Here's what I don't get about Obamacare implementation:
For a while the biggest selling point for it was
"no more rejection for pre-existing conditions" along with making the normal parasitic insurance agencies look like this horrible boogyman that you want to run to Obamacare for protection from.
That point was hammered on much that even during the arguments it was sold as the number one reason to do this and that this eclipsed any other way to transform healthcare access and anyone that didn't agree with that approach was an enemy to the underprivileged people of America..
The practices of insurance companies have been found so damned unfair that the governments sees fit to make it a LAW that you buy from "their guy"....
Why couldn't the gov simply have made stricter regulations of insurance companies? Isn't it done with other companies? The gov can shut down or penalize a company for not adhering to a certain standard.. This seems no different and yet more important.
So rather than restrict the freedoms of an insurance company we have chosen restrict the freedoms of individual people (yes the freedom of not purchasing health insurance).
Why not just have something like a default "state-of-having-insurance" if you haven't bought any "pro" insurance... instead of wasting money on forcing people to deal with the ineptitude of gov bureaucracy? Wouldn't it make more sense to just let the hospitals AR department deal with that sort of thing instead of leaving it up to the old hoi polloi?
I mean, I understand that it's all a racket anyway no matter what.. so
meh.
Edited, Jun 14th 2014 1:46pm by Kelvyquayo