From a story in the News Journal, printed March 10, 2017, covering local concerns about the effort to repeal and replace the ACA:
"People's lives are at risk, and it seems like...you have to be rich to be healthy, and I am so opposed to that," said Samantha Hypes, a medical social worker. "You shouldn't have to be rich to be healthy."
Ms. Hypes, I am, too. I am opposed to people being denied quality health care because of financial standing. However, your version of opposition is flawed, based on whatever your definition of 'rich' may be.
Consider this: I'm retired on total disability, meaning I live on a fixed income. When I left the job in 2013 my health premiums were $268 a month. Since that time they've skyrocketed to over eight hundred dollars a month, thanks to the (Un)Affordable Care Act's full implementation, and I can't draw on my social security contributions for another six years. When I called the local SSA office after being forced to retire due to on-duty injuries, I was told Ohio Police and Fire's definition of disability was quite different from theirs. I paid into SS for decades yet, despite the fact I have enough metal parts in me to build a Buick, I can't benefit; however illegal immigrants put hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of burden on the American taxpayer every year, with much of that money coming from SSA.
What I'll draw at age sixty-six, based on present-day figures, will cover about two-thirds of my monthly healthcare premiums.
The point is, the ACA as it currently stands is extremely flawed; insurance didn't become cheaper, as was touted; rather, premiums jumped by several hundred dollars a month.
And I ain't rich.
No comments:
Post a Comment