[My sincere thanks to Virginia Frederick for her permission to reprint this letter on “Alas.” –Amp]
Dear Senator Hutchinson.
I am one of your Texas constituents that is “under-insured” and I want to speak to you about health Care.
I never thought I would be a statistic in this predicament—my husband was a corporate soldier all his working life and we had great health insurance provided by our companies. But then my husband got Leukemia. He couldn’t work and Cobra soon ended. Ironically he survived a bone marrow transplant and is now doing incredibly well—and he has health insurance. His health insurance comes through Medicare–it is a great program.
But I am not eligible for Medicare—I have 7 years to go. I was offered a job in the local school 3 years ago—but had to turn it down when my husband’s condition took a turn and I had to become his full-time caregiver. Now they don’t even respond to my applications—and I am sure I don’t have to tell you about the job market for 58 year olds. So I have to get individual health insurance.
I am not stupid—I have too much to lose if I have to go bankrupt–so I do have a high deductible HSA. But I learned a lot in the process of getting that policy. You see I had had a sports injury the year before we moved to Texas—plantar fasciitis, an inflammation of connective tissue in the foot caused when I tried to learn skate-skiing.
What I found out was this:
- The laws that govern pre-existing conditions in group policies do not apply to individual policies
- Insurance companies can and will deny any coverage if they choose to
- They can and do exclude coverage for certain conditions for as many years as they want
As a result: I do have a policy but it will not cover any foot injury I might have for 5 or more years from the day of policy inception.
The GOOD NEWS IS: I don’t do much skate-skiing in Texas.
The other “GOOD NEWS” is: I LEARNED that I can’t let the insurance company know if I have any warning signs of anything that may develop into something more serious—in fact, I can’t know if I have any warning signs. If I did—and I had to change policies for any reason—those conditions would not be covered. So:
- I can not and will not get my cholesterol checked
- I can not and will not get a mammogram—even though my mother died of breast cancer
- I can not and will not get a pap smear—even though my grandmother died of uterine cancer
- I cannot and will not get tested for osteoporosis
MY HEALTHCARE HAS ALREADY BEEN RATIONED. It is a fact and I have sent a copy of my policy rider to prove it. American healthcare is already rationed: rationed by corporate profit motives. My story is not nearly as dramatic as so many others who have lost or been denied insurance coverage—but it proves to me that there must be a better way to access health care than the insurance companies have provided.
On July 10th you wrote: “Health Care Reform Needs the Right Solution, Not a Politically Expedient One.” I agree. Please be part of the solution by working for health care reform.
Sincerely,
Virginia L Frederick
Does this person live in Austin? We’re trying to do an anti-tea party protest this Saturday at the capitol- feel free to pass on my contact e-mail if she may be interested. (theunbearables2008@gmail.com)
Wow. I wish I had this when 2 people on my softball team we’re talking about how there shouldn’t be universal health care. One of them said that health care wasn’t a right, it’s a privilege. I wanted to respond back that health shouldn’t be a privelege but I kept my my mouth shut because I’m always hesitant about debating with someone when I don’t know all the facts on my side (even if it’s obvious the other person doesn’t have any facts either).
Also, best wishes to Virginia and I hope she’s able to stay healthy until she has adequate health care.
Holla out Virginia! You tell it!
Thanks, Virginia, for letting Amp post this letter. I hope many of our Congresscritters take it to heart.
I’m in a very similar situation. I’m on a catastrophic plan and have been for three years since I’m not eligible for a group policy and really I’m very healthy. BUT before we moved interstate, I developed shoulder pain. I went see someone about it – I was in pain, after all – and was presecribed physical therapy which helps, but hasn’t entirely solved the issue. In my new home, I called up my insurance company (it’s national) to change my address, only to find that I had to be *completely re-underwritten* in my new state. The policy I ended up with does not cover the shoulder for one year. I’ve done some research on my own, and discovered shoulder pain like mine can be caused by issues that are much, much harder to treat if left to fester for a while. And we wonder why health care costs increase.
I have since advised others not to get tests or treatment if they plan to apply for health insurance for any reason in the next year.
