But you *DID* get something.
If you'd been severely injured on the 101 and had to be flown to hospital for treatment, it would have been vastly less expensive for you to get that care and at the same time the likelihood of you being refused admission for "lack of coverage" had been eliminated. While we may agree that half a grand is a pretty steep price to pay for that, it is at least something. The difference here is that I paid for that little something and I am not getting it. It would seem to me that the least I could expect would be to receive the "insurance" I paid for and I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect it. (Aside: I at least got just shy of 3/4's of what I paid for with this daughter, but my other daughter was born on the third of the month. Is that equally "okay" as well? Paying for 30 days of coverage and getting two? And it gets worse. That year, I won't be able to switch from a "family" plan to an "Employee and Spouse" plan for six months because you can't switch plans until renewal time and so I'll be paying inflated profits to a private corporation above and beyond even what the ACA itself dictates!) But the ACA was written by and for profit driven corporations who have injected themselves (by federal law now) into our healthcare delivery system and this is the result.
Because we are ruled by our corporate masters, even the most myopic of minds could have come up with an "Obama compromise" that didn't leave people in the ditch. The law could have been written to include a "Public Option Rider for Catastrophic Coverage." His corporate masters would have *loved* that for the simple reason that private health insurers would be off-the-hook for catastrophic claims and the consumer *could* have at least had the comfort of knowing that he could receive care for trauma at a substantially lower cost (through the government plan) than he could through a for profit scheme. As it is, the waitresses, bartenders, common laborers, grad students working part-time, etc. that I know cannot afford even the most inexpensive plans because of the built-in profit the ACA demands for private health insurers. Even with the diminishing influx of money from the taxpayers going into "supplements." So they go without. But, better they should die for lack of coverage than to reach into the pockets of the monied class for a few pennies, right?
Because we are ruled by our corporate masters, even the most myopic of minds could have come up with an "Obama compromise" that didn't leave people in the ditch. The law could have been written to include a "Public Option Rider for Catastrophic Coverage." His corporate masters would have *loved* that for the simple reason that private health insurers would be off-the-hook for catastrophic claims and the consumer *could* have at least had the comfort of knowing that he could receive care for trauma at a substantially lower cost (through the government plan) than he could through a for profit scheme. As it is, the waitresses, bartenders, common laborers, grad students working part-time, etc. that I know cannot afford even the most inexpensive plans because of the built-in profit the ACA demands for private health insurers. Even with the diminishing influx of money from the taxpayers going into "supplements." So they go without. But, better they should die for lack of coverage than to reach into the pockets of the monied class for a few pennies, right?
