Mr. President, my apologies for attacking your health plan ~ Spike Dolomite Ward

[mzmolly]

I want to apologize to President Obama. But first, some background.

I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids.

...

And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment.

...

Fortunately for me, I've been saved by the federal government's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, something I had never heard of before needing it.

It's part of President Obama's health care plan, one of the things that has already kicked in, and it guarantees access to insurance for U.S. citizens with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months.

The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies).

It's not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it's a start, and for me it's been a lifesaver -- perhaps literally.

More at: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/135202878.html?page=1&c=y

[MrsBrady]

1. I've told dozens of people about this...

People don't know about it.....

several reasons:

The administration did a shitty job in telling people about it.
The corporate media won't cover it.
People believe the crap they hear about the bill.
People don't investigate things on their own.

[liberal N proud]

2. The media did a good job of hiding these benifits

They only focused on what they decided was negative. The propaganada worked well for the corporate pigs on health care reform.

[mzmolly]

7. The administration mentioned it

over and over again. But, I agree in every other regard.

[EFerrari]

19. Three uninsured adults here, different age and income brackets.

Nothing has changed for any of us. Mom is on Medicare and still can't afford all her medications.

It's great that at least some people are better off now but if you have to collect stories about people who are better off then you are also making the case that it isn't working for a lot of people.

[bluestate10]

28. It is working for many more people than it did before.

I have the exact opposite of you. I have a much older sister who struggled with the cost medical and medicine expenses before HCR, but not is one of the seniors realizing savings on both fronts, because of HCR. More people are getting the heath care that they need than were getting heath care before HCR was passed.

[MH1]

32. Of course it isn't working for everyone, that was IMPOSSIBLE due to the republicans ...

who wanted it to work for NOBODY that it wasn't ALREADY working for.

The first barrier in the way of getting something that works for EVERYONE isn't Obama or conservadems, it's having a large enough number of REPUBLICANS that is sufficient to trounce really good legislation.

Maybe we could have gotten better than we did if the hand had been played differently (I think that is true) but no way in hell will you get something that works for EVERYONE until you reduce the numbers of republicans to an ineffective minority. (I.e, probably 35 or less in the Senate, and 5-10 below majority in the House). THEN you address conservadems by arm-twisting with campaign support as leverage. Still, some of those might have to be replaced, but it will be easier to replace them once the republicans are reduced to powerless whiners. (Which will never happen if we keep expending resources on beating up dems, that we should be using to evict republicans from Congress).

[Pirate Smile]

3. I'm so glad they are posting this in other Newspapers instead of just the LA Times that it was

originally in.

We need it in every paper in the US.

[deacon]

4. k/r

[Highway61]

5. Thanks for posting

and most of all good luck to you.

[mzmolly]

9. My pleasure.

To clarify, it's not I who is suffering with cancer, but the author of the piece I quoted at the S-Trib. :hi:

[frazzled]

6. A morality tale for those on the left who have scorned this legislation

The end of the article illustrates what some of us were talking about a few weeks ago: how sometimes our myopic rage against (supposed) "corporatism" when discussing this and other legislation blinds us to what it really does for the neediest amongst us. It applies to the Affordable Care Act, as this woman's story explains, and even to some education issues that people like to scorn--forgetting that they are aimed exclusively at the poorest of the poor, the bottom five percent of the most desperate schools in the poorest urban neighborhoods in the country, where fewer than half of the kids are even making it to graduation and almost all are failing to meet even the most basic standards. No, it's not about blaming teachers as so many like to pretend: it's about making last ditch attempts to find new structures and possibilities (in which those teachers are almost always hired back) to address this serious issue.

I've seen this attention to the needy of any class and the poor hidden away in almost every agenda the administration has tackled, though they don't emphasize it. I suppose it's partly because a black president addressing "need" is ripe fodder for Republican cries of redistribution. But now that the middle class is slipping further into the category of poor, it applies to us all---especially with respect to health issues. A perfectly healthy, employed 28 year old could suddenly find themselves in the situation this woman did:

Which brings me to my apology. I was pretty mad at Obama before I learned about this new insurance plan.

I had changed my registration from Democrat to independent, and I had blacked out the top of the "h" on my Obama bumper sticker, so that it read, "Got nope" instead of "got hope."

I felt like he had let down the struggling middle class. My son and I had campaigned for him, but since he took office, we felt he had let us down.

So this is my public apology. I'm sorry I didn't do enough of my own research to find out what promises the president has made good on.

I'm sorry I didn't realize that he really has stood up for me and my family, and for so many others like us.

I'm getting a new bumper sticker to cover the one that says "Got nope." It will say "ObamaCares."

[mzmolly]

8. Well

said.

[EFerrari]

18. Oh, please. Ed deform is a racket and there is zip