Mar
30
Class #18 / Blog #12 – Stella Kong
March 30, 2015 | Leave a Comment
One of the biggest, defining moments of the past decade is the passing of the Affordable Care Act. For years, the healthcare industry has been largely unregulated and expensive. Only those who could afford high premiums or had an employer willing to pay would be insured. This left millions of Americans uninsured and at risk. This was a stark contrast against many other democratic, first world countries. Countries such as Japan or Sweden had free healthcare for all whereas the United States was stuck in a fight between those who believed the government should be out of people’s medical lives and those who felt healthcare should be more accessible. Now that the act has passed and is fully in motion, the effects of this defining act is being analyzed.
The New York Times articles look at the results of Obamacare through numbers and personal experiences. In the article titled “Obama’s Health Law”, the author looks at results by different groups. By looking at the percentages of people insured by groups such as gender, location, race, age, and political leadership, it gives a clearer picture of who is affected by the law. I like the way this process because not everyone is alike. Everyone is divided by different characteristics and are separated by different lines. In every single category, the percentages of people uninsured decreased but what is significant is the likeliness of the decrease. The percentage was more likely to decline for people who are Hispanic or Black, for people who are of the poorest 20%, for people who live in rural areas, and for people are are between the ages of 18-34 years old. This hits all many of the blind spots of the system before Obamacare. It makes healthcare more accessible for the people who really need it: the poor, the disadvantaged, and the ones out of touch with the knowledge. This gives Obamacare a victory because many of the targets of this proposal has been hit.
The next article titled “Is the Affordable Care Act Working?”, casts some doubts of the results of the act. It points out many of the small victories of the act while also adding a “but” to almost every single one. The law has made healthcare more affordable for many but not for all. The law has shown a rise in some health tests but there isn’t enough data to show overall health. The online exchanges have improved but many are still facing different challenges. I think many of these complications to the victories is because the law is still new. Affordability can increase when more competitors enter the marketplace. In many markets, the law has spurred competition. As the years go on, and especially through online exchanges, more companies will enter and offer competitive prices as consumers shop around for the best one. In addition, the overall health of a nation cannot change drastically in just two years. With this law still very new and with a few people really understanding new provisions, people can’t expected to reap its benefits. People don’t really know what has changed unless they are faced with dilemma where they have to know (lost insurance, medical problem surfaced). Lastly, the online exchanges are very troubling, however, technology is easily changing. Millions of people go on these sites so it is only probable to encounter some glitches. Gradually, the glitches will be resolved. We learn from our mistakes.
The third article puts some faces to the statistics and data. Throughout all these accounts, it feels like the people who feel grateful for the law are people who don’t know it till they are afflicted with a medical condition. Whether it’s a heart condition or a neurological disorder, those afflicted are glad that they are insured by the act to cover the costs. I do partly agree with Ms. Tomalavage who says she doesn’t like being forced by the government to have health insurance. No one likes being controlled by something they can’t control themselves. The problem is, though, that the government isn’t reaping extreme benefits by forcing people to have health insurance. It helps people more than it helps the government. Ms. Tomalavage is refusing Obamacare only because she has three years till qualifying for Medicare. It doesn’t feel like she’s holding out for idealogical reasons. She’s taking the option where she pays less in the long run. In comparison, the only reason why Ted Cruz is against Obamacare is because he is against everything Obama. In order to run as a presidential candidate for 2016, he needs to set himself apart from the current administration. Naturally, the only way to go about that is to completely advocate for everything opposite, even if it’s illogical.
I think the Affordable Care Act is as momentous as Social Security. I think many people in the 1930s and 40s probably reacted the same way to the creation of social security the same way people are now to Obamacare. Some people welcomed it and many people did not. I feel this is primarily because the idea is new. Social security seems normal and commonplace now but it wasn’t 80 years ago. The Affordable Care Act seems such an adverse system because people are not used to this idea of government induced healthcare. Attention span for people is low. In 50 years, people will just accept it for what it is.
