[Peace-discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

[John W.]

Thanks for this, Claudia.  It's a start.  In ALL of the reading I've done
about the new health care reform legislation, and all of the media
reportage, I have never once seen most of the information you present here,
which sheds light rather than heat on the discussion.

In fact, several times in the past and once very recently when I've done a
web search on Medicaid and tried to find out what the rules and requirements
are, I've never even remotely been able to figure it out.  It's a hodgepodge
of programs, and seems to be some sort of strange hybrid between the states
and the federal government.  The information that's out there is utterly
incomprehensible to me, and never seems to apply to my situation.

A few more comments and questions below.


On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Claudia Lennhoff <claudia at shout.net>wrote:



> This is a pretty disappointing and unhelpful turn of the discussion.
>
> If someone wants to know whether and how they will benefit from this plan,
> you can e-mail me -- I'll ask you some questions, and then get back to you
> with some information.
>
> "The working poor will not benefit from this bill." Really? Explain to me
> how the working poor will not benefit.
>
> Is it because you have the idea that "those of us who make around
> $1000/month will NEVER, EVER be able to afford the $200-300/month minimum
> premiums?" Where is it that you have read that if you have a $12,000 a year
> income, you will have to purchase health insurance with a premium of up to
> $300/mo.? This is simply not true under the health reform law.
>
> Here are some facts about the new health reform law (this doesn't include
> what is in the budget reconciliation bill, since that has not yet passed)
> (oh yeah, and this information does NOT come from the corporate media or the
> Democratic party -- those are not CCHCC's go-to sources):
>
> Medicaid is being expanded tremendously, AND the assets test is being done
> away with (so, having burial insurance will no longer push you over the
> limit financially and prevent you from qualifying for Medicaid), as well as
> the requirement that Medicaid only be available to adults who have minor
> children (many states have this requirement).
>

One thing I DID figure out from researching Medicaid is that if you have a
$250,000 home, completely paid for, that asset is exempt from the Medicaid
assets test, even under current Illinois law.  But if you have, say, $3,000
in a bank account, you're ineligible.  Since most of the poor have to rent
and don't own a home, it's a pretty incredible subsidy of home ownership,
and manages to exclude a great many of the genuinely poor.




>
> So, this means that, under the new law (the budget reconciliation act will
> expand it further), single or married adults, working or non-working,
> parents or non-parents, who have incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty
> level ($14,412 annual for an individual; $24,360 annual for a family of 3)
> will be eligible for Medicaid health insurance, and will have NO premiums.
>
All right.  So if an individual has an annual income of $14,413, they're
simply ineligible for Medicaid?   There's no graduated fee structure so
that they could pay a few bucks a month and get it?  (That would be a public
option, wouldn't it?)

How do the Medicaid people know what a person's income is?  Can they access
our IRS records for the info?

And what about funding for Medicaid?  Where does it come from?  It seems to
me that the states are complaining that they can't afford it, or have to cut
back on it, for lack of funds.

Finally, is there now a requirement in the new legislation that doctors and
hospitals HAVE to take Medicaid patients and give them an equal quality of
care?

Moving on....




>
> You think this won't help the working poor? Consider the working poor of
> Missouri. Current Medicaid eligibility in Missouri is dismal.
>
> A working parent in Missouri *may* qualify for Medicaid if their income is
> at 42% of the federal poverty level or below. That is an income of about
> $4,500. That's right -- $4,500 annual income. You must earn BELOW that, to
> qualify for Medicaid.
>
> Now take a non-working parent in Missouri. They *may* qualify for Medicaid
> in Missouri if their income is at 22% federal poverty level or below. That
> is an annual income of under $2,400.
>
> There are states with even worse Medicaid eligibility criteria than
> Missouri -- imagine having to have an income lower than $3,000 annually in
> order to qualify for Medicaid. And now it will go up to at least $14,412.
>
> Medicaid is a public option health insurance requiring no premium, and
> typically no co-pays (co-pays may be between $1 - $3).
>
That's very nice indeed - if you qualify, if the money is actually there,
and if the health care system has to take Medicaid patients.




>
> A huge proportion of the people who may not qualify for Medicaid but will
> instead get private insurance through the health exchange will qualify for
> subsidies to help make that insurance more affordable.
>
> For example, an individual making $24,000 who has to buy private health
> insurance will be asked to pay 31% of the health insurance premium, up to
> $1,693 annually. An individual making $19,000 will be asked to pay 18% of
> the premium, up to $982 a year.
>
This is good.  But of course the question arises - what KIND of health
insurance plan do you get for these premiums?  Will it actually cover the
care you need if you get sick?




>
> There will be no co-pays or co-insurance for preventive care visits -- so
> mammograms, annual exams, colonoscopies, etc. will not cost anything out of
> pocket. There will be caps on out-of-pocket expenses so if someone requires
> a lot of care and has to pay co-pays or co-insurance, they will have
> financial protection from having huge medical debt.
>
Here's something I've always wondered about.  For years I've seen ads on TV
about free mammograms that poor women can get, furnished (I guess) by the
state of Illinois.  Wonderful if you don't have breast cancer - great peace
of mind.  But what if you DO, and have no health insurance?  Now you've got
breast cancer, no way to actually TREAT it, and a pre-existing condition on
your record.  Fabulous.  Let's hope the new legislation clears all that up.




