With all the bickering back and forth regarding the true impact of Obamacare, there have been a parade of people put before the American public, from families tearfully bowing to the President now that they don’t have policy limits to families despairing at the rising costs they’ll face for insurance.
In an almost cult-like fetishism, there are some publications devoted to these single faces, outing them as frauds, explaining why their viewpoints are wrong, or simply going with their guts on what they hear.
But what’s in a face? I don’t think there’s any question of evidence that SOME people will benefit from Obamacare, especially with this year’s generous handouts available to those who fall within parameters and purchase coverage through Healthcare.gov.
I don’t think there’s any question of evidence that MANY of those who do not participate in the Obamacare handout will face either higher insurance premiums, copays, coinsurance for coverage that they had before for themselves and dependents, or they will have to buy worse coverage to maintain lower costs.
So, I’m trying to figure out why the obsession with the cases being put forth? Unless you are the person in question, every “face” you see on TV or in print is a hypothetical, it’s put forth to ILLUSTRATE how Obamacare does or doesn’t work depending on who puts forth the face.
So, the question we must ask is: Could this happen or not happen under Obamacare? As candidate, and President, President Obama has had a bully pulpit pushing the PPACA by people who blindly supported him or blindly hated him, none of whom took the time to adequately study either the proposed or now current law nor its implications before shooting off their mouths. All did the American public a disservice.
Focusing on the face of the hypotheticals, whether it’s the mom crying that now Junior’s medicine can be afforded or whether it’s the mom sobbing that Junior won’t be able to see his specialist anymore are valid only in terms of their ability to inform the case for tweaking Obamacare in one way or another.
We know that both sides lie, and that the lies have floated up far enough so that even the staunchest supporters cannot with a straight face claim that the President himself was honest. He was not. That wasn’t the fault of Congress, it wasn’t the fault of Republicans it was because the Presidential Ego was determined to pass something called “Reform,” regardless of the casualties, the loopholes and ultimately the impact on the health and well being of citizens. Republicans, well the quotes about their misstatements are legion.
So, knowing that they’re all lying, why would we assume that the “faces” plastered before us in order to induce support or rejection are also to a greater or lesser extent lies? Of course they are.
However, by looking at the hypotheticals presented through the parade of individuals illustrating a particular situation, determine whether the hypothetical presents what it is intended to present.
OK, so let’s go to a faceless claim and apply our test. Straight to the horse’s mouth, Whitehouse.gov where it says, “The Affordable Care Act means better coverage for those who already have health insurance and more options for those who don’t.”
Well, that would be a lie. For those who already have health insurance, prices are going up, and if you have dependents that price is going up even more. So, if better means more affordable to you, the statement would be untrue. Policies are also thinning down provider options in some cases so that if your chosen provider isn’t on the list of providers, again, the plan is not better for you. Finally, if you would have rather paid for your own preventive exams rather than have them worked into health insurance plan costs, such as a checkup that under the PPACA now MUST be covered by health insurance that option is gone.
A TRUE statement would be that Obamacare is the product of bureaucrats and therefore represents a bureaucratic reorg, creating uniformity in health insurance policy requirements, which in many cases is neutral, neither good nor bad for many individuals. In terms of better? Likely not.
The second part of the statement addresses the new entitlement created by Obamacare. Yes, for these people there are more choices since they’re now receiving government handouts to pay for health insurance. But let’s face it, even if you want to, ignoring the unemployed in our country and pretending we don’t have a problem with unemployment would be… A lie. And, Obamacare and its handout entitlement ignores the unemployed who CANNOT participate on the exchanges unless by participation we count being redirected to Medicaid sites. Not only does Obamacare create an entitlement for one group of Americans, it fails to address the neediest of Americans, those who are unemployed.
So for me, I don’t care whose face you attach to a “story” about the claim that Whitehouse.gov makes that the Affordable Care Act means better coverage for those who already have health insurance and more options for those who don’t, it’s untrue because it omits the word SOME, SOME people who already have health insurance MAY find their coverage is better depending on their plans and their health and WHO their dependents are, and SOME people without health insurance will have more options IF they are eligible for federal handouts, the entitlement created for certain EMPLOYED people using healthcare.gov.
The problem isn’t the face that’s attached to the message, but our ability to discern the truth or falsehood of the message that’s being sold by the face. While individuals loving their new coverage or hating their new coverage is an interesting “features” story, it has NO place in our consideration of national POLICY, in this case a carefully crafted entitlement for a select group of citizens financed off the backs of other citizens.
