Online delays signal strong demand for health care (um, no)

[No Elephants]

Oct 3, 12:20 AM EDT

Online delays signal strong demand for health care

By JULIET WILLIAMS and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press

Dear Juliet and Ricardo, no one is getting medical treatment or anything remotely like health care on the government website.

Americans are trying to figure out what the law now requires them to do about health insurance. Health insurance does not = health care; and trying to figure out what the law requires of you does not equal a strong demand for health insurance.

I don't want to be unfair, because you may not have written the headline. However, the headline bs.

Media needs to quit being the propaganda arm of the government.

[Enthusiast]

1. I actually do believe

it might indicate a strong demand for insurance coverage. People might believe if they are insured under the new rules it might protect them from the catastrophic consequences of a serious illness. Millions of Americans are at risk of bankruptcy if the get ill. As if it isn't bad enough just to get ill.

I agree the media is the misinformation branch of the government(and industry too).

[No Elephants]

2. Even if you believe that, it says nothing about a strong demand for health care.

People don't go to a government website for health care.

They go when it is time for a check up or follow up visit or if they think they are sick or experiencing unusual symptoms.


I don't think conflating health insurance with health care helps anyone.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration did conflate, which opened the way for those ludicrous Koch brothers ad showing Uncle Sam about to give a male a proctologist type exam and a female a gynecological exam--something, btw, that is not as intrusive as the transvaginal exams red states mandate for pregnant women seeking to exercise a constitutional right of reproductive choice. (Let's hope Democrats make that point.)

[Enthusiast]

3. But I believe it does indicate

the desire for health care insurance. People are desperate for coverage. Millions of people are desperate. And the ACA is just the way to get it. Maybe it isn't the best way, that would be medicare for all. But the ACA is far better than not having any coverage at all or being denied care because you have a preexisting condition.

[No Elephants]

4. Medicare for all or a strong public option (which would eventually led to Medicare for all)

And no individual mandate.

I think the health insurers will eventually lobby to have the Medicare age lowered, so that the government gets all the most expensive profits and the insurers get nothing but money and healthy people (for the most part). And this will be more "evidence" that the private sector functions more efficiently.

But, yes, it's good that people with pre-existing conditions get covered. If the pre-existing condition is severe enough to be disabling, they are already eligible for Medicare. No one wants to be disabled, but disabled with Medicare is better than disabled without Medicare.