[Peace-discuss] Fw: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
unionyes
unionyes at ameritech.net
Thu Mar 25 08:04:19 CDT 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claudia Lennhoff" <claudia at shout.net>
To: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net>
Cc: "JWJ C-U" <centralILJwJ at yahoogroups.com>; "william gorrell"
<laborhour at yahoo.com>; "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>; "Neil
Parthun" <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>; "Jim Eyman" <banjogramps at yahoo.com>;
"Dave Powers" <pengdust at aol.com>; "Dan Elgin ( 2nd e-mail )"
<danelgin at gmail.com>; "Damien Mathew" <dmathew at mailaps.org>; "Bill Gorrell"
<laborer at mchsi.com>; "Tristan geo/iww B" <tristan.bunner at gmail.com>;
"sf-core" <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; "Peace-discuss"
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care
Bill
> 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