ACA: Criminalizing the Poor

“It ain’t no crime to be poor.” Says who? Not the Democrats, who, through their government is making tax criminals of the poor, who cannot afford health coverage.


Let’s be clear: the Affordable Care Act does not do anything that Medicaid ever did, except make it mandatory to have health coverage, and have Big Brother government enforcement to make sure that you do.


What makes you think that the U.S. Federal Government has time to oversee your health care, when they acknowledge being unable to care for, or even find, the 11 million illegal aliens who have snuck into the country and use all our resources freely? We can’t afford care for the citizens of our own country; how can we afford the care for others? Can we track and vet the Syrian refugees (and others mixed among them)? The government says we cannot.


Our hospitals have gone broke — mandated by law to treat those who could not afford the care, and bankrupting many hospital systems. Healthcare costs rose to cover the inadequacies, the balance sheet in the red caused by those who did not pay the bills. Those who could purchase health coverage did so; they hedged their bets against the high costs of medical care. Those who could ill afford the care, hedged their health against being sick. If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it. If they can’t come up with the money, nothing is going to make them suddenly produce a large bankroll to cover the costs.


Why should your employer be able to know your intimate details? How invasive and intrusive! I think your personal care should remain just that: personal! There is no leverage gained under the umbrella of a large company; it is a fallacy serving self-interested groups. The greatest purchasing power comes from having a free-market at your disposal. With a potential market share of the entire population, how could that rival what even the top, biggest companies could provide?


By restricting insurance providers to state-run operations, this keeps market competition open to more agencies to compete for our dollars — which should result in competitive (read: lower) pricing and services (read: better). Opening markets beyond state borders means that the largest companies will gobble up the smallest and reduce competition. They can charge what they want, when they’re the only game in town.


Healthcare in the United States used to be an awesome thing. In my opinion, I notice a correlation to its decline beginning in the time period when companies were expected to provide health insurance for their workers.


It became a law that business owners could not have health insurance themselves unless it was also offered to their employees. At this point, it seems to me that healthcare costs skyrocketed, and quality of care diminished, notwithstanding breakthroughs in cancer care treatments and other discoveries in the fields of scientific research.


The high costs of medical insurance rates for doctors against malpractice drove many to continue to raise their rates; many cannot keep up and have had to stop practicing altogether.


The Affordable Care Act was supposed to be the panacea to cure all ills. It had to be passed without the opportunity to even know its secret contents! And we were hoodwinked to accept a socialist system which penalizes the poor it is promoted to be helping. As mentioned, those who could afford healthcare, prior to passage of this Act, purchased it, so as not to engender unexpected high costs for needed healthcare. This would have included financially well-off people, and most of the middle class.


The poor people couldn’t afford it. Rent, food, clothing, childcare and daily needs were sometimes, and not always, met in the realms of the financially needy. High costs and low wages are a fact of life for so many of us. The Affordable Care Act does not provide government subsidies for the poorest among us, as we do not contribute enough to the tax base. This is the reality you do not hear. It provides subsidies for those falling at the range of low-end jobs, who now need to pay insurance companies the money they could be saving for home ownership, one day; it could be used towards the purchase of a car, to enhance upward mobility and make life easier to expand job opportunities and availability, often reduced for public transportation commuters who need to fit into the scheduled times and locations of the rail lines and bus routes (Have you ever really checked the feasibility and convenience of same? I have.)


The poor have to rely on the same old Medicaid program, which does the same old thing it always did — discriminate against poor people who did not irresponsibly pop out children they could not afford. For being poor, and without the blessings of children, they can suffer in silence. They are not included. That is what is meant by Medicaid “expansion” — meaning that the state has “expanded” Medicaid medical coverage to its poor who do not have children. Many states refuse to bankrupt their states by doing so (19 states still have not expanded Medicaid), despite Federal honeypot offers to cover costs for, perhaps, one year (but beyond that, the states are on their own, pretty much). I don’t blame them for not doing so. It’s bad business practice, obviously made by people unfamiliar with the economics of running a business.


So there is no coverage for such people. And that is the fact. Now, you only have tax penalties for non-compliance, which would, again, be directed against the poor — almost $700.00 for the first year, and going up substantially, thereafter. Who has that much saved, among the poor?


Read the facts. Know the truth. And to the party who supposedly has the interests of the poor at heart, just remember — it was the Democrats who believed in and implemented this socialist, Ponzi-like scheme. Know your vote!



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “ACA: Criminalizing the Poor

  1. I won’t argue long with you, because you are employing a knee-jerk reaction to this liberal cause. If it is meant to help the poor, it does not. Government subsidies, I will again repeat, are NOT provided for the very poor, because they do NOT contribute enough to the tax base. The POOR stand to benefit the MOST, since they cannot AFFORD healthcare! The lower middle-class also lose out with the requirement to purchase health INSURANCE, rather than save money for rent, car, savings (even toward doctor’s visits), etc; money down the tubes they might not have had to spend, otherwise. Please don’t confuse the payment of monthly insurance premiums to health insurance companies as being the equivalent of receiving any actual health care, at all. None is received from an insurance company — that is not the line of business they are in. Instead, the poor receive an
    exemption from the mandated requirement, so that the IRS knows they have gone through the whole convoluted process of proving that they were, indeed, too poor, to buy the insurance. They get an actual exemption NUMBER, specific to their application and reason for RECEIVING the actual “pardon” (EXEMPTION) from this law. BUT THEY DO NOT GET GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES to purchase insurance. Only people who earn a bit more get the subsidies (but then they are made poor by needing to purchase the insurance). Medicaid, which existed prior to ACA, is a safety net for poor FAMILIES, in general, with some minor exceptions (see the rules, and don’t sue me — Disclaimer: individual circumstances may vary and all laws should be followed and are applicable and each situation varies; check original/originating sources for all rules, etc….) FAMILY is the operative
    word (Medicare is for older individuals). Income, age, present health situations, and other variables are determunant factors. ACA leaves out individuals who are childless and poor, with no other extenuating factors, that don’t get Medicaid because they don’t have children and their state did not EXPAND MEDICAID, to change the rules to allow them to do so. I am not against health insurers, and have previously worked for a company which had top insurance agencies as its clients. I do not speak as a health advisor, insurer, or agent for any of these companies. I speak for myself, who has been through this actual process and am relaying my actual experiences and am passing it along to benefit all the misguided people who erroneously think that ACA covers everybody and that all the nation’s poor people are being served by it. Childless poor people, as a whole, are being discriminated against by the sole virtue of their reproductive capacities, or lack thereof. Perhaps they are unable to bear children. Does that make them a lesser person that they should be discriminated against by this government ruling that favors poor child-bearers over poor womb-sealed women? Does this give you any ideas? Law firm? Really?


  2. Pingback: Slice Of Pie | News Notes 1

Comments? Please be nice...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s