Goodbye, ACA.

So, UOAA finally did something about the impending loss of the ACA.

I don't want to sound too bleak or nihilistic, but this feels like the 11th hour rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic for healthcare reform. Where were you during the actual election, letting people know that the ACA and the benefits it brought people were on the line?

Another, much better author than me posted an article about how not to talk to people suddenly realizing that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing and providing them with needed health insurance, and my question is very close to "What did you think was going to happen?"

While Trump down-played it, just about every Congressional Republican currently seated ran on a platform of repealing the ACA, calling it Obamacare. They've been running on that for the past 6 years or so. And winning! They've been sending repeal after repeal bill to the White House. Obama vetoed all of them of course.

But HOLY SHIT! He's not president anymore.

I think these bullet points for the UOAA offer a good point of discussion, though:

• prohibit pre-existing condition discrimination
• allow young adults to stay on family coverage until they are 26
• limit out-of-pocket costs for patients
• restrict lifetime and annual caps on benefits

I think only an absolute psychopath would think any of those are bad. But both bullet points 3 and 4 acknowledge an important fact: stuff costs money! Four is still good: it's concrete.

But bullet 3 is a problem. Because it's a nice generality lacking something all good policies involving money need: specifics. It's nice to limit costs to patients. But it's expensive to become a doctor or a nurse. It's expensive to develop medicines and medical technology. It's expensive run hospitals, pharmacies, and medical offices.

But you also have to be an idiot not to see that pharmaceutical and medical supply companies do make a ridiculous amount of money. Just a ludicrous amount. And, unfortunately, off of the backs of sick people. Frequently making them sick and poor.

So what do we do? Cap the prices of medical goods and services? Adopt a progressive income tax shifting the burdens off of the poor? I don't know. That sounds like socialism. Honestly, how else are we going to limit costs to patients? No really. Tell me in the comments.

UOAA, I get why you don't want to suggest it. Socialism-like suggestions will get you labeled as a political group, and you probably figure that issues of people's health shouldn't be political. You're right, and I agree with you. But, as I mentioned, private companies and individuals make a ridiculous amount of money off of healthcare. And they pay our politicians and media a lot of money to make the issue political. Hell, I'm guessing the UOAA gets a lot of money from companies like Convatec. And why not? Convatec's products do help people with ostomies. For money, of course. And why not? It costs money to make that stuff.

But still, UOAA, and any all organizations representing poor and sick people, nut (or ovary) up! Tell sick poor people what these people they're about to vote for are campaigning on vis a vis healthcare.

Don't get me wrong. You should still totally join the advocacy campaign! Granted, it seems we're having difficulty even reaching some Congresspeople right now. So far only Jeff Flake's office bothered to grace my e-mail with a robo-response. Granted, those Congresspeople might learn that their decisions aren't good with their constituents. And that would just be terrible, right?

Well, constituents, learn to keep that fresh in your memory. In two years, you'll have an opportunity to let those elected officials know about your displeasure by firing them from their job.