I just spent 10 minutes trying to find out who exactly is the brains behind the Affordable Care Act, or, frankly, any healthcare legislation. I was looking for physicians, economists, actuaries, etc. I searched for 10 minutes and could only find the names of the senators who introduced bills. I'm not saying they're not there, just that I either put in the wrong search terms, or they are well hidden (or they're not there - please let this not be the case).
This seems like common sense, right?
I was listening to the news this morning before Claire got up (a rare occurrence indeed for me to be awake before the munchkin, because I am lazy), and scrolling through articles online, and saw an article about healthcare with comments from lots of people talking about on one hand, all these people now can't afford health insurance, who might have been able to previously; and on the other hand, all these women who couldn't get health insurance when they were pregnant because it was considered a preexisting condition now are guaranteed to not be turned down for insurance.
WHY CAN'T WE ALL AGREE THAT BOTH OF THESE OPTIONS WERE BAD?
We want women to have access to healthcare while pregnant. We also want people to be able to afford their healthcare.
I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Why can't we have something in the middle? Something where people can afford health insurance, something where people are encouraged to live more healthfully in order to drive down healthcare costs, something where people aren't terrified to get pregnant or go to the dentist or get routine health checks just because they won't be able to afford the bill?
At the end of the day, what's mostly frustrating to me is the misunderstanding about cost, balance, risk, etc.
It would be great if everyone were covered for absolutely every healthcare issue no matter what - but there will be reactions to that - i.e. higher costs than previously paid for some, maybe lower costs than previously paid for others, possibly fewer doctors to choose from, longer wait times, higher flat taxes, etc. I'm not suggesting we should not cover people with preexisting conditions - just that people should realize that when this happens, the cost has to be offset somewhere else. No free lunches.
I won't pretend to be someone who is knowledgeable about this area. I'm not. I know this is super jumbled. Just thinking out loud. I'd love it if someone who is more knowledgeable could explain things better to me.
I am absolutely terrified to ever have children again.
I should re-phrase:
I am absolutely terrified to ever physically give birth to and raise from infancy any other children.
I still get anxiety thinking about having Claire. Maybe this is normal, but no one ever seems to want to address that fact. I don't care to talk about it (just thinking about it right now is giving me anxiety), but I also don't want people to pretend it's all peachy and something that isn't a big deal just because every woman who gives birth has to go through it.
And taking care of an infant. How do people get over the anxiety of wondering if their kid is alive all night? I look at my own grandma who had 10 kids and other friends and people I've known who have had similar #s of children and have zero (0) idea of how they emotionally and mentally (and physically) got through it.
Then couple everything with my migraines and pain problems. I'm terrified to be in the middle of a migraine and have 5 kids under 7 who need me all at once while my husband's away on a 12-hour shift at the hospital. It isn't like this is a once-a-year problem, but potentially a 1-5 times a week problem. It terrifies me. And then that anxiety in turn is likely to give me another migraine!
It's a vicious cycle.
I have always had a desire to be a foster parent. I can't explain it. I know that is not without its own HUGE set of challenges, but I often wonder if this isn't a possible solution.
As we get into the thick of winter, I would also like to remind us all we are getting deeper into the season of
THE WEDDING CLOAK
Remember, you can do your part to discourage use of this hooded monstrosity. Help brides who are in the throes of infatuation and unable to think clearly. No one wants to look back at their wedding photos and realize that their beautiful dress that they exchanged their firstborn's college education for was hidden the entire time by a thick, white, fur-lined hood.
However, know that if you do choose this hooded cloak, I won't boycott your wedding. I'll still come, support you, bring a gift, and I won't even make any comments about it.
But I'll be thinking them.
Side note: Claire just happened by, saw the picture, and screamed, "SANTA CLAUS!!!"
Ok, I have a legitimate question, but for fear of being attacked on social media, I don't put it there.
I honestly don't understand why our government is funding Planned Parenthood at all.
I'm not even talking about different beliefs on abortion and contraception and what services are performed there, etc.
If it's a federal mandate that everyone has to have insurance, and that all insurances must offer coverage of contraception, why are they funding this?
I understand not all insurances do offer contraception coverage, that there are exceptions...I used to have coverage through one of the exceptions.
But do you get my point?
To me, it's like the government saying:
You must all enroll in dance classes. And if you enroll in dance classes, you'll get free ballerina slippers. Here, we're going to give tax dollars to this random place that sells ballerina slippers so that they can give ballerina slippers to people who can't afford them.
Surely it must be more complicated than that; I'm not trying to be crass. I honestly don't understand why this is going on, what the point is.
Why not just keep the money and use it elsewhere, or expand Medicaid or lower healthcare costs for the public? Or not take the tax dollars in the first place?