Government exempting itself from Obamacare rules

The government often exempts itself from rules the rest of us must follow, and it appears Obamacare is no exception. I recently discovered that Medicare Part A is considered to be qualifying coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Yet compare Medicare part A to Obamacare requirements:

Ambulatory patient services (outpatient care you get without being admitted to a hospital)	NO
Emergency services	NO
Hospitalization (like surgery and overnight stays)	YES
Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care (both before and after birth)	In hospital childbirth only
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment (this includes counseling and psychotherapy)	Only inpatient hospital
Prescription drugs	NO
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (services and devices to help people with injuries, disabilities, or chronic conditions gain or recover mental and physical skills)	Inpatient care center only
Laboratory services	Only when in hospital
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management	NO
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care (but adult dental and vision coverage aren’t essential health benefits)	NO

So Medicare Part A fully covers one of the ten services listed and partially covers an additional four. Yet the government considers this to be "qualifying coverage". No private health plan can offer only inpatient care (as Medicare Part A does), but Medicare gets a pass form the government.

Your government at work.

Going overboard charging crimes

I just saw an example of (in my opinion) excessive criminal charges in a crime. A man was arrested for chasing cars with a nail gun and a knife. He had apparently stopped taking his psych meds. He was (rightly in my opinion) charged with felony menacing for chasing the cars. Hopefully the authorities will be able to help the man with his psychiatric problems and keep him from again chasing after cards.

However, they also charged him with child abuse, a much more serious felony. How was chasing after (random) cars turned into a child abuse charge? Apparently there was a young child in one of the cars he chased. Most of us think of child abuse as a direct assault on a child. In this case it was by chance that one of the cars the man chased had a child in it, resulting in the more serious charge.

This man should certainly get help, but charging him with child abuse because one of the cars he ran at had a child in it makes a mockery of the law. If any number of people are convicted of child abuse for reasons similar to this it makes the conviction meaningless -- did somebody really abuse a child or is it just there was a child nearby when some other crime was committed?