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.