Which I do not understand. During the debate over healthcare I have heard a couple of times that health care insurers are not allowed to compete across state lines (although I live in Illinois and am insured through a BC/BS that’s not BC/BS of Illinois – maybe it’s because my company has an office in that state). I wonder why this should be so? It seems to me that this stifles competition and leads to higher premiums.
That’s my mom. :)
Rebecca — she’s not in Austin, she ‘s in Boerne; but my sister lives in Austin (actually, Kyle now, since she just moved) and my mom goes up there regularly. She was at a health care forum with one of the representatives from the Austin area last weekend. I’ll be sure to let her know about the anti-tea-party protest
Health care is a right. But that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it on demand. Consider; you have a right to freedom of the press, but no one has to buy you a printing press if you can’t afford it. You have a right to freedom of religion, but the State doesn’t have to build you a church. You have a right to own a gun, but the taxpayers don’t have to provide everyone in the country with at least a .22 pistol.
The proponents of the current proposals are not trying to establish health care as a right in this country. It already is a right in this country. You have every right to buy as much of it as you can afford, and no one can stop you on the basis of your race, religion, etc. Access to healthcare is a right in America.
So the question is not whether or not healthcare should be a right, but whether it should be an entitlement – should the government take money from productive citizens by force in order to provide people who cannot otherwise afford it a specific level of health care, regardless of what the people who actually earned that money would rather spend it on.
But of course health care is already an entitlement in this country. If you present yourself at an emergency room you’re going to get treated whether you can pay or not. However, the quality of that care may be deficient, and waiting until your health is bad enough to justify going to the emergency room can often mean that the treatment will be a) more expensive and b) less effective than it would have been if you’d gone in sooner.
So; where do we go from here? Do we extend the entitlement, maintain it or cut it back? The latter is certainly legal; there’s no Constitutional requirement to provide it. Should the form change and why? Who will administer it, and how? How much do we want to spend? How much can we spend, especially considering the incredible deficits we have already been committed to?
Who gets included? All Americans? All Americans and resident aliens? All Americans and all aliens who are legally present? All Americans and all aliens, legal or not?
If we are to have a governmental-run health insurance system, will the system be self-supporting? Since it is often touted that such a system will bring competition to the private insurance arena – which given the number of private insurers seems a very odd thing to say – will it be actual true competition? In other words, will the premiums paid into it cover all the costs, including not just the claims but all the administrative costs associated with hiring and running the bureaucracy that will run it? Because if it can take general tax funds over and above the premiums then the belief held by it’s opponents that it’s a stalking horse for the government to simply choke out private insurers gains credence.
I’ve got pretty good health insurance, as (without going into details) I’ve just had occasion to find out. But even I’ve got some surprises after looking at my bills and talking to my insurance companies. Many complaints about them and the system are legitimate. However, it is my perception, and apparently that of a great many people, that the present administration is taking Rahm Emmanuel’s advice to “never waste a good crisis” by trying to tear the health care system apart and remake it in a completely new image.
Asking basic questions about the structure and function of American healthcare is a good idea. Why should health care be primarily be provided through employers? Why shouldn’t the regulatory environment for insurers not favor not-for-profit insurers? What are the components of healthcare costs? What can be done to reduce them? If the current effort fails, it will be because there are not enough people among those 85%+ of Americans who are insured who see the current situation as a true crisis. It will also be because the process of change is seen to be based not on public presentations and discussions on what are the core questions regarding American healthcare and what are the best answers to them, but on questions of power and politics and the viewpoints of an influential minority.
Oh, and Ms. Frederick; your healthcare has not been rationed. My parents told me all about rationing. They lived through WW II, when all kinds of stuff was rationed. Mom still has gas and sugar coupons. And I lived through the 1970’s, when for a time gas was rationed. Rationing occurs when you are only allowed to have a certain amount of a resource (usually because the resource is essential and in limited supply) no matter how much of it you want to buy and how much money you’re willing to spend. For example, Mom described to me how she had to collect sugar coupons from her friends so she could get buy enough sugar to make her wedding cake. She had the money, that was no problem. She needed the official permission to buy it. If the amount of healthcare you can get is limited not through action by the government or it’s owner but because you don’t have enough money to pay for what you want or need the description of that situation as “rationing” is a lie.
