I saw on the news last night that the Democrats are apologizing after Ann Romney complained that their recent ad making fun of Romney's dress horse that he wrote off on his taxes was in poor taste because riding that horse is part of her therapy for her multiple sclerosis. Speaking of people being insensitive...
I worked at a camp for children with disabilities for five years or so. We had several kids with MS, muscular distrophy, and a myriad of other disabilities. Trust me I know about people not being sensitive to people's conditions. But that's not what they were poking fun of Ann, in fact you're not even mentioned in the ad.
Austin, a favorite camper of mine, has MS so bad he's confined to a wheelchair. He, like the vast majority of our campers, comes from a rural area, from a middle to lower class family. His family had a hard time paying for his electric wheelchair, but wouldn't have had such a hard time getting it under "Obamacare", since their insurance wouldn't have precluded their purchase due to a pre-existing condition, I'm sure. Pretty sure his family broke into their retirement funds for most of his care and treatments. He was only able to come to camp at all - his favorite two weeks of every year - because generous local Rotary Club members donated to our camp so that he could attend for free.
My point is, most people with MS can't afford dressage therapy to begin with! If you want to know what insensitivity to people's needs and lifestyles is, try repealing Obamacare - which was based off of Mitt's own Massachusetts plan in the first place. Try having all the money in the world, gained by outsourcing jobs to India and spending it on a precious show horse that you didn't even need to pay taxes on, and then using that money to buy an election with the explicit intention of denying someone with muscular sclerosis access to coverage. THAT'S insensitive. Pull your head out of your ass!
--I mean, horse!
* * *
While I'm on the topic, let me point out to anyone who's never thought this through, but people in the health care and insurance industry have been complaining for years that "the reason costs are so high is because of uninsured people taking advantage of health care services." That's from their own mouths. Well, the comprehensive health care plan was addressing that, and I don't see how you could complain about it, considering it only affects you positively, and it's exactly what you asked for.
The idea was for the government to provide a baseline, unimpressive, but all-bases-covered, additional public health care plan option. We're talking COBRA level here, bare bones.
If you have health care coverage that you like - that is to say, you have a job and it has benefits at all - then don't take the government option. You wouldn't anyway. So how does this affect you, self-righteous employed person?
If you are poor and do not have health coverage - for example, you are an entry level burger flipper, or a part-time custodian, because that's the only job left that you qualify for, because you don't have affluent parents so you couldn't afford an education, and this job does not provide health insurance - then you are going to have to take that government option or face the tax penalty. In case you missed the implication, "poor people" does not mean "unemployed", poor people still have jobs, they're just crappy ones that don't afford them a living wage. This may be a surprise to you.
Let me run that by you again: Your choices as a poor person are to take the public option, or pay a tax penalty.
If you take the public option, should you need to go to the hospital for some reason, the insurance that you pay for will help cover that bill. Fewer uninsured people going to the hospital means lower hospital bills and insurance for everyone! Right, health care and insurance providers? Isn't that what you said would happen? Isn't that your excuse for being greedy bast--ahem.
If you, the poor person, instead opt not to take any insurance, you'll have to pay the tax penalty. Now let me remind the GOP fans out there, that you also love to complain about how the poor actually get tax refunds - for shame! Well, that tax penalty, that you love to bitch about that wouldn't even apply to you because you wouldn't even be in this position I'm describing right now in a million years, happens to do nothing but cut into that tax refund they'd be getting. Shouldn't you be happy about this, republicans? That the poor are receiving "less free money" because they didn't take the government option? Like where in the hell do you get off being outraged about this "mandate"? It doesn't even affect you, and does actually hurt poor people, so that should absolutely thrill you.
Last but not least, let me explain how a tax penalty actually works. If you're entirely homeless and unemployed and you have to go to the hospital, yes, it costs everyone more insurance premiums to care for you (in theory, so the industry tells us). Obviously you didn't take the government public option, so you would be subject to the tax penalty "mandate"... if you paid federal taxes in the first place. But seeing as how you didn't have an income, there are no taxes to take. So anyone harping on the "mandate" being unfair to poor people who couldn't afford it is spewing complete bull and has no idea what they're talking about.
Then of course there's pre-existing conditions benefits and what not, basically it's good for everyone. EVERYONE. The fact is, 1%ers like Rick Scott only want you to hate Obamacare because it means lower costs and better competition causes his insurance company that he owns to be unable to afford to pay him 500 times your salary, and he'll need to settle for 450 times your salary, and that make widdle Wick cwy.
No comments:
Post a Comment