<div>Thanks for this, Claudia. It's a start. In ALL of the reading I've done about the new health care reform legislation, and all of the media reportage, I have never once seen most of the information you present here, which sheds light rather than heat on the discussion. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In fact, several times in the past and once very recently when I've done a web search on Medicaid and tried to find out what the rules and requirements are, I've never even remotely been able to figure it out. It's a hodgepodge of programs, and seems to be some sort of strange hybrid between the states and the federal government. The information that's out there is utterly incomprehensible to me, and never seems to apply to my situation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A few more comments and questions below.<br></div>
<div><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Claudia Lennhoff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:claudia@shout.net">claudia@shout.net</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">This is a pretty disappointing and unhelpful turn of the discussion.<br><br>If someone wants to know whether and how they will benefit from this plan, you can e-mail me -- I'll ask you some questions, and then get back to you with some information.<br>
<br>"The working poor will not benefit from this bill." Really? Explain to me how the working poor will not benefit.<br><br>Is it because you have the idea that "those of us who make around $1000/month will NEVER, EVER be able to afford the $200-300/month minimum premiums?" Where is it that you have read that if you have a $12,000 a year income, you will have to purchase health insurance with a premium of up to $300/mo.? This is simply not true under the health reform law.<br>
<br>Here are some facts about the new health reform law (this doesn't include what is in the budget reconciliation bill, since that has not yet passed) (oh yeah, and this information does NOT come from the corporate media or the Democratic party -- those are not CCHCC's go-to sources):<br>
<br>Medicaid is being expanded tremendously, AND the assets test is being done away with (so, having burial insurance will no longer push you over the limit financially and prevent you from qualifying for Medicaid), as well as the requirement that Medicaid only be available to adults who have minor children (many states have this requirement).<br>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>One thing I DID figure out from researching Medicaid is that if you have a $250,000 home, completely paid for, that asset is exempt from the Medicaid assets test, even under current Illinois law. But if you have, say, $3,000 in a bank account, you're ineligible. Since most of the poor have to rent and don't own a home, it's a pretty incredible subsidy of home ownership, and manages to exclude a great many of the genuinely poor.</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>So, this means that, under the new law (the budget reconciliation act will expand it further), single or married adults, working or non-working, parents or non-parents, who have incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,412 annual for an individual; $24,360 annual for a family of 3) will be eligible for Medicaid health insurance, and will have NO premiums.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>All right. So if an individual has an annual income of $14,413, they're simply ineligible for Medicaid? There's no graduated fee structure so that they could pay a few bucks a month and get it? (That would be a public option, wouldn't it?)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How do the Medicaid people know what a person's income is? Can they access our IRS records for the info?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And what about funding for Medicaid? Where does it come from? It seems to me that the states are complaining that they can't afford it, or have to cut back on it, for lack of funds.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, is there now a requirement in the new legislation that doctors and hospitals HAVE to take Medicaid patients and give them an equal quality of care?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Moving on....</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>You think this won't help the working poor? Consider the working poor of Missouri. Current Medicaid eligibility in Missouri is dismal.<br>
<br>A working parent in Missouri *may* qualify for Medicaid if their income is at 42% of the federal poverty level or below. That is an income of about $4,500. That's right -- $4,500 annual income. You must earn BELOW that, to qualify for Medicaid.<br>
<br>Now take a non-working parent in Missouri. They *may* qualify for Medicaid in Missouri if their income is at 22% federal poverty level or below. That is an annual income of under $2,400.<br><br>There are states with even worse Medicaid eligibility criteria than Missouri -- imagine having to have an income lower than $3,000 annually in order to qualify for Medicaid. And now it will go up to at least $14,412.<br>
<br>Medicaid is a public option health insurance requiring no premium, and typically no co-pays (co-pays may be between $1 - $3).<br></blockquote>
<div>That's very nice indeed - if you qualify, if the money is actually there, and if the health care system has to take Medicaid patients.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>A huge proportion of the people who may not qualify for Medicaid but will instead get private insurance through the health exchange will qualify for subsidies to help make that insurance more affordable.<br>
<br>For example, an individual making $24,000 who has to buy private health insurance will be asked to pay 31% of the health insurance premium, up to $1,693 annually. An individual making $19,000 will be asked to pay 18% of the premium, up to $982 a year.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>This is good. But of course the question arises - what KIND of health insurance plan do you get for these premiums? Will it actually cover the care you need if you get sick?</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>There will be no co-pays or co-insurance for preventive care visits -- so mammograms, annual exams, colonoscopies, etc. will not cost anything out of pocket. There will be caps on out-of-pocket expenses so if someone requires a lot of care and has to pay co-pays or co-insurance, they will have financial protection from having huge medical debt.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>Here's something I've always wondered about. For years I've seen ads on TV about free mammograms that poor women can get, furnished (I guess) by the state of Illinois. Wonderful if you don't have breast cancer - great peace of mind. But what if you DO, and have no health insurance? Now you've got breast cancer, no way to actually TREAT it, and a pre-existing condition on your record. Fabulous. Let's hope the new legislation clears all that up.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>People want to talk about the cost of paying for health insurance as being prohibitive, but fail to ever talk about the fact that having no insurance is cost-prohibitive in a very real way.<br>
