![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Obamacare, Pernicious Argument Edition
Oct. 3rd, 2013 09:30 amBefore I get to the two pernicious arguments against Obamacare that drive me nuts, have this: Meet Butch Matthews, A Republican Who Came To Love Obamacare After Realizing It Will Save Him $13,000 per year. No matter what anybody tells you, this is why the Republicans are fighting Obamacare. Once people start saving money via the law, it will be difficult if not impossible to repeal.
Argument #1 - Not Enough Doctors
This argument says that if we give everybody insurance coverage, there won't be enough doctors / hospital beds / whatever to provide treatment. There are two problems with the argument. First, we already provide treatment to the uninsured - it's just provided by the most costly and manpower-intensive mode, namely the ER. Getting people to manage their care without visiting the ER will reduce the manpower needs. Second, there's an obvious fix to the "not enough" problem, namely make / train / import more.
Argument #2 - Why Don't You Help?
Whenever I post about a problem caused by lack of insurance, some wiseass asks "why don't you write a check?" (I'll let the informed reader guess where I get asked this.) Here's the thing - I don't want to help. I want the person with the medical issue to help themselves. In yesterday's post about the woman with late-onset diabetes, she was always employed. If she had been able to obtain non-shitty insurance, she might have been able to find out about her diabetes before spending 2 days in a diabetic coma.
Because she had shitty insurance, we (you and me) ended up paying for that diabetic coma. She couldn't pay, and the hospital factored her costs into our (yours and mine) bills. It's also important to note that subsidized insurance is not free insurance. The insured person pays something - that's the definition of "subsidy."
Argument #1 - Not Enough Doctors
This argument says that if we give everybody insurance coverage, there won't be enough doctors / hospital beds / whatever to provide treatment. There are two problems with the argument. First, we already provide treatment to the uninsured - it's just provided by the most costly and manpower-intensive mode, namely the ER. Getting people to manage their care without visiting the ER will reduce the manpower needs. Second, there's an obvious fix to the "not enough" problem, namely make / train / import more.
Argument #2 - Why Don't You Help?
Whenever I post about a problem caused by lack of insurance, some wiseass asks "why don't you write a check?" (I'll let the informed reader guess where I get asked this.) Here's the thing - I don't want to help. I want the person with the medical issue to help themselves. In yesterday's post about the woman with late-onset diabetes, she was always employed. If she had been able to obtain non-shitty insurance, she might have been able to find out about her diabetes before spending 2 days in a diabetic coma.
Because she had shitty insurance, we (you and me) ended up paying for that diabetic coma. She couldn't pay, and the hospital factored her costs into our (yours and mine) bills. It's also important to note that subsidized insurance is not free insurance. The insured person pays something - that's the definition of "subsidy."
