We couldn’t afford it before, or now

Here’s what my husband and I have to say about the Affordable Care Act: We have not had health insurance since 2004. I lost my job that had health insurance. All of my jobs since then were temporary with no benefits, and now I’m “retired” unable to find work, and, also, now have health issues which restrict my ability to work many jobs. Without insurance, I have not been able to take care of these health issues.

My husband is self-employed and has been since 1999. He’s in the construction business — new, rehab, remodel, homeowner, business and a real “Jack of all trades.” It has taken him years to build his business and finally make some kind of earnings that now has to take care of mortgage, utilities, food, vehicle costs, taxes, etc.

We looked at getting insurance but the cost was just not anything we could deal with. We struggle month to month with our mortgage, bills, utilities, taxes, food and whatever else comes along. We pay car insurance because it’s required by state law, which makes it a struggle every six months to get the money together to just pay it. And, we know the irony of this situation. But, if we can’t rob Peter to pay Paul, where can we turn to for help?

We struggle month to month because we want to keep our home and vehicles because they are necessary. We struggle because we are trying to stay out of the poverty level that would put us out of house and home. We seem to barely make enough to live on, and yet on paper we make more than poverty level. Yes, if we had a catastrophic event and one of us ended up in the hospital, our home would have to be put up for collateral or we would have to file bankruptcy. That’s the chance we have taken since 2004. Yes, we agree that we need health insurance. We are in our early 60s. I’ve not had any care for my physical disability because we cannot afford it due to not having any health insurance. It’s a Catch-22 situation for us.

If this ACA were treated as a “Medicare” health plan as opposed to a paying health plan (which is profit driven), we would be all for it. We love the idea of a health-care plan for all U.S. citizens that everyone would have, be they rich or poor (why should the rich get better health care than the rest of us?) One health-care plan only.

It’s not right to ask those of us who cannot afford a plan to pay for insurance that we simply cannot afford because we do not fit the criteria for Medicaid or getting discounts. We simply cannot afford nor do we have the monthly income to pay it. Period!

I cannot believe that my husband and I are the only ones experiencing this conundrum. We couldn’t afford insurance before, what makes you think we can afford it now?

My husband and I have to wait until we qualify for Medicare to actually get health care coverage. It’s not going to happen between now and then. So we have to pay the “tax,” or “fine,” whatever it’s being called. That is certainly cheaper than paying for something we cannot afford on a monthly basis. Those of us who are on the low end of money earned each year but are not at “poverty level” are not able to afford this AHA; plain and simple.

Try and stand in our shoes and tell us what to do. We would be interested to know. But, don’t go thinking that we just should fork over the money and get coverage because it’s required by “law.” What are we supposed to not pay in order to pay a premium? What in heaven’s name has changed for those of us who cannot afford health insurance? Nothing! We still cannot afford insurance, plain and not so simple. Talk to us about something we can afford and we’ll listen. Talk to us about something we cannot afford, and we’ll just shake our heads and think, “You have no idea…”

Cindy and Phil Shobe live in Everett.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, May 8

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters during a press conference about the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Wednesday, May 1, 2024. Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major shift in policy that has wide public support, but which is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government. (Valerie Plesch/The New York Times)
Editorial: Federal moves on cannabis encouraging, if incomplete

The Biden administration and the Senate offer sensible proposals to better address marijuana use.

Tom Burke: Don’t know much about history? Better start reading

Reading — anything — matters, but especially before an election with history-making consequences.

Where did Carolyn Hax advice column go?

Recently the Herald has replaced the Carolyn Hax column with Dear Abby.… Continue reading

Why did The Herald add an astrology column in print?

We live in times when accurate information and good science are vital.… Continue reading

Plastics are vital to health care

Regarding a recent letter warning about plastic pollution: For the past six… Continue reading

Climate change, nuclear war threat to life on earth

There is one sentinel topic that has received minimal media attention in… Continue reading

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, May 7

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A radiation warning sign along the road near the Hanford Site in Washington state, on Aug. 10, 2022. Hanford, the largest and most contaminated of all American nuclear weapons production sites, is too polluted to ever be returned to public use. Cleanup efforts are now at an inflection point.  (Mason Trinca/The New York Times)
Editorial: Latest Hanford cleanup plan must be scrutinized

A new plan for treating radioactive wastes offers a quicker path, but some groups have questions.

Maureen Dowd: Consider the three faces of Donald Trump

Past, present and future are visibile in his countenance; an especially grim one on the cover of Time.

Paul Krugman: Still no stag and not much flation

The grumbling about inflation’s slow path to 2 percent isn’t worth steps that risk a recession.

David Brooks: Why past is prologue and protests help Trump

Today’s crowd-sourced protests muddle their message and goals and alienate the quiet disapprovers.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.