As the election draws nearer, I would be remiss if I didn’t blog about how the presidential candidates’ positions might affect elder care, health issues (including health care and health insurance), and quality of life concerns of older folks. Because of the magnitude of this issue, I will have separate installments on the topic.

I begin with Obamacare.

First let me say that while the President doesn’t mind that the Affordable Health Care Act is referred to as Obamacare, I mind. I think it’s a total misnomer. The Act does not have that much to do with health CARE. It has to do mostly with health INSURANCE. I think the President and the supporters of the Act did a great disservice to all of us by suggesting it was about healthcare. It riled people. It scared them. All of a sudden people were feeling that there would be something – in particular, government – between them and their doctors.

But when you look at the Act, it doesn’t have anything between them and their doctors. It does create a Board that can suggest, recommend, and maybe even ultimately insist (if legislation followed) that certain things be done to streamline healthcare or that costs of drugs and medical care be reduced. But there’s nothing that will prevent an individual doctor from recommending a particular procedure for a patient. In fact, it’s not any different than what exists now under most health insurance plans. Many plans require preauthorization for certain procedures – things like MRI’s, PET scans, etc.. That won’t change under the new law. And if it did, it would be universal, not specific to one plan. Right now individual companies contract with health insurance companies to provide coverage for their employees. The companies negotiate rates and terms and companies try to get as much coverage – and more important, as much flexibility in the plan – for the money. A lot of what we used to have has changed, mostly increased in cost. But not all. Here’s an example of a way that a company improved the options for employees.

A company I’m familiar with offered 2 health insurance plans: one for just an individual employee and another for an employee and his/her family. The rates reflected the difference. But the family plan was geared for families with children, who are notoriously more sick and injured than adults. The organization negotiated with the insurance company to provide a third plan: employee and spouse/partner. Because the plan covered only two people, the rates were far lower for this couple than for an entire family.

Since the new Affordable Healthcare Act has many good provisions (e.g. covering kids ‘til they’re 26, no elimination based on preexisting condition), what’s the downside? That now everyone has to be a part of it? Hello? Is there something wrong with that? It’s just good policy for a country. The only way it can be affordable is with healthy people participating. Ergo, the individual mandate. For me, the Act protects everyone, not just those who have employers that provide health insurance. I never saw the logic in tying insurance to employment. Insurance, in particular health insurance, is about individuals and families, not about employers.

So back to the political arena. Since I believe this is a good law, and since the only candidate agreeing with me, my support goes to President Obama. Seniors, juniors, and everyone in between should be for this new law. Now if Governor Romney changes his mind (again) and decides that he really is for this law, I’d gladly revisit this endorsement. The whole law, after all, is one that he endorsed when he was governor of Massachusetts. But it’s not likely Mr. Romney will agree to be labeled with “I was for it before I was against it.”

Bottom line regarding health insurance and whether i: Obama. Stay tuned for my next political blog.




Leave a Reply.