>
> People want to talk about the cost of paying for health insurance as being
> prohibitive, but fail to ever talk about the fact that having no insurance
> is cost-prohibitive in a very real way.
>
> Uninsured people delay, forego, and are refused care when they need it. A
> price is paid for that. Maybe it's in the form of higher cost for care when
> care is finally sought. It's certainly in the form of suffering and being
> ill longer, and perhaps dying prematurely. And it may also take the form of
> lost wages from work missed. Those are real costs being paid now all the
> time.
>
No question about it.  The po' folk are out there just hoping against hope
that they won't get sick.  It's not like they're calculating the cost of
having health insurance vs. the cost of not having it, and making a rational
decision based on a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis.  They simply don't
have the money.  Period.



>
> No one has said that this is a "great" health plan -- so to characterize
> people's positions that way is divisive and disingenuous.
>
I'm not sure that's been done in this thread.  All I said was that the
people with great health insurance have the luxury of being philosophical
and speaking in abstractions about taking a "wait and see" attitude and so
on.  Those of us without health insurance and growing older by the day -
well, shucks, maybe we do get a mite carried away, and get emotional, and
don't always behave in the calmly rational manner that is expected of us.
If you were a divorce lawyer you'd see otherwise sane people ranting and
raving like lunatics in your office, and hopefully you'd understand why.
I'll make no apologies for being emotional in an insane and profoundly
inequitable society like the one we live in here.




>
> It is also inaccurate and intentionally divisive, it seems to me, to
> suggest that those who currently have health insurance support this health
> reform law and do not support single payer, while those who are uninsured
> support single payer and not this health reform. I work with thousands of
> individuals from our community and this is just not the case.
>
No one suggested that.  Again, it was merely suggested that those with
health insurance have the luxury of being more calmly sanguine about a bad
bill, and willing to wait for a better one.




>
> Also, I might note that many of the people on these listservs who support
> this health reform (not because it's "great" or "perfect" but because it
> will help people and it is better than nothing) are, and have been actively
> involved in working for single payer.
>
Yes indeed.



>
> CCHCC held a couple of single payer events last year. I remember all the
> people who participated and lent their support (thank you!). There will be
> more to come on single payer and people will have plenty of opportunity to
> do real work for single payer.
>
> But the single payer movement is NOT helped by half-truths or falsehoods
> about the current health reform law. It is perfectly fine and good to
> critique the current health reform law, but it is really disingenuous and
> dangerous to say that it will not help people. That's simply not true.
>
That's why I hope that you and CCHCC will continue to shed all the light you
possibly can on the various health care reform developments as they come
down the pike.  In the absence of light, we can hardly be blamed for groping
around in the dark.  Our legislators are certainly not helping to illuminate
matters, are they?




>
> The single payer movement will require people to be informed, and be
> willing to educate, and not attack others with whom they do not agree
> completely.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Claudia Lennhoff, CCHCC Executive Director


Thanks for all you do, Claudia.  I feel quite safe in saying that all of us
on this listserv appreciate you and your efforts.

John Wason





> On 3/25/10 6:59 PM, unionyes wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To Jenifer and the rest of you that think the Obama so called " health
>> care reform bill " is so great and that any of us who criticize it don't
>> care about their fellow human beings.
>> First of all, I want to ask Jenifer if she has health insurance and if
>> so what type ?
>> Secondly, this posting by Dave P. sums up my feelings perfectly.
>> WE, the working poor, Myself included, are the ones who will NOT benefit
>> from this Bill.
>> Easy for many of the rest of you to say it is so great when you already
>> have health insurance and won't have to face the prospect of a fine and
>> still have no health care.
>> As Dave P. states below, Single Payer IS the ONLY REAL public option.
>> Again, most of you who support the Obama plan, already have health
>> insurance and / or you are relying on info provided to you via the
>> corporate media and the democratic party.
>> Who along with the repubs prevented for day one ANY discussion about
>> single payer.
>> David J.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* pengdust at aol.com <mailto:pengdust at aol.com>
>> *To:* ls1000 at live.com <mailto:ls1000 at live.com> ; jbw292002 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com> ; galliher at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>
>> *Cc:* Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> ;
>> discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>>  <mailto:discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:54 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?
>>
>> As an anarchist and a "precarious-shit-worker" who does do the
>> 'grub-work,' I take offense to this "individualistic libertarian
>> anarchists" claim. We, anarcho-PSWs, do not have cushy university jobs
>> with health-care, sick days, vacations, living wages... or the time,
>> privelege, and luxury for academic debates. It is true, those of us who
>> make around $1000/month will NEVER, EVER be able to afford the
>> $200-300/month minimum premiums to fucking corporations after paying
>> some $400 in rent alone! [Add $200-300/loans in student loans, $150 in
>> other bills, etc... and there's nothing left for food. Keeps me in my
>> boyish figure I guess /;-)/ ] Simply, everyday life is always a losing
>> battle... we're working-poor and we're FUCKED, this is real. And, the
>> $700 penalty on top of taxes will only make things worse! Now, for those
>> who make some $40,000/yr this all may be doable, and an improvement, but
>> for many of us who don't it's completely impossible unless the feds pay
>> %100 of our premiums.... i.e., SINGLE-PAYER. So, single-payer is the
>> ONLY improvement for us, and the ONLY solution that was never on the
>> table! [thanks to Both Dems and Reps]
>>
>

-- 
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/20100327/1309dc35/attachment-0001.html>