It does stifle competition and raise premiums. It’s an artifact of federalism unfortunately – states write their own insurance laws and the resulting patchwork makes things dicey.
the present administration is taking Rahm Emmanuel’s advice to “never waste a good crisis” by trying to tear the health care system apart and remake it in a completely new image.
We should be so lucky.
If the amount of healthcare you can get is limited not through action by the government or it’s owner but because you don’t have enough money to pay for what you want or need the description of that situation as “rationing” is a lie.
Then there’s no rationing in the UK, either, as people who can afford to buy health care not covered by the NHS (an immediate, no-waiting-list hip replacement; IVF) can get it too. I hope you’re as strict with your definition of “rationing” with people arguing against health care reform as you are with people arguing in favor of it.
It does stifle competition and raise premiums. It’s an artifact of federalism unfortunately – states write their own insurance laws and the resulting patchwork makes things dicey.
If the federal government created a national insurance law that had the same requirements as, say, New York insurance law, the private insurers would be infuriated. The current system allows them to sell crappy, almost useless policies in low-regulation states (like Texas). A federal insurance law almost certainly would look more like NY’s (requiring that any policy cover a certain minimum, e.g. catastrophic care), not like TX’s (eh, if people can be fooled into buying a policy that only covers room and board at a hospital — no checkups, no procedures, not even the cast if you fall down the stairs and break your leg — let ’em buy what they want). The only way dropping the current “patchwork” of state laws would be good for insurers would be if the federal law looked like the least regulating state’s laws.
I hope you’re as strict with your definition of “rationing” with people arguing against health care reform as you are with people arguing in favor of it.
It’s not my definition of rationing, it’s the definition of rationing. I quite agree with your main point, however.
chingona:
I have no problem with the fact that you feel that way, and that you and others openly advance the concept that this is what needs to be done. But a major reason why there is such resistance to the current healthcare proposals before Congress is because a lot of people who think as you do were involved in producing and/or supporting the current proposal. People who don’t think as you do are working to defeat it because they suspect that either the current proposals will covertly do so despite what it’s supporters claim, or that it’s language will be distorted by the courts to produce that effect, or that it is a stalking horse to incrementally bring us to that ultimate end.
You may not feel this is reasonable. Perhaps so. But from what I have read and heard I believe that this is where much of this resistance is coming from.
RonF,
I guess I’m a little less cynical. Or maybe more cynical. I would love to see single-payer universal health care, and I would gladly pay more taxes to support such a system. I also think that such a system, in addition to being more moral and just than our current system, would be much more efficient and cost-effective than whatever Frankenstein hybrid we’ll end up with when the horse-trading is done. And using your definition of rationing from higher in the thread, I have no fear that people with money will be prevented from buying whatever they want. This is, after all, the United States.
That said, it’s pretty obvious we’re not going to get single-payer (or anything else that would seriously threaten the status quo). So I support a public option that would provide people shut out of the private market with a way to buy insurance. That I wouldn’t lose sleep if private insurance companies were hurt by the existence of a public option doesn’t mean I’m being disingenuous or trying to construct some sort of Trojan horse. It just means I’m being realistic about what’s possible without changing my underlying convictions.
RonF,
People who don’t think as you do are working to defeat it because they suspect that either the current proposals will covertly do so despite what it’s supporters claim
“covertly do so despite what its supporters claim” = I haven’t actually read the bill, but Betsy McCaughey told me it has mandatory death planning.
or that it’s language will be distorted by the courts to produce that effect
How are the courts going to be involved in this?
or that it is a stalking horse to incrementally bring us to that ultimate end.
Actually, this is a scenario where I think Marx was right: liberal reforms will make radical revolution more difficult by improving the situation for enough of the masses as to prevent them from rising up and demanding a more aggressive change. HR 3200 further entrenches our existing model of care provided wholly by the private sector to insured persons, most of which insurance also is private sector and based on employment. The more people they cover while retaining that dinosaur, the fewer people there are to protest such a model.
But from what I have read and heard I believe that this is where much of this resistance is coming from.
