[Peace-discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
Claudia Lennhoff
claudia at shout.net
Wed Mar 24 23:30:42 CDT 2010
Dear Dave, and all,
Dave Johnson forwarded this message which contains seriously bad/wrong
advice.
The only reason I'm responding is because this message went to a lot of
people through listservs, and the advice or recommendation in it is so
dangerous that I feel it must be addressed.
Also, I'm tired of some of the very narrow analysis of the health reform
law.
I will say my peace here, and I won't be writing back or engaging in an
e-mail discussion about this, since I already work on health reform and
health system change and am regularly communicating about these issues.
So, for what it's worth, these are the comments I wanted to offer (it's
lengthy, but I hope helpful and interesting, if nothing else).
Regarding what I see as a very dangerous assertion:
Suggesting that a family of four would be better off saving the supposed
$5,243 they would pay for insurance, to go uninsured instead, and use
those "savings" to pay directly for medical care is really bad advice.
That is $437 a month. What if someone gets diagnosed with cancer or has
a car accident and needs emergency surgery and then follow-up care and
physical therapy? A family of four implies 2 - 3 children. Children need
regular health care, and they tend to need more health care visits
throughout the year. What if a child breaks his/her arm. Do people have
any idea how much that costs? An appendicitis would easily wipe out that
amount. The people giving this advice apparently have NO concept of the
cost of care, or the fact that when you run out of money and can't pay
for your care, you are out of luck -- no matter how much chemo you need,
or how much physical therapy you need, etc. Your care stops. What if you
need care, AND a medical device, like a CPAP? If you think it doesn't
happen to cancer patients, think again. We at CCHCC see this situation,
in some form or another, every single day.
How can anyone give such advice? It makes me think that they must be
totally out of touch with the cost of care and the fact that we as
consumers/patients have no knowledge in advance of what we will need,
and what it will cost us. Or maybe these people are proponents of
medical savings accounts? (their suggestion is actually the "logic"
behind medical savings accounts - a bad idea for most people)
Also, where is the consideration about the fact that uninsured consumers
are charged the highest sticker price for care, frequently 2 to 5 times
higher than the cost of care charged to an insurer, and that's part of
why uninsured individuals can amass so much medical debt? This is really
dangerous advice and seems very out of touch.
I don't know much about Jane Hamsher and whether she has health
insurance or is personally wealthy and could forego health insurance
because she has the means to pay for her care directly. I know she's had
cancer and has gotten treatment for it, unlike some of my low-income
uninsured patients. Most people don't have the means to pay for the care
they need out of pocket.
Moving on, I also want to offer this editorial comment:
It's amazing to me how many people want to act like this new law, unlike
the current situation, is a windfall for insurance companies -- AS IF
the current (pre-health reform) situation is not.
Of course the new law is a windfall for insurance companies! But at
least it provides protection to consumers who will be purchasing health
insurance, unlike the current situation, and it forces private insurance
companies to insure those whom they currently refuse to insure or whom
they price out of the market.
If anyone thinks that the current (pre-health reform) situation is not a
windfall for insurance companies, they are sadly mistaken. The fact of
the matter is that insurance companies, right now, because of the lack
of regulation, actually make far more profits by refusing coverage to
many, while jacking up the rates for existing members, than they would
if they tried to insure a larger number of people, including those with
health problems.
In other words, right now, they make record profits from cherry-picking,
denying coverage, and also from the extra $1,000 or more built into
everyone's premiums to cover the cost for the uninsured. And if you
think you're not paying for it even if you don't have health insurance,
think again. You pay taxes, don't you? Most government employees have
health coverage (whether they are teachers, state employees, etc.)
through employment, with private insurance companies, and that's
subsidized by taxpayers.
The current situation is not just a windfall for private insurance -- it
is a tremendous burden for we, the people (directly, and through our
taxes). And what do we get right now? Uninsurance.
Because currently insurance companies do NOT have to insure sick people,
the sick people -- and therefore the costliest people -- frequently land
on the government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare (if they live
long enough to get Medicare), community health centers, and hospital
ER's (all federally subsidized), and the government -- meaning US, the
taxpayers (whether insured or uninsured) pay the lion's share of the
cost of providing care to our nation's sickest (remember also that the
sickest 10% of the people account for 70% of the costs in Medicare).
In other words, right now, even with 45 million uninsured, WE are paying
these high costs, but we are paying with our money, AND our lives
(rather, the uninsured are paying with their lives).
I'm really tired of, and disgusted with, these very narrow analyses
where people act like the current disasterous situation has somehow NOT
been a windfall for insurance companies. It IS a windfall already, AND
people are going uninsured, getting sick and disabled, suffering, and
dying prematurely -- I see this all the time at CCHCC.
I want to see Medicare for all. And we're working on it. But I think
it's dangerous and irresponsible to act as if people will not benefit
from the health reform law that just passed. People WILL benefit -- even
as the insurance companies benefit. But right now, pre-health reform,
ONLY insurance companies benefit.
I thought it was dangerous and irresponsible for some progressives to
say that this bill was worse than no bill, and to act as if this bill
somehow precluded the possibility for single-payer.
I probably hate health insurance companies more than anyone I know -- I
am VERY intimately acquainted with the very dirty tricks they play, and
I've witnessed the devastation of individuals and families when health
insurance companies find ways to not cover care. Even with my views and
awareness, however, don't try to take away my PersonalCare health
coverage! Without health insurance, I would have been dead several years
ago when I got very sick with a mysterious illness that took 6 years to
figure out. Without health insurance, I couldn't have gotten it figured
out because I couldn't have pursued care and diagnosis (and treatment),
and I would have been long dead.
If I could, I'd give every single one of my uninsured clients private
health insurance right now! Just as I would give them Medicaid or
Medicare -- anything I could get my hands on in order for them to have a
passport to health care. I'm not "too pure" to walk away from a private
plan if it will help someone.
Jane Hamsher says "I understand the temptation to offer 30 million
people health care." The "temptation?" That's like saying "I understand
the temptation to feed starving people." For those of us who work on the
front lines, it is not a temptation but an imperative. This isn't
theoretical for us. This is life and death, health and disability,
suffering and wellness -- no trivial thing.
People who say that it is bad that we are going to insure "only" 30
million of the currently uninsured with this bill and we should
therefore hold off on health reform until we have national single-payer
are basically saying that they would be willing to sacrifice the health,
and possibly the lives of those 30 million until we can get something
"better." Really? That can't really be the progressive position, can it?
Also, remember that it's not just 30 million -- without this
legislation, the number of uninsured was going to continue to climb
every single day, week, month, and year - and this would mean that the
number of people who would die simply because they lacked health
coverage would also continue to climb.
And yeah, I hate that the main provisions of the new law won't take
effect until 2014, but before this law, what year were people going to
finally get health coverage and protection from the abuses of the health
insurance industry? Also, what makes people think that advocates and
organizers are just going to be sitting around waiting for 2014, as
opposed to working on new legislation to help bring better changes?
Maybe those who are new to the struggle and the issue think that we just
sit back passively once legislation has been passed, and then live with
those consequences, rather than working day in and day out, year and
year out, to make progress.
Medicare was not created whole with one piece of legislation. Neither
was Social Security. But by some people's current analysis of health
reform, they would have advocated against those landmark social programs
because they didn't go far enough when first proposed, or because they
also involved the private for-profit sector in some form or another.
As much antipathy as I have for health insurance companies, my
compassion for people is far stronger. I'm not too "pure" to say that
private health insurance coverage is better than no coverage.
Also, I reject the notion that working to advance this health reform
legislation is against the interests of single payer. This legislation
takes government overpayments away from private Medicare Advantage
insurance companies and strengthens Medicare -- the very program on
which single-payer will be based. Medicare has been getting raided for
years by the Medicare Advantage program, yet where were all these new
"experts" on health reform? CCHCC has been working with other advocacy
organizations for years to get legislation passed that would cut these
overpayments.
Lastly, people should know that the new health reform bill has a state
waiver that allows states to opt out of the health reform law if the
state is able to find another means to provide coverage for everyone.
Yes, there are critiques of the state waiver, but it is not just a
gimmick, as has been suggested. It is a tool to work with, and we can
always work to improve the waiver. No one ever said single payer was
going to be easy. Being right (correct) is not enough. We always have to
be working and building on whatever gains we make. That's how we'll get
there.
I just really don't understand why certain progressives only critique
(not always accurately) the health reform law, but avoid providing
information about the benefits of the law. Believe it or not (and, if I
may say so, I think I should know), there ARE benefits. To me, being a
progressive was never just about having an analysis and a critique. It
was about working for justice, and central to that is working to
improving people's lives.
We at CCHCC will continue our work with the single-payer movement
nationally and statewide, even as we work hard as hell to get people the
benefits of this new legislation.
Sincerely,
Claudia Lennhoff, CCHCC Executive Director
On 3/24/10 7:14 PM, unionyes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Sladky <mailto:tanstl at aol.com>
> *To:* usgp-media at gp-us.org <mailto:usgp-media at gp-us.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:40 AM
> *Subject:* Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
>
>
>
> Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
>
> March 22, 2010 by Healthcare-NOW!
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/author/jtmhcn/>
> Filed under Single-Payer News
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/category/single-payer-news/>
>
> *
>
> Firedoglake released this fact sheet
> <http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdf> that
> exposes some myths about the bill passed on Sunday.
> By Jane Hamsher for Firedoglake
> <http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/>
> –
> The Firedoglake health care team has been covering the debate in
> congress since it began last year. The health care bill will come up for
> a vote in the House on Sunday, and as Nancy Pelosi works to wrangle
> votes, we’ve been running a detailed whip count on where every member of
> Congress stands, updated throughout the day.
> We’ve also taken a detailed look at the bill, and have come up with 18
> often stated myths about this health care reform bill.
> Real health care reform is the thing we’ve fought for from the start. It
> is desperately needed. But this bill falls short on many levels, and
> hurts many people more than it helps.
> A middle class family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay
> $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them
> with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to
> cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education
> costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses
> for which families will be responsible. Many families who are already
> struggling to get by would be better off saving the $5,243 in insurance
> costs and paying their medical expenses directly, rather than being
> forced to by coverage they can’t afford the co-pays on.
> In addition, there is already a booming movement across the country to
> challenge the mandate. Thirty-three states already have bills moving
> through their houses, and the Idaho governor was the first to sign it
> into law yesterday. In Virginia it passed through both a Democratic
> House and Senate, and the governor will sign it soon. It will be on the
> ballot in Arizona in 2010, and is headed in that direction for many
> more. Republican senators like Dick Lugar are already asking their state
> attorney generals to challenge it. There are two GOP think tanks
> actively helping states in their efforts, and there is a booming
> messaging infrastructure that covers it beat-by-beat.
> Whether Steny Hoyer believes the legality of the bill will prevail in
> court or not is moot, it could easily become the “gay marriage” of 2010,
> with one key difference: there will be no one on the other side
> passionately opposing it. The GOP is preparing to use it as a massive
> turn-out vehicle, and it not only threatens representatives in states
> like Florida, Colorado and Ohio where these challenges will likely be on
> the ballot — it threatens gubernatorial and down-ticket races as well.
> Artur Davis, running for governor of Alabama, is already being put on
> the spot about it.
> While details are limited, there is apparently a “Plan B” alternative
> that the White House was considering, which would evidently expand
> existing programs — Medicaid and SCHIP. It would cover half the people
> at a quarter of the price, but it would not force an unbearable
> financial burden to those who are already struggling to get by. Because
> it creates no new infrastructure for the purpose of funneling money to
> private insurance companies, there is no need for Bart Stupak’s or Ben
> Nelson’s language dealing with abortion — which satisfies the concerns
> of pro-life members of Congress, as well as women who are looking at the
> biggest blow to women’s reproductive rights in 35 years with the passage
> of this bill. Both programs are already covered under existing law, the
> Hyde amendment.
> But perhaps most profoundly, the bill does not mandate that people pay
> 8% of their annual income to private insurance companies or face a
> penalty of up to 2% — which the IRS would collect. As Marcy Wheeler
> noted in an important post entitled “Health Care on the Road to
> NeoFeudalism,” we stand on the precipice of doing something truly
> radical in our government, by demanding that Americans pay almost as
> much money to private insurance companies as they do in federal taxes:
> When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the
> sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws
> will be.
> I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What
> I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to
> fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.
> We started down a dangerous road with Wall Street banks in the early
> 90s, allowing them to flood our political system with money and write
> our laws so that taxpayers would subsidize their profits, assume their
> losses and remove themselves from the necessity of competition. By
> funneling so much money into the companies who created the very problems
> we are now attempting to address, we further empower them to hijack our
> legislative process and put more than just our health care system at
> risk. We risk our entire system of government.
> Congress may be too far down the road with this bill to change course
> and save themselves — and us. But before Democrats cast this vote, which
> could endanger not only their Congressional majority but their ability
> to “fix” things later on, they should consider the first rule of patient
> safety: first, do no harm.
> Tags: Barack Obama <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/barack-obama/>,
> firedoglake <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/firedoglake/>, health
> care <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/health-care/>, Healthcare
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/healthcare/>, Healthcare Reform
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/healthcare-reform/>, jane hamsher
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/jane-hamsher/>, Nancy Pelosi
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/nancy-pelosi/>, public option
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/public-option/>, Single Payer
> Healthcare <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/single-payer-healthcare/>,
> universal healthcare
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/tag/universal-healthcare/>
>
>
> Comments
>
> *One Response to “Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill”*
>
> 1.
> Cathy Deppe says:
> March 23, 2010 at 9:56 am
> <http://www.healthcare-now.org/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-7558>
> I believe we on the left should also refuse this mandated
> insurance that just enrichs insurance company profits and
> ultimately insures, instead, the total corporate control of our
> government. We should say no to this – and no again, to paying for
> the wars our government has sold us. Our lives are in the balance,
> as Jackson Brown sang: “They sell us the president the same way,
> they sell us our clothes and our cars, they sell us everything
> from youth to religion, the same time they sell us our wars.” We
> must begin to refuse to pay for defective products, be they
> useless insurance plans or endless wars.
>
> 2.
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender <mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net?subject=Fw: Fact Sheet:
> The Truth About the Health Care Bill> | Reply to group
> <mailto:CentralILJwJ at yahoogroups.com?subject=Fw: Fact Sheet: The Truth
> About the Health Care Bill> | Reply via web post
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwanZhcGk4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRtc2dJZAM0MDcEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjY5NDc2MTAz?act=reply&messageNum=407>
> | Start a New Topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc243bDU1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjk0NzYxMDM->
>
> Messages in this topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/message/407;_ylc=X3oDMTMzZ3AycDQzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRtc2dJZAM0MDcEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjY5NDc2MTAzBHRwY0lkAzQwNw-->
> (1)
> Recent Activity:
>
> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDVoa2FuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNjk0NzYxMDM->
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMHA0bDJmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2OTQ3NjEwMw-->
>
> Switch to: Text-Only
> <mailto:CentralILJwJ-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery
> Format: Traditional>, Daily Digest
> <mailto:CentralILJwJ-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery:
> Digest> • Unsubscribe
> <mailto:CentralILJwJ-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> •
> Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list