<br>Uninsured people delay, forego, and are refused care when they need it. A price is paid for that. Maybe it's in the form of higher cost for care when care is finally sought. It's certainly in the form of suffering and being ill longer, and perhaps dying prematurely. And it may also take the form of lost wages from work missed. Those are real costs being paid now all the time.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>No question about it. The po' folk are out there just hoping against hope that they won't get sick. It's not like they're calculating the cost of having health insurance vs. the cost of not having it, and making a rational decision based on a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis. They simply don't have the money. Period.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>No one has said that this is a "great" health plan -- so to characterize people's positions that way is divisive and disingenuous.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>I'm not sure that's been done in this thread. All I said was that the people with great health insurance have the luxury of being philosophical and speaking in abstractions about taking a "wait and see" attitude and so on. Those of us without health insurance and growing older by the day - well, shucks, maybe we do get a mite carried away, and get emotional, and don't always behave in the calmly rational manner that is expected of us. If you were a divorce lawyer you'd see otherwise sane people ranting and raving like lunatics in your office, and hopefully you'd understand why. I'll make no apologies for being emotional in an insane and profoundly inequitable society like the one we live in here. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>It is also inaccurate and intentionally divisive, it seems to me, to suggest that those who currently have health insurance support this health reform law and do not support single payer, while those who are uninsured support single payer and not this health reform. I work with thousands of individuals from our community and this is just not the case.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>No one suggested that. Again, it was merely suggested that those with health insurance have the luxury of being more calmly sanguine about a bad bill, and willing to wait for a better one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>Also, I might note that many of the people on these listservs who support this health reform (not because it's "great" or "perfect" but because it will help people and it is better than nothing) are, and have been actively involved in working for single payer.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>Yes indeed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>CCHCC held a couple of single payer events last year. I remember all the people who participated and lent their support (thank you!). There will be more to come on single payer and people will have plenty of opportunity to do real work for single payer.<br>
<br>But the single payer movement is NOT helped by half-truths or falsehoods about the current health reform law. It is perfectly fine and good to critique the current health reform law, but it is really disingenuous and dangerous to say that it will not help people. That's simply not true.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>That's why I hope that you and CCHCC will continue to shed all the light you possibly can on the various health care reform developments as they come down the pike. In the absence of light, we can hardly be blamed for groping around in the dark. Our legislators are certainly not helping to illuminate matters, are they?</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>The single payer movement will require people to be informed, and be willing to educate, and not attack others with whom they do not agree completely.<br>
<br>Sincerely,<br><br>Claudia Lennhoff, CCHCC Executive Director </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for all you do, Claudia. I feel quite safe in saying that all of us on this listserv appreciate you and your efforts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>John Wason</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">On 3/25/10 6:59 PM, unionyes wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im"><br><br>To Jenifer and the rest of you that think the Obama so called " health<br>care reform bill " is so great and that any of us who criticize it don't<br>care about their fellow human beings.<br>
First of all, I want to ask Jenifer if she has health insurance and if<br>so what type ?<br>Secondly, this posting by Dave P. sums up my feelings perfectly.<br>WE, the working poor, Myself included, are the ones who will NOT benefit<br>
from this Bill.<br>Easy for many of the rest of you to say it is so great when you already<br>have health insurance and won't have to face the prospect of a fine and<br>still have no health care.<br>As Dave P. states below, Single Payer IS the ONLY REAL public option.<br>
Again, most of you who support the Obama plan, already have health<br>insurance and / or you are relying on info provided to you via the<br>corporate media and the democratic party.<br>Who along with the repubs prevented for day one ANY discussion about<br>
single payer.<br>David J.<br>----- Original Message -----<br></div>
<div class="im">*From:* <a href="mailto:pengdust@aol.com" target="_blank">pengdust@aol.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pengdust@aol.com" target="_blank">pengdust@aol.com</a>><br>*To:* <a href="mailto:ls1000@live.com" target="_blank">ls1000@live.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ls1000@live.com" target="_blank">ls1000@live.com</a>> ; <a href="mailto:jbw292002@gmail.com" target="_blank">jbw292002@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:jbw292002@gmail.com" target="_blank">jbw292002@gmail.com</a>> ; <a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" target="_blank">galliher@illinois.edu</a><br><mailto:<a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" target="_blank">galliher@illinois.edu</a>><br>
*Cc:* <a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br></div>
<div class="im"><mailto:<a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>> ;<br><a href="mailto:discuss@lists.communitycourtwatch.org" target="_blank">discuss@lists.communitycourtwatch.org</a><br>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><mailto:<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.communitycourtwatch.org" target="_blank">discuss@lists.communitycourtwatch.org</a>><br>*Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:54 AM<br>*Subject:* Re: [Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?<br>
<br>As an anarchist and a "precarious-shit-worker" who does do the<br>'grub-work,' I take offense to this "individualistic libertarian<br>anarchists" claim. We, anarcho-PSWs, do not have cushy university jobs<br>
with health-care, sick days, vacations, living wages... or the time,<br>privelege, and luxury for academic debates. It is true, those of us who<br>make around $1000/month will NEVER, EVER be able to afford the<br>$200-300/month minimum premiums to fucking corporations after paying<br>
some $400 in rent alone! [Add $200-300/loans in student loans, $150 in<br>other bills, etc... and there's nothing left for food. Keeps me in my<br>boyish figure I guess /;-)/ ] Simply, everyday life is always a losing<br>
battle... we're working-poor and we're FUCKED, this is real. And, the<br>$700 penalty on top of taxes will only make things worse! Now, for those<br>who make some $40,000/yr this all may be doable, and an improvement, but<br>
for many of us who don't it's completely impossible unless the feds pay<br>%100 of our premiums.... i.e., SINGLE-PAYER. So, single-payer is the<br>ONLY improvement for us, and the ONLY solution that was never on the<br>
table! [thanks to Both Dems and Reps]<br></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.