I have yet to encounter a person who is strongly opposed to reform who’s actually read HR 3200 in good faith (e.g. without distorting a measure that bases quality measurement reporting of how well a physician, who is requesting reimbursement for an advance planning consultation, is doing as a consultant into “ZOMG THE GOVERNMENT WILL PAY DOCTORS BASED ON HOW MANY PEOPLE THE DOCTORS GET TO SIGN DNRS!“).
It’s like telling me that a lot of resistance to same-sex marriage legalization is due to people who are afraid that their churches will be forced to perform SSMs. I can’t do much for people who are so determinedly ignorant and/or irrational. Someone who cares about this stuff enough to be protesting it ought to, you know, read. Listening to Rush Limbaugh’s opinion of a law or court ruling is not a good substitute for the hard work of becoming a truly well-informed person.
Or just don’t trust the government overall. “We’re the government and we’re here to help you” is a pretty broadly-based cynical laugh line in the United States. Any bill that purports to be of that nature is going to get a lot of deeply-felt and reflexive opposition in the U.S. But politics by 30-second sound bite has been going on for some time now in the U.S. and is hurting us all here.
The courts are involved in everything in the U.S. Some regulatory agency is going to try to impose something on the insurance companies or some government agency is going to try to do something in accordance with whatever legislation is passed or someone who thinks the law should afford them some benefit will get told by a governmental agency that it does not and whoever’s ox has just been gored or some advocacy group supporting them is going to file suit. Then the courts will tell us either a) what the legislature meant by the law that was just passed (that 95% of the legistators didn’t read, so don’t fault the citizens, they’re just following their leaders’ lead), regardless of what the legislators who did actually read and/or think about what they voted on have to say, or b) what the words the legislatures passed as legislation actually mean in a legal environment, regardless of what they legislators actually intended.
I’ve encountered a few. Of course, I’ve also encountered very few who support HR 3200 who’ve read it. At all, never mind in good faith or not.
Oh, and by the way – there’s a difference between “a person who is strongly opposed to healthcare reform” and “a person who is strongly opposed to HR 3200”. When you have talked to people who opposed HR 3200, have they said that they oppose any changes in the American healthcare system at all? Or did that question not get addressed, and you are conflating the two?
Or just don’t trust the government overall. “We’re the government and we’re here to help you” is a pretty broadly-based cynical laugh line in the United States. Any bill that purports to be of that nature is going to get a lot of deeply-felt and reflexive opposition in the U.S.
There seem to be very few people who exhibit that reflex when it comes to war. There was a broad-based assumption in the U.S., particularly among people on the right and even in the middle, that if the U.S. government shows up with guns, Predator missiles, etc., that it’s totally there to help and Afghanis and Iraqis are just ungrateful not to appreciate our sacrifices. Even purported libertarians take that attitude. Evidently our government is here to help you when it shows up armed in other countries.
Then the courts will tell us either a) what the legislature meant by the law that was just passed (that 95% of the legistators didn’t read, so don’t fault the citizens, they’re just following their leaders’ lead), regardless of what the legislators who did actually read and/or think about what they voted on have to say, or b) what the words the legislatures passed as legislation actually mean in a legal environment, regardless of what they legislators actually intended.
Read Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). It’s still basically the standard the courts use in dealing with administrative regulations, and your idea of it is wrong.
Moreover, which part of the bill do you think will lead to such disagreement about what is meant? It’s written in quite a bit of detail, with tons of definitions. I thought that’s what y’all were complaining about that, that it was too long.
I’ve encountered a few.
Can you provide a link? Or are these people who have no online presence? So far, when I see people who strongly oppose HR 3200 cite particular sections, they’re always lying (or more charitably, “mistaken”) about what the section says. They also will admit that they haven’t read the bill, stating that it’s too long, or difficult for them to understand more than the section headings.
Oh, and by the way – there’s a difference between “a person who is strongly opposed to healthcare reform” and “a person who is strongly opposed to HR 3200″.
Correct. I should have said “person who is strongly opposed to HR 3200.”
Pingback: Interesting posts, weekend of 9/6 « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction
Pingback: Healthcare and Vulvodynia « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction