Thoughts on Repeal/Replace

Below is a post I wrote just the other day, only to find that the next step seems to be a side-step. I wonder how many people are more than halfway wishing they could recall their Representatives and (especially) Senators right about now? Unfortunately, that's not an option.

XXX

Apparently the Republican Senators have (finally) managed to agree on something when it comes to the ACA.

That's a step in the right direction.

From what I read and hear, division continues regarding how to proceed from here, and that's to be expected. Different populations in different States have different ideas about what they want from a health care system; their Senators are duty-bound to represent those different ideas.

And me, to whom it doesn't personally matter one way or another, I'm sitting here thinking about it because what DOES matter to me is everyone else in my nation.

Some want this; some want that; some flat refuse to even consider alternatives ... but alternatives it's going to have to be I think.

Last week I think it was, I heard an echo of what has been in mine own head for a while now.

How about a compromise?

Before you start in on the concept as either selling out or being pig-headed, remember the vast variety of opinions that are represented in our Senate. Each and all of them are just as important as every one of the others, all have equal status. It might not seem that way, and no doubt plenty of folk don't really believe it is that way, or should be that way. BUT it IS that way.

Back to the thought of compromise.

For the folks who insist that a 'single payer' plan is the only thing they'll even consider, why can't we give them that, within reason?

For the folks who insist that they want to be able to choose their own plans and have no interest whatsoever in any kind of government interference in their health care (or their lives at all for that matter), why can't we give them that too, within reason?

The thought is to provide the best of both to everyone.

People get (or not) whatever insurance they choose for themselves to cover most things; that's a bow to those who refuse to 'not get to choose'.

But set a limit on what those policies have to cover (and what the premiums can be) with a 'safety net' single payer (government) coverage for catastrophic types of things; an equal bow to the other end of the spectrum..

The reasoning is that there are plenty of objections to an overall plan where the healthy don't get to choose whether or not they're going to foot the bill for folks who, for example, take their child in for every runny nose.

There are also justifiable objections to outrageous premiums for those whose very lives are dependent on what have become extremely expensive medications, and/or those whose lives are abruptly interrupted by an accident with the accompanying out of pocket expenses that can and do break them financially.

So why can there not be something that considers both sides of the whole thing?

You get your own insurance to cover your child's runny noses; the 'safety net' is in place if one of those runny noses turns out to be a life-threatening situation that's not covered by your insurance policy.

People who might object to paying for you to take your kid to the doctor for every last little sniffle are probably the first ones to organize a local fundraiser for someone who has been in an accident. While they might not see the logic behind covering somebody else's (preventable) sinus infections, they are likely absolutely willing to kick into the kitty in cases of emergency.

Insurance companies might appreciate having regular customers (who, having to pay for their own basic health care might actually start taking an interest in preventive measures and not use their insurance quite as much) without having to try to cope with huge claims (because that's where the 'safety net' comes in) and make their basic premiums reasonable, maybe on a sliding scale that takes into consideration individual income and health history.

Health care providers might feel the same way and make their basic care costs reasonable.

I'm not too sure about pharmaceutical companies making their products reasonably affordable but have a feeling that any who DO would find themselves with a lot more customers.

Medicaid and Medicare are in place, and will remain in place, for the vulnerable among us. That's not the issue here as I see it. We all kick into the kitty for that and the individual States choose for themselves what they're going to do with the funds we provide them with for the care of our vulnerable.

Balancing personal responsibility with societal responsibility seems to me common sense.

Those who are so attached to the ACA that they cannot let go of it will retain the societal responsibility associated with it via that 'safety net'; those who are of the opinion that people need to start contributing to their own health and well-being will be vindicated as personal responsibility becomes expected.

It's a win-win in my opinion, but what do I know?

I'm more an advocate for personal responsibility when it comes to health care issues, but I am not the only person in the whole wide world and I full well know it.

There's no reason in said whole wide world that a reasonable compromise cannot be reached that will meet the needs/demands of everyone involved. I'm not talking about 'replacing' the ACA but repealing it in toto and developing an entirely different plan of action on behalf of all of us - a reasonable compromise among reasonable people who actually care enough about one another to respect each other's needs and are willing to meet halfway.