Skip to content

Don the Con’s Kakistocratic Victory: Destroying Health “Insurance”

2017-05-05

By now, everyone has heard that Don the Con has celebrated a great victory: passing a bill in the House that will destroy the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare.  This bill simultaneously eliminates the 3.8% tax on the wealthy that pays for the insurance subsidies of poor people, eliminates the requirement to buy insurance, destroys the minimum coverage requirements, and defunds Planned Parenthood (the program upon which 2.4 million poor women depend for gynecological care, not for abortions (for which they have to pay cash.))

Don’s supporters (the wealthy) are happy because it eliminates a small tax which annoyed them.  Don’s supporters (poor and foolish people) are happy because it eliminates the requirement to buy insurance, which sounded to them like government coercion (it is, but in a good way.)  Don’s supporters (religious fanatics) are happy because it defunds Planned Parenthood’s gyne care for poor people.

The majority of people, who are not Don supporters, will be deeply hurt by this bill if it passes the Senate.  The pressure on a few wavering Republican senators will be intense, relentless, and possibly unstoppable.  Anyone who, in his heart of hearts, thinks that taking health insurance away from 24 million (or more) Americans is a bad idea because it hurts people, shouldn’t be a Republican anyway.

Don the Con has been lying his face off to cover up the truly misanthropic contents of this bill.  He keeps saying that it will lower premiums and provide insurance to more people for less money.  Obviously he has not read the bill nor has he read any of the studies already done by the General Accounting Office of the previous bill.  The new bill, which was pushed through too fast to allow the GAO to examine, doubles down on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party.  The Republicans repeatedly claimed that the Affordable Care Act was “rushed” through Congress before they had a chance to destroy it; now they are moving so fast on “repealing Obamacare” that the GAO hasn’t even had time to look at it.

The last hope of the 24 million poor people who are going to lose their health care is that the Senate will reject this bill.

Here’s a comment, with a critical point on the definition of “insurance”, on the New York Times editorial about the bill:

Doctor A

Canada 

People will continue to be confused as long as every part of this is referred to as “insurance”

Insurance involves risk: a certain probability of getting a problem (disease, house fire, car accident, premature death etc) multiplied by the price of getting it. The sum of all those risks multiplied by price is what you pay in premiums for insurance (plus a bit extra for administration and profit).

But in the case of many pre-existing conditions, it is a near certainty that expenses will exceed premiums. And for healthy people, the reverse is true: premiums will almost always exceed benefits. In these circumstance, one should refer not to insurance, but to publicly funded health care.

Failing to understand this distinction causes many people to intuitively oppose so-called mandatory “insurance”.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: