I’ve been so wrapped up in my own cancer treatment that I haven’t been closely following some of my favorite bloggers, and so I missed that Jim Henley has cancer. Jim Henley was one of my two favorite libertarian bloggers (the other being Julian Sanchez) back when he was libertarian, and is still one of my favorite bloggers now that he’s a no longer libertarian. He writes about his cancer
Regardless, this election has become a matter of life or death for me personally. I admit to being chagrined about this….
But then there’s healthcare reform. Specifically, the PPACA’s community-rating and mandate provisions that will take effect by 2014.
As I keep stressing, I’ve got a pretty bright prognosis for a cancer patient. But that bright prognosis means exiting 2012 with the mother of all preconditions. I’m fortunate to have a good group-health plan through work. (Also, my bosses have been incredibly supportive.) But jobs and companies disappear, and Mrs. Offering is currently in the ranks of the long-term unemployed. There’s COBRA for up to 18 months, if the cash for payments holds out. (Cancer means bills: the Anti-Cash!) I’m reasonably employable, if for no other reason than that Qlikview designers and developers are a semi-hot commodity right now. But I’m also a high-income worker in my 50s, so another job with health insurance within an appealing salary band in any particular time frame isn’t anything I can count on going forward.
Under PPACA that doesn’t matter as much. But if PPACA gets repealed, as Republicans have promised, I’m screwed.
I know the feeling, because I’m in a similar position. It’s an uncomfortable thought, partly because the election doesn’t just boil down to “which candidate would give Lynn a longer life expectancy” (all the more so because I personally have a good income, a good steady job, insurance, and a good prognosis, so I personally would probably still live in the world where PPACA gets repealed), and I do know many people, some of them family, who care about me very much and want me to live, and who have varied opinions both about the election and about health care reform. Even people with preexisting conditions differ in their views. My net friend Bint firmly believes that Obamacase is a life saver for her and her daughter, while my net friend Kristin is convinced that it does nothing for her without a public option and a plan that kicks into effect sooner than 2014; both of them are, going by their posts and Tweets, less well supplied with income and insurance than I am. (As Kristin would put it, I have class privilege relative to her.)
As it stands, I don’t have to think too hard about this, because the Republicans didn’t nominate Gary Johnson, and so, rather than having a trade off between a Democratic candidate that I strongly prefer on some issues, and a Republican candidate that I strongly prefer on others, I have a choice between two candidates who are the same on some issues and differ on others, but one where I’m with Obama rather than Romney on pretty much all the issues where they differ. And so I get the luxury of turning my attention to local races, where I’m still uncertain. There are ongoing divisions in the South Orange County Community College District and in the Lake Forest City Council, and I can spend time figuring out which of the various local candidates is on which side of these divisions and what I think about them. Then I can carefully analyze the usual raft of California budget related ballot propositions (I may put up a blog post later sorting them out – and will welcome input from co-bloggers if and when I do).
Still, that fact is there. Health care policy has some very personal consequences. Maybe different ones for you than for me. And I felt more comfortable arguing the matter when it was an abstract discussion about people other than me than now, when I’m the one with a preexisting condition. It’s bound to have some influence on my vote. Should I really, comfortably positioned as I am now both in finances and in prognosis, expect it to influence yours as well?
I don’t think PPACA will get repealed any more than we’ll get a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. I do think Romney will come up with changes that will make it more workable and affordable. PPACA is financially unsustainable. Then what?
P.S. It continues to be funny how so many people, and you haven’t done this in this post – you’re very even handed, call Republicans selfish and greedy while Democrats make a political living appealing to people’s greed and selfishness.
I suspect you’re right that it won’t get repealed at this point. The Senate filibuster works both ways, and it only needs to last a couple more years for it to become very hard to repeal. It will need to be modified over time, and so, for that matter, will Medicare (a tough problem, since every way of modifying Medicare gores one person’s ox more than another’s).
I don’t think Republicans in general are greedy and selfish; I’ve known too many personally who were anything but in private life. Mitt Romney, for that matter, doesn’t strike me as greedy and selfish. Socially inept and short on empathy, yes, but very generous in his personal life (being generous and having empathy come naturally to you are two different virtues).
I’d go with the socially inept part. Empathy is much harder to judge Socially ineptness could easily mask it. I’ll hide my empathy because people use empathy to justify doing irrational, and long term harmful things, i.e malignant caring. This is what I see in a lot of our government social services programs. A system that provides immediate relief and aid, but also creates a circle of dependency that traps many people in that circle rather than enabling and encouraging them to become free, independent and self-supporting.
I guarantee that the lady in this viral video doesn’t believe she can do it without that circle of government dependency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=related
“Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!” – Patrick Henry
What a brilliant ruling by the United States Supreme Court on the affordable health care act (Obamacare). Stunningly brilliant in my humble opinion. I could not have ask for a better ruling on a potentially catastrophic healthcare act than We The People Of The United States received from our Supreme Court.
If the court had upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the commerce clause it would have meant the catastrophic loss of the most precious thing we own. Our individual liberty. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Supreme Court.
There is no mandate to buy private for-profit health insurance. There is only a nominal tax on income eligible individuals who don’t have health insurance. This is a HUGE! difference. And I suspect that tax may be subject to constitutional challenge as it ripens.
This is a critically important distinction. Because under the commerce clause individuals would have been compelled to support the most costly, dangerous, unethical, morally repugnant, and defective type of health insurance you can have. For-profit health insurance, and the for-profit proxies called private non-profits and co-ops.
Equally impressive in the courts ruling was the majorities willingness to throw out the whole law if the court could not find a way to sever the individual mandate under the commerce clause from the rest of the act. Bravo! Supreme Court.
Thanks to the Supreme Court we now have an opportunity to fix our healthcare crisis the right way. Without the obscene delusion that Washington can get away with forcing Americans to buy a costly, dangerous and highly defective private product (for-profit health insurance).
During the passage of ACA/Obamacare some politicians said that the ACA was better than nothing. But the truth was that until the Supreme Court fixed it the ACA/Obamacare was worse than nothing at all. It would have meant the catastrophic loss of your precious liberty for the false promise and illusion of healthcare security under the deadly and costly for-profit healthcare system that dominates American healthcare.
As everyone knows now. The fix for our healthcare crisis is a single payer system (Medicare for all) like the rest of the developed world has. Or a robust Public Option choice available to everyone on day one that can quickly lead to a single payer system.
Talk of privatizing/profiteering from Medicare or social security is highly corrupt and Crazy! talk. And you should cut the political throats of any politicians giving lip service to such an asinine idea. Medicare should be expanded, not privatized or eliminated.
We still have a healthcare crisis in America. With hundreds of thousands dieing needlessly every year in America. And a for-profit medical industrial complex that threatens the security and health of the entire world. The ACA/Obamacare will not fix that.
The for-profit medical industrial complex has already attacked the world with H1N1 killing thousands, and injuring millions. And more attacks are planned for profit, and to feed their greed.
To all of you who have fought so hard to do the kind and right thing for your fellow human beings at a time of our greatest needs I applaud you. Be proud of your-self.
God Bless You my fellow human beings. I’m proud to be one of you. You did good.
See you on the battle field.
Sincerely
jacksmith – WorkingClass :-)
Ummmm, wouldn’t voucherizing Medicare force seniors to buy a high-risk unsavory private-sector product? Yes, I know the current proposal has a public option, but we all saw what happened to that in Obamacare–the insurance lobby demolished it, and will do the same to voucherized Medicare if offered the chance.