[Peace-discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill

[Marti Wilkinson]

To add to what Claudia has shared - even with employer provided medical
insurance there are many hidden costs associated with having serious medical
issues. As many of you know I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 and I
was fortunate to have medical insurance through my job at the time. But the
costs of co-pays and constant visits to a doctor do add up. Just one round
of chemotherapy can costs thousands of dollars just for the drugs and the
time spent in oncology undergoing treatment. Then there are the drugs that
are given to offset the side effects of the chemo. Add to that surgeries and
radiation treatments and the middle class family of four that makes $66,370
a year will easily find that there is no money left over to spend on
housing, food, and clothing.

I'm assuming this middle class family has two parents that work so you take
that income and divide in half and you see what many single parent
households have to live on (and in many cases it's less than that). As a
single parent I personally believe that any family that relies on more than
one income to survive is skating on thin ice. The main reason why I was able
to survive a bankruptcy without winding up homeless is because I know how to
live on one income and I think that it pays to look at a simpler way of
living. I have an uncle who works for the Whirlpool plant in Evansville IN
that will close down and he is 60 years old. My aunt retired a couple of
years ago and has returned to working to help support the family until my
uncle is able to reach retirement age. Historically it used to be that if
one partner was out of work in a relationship/marriage the other adult can
work to pick up the slack in a downturn. We now live in an economic
structure where that safety net is removed. Add to this mix people who are
unable to afford insurance and you then have the horror stories that Claudia
sees on a regular basis in her line of work.

Is the measure that passed the best one, of course not. As many participants
have pointed out there are people who are still falling through the cracks.
But at least we can continue to work towards an equitable system through
which everyone can eventually get affordable health care. This "all or
nothing" approach that I see being advocated for here is one that I find
very discouraging and it seems to me to be the opposite of being
progressive. Making progress is something that often involves incremental
steps and, one hopes, making social changes for the better.



On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Claudia Lennhoff <claudia at shout.net>wrote:

>
>
> 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 <tanstl%40aol.com>>
> > *To:* usgp-media at gp-us.org <usgp-media%40gp-us.org> <mailto:
> usgp-media at gp-us.org <usgp-media%40gp-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<claudia at shout.net?subject=Re:+%5BCentralILJwJ%5D+Fw:+Fact+Sheet:+The+Truth+About+the+Health+Care+Bill>| Reply
> to group<CentralILJwJ at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re:+%5BCentralILJwJ%5D+Fw:+Fact+Sheet:+The+Truth+About+the+Health+Care+Bill>| Reply
> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwdmk0cjhkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRtc2dJZAM0MDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjY5NDkxNTA1?act=reply&messageNum=408>| Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbHVnanJqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjk0OTE1MDU->
> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/message/407;_ylc=X3oDMTMzbGZqZDN0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRtc2dJZAM0MDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjY5NDkxNTA1BHRwY0lkAzQwNw-->(
> 2)
>  Recent Activity:
>
>
>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN3I4N2lrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNjk0OTE1MDU->
>  [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDg1M2U4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzNjI3MTE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDYxOQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2OTQ5MTUwNQ-->
> Switch to: Text-Only<CentralILJwJ-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<CentralILJwJ-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe <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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100325/5744b6e3/attachment-0001.html>