Editor:
Your column on the Affordable Care Act (April 18), which you and many others like to call
Obamacare, was interesting in many ways.
You correctly point out that the act, from a small business viewpoint, has been pretty well-received. Business people that like to treat their employees well have found it increasingly hard due to the skyrocketing cost of insurance and everything else connected to the medical field.
Unless some type of meaningful legislation is passed, be it the Affordable Care Act or something else, I shudder to think of what might happen with health care in general in the not-too-distant future.
The act has many provisions that have been received well by most people, i.e., the ability to get insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, the fact that children can stay on longer while they are still in school, the expanded drug coverage that helps people who fall into the “doughnut hole” when expensive drugs cause them to have lots of out-of-pocket expenses for much of the year.
By far, the most controversial part of the act is the mandatory participation. People don’t like the idea of being told that they have to have insurance as they seem to think they can provide for themselves.
Sadly in case after case, that simply is not true. Just because you are young, you are not bulletproof, and we have proof of that day after day in many areas of the country. People without insurance have situations occur that result in parents and/or family members spending huge sums of their own money to provide for their care.
By the way, every six months, I send checks in to pay for car insurance that thankfully, I have not had to use for a lot of years now. Why? Because it’s the law that I must have insurance on my vehicle. Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? I have to have insurance on my car but not my own body.
Over the past several years, by having to provide help for ill and aging parents (one of whom I’ve lost) I have had to spend lots of time in emergency rooms and urgent care facilities. These places are filled with people who have no insurance and have no regular doctor as a result of this. They have no place to go for their care.
Many people who are against the health care act support the Oregon Health Plan or Medicaid because the state is in charge of these programs. We are paying for this by having to pay increased premiums and increased costs for drugs. We have mandatory care. Why not have the mandatory participation in the cost of providing it.
The biggest problem I have with your editorial is at the end when you refer to Social Security and Medicare as being government handouts that people have become dependent on. Sorry, but I worked for 43 years contributing to these “handout” programs as well as spending three years in service to my country, and I take exception to someone suggesting that I am on the “dole” simply because I draw Social Security and am eligible for Medicare.
You ask that people become “productive, self-assured and responsible citizens.” Why not fit into this category the need to help pay for these things that you will someday assuredly need?
The Affordable Care Act is certainly not perfect but comparing it to failed programs in communist countries does a great disservice to those of us who are paying the bills.
Dave Holley
Sweet Home