[Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] [Announce] Fw: CLNews: Presidential Candidates and Single Payer

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

John,

 

At least your friend was honest.  Personally, I have been fortunate enough
to have some doctors in private practice ( general practitioners and
specialists) who have been more than generous in what they were willing to
provide me for free or at a very significant discount, knowing that I have
no insurance and no Medicare coverage.  I even recently received a very
generous deal from Provena Covenent with respect to the hospital costs of a
colonoscopy and endoscopy.  I have been lucky, I guess; and have no
complaints with respect to THEM.  I do have complaints concerning the
for-profit health related operations which some of the facilities and
doctors cub-contract out to for lab work and the like.  They tend to charge
top dollar and have no discounts for people without insurance, although they
have payment plans.  However, I have yet to find one of them with a payment
plan that is geared to the poor without insurance (i.e., a plan along the
lines of a dollar down and the rest when you catch me).  They typically
either want payments in significant amounts vis-a-vis the total bill paid
regularly on a monthly basis until the total is paid off or they place
significant late and other fees and interest on the amount owed so that the
customer without insurance or money is unable to make any dent in the
principle. Thus, a patient without insurance may wind up owing more for
these sub-contracted medical services than they can afford even if their
doctors and medical facilities cut them significant breaks or even furnish
services free.

 

A different scenario exists for ordinary patients with ordinary health
insurance; here the insurance companies nickel and dime the patient to death
with definitions of customary and usual fees, deductibles, out-of-pocket
exceptions, and the like.  The result is that the patient with such
insurance may often wind up going into debt covering medical costs even with
insurance.  I remember when I did have a health insurance policy; it cost me
before I dropped it because of costs (I was self-employed) around $800 per
month for premiums for a policy with a $5,000 deductable and 80/20 coverage
for the first $10,000 of covered expenses with the insurance picking up the
entire costs of covered expenses after the first $10,000.  By the time all
was said and done, I would have to put out around $15,000 before I could
collect dime one; and even then I would have to pick up additional costs t
hat were excluded because of the companies conception of customary and usual
as well as its bundling policies.  Now that was an ordinary policy for a
single self-employed adult in their fifties.  Moreover, each year the
premiums would increase by around $300 per month for the same policy with
some coverages shrinking.

 

What is needed but not being proposed or even discussed is not single payer
or private subsidized insurance; it is UNIVERSAL health care coverage for
everyone for all health concerns as an entitlement.  Single payer only
refers to the source of the funds paying for the services but not who is
entitled to what.  Moreover, little or no attention is being paid to the
fact that data pertaining to what is customary and usual fees for a given
region as used by insurance companies and or government are not transparent
and open to public accessibility but are deemed proprietary data closed to
public viewing.  Thus the medical profession and facilities may use one set
of standards for customary and usual while the payers are using another with
the patient being responsible for the difference; moreover, bundling rules
with respect to the costing of multiple services and procedures are also
regarded by the payers as proprietary and not open to the public which
results in the medical industry charging per procedure or service while t he
payer may only pay for one (usually the more expensive) of the various
related services or procedures with the patient being responsible for paying
the rest. 

 

 What we need is an open non-proprietary public listing of costs and prices
that all are forced to abide by with a standard public set of applicable
and appropriate bundling rules.  We also need  to get away from this
privatized notion of competitive health care providers and facilities where
each is a profit making entity who is competing with other such entities for
business.  Such a scheme of things results in each entity to be competitive
needing to duplicate expensive equipment (Cat scans, MRIs, etc.) in order to
be viewed as a competent and good full service facility even if the
population base does not support such duplications.  The result is only to
drive up operating and capital costs for health care in that region due to
inefficient usage for the equipment and facilities which means that health
care becomes unaffordable for most who are forced to pick and choose among
needed services based on the costs of those services and what they or their
payer can afford to expend.

 

But this is all a pipe dream since no one (candidate, officeholder, or
public) are demanding this, willing to withdraw all support financial and
political for anyone who is not working toward this as well as nay parties
and organizations that might support people who are not proposing and
fighting of such things.  There is no such thing as a free lunch; and
citizens need to be willing to literally fight for what they want and need,
giving no quarter to those who do not heed their demands.  Just think what a
general strike and shut down of the country would bring by way of change if
only people were willing to sacrifice their comfort, well being, bodies, and
lives to obtain what they want. If we only lived in that virtual world were
such a fantasy were a possibility.

 

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W.
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:37 PM
To: Marti Wilkinson; unionyes
Cc: Peace Discuss; C-U Citzens for Peace and Justice
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] [Announce] Fw: CLNews: Presidential
Candidates and Single Payer 

 

At 10:11 PM 2/22/2008, Marti Wilkinson wrote:




It's important to know that quality medical care in the United States favors
people who can best afford it. I've had really good medical insurance and
really crappy medical insurance and I can truthfully state that the better
care comes with better insurance.  Yet, even with what can be considered to
be GOOD insurance a medical crisis can have a negative impact on ones
finances. As a single parent, and cancer survivor, I can certainly attest to
that. Even though I am blessed to be cancer free I will very likely spend
the next several years recovering from the damage to both my credit and my
financial well being.  That being said I still have a roof over my head,
food in the house, and clothes on my back. I'm hoping that my pursuit of a
graduate degree will help me financially in the long run.

For me it's a much bigger picture. We need good medical care. We also need
to pay citizens a living wage and have access to affordable housing. Yet,
there seems to be this attitude that somehow if a person gets sick or is
poor then it's somehow a human failing. In order for anyone to be able to
pull themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps...one needs a pair of boots.


Peace, Marti



A couple of years ago I was having some physical symptoms.  Here in C-U I
went to the Frances Nelson Health Center, as poor people without health
insurance are wont to do.  While one is treated with respect at Frances
Nelson, the quality of health care one receives is limited by their budget,
by what they can do in-house, and by how busy they are.  They basically gave
me a physical exam and a blood test, then prescribed medications.  After
several months the medications didn't seem to be helping, and Frances Nelson
didn't seem interested in doing anything further by way of diagnosis.  They
simply weren't suggesting anything new to do, and often what one does NOT
say is more important than what one DOES say.  They were content to just
have me keep taking the medications that weren't helping.

Now I happen to have a friend in Chicago who's a doctor, an internist.  I
went to high school with him, and we were best friends then.  We've grown
somewhat apart over the years, but he's still my last best friend from high
school.  So the next time I saw him, as a friend, I described my symptoms to
him as best I could, and asked him, "Now how would you, as an internist, go
about diagnosing my problem?  What sort of tests would you perform?"  

He looked me right straight in the eye and said, "It would depend on what
kind of health insurance you had."  And that was the end of the
conversation.

John Wason






On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:05 PM, unionyes <unionyes at ameritech.net > wrote:

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net >

To: "Robert Stanton" < robert.l.stanton at gmail.com
<mailto:robert.l.stanton at gmail.com> >

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 8:00 PM

Subject: Re: [Discuss] Fw: [Announce] Fw: CLNews: Presidential Candidates
and Single Payer



> I think were dealing in semantics here.

> 

> Do you think people should be allowed to die because they are not able to

> afford health care ?

> 

> Or that people should lose everthing that they have worked for all of

> their lives ( in particular their homes ) because of a serious illness or

> long-term care situiation ?

> 

> That is what I am talking about.

> 

> This does NOT happen in any industrialized ( ie. rich, developed )

> economy/ country in the world EXCEPT the United States.

 

> ----- Original Message -----

> 

> From: "Robert Stanton" < <mailto:robert.l.stanton at gmail.com>
robert.l.stanton at gmail.com>

> To: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net >

> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 5:10 PM

> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Fw: [Announce] Fw: CLNews: Presidential Candidates
and Single Payer

> 

>> Hello,

>> 

>> I don't disagree with you regarding the need for fully-funded, without

>> guilt, and destigmatized universal health care.  I think that must be

>> said before I mention anything else.

>> 

>> I'm somewhat confused as to why health care is a "basic human right."

>> It's not as though people are being oppressed or held back from a

>> naturally occurring or flowing source of health care, at least not

>> directly.

>> 

>> If we look to our origins, what could be termed "health care" in early

>> or "primitive" human societies was indeed universally available

>> (however, our ancestors had no need to think in terms of property or

>> rights), however it was not highly industrialized.  Care was simple,

>> homeopathic, and often not particularly effective.  There are many

>> examples of broken bones that healed poorly and infections/diseases

>> where root and leaf tinctures were not useful.  If a member of a tribe

>> was banished, which was not uncommon, care was typically no longer

>> available to that individual.  That being said, tribal outsiders could

>> expect to be given care freely, if it was needed.  From this, we see

>> that notions of health care were very much in flux and not necessarily

>> guaranteed.  As far as I know, notions of health care have only become

>> more restricted with the advent of civilization.

>> 

>> My current thinking is that people should receive the best healthcare

>> (and a heavy focus on preventative health information) technological

>> society can offer because their health and well-being are ultimately

>> ruined by that same technological society.  I see it more as a matter

>> of justice than rights.

>> 

>> If you would tell me why you think health care is a human right, I

>> would be pleased to listen.

>> 

>> Sincerely,

>> Robert

>> 

>> 

>> On 2/22/08, unionyes <unionyes at ameritech.net > wrote:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> ----- Original Message -----

>>> From: unionyes

>>> To: Nora Whipple

>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:01 PM

>>> Subject: Re: [Announce] Fw: CLNews: Presidential Candidates and Single

>>> Payer

>>> 

>>> 

>>> No,

>>> 

>>> The best universal Health Care Plan would be what exists in every

>>> industrialized country in the world EXCEPT the U.S., and that would be
to

>>> expand the Medicare program for every man, woman and child. 100%
healthcare

>>> with no deductables, co-pays, non covered procedures, etc. that is used
by

>>> the present corporate for profit system we have now, to rip us off.

>>> Not to mention the 8 - 10,000 people who die every year in this country
who

>>> are denied health care, and the untold number who suffer needlessly,
just so

>>> some rich bastards can get richer at our expense.

>>> Health care should not be treated as a luxury, it is a basic human
right!

>>> And ANY politician who supports the current barbaric, inefficient for
profit

>>> health care system is a sell out to the corporate special interests,
pure

>>> and simple! 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080223/e211b4d3/attachment.htm