It’s not the website

aca photoMuch of the noise about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) recently has been about the nonfunctional website.  That makes sense in that the ACA forces people to get insurance but the website makes doing so impossible.  However, I think the larger issue is what happens after the website is running.  Dr. Jane Orient of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)  discusses the idea that the ACA is a system designed to fail.  When that happens, government can then take over insurance and medicine both.   When resources are limited, governments have to make priorities.  They generally give resources to the most productive while withholding them otherwise.  That means that the elderly, and (more germane to me), children, are likely to get last place in the line for medical resources.  Although, I am worried for the elderly (I hope to be included in their ranks one day), as a pediatrician, I feel the need to fight for what is best for children.  I do not think that includes supporting the ACA.

–A pediatrician

4 Responses to “It’s not the website”

  1. rom mckinney January 29, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    I feel just the opposite. The ACA IS what’s best for children and their families, too. For the first time many children and their parents are going to have health insurance and that’s good for us all. Already children can stay on their parents’ insurance until 26 and those (like my child) with a serious pre-existing condition can’t be denied coverage. If we are about stronger families and a stronger society then we should celebrate that the eventually de-kinked ACA will mean better access to health care for many. Medicare was messy when it started too and all sorts of terrible projections were made. Eventually the ACA will help many, many people.

  2. Alfred E. Neuman January 30, 2014 at 3:26 pm #

    That’s a scary thought, that maybe the whole thing was designed to fail so that the government can take over the private health insurance companies. Yikes! It certainly wouldn’t surprise me! Regarding allocation of resources, I think children will still get priority due to their longer life expectancy than adults (better return on investment), except maybe premies or those with chronic medical conditions that aren’t a good bargain. I’m sure Viagra, Levitra and Cialis will still be a priority though 🙂 All joking aside, it’s hard to believe a government committee would make decisions on where healthcare dollars should go and who should receive them. It’s fraught with potential disaster and dishonesty!

  3. Dr Randy April 21, 2014 at 7:45 pm #

    Sorry Rom but I disagree. The ACA is not good for families nor children. What it means is that government will provide the insurance and therefore they get to be the ones that make the priorities. What about when their priorities differ from yours? Eventually with decreasing resources amidst greater demand, gov’t will start limiting services where there “is not enough benefit.” My fear is that ultimately kids with disabilities will have care taken away. It has happened before in Germany

  4. Man October 3, 2015 at 12:01 pm #

    Each company varies, and I know there is a bigger push to keep kids on insurance longer, but thats because kids are in college longer. Once they are no longer full time students they cannot be on your insurance. I just recently graduated and haven’t gotten a full time job so I have no insurance. My parents insurance would cover me until I was 26 if I was a full time student. I’m not aware of any company that would vary from this, but I would contact either a benefit administrator or HR person at your company or with the insurance company directly to get more details.

Agree? Disagree? Or just want to share your own experience? Leave a comment. We love to hear from our readers!