now for people to be cynical.”  I would add to his perspective that a significant contributor to the cynicism is how healthcare was approached.  The approach was partisan, expensive, divisive, non-transparent, full of favors, and at times, manipulated.  This may be going out on a shady, little limb here, but those adjectives logically induce increased cynicism.

 

My final thoughts… at least for now, abiding by the high court’s decision…

 

With the inspirational message Pres. Obama shared in his initial presidential campaign, many of us had hope that his leadership would prompt unity.  However, the manner in which he led Congress and the country through healthcare reform concerned me; it was not unifying.  Was that because of an obstructionist congress — a congress with clear Democrat majorities?  Or was that because of the President’s partisan approach on healthcare?  Certainly not the only partisan prone to believe he knows what’s best on a specific policy measure, it concerns me that Obama spent substantial time and political capital on healthcare, when it was/is our economy that is most in need of attention.

 

As long said here amidst these postings, healthcare should be accessible, affordable, and portable, and the end result cannot justify an irresponsible means.  For the record, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on the constitutionality of responsibility…  maybe they should…  considering those ethical bones.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

my elliptical

It’s true.  All the accusations are accurate.  I am an exercise nut.

 

I love it.  I exercise 6 days a week with a minimum of 30 minutes cardio.  Add in strength and weight training, and Monday – Friday amount to a 60 – 80 minute regimen.  I believe it’s good for me; it’s good for all people.  I look better.  Feel better.  No doubt we’d each benefit from consistent exercise.

 

In order to make exercise practical, numerous equipment exists in our home — free weights, Bowflex, medicine ball, etc.  None, however, compares to the preciousness of my beloved elliptical.  Yes, I love it.

 

The elliptical is raved about by kinesiologists and fitness experts.  It elevates the heartbeat, utilizing the entire body, but minimizes the impact on the body’s joints.  Hence, many one-time runners switch to the elliptical at some point in order to lessen the impact specifically on their knees.  The elliptical is an effective, efficient exercise machine.  We’d each benefit from having an elliptical.

 

As a leader in my family, I’ve decided that each member of my extended family should also have one.  My parents, brothers, nieces and nephews, cousins, you-name-it.  Some of them are opposed to exercise — especially this daily idea — but they don’t know what’s good for them; they need to exercise.  Even more so, they need to purchase an elliptical.

 

The reality is that if only a few of us buy this excellent cardiovascular machine, then the price increases.  The manufacturers have to make money, and so stores have to sell their products at a high enough profit margin to recoup their costs.  But, if everyone in my family buys one, the stores can reduce the cost.  Better for me!  Granted, some of my family never intended to buy an elliptical; but alas, they don’t know what’s good for them.

 

Truthfully, originally my family wasn’t all on board.  It didn’t matter.  Even though some passionately disagreed with purchase, I had enough persons in the family willing to side with me.  We could vote.  I would win.

 

In fact, I was ready for that vote.  And then… wouldn’t you know?  A new person joined our family; marriage will do that to you.  And so this new guy came along, and he had a bit of a rebel in him; he wasn’t willing to go along with my plan for the family.  Remember:  this is good!  Each of us buying an elliptical will drive the cost down.  And it will keep us all healthy!  Don’t people know what’s good for them?

 

But our new family member was pretty stubborn.  He wouldn’t go along with my plan.  Hence, I had to find a new way to make everyone buy an elliptical.

 

At first, I continued to try to convince the majority.  “Come on… you have to buy one to figure out how much you’re going to enjoy it.  You have to purchase it before you actually realize the benefits.”  But that didn’t go over so well.  My plan wasn’t quite as popular as I thought.

 

Sorry, but I had to push this through.  Ancestors had advocated for ellipticals for decades!  My family simply doesn’t know what’s best for them.  Trust me.  I know.  I know best.  Then I remembered an old way we used to settle on the family budget.  It required fewer of us to agree.  It may not have set well with my siblings who disagreed, but hey, remember, I know best.  Ellipticals will be good for them!

 

And so, using that ole’ budgetary tactic, I got enough votes to force everyone to buy one… even though they didn’t like it.  They’ll thank me later.  That’s what I’m banking on… this is good for them.  They’ll thank me later.

 

And so, as soon as today, the Supreme Court will rule on the new health care law, the Patient Affordable Care Act, or as some call it, “Obamacare.”

 

It is no secret that the Intramuralist believes this law is unwise.  I say that not as a partisan, but rather, as one who read the entire bill.  Note:  most congressmen did not read it.  Consistent with previous posts, I believe it to be unconstitutional in the mandated purchase of health insurance solely based on the condition of being alive; I also feel that the approach taken to ratify the legislation was heavy-handed, disrespectful, and oblivious to differing opinion… just like me and my elliptical…

 

… even though it’s healthy.

 

Respectfully,

AR