Health Care

I know I've ranted and raved about the ridiculous increases we've had to pay in our health insurance since Obamacare was enacted.  (I refuse to call it "The Affordable......because it isn't affordable any longer for millions of Americans.)  Besides the increased premiums, our coverage is worse.  We had a new plan that my primary physician wouldn't accept.  We are considering consulting a specialist, but are finding a similar problem, a pulmonologist within a reasonable distance who is either approved or will accept our second new plan.  Both plans we've had to get since Obamacare went into effect also have increased, far higher, co-pays and deductibles.  I guess I'd be willing to say we aren't playing the game properly, but from all the reports, there are millions of others who are in the same boat--far higher premiums with worse coverage.

One thing those who support Obamacare cite is "pre-existing conditions."  In fact, many who favor replacing Obamacare are determined to take care of "pre-existing conditions."  I guess I have a question about that.  What is a "pre-existing condition?"  Is it discovering a disease or ailment before purchasing insurance and then buy it to expect the insurance company to pay for it?  (Insurance companies should be prohibited from canceling policyholders who contract such diseases and ailments; if premiums have been paid, regardless of the expensive or extensive treatment, insurers should have to pay.)  If someone has been too needy, really needed to purchase insurance before contracting a illness or condition, that's likely a special situation that requires special treatment.  I'm not heartless.

But I don't think that's what most people mean when they think or say "pre-existing conditions."  At least that's not what I hear when I talk to people.  It strikes me as illogical to force insurers to cover "pre-existing conditions" if the afflicted just didn't want to purchase insurance.  Why, then, can't we use this "pre-existing conditions" for other types of insurance?  Why should I buy automobile insurance?  Shouldn't I be able to wait if I have an accident and they buy it to have the accident covered?  Perhaps a bit eerier, what about life insurance?  Why shouldn't Karen wait until I die before purchasing a life insurance policy on me?  Wouldn't my death be, in that instance, "pre-existing?"

And, I suppose, we could extend that to other things in life.  I guessing Las Vegas wouldn't like it if bets made after a game still had to be paid.  Vis a Vis such a late bet, the game itself is "pre-existing," right?  OK, maybe that's off the wall, but......

If that's all wrong, I'd like it to be explained to me.

Pretty cool, I thought, as I read the headline in the newspaper the other day.  Social Security pay-outs will increase in 2017.  Great!  Hooray!  Then came the downer.  For most SS recipients, the increases will be offset by increases in Medicare payments.  In fact, many SS recipients will see smaller checks due to the Medicare increases.  Boy, they always get us, don't they?

I'm not in favor of Betsy DeVos as the head of the Dept of Ed.  There are a lot of reasons and I think I've noted some.  I don't like her blanket criticism of teachers' unions, her desire to get rid of them.  It smacks of elitism and an ignorance of the role of teachers' unions.  (Of course I recognize the bad things that unions have done, such as protecting lousy teachers.  Rather, they don't protect lousy teachders; they merely make it harder to get rid of them.)  Her support for the Common Core is also troublesome.  That she prefers allowing states to enact CC rather than making it a national imperative doesn't absolve her from supporting something detrimental to education.  Maybe her support is to be expected, in that much of CC is to benefit, not education, but businesses.  I hope someone on the Senate Committee on Education, at her confirmation hearings, asks her if her "schools of choice," "voucher system," and "charter schools" include all students, including poor and disruptive students, those with learning disabilities, etc.  Maybe they do, but I won't believe it until I hear it and, if needed, see it.

But my original point is this.  Some have argued that she deserves confirmation by the Senate merely because Trump has appointed/nominated her and he has the right to appoint/nominate Cabinet members. I'd like to see how many who take that position opposed, say, Loretta Lynch, when nominated as Attorney-General by Obama.  Would they say, "Oh, that was different," as if that's a valid argument/rationale?  Even more significant, if Trump has the right, the US Senate also has a right, to confirm or not confirm/reject his appointees/nominees.