I read an article in the Wall-Street Journal today which has me perplexed to say the least. The article was written by Nicole L. Hopkins and is titled, "ObamaCare Forced Mom Into Medicaid - My mother preferred to pay for her care rather than be on the government dole. Now she has no choice."
I'll be curious to see that, if like the other bogus such stories I've read from right-wing news outlets regarding people's new insurance plans, this story is as well, but for the time being, I'll treat it as accurate due to the confusion such stories bring me.
One reason I have doubt is the author of the article comes across like a Fox News anchor, as she says this early in her piece:
"The unaffordable ObamaCare-compliant plan that her insurer offered in a Sept. 26 letter is not what makes my mother's story noteworthy. Countless individually insured Americans have received such letters; many are seeing more radical increases in premiums and deductibles."
The "Unaffordable" Care Act? How clever... Also, "countless" individually insured Americans? Countless - that's... ::begins counting, before quitting at a billion:: ...yeah, that's quite a number of people right there. Lastly, "radical increases in premiums and deductibles?" Reports have shown that since the Affordable Care Act was signed and has been slowly getting implemented, this country's insurance costs have been rising at the slowest rate in quite some time. So, again, I see a great deal of exaggeration in this early paragraph, which makes me think this article is less about concern for this woman's mother and more about attempting to place Obamacare in a negative light.
Later in the article, Ms. Hopkins wrote:
"...There was just one option-at the very affordable monthly rate of zero. The exchange had determined that my mother was not eligible to choose to pay for a plan, and so she was slated immediately for Medicaid. She couldn't believe it was true and held off completing the application.
'How has it come to this?' ... 'How have I fallen this far?'
In 2011, she had to give up her real-estate license; as a newer agent, she did not stand to earn enough in the tough market to justify the fees to renew...
Unable to secure employer-sponsored health care, she had, until this fall, chosen to pay $276 a month for bare-bones catastrophic coverage...
Of course, Medicaid is not a new option for my mother; she knew that she was poor enough to qualify for cost-free health care. It was a deliberate choice on her part to pay that monthly $276 out of her own pocket...
'I just don't expect anything positive out of getting free health care,' she said. 'I don't see why other people should have to pay for my care, whether it be through taxes or otherwise.' In paying for health insurance herself-she won't accept help from her family either-she was safeguarding her dignity and independence and her sense of being a fully functioning member of society.
For the truly poor, being institutionally forced to take welfare is demoralizing. The Affordable Care Act is at risk of systematizing learned helplessness by telling individuals like my mother that they cannot afford to care for themselves in the way they could before the law was enacted...
My mother grew up, one of sex children, in a dairy-farming family in Wisconsin. 'The way I was raised, taking government handouts is shameful,' she said.
I'm proud to see the spiritedness and resolve that bears my mother up even now. Such character does not draw attention to itself: Its spark only catches the eye when oppression seeks to snuff it out."
First off, Ms. Hopkins' mother's only option was the very affordable rate of zero per month? I thought it was the Unaffordable Care Act...
On a more serious note, I understand why many people want to feel a sense of independence - a sense that they can take care of themselves, but I'm sorry to say, there's no such thing as a completely independent person and I think many have been wrongfully shamed for perhaps being slightly more dependent on the government than others. Due to Social Security and Medicare, should all elders feel no sense of worth? Due to a debilitating injury sustained overseas in war, should a soldier feel shame for having to go on disability when he or she returns home? Should working people without vehicles feel shame for depending upon public transportation to get to and from work? Should a working single mother of three feel shame for being a food-stamp recipient? Should students feel shame for needing student loans? Should the public at large feel shame for depending on police and firefighters to protect us or for needing roads to drive upon to make a living? To one extent or another, we all depend on the government. Some of us may depend on it more so than others - either temporarily or permanently - but I see no need to feel shame for this.
I often times see our government as parental figures - doing everything in their power to move us into the right direction and to help us when times call for it. Should children feel shame depending upon their parents until a certain age or perhaps when things get tough later in life and they need a helping hand? There's no such thing as a perfect life or a fully independent life. While there are choices each and every one of us can make in life, often times, many are born into situations where their choices are immediately condensed, and unfortunately, the likelihood of them needing aid from the government increases. This world shouldn't make us feel worthless if we're even the slightest bit dependent on government. We're all dealt different cards in life. No matter how dependent we might be on the government, our parents, or someone else, we should try to just be happy with what we have, be thankful for any help we receive along the way, and make the very best hand of the cards we were dealt, which hopefully results in feelings of both joy and accomplishment.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303531204579207724152219590
I'll be curious to see that, if like the other bogus such stories I've read from right-wing news outlets regarding people's new insurance plans, this story is as well, but for the time being, I'll treat it as accurate due to the confusion such stories bring me.
One reason I have doubt is the author of the article comes across like a Fox News anchor, as she says this early in her piece:
"The unaffordable ObamaCare-compliant plan that her insurer offered in a Sept. 26 letter is not what makes my mother's story noteworthy. Countless individually insured Americans have received such letters; many are seeing more radical increases in premiums and deductibles."
The "Unaffordable" Care Act? How clever... Also, "countless" individually insured Americans? Countless - that's... ::begins counting, before quitting at a billion:: ...yeah, that's quite a number of people right there. Lastly, "radical increases in premiums and deductibles?" Reports have shown that since the Affordable Care Act was signed and has been slowly getting implemented, this country's insurance costs have been rising at the slowest rate in quite some time. So, again, I see a great deal of exaggeration in this early paragraph, which makes me think this article is less about concern for this woman's mother and more about attempting to place Obamacare in a negative light.
Later in the article, Ms. Hopkins wrote:
"...There was just one option-at the very affordable monthly rate of zero. The exchange had determined that my mother was not eligible to choose to pay for a plan, and so she was slated immediately for Medicaid. She couldn't believe it was true and held off completing the application.
'How has it come to this?' ... 'How have I fallen this far?'
In 2011, she had to give up her real-estate license; as a newer agent, she did not stand to earn enough in the tough market to justify the fees to renew...
Unable to secure employer-sponsored health care, she had, until this fall, chosen to pay $276 a month for bare-bones catastrophic coverage...
Of course, Medicaid is not a new option for my mother; she knew that she was poor enough to qualify for cost-free health care. It was a deliberate choice on her part to pay that monthly $276 out of her own pocket...
'I just don't expect anything positive out of getting free health care,' she said. 'I don't see why other people should have to pay for my care, whether it be through taxes or otherwise.' In paying for health insurance herself-she won't accept help from her family either-she was safeguarding her dignity and independence and her sense of being a fully functioning member of society.
For the truly poor, being institutionally forced to take welfare is demoralizing. The Affordable Care Act is at risk of systematizing learned helplessness by telling individuals like my mother that they cannot afford to care for themselves in the way they could before the law was enacted...
My mother grew up, one of sex children, in a dairy-farming family in Wisconsin. 'The way I was raised, taking government handouts is shameful,' she said.
I'm proud to see the spiritedness and resolve that bears my mother up even now. Such character does not draw attention to itself: Its spark only catches the eye when oppression seeks to snuff it out."
First off, Ms. Hopkins' mother's only option was the very affordable rate of zero per month? I thought it was the Unaffordable Care Act...
On a more serious note, I understand why many people want to feel a sense of independence - a sense that they can take care of themselves, but I'm sorry to say, there's no such thing as a completely independent person and I think many have been wrongfully shamed for perhaps being slightly more dependent on the government than others. Due to Social Security and Medicare, should all elders feel no sense of worth? Due to a debilitating injury sustained overseas in war, should a soldier feel shame for having to go on disability when he or she returns home? Should working people without vehicles feel shame for depending upon public transportation to get to and from work? Should a working single mother of three feel shame for being a food-stamp recipient? Should students feel shame for needing student loans? Should the public at large feel shame for depending on police and firefighters to protect us or for needing roads to drive upon to make a living? To one extent or another, we all depend on the government. Some of us may depend on it more so than others - either temporarily or permanently - but I see no need to feel shame for this.
I often times see our government as parental figures - doing everything in their power to move us into the right direction and to help us when times call for it. Should children feel shame depending upon their parents until a certain age or perhaps when things get tough later in life and they need a helping hand? There's no such thing as a perfect life or a fully independent life. While there are choices each and every one of us can make in life, often times, many are born into situations where their choices are immediately condensed, and unfortunately, the likelihood of them needing aid from the government increases. This world shouldn't make us feel worthless if we're even the slightest bit dependent on government. We're all dealt different cards in life. No matter how dependent we might be on the government, our parents, or someone else, we should try to just be happy with what we have, be thankful for any help we receive along the way, and make the very best hand of the cards we were dealt, which hopefully results in feelings of both joy and accomplishment.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303531204579207724152219590
Comments
Post a Comment