Citizens: If you are lucky enough to have health insurance coverage, and your policy covers chill pills, go take one. Then, we’ll take a gander at our Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more familiarly known as, “Obamacare.” The antics at the Court are giving a lot of us heartburn these past few days.
The hottest target of recent public discourse has been the ‘individual mandate.’ Who amongst us wants to be told what to do, least of all by that curmudgeon, Uncle Sam? When the Act was first passed, we were not at all pleased at Halfpond. We held out hope for a single payer plan, because we believe that is the only effective way to address the cost of care. When we realized that, instead, the big idea was that we would be compelled to buy insurance from the likes of Aetna or Blue Cross, it was a hard pill to swallow.
But here’s the lay of the land. Americans have come to collective agreement that fundamental care–emergency treatment, for example–is something we are all entitled to in America. And this care costs. So, who is to pay?
Do we want First Responders to check for insurance cards before treating the injured? No, we don’t.
When a parent brings a feverish and suffering child to the emergency room, would we countenance turning that child away, if he or she was not insured? No, we wouldn’t.
If your frail, aged father falls and breaks a hip, should he be left to languish if he is uninsured and lacks the resources to pay for care? No.
So, how do we cover the cost of care for those who are uninsured and cannot pay? Well, one solution is to require that, if we expect care to be available when needed, that everyone pitch in to cover the cost. Thus, the ‘individual mandate.’
What is disheartening about the national debate over Obamacare, so-called, is that (and I think I would wager my spleen on this–even though I am unsure whether an elective splenectomy is covered by my policy) at least 99.7% of those who are hoping for repeal of the Act, have not a clue which specific provisions they find objectionable. Their beef arises because it was proposed and passed by a political party to which they do not belong.
If you are among those who oppose the Act, please let us know which specific provisions of the Act you think are flawed.