[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Fw: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
Laurie Solomon
ls1000 at live.com
Thu Mar 25 13:27:22 CDT 2010
A truly excellent response with many very excellent and strong points being made.
Personally, while I feel that there are still many things that are open to discussion, debate, and assessment concerning the bill's details and its implementation, I have to begrudgingly agree with Claudia, although I wish things were otherwise and a more or less perfect and fully detailed statute could be produced that contained specifics regarding implementation, monitoring, enforcement, and penalties for non-compliance.
While I am not all that optimistic since the history of American policy - especially social policy - has been one of vacant promises for the most part and general compromised to death policies which offer the hope that in the future more detailed specifics will be developed, provisions will be strengthened, and gaps will be filled in but which never ever happens, I have no choice but to wait and see if specifics are added, provisions are strengthened, and gaps are filled in, what those additions and details will be, and how the programs are implemented and executed in practice the same as everyone else. At this stage in the game, it is an open question if this is a real change and reform or just another phantom in the junkyard of broken dreams.
I am and reminded by some of Claudia's remarks of (and well aware of - as a sort of cautionary tale) of the old responses of the liberals in the 1960's when it came to segregation who told the blacks who were pushing for integration and reform in the country's racial policies that they should not push so hard and rush things or they the will get those conservative segregationists will back in power again. Hence, the members of the Black and minority communities should be willing to live with and settle for merely minor (and often surface ) reforms in the existing situation and be willing to endure a long hard extended fight for any sort of moderately significant changes which may take years, decades, and even centuries more to gain and should know that if it does not happen they will get their salvation and equality in the hereafter. Meanwhile, things remained essentially the same for the Black and minority communities as they had been and were likely to remain if the conservative segregationists had been in power until they stood up and said "fuck you" to the liberal integrationists in power. I would only hope that this is not the current situation with healthcare and that should no details be specified, no provisions strengthened, no gaps filled, and not practical implementation, execution, and enforcement of statute be forthcoming, people would get up in arms, take to the streets and rebel. But I am pessimistic that that would happen since, unlike other countries, America's history suggests that rebellion and revolution - even general strikes - are a rarity and "go along and get along" dominant is the marching order of the day.
From: unionyes
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:04 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient: ;@smtp104.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com
Subject: [sf-core] Fw: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
----- 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 | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use.
__,_._,___
--
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/20100325/0728a991/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list