- Posted May 18, 2014 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Many of us, myself included, have railed against what we see as an ill-formed, badly written and one-sided passage and implementation of a law known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and commonly referred to as "obamacare".
Those of us in opposition to the ACA are not against all the provisions contained in the law. There are some guarantees such as insuring those pre-existing conditions with which we can agree.
We also generally agree that the health care industry and insurance market needed and needs to be addressed and many issues which need resolved yet to this day.
However, the way the ACA was cobbled together, the fact most legislators had not even read the bill before it was passed and that there were zero votes from Republicans and was passed on Democratic votes only, give many of us pause - even those of us who are independents.
Since the law has begun to take root, often unintended consequences have surfaced which have caused a furor with not only opponents, Republicans and conservatives, but also with the public at large and independents.
The promise that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance" turned out to be patently false. The outcry was intense.
But what I am talking about today is an intended consequence of the ACA.
Recently in one of my Kernels From the Cornfield, I wrote about how Medicaid was changing and people, such as myself, on Social Security were learning we would no longer be eligible - even though we were below or at the poverty level.
The ACA, I had learned through research, was the source of the demise of the spend-down program which made us eligible by having to dispose of X-amount of income each moth before Medicaid kicked in to help. In my case my spend-down amount was around 40% of my Social Security check each month.
At the time, I spoke of the change to Medicaid eligibility being a result of the ACA. I was accused by a supporter of the ACA that I was making up and blaming the law simply because I opposed the ACA as it is written. The commenter, a liberal member of CNN's iReport community, claimed I was sensationalizing the issue because of my opposition to the law, which I had voiced a couple of years ago on CNN Saturday Morning.
Here is the proof that this change is a direct, intended consequence of the ACA.
As you can see from the letter (image 2) I received from Indiana's Department of Family Services in paragraph 2, the ACA is directly cited for the change and loss of benefit for Medicaid assistance to many of us who were on the spend-down program.
I and others have pointed out over the years that the ACA was taking from Medicare and Medicaid, hurting those of us at the bottom of the ladder, ostensibly to expand insurance coverage to others.
It has not impacted the wealthy or most of the middle class, but has had a direct bearing and added a burden for those of us at the bottom of the socio-economic scale.
How do supporters of the ACA justify this intended consequence?
From the Cornfield, I do not agree with the Republican approach of repeal.
I do agree with the replace and amend the law stance of some in Congress to rectify the evermore apparent unintended and intended consequences of this poorly conceived health insurance reform law.
This law has not and does not address the problems of health care. That issue has yet to be addressed and must not be done in the manner in which the ACA came to be.
We deserve better than what we have had forced on us as a taxing document and upheld by the Supreme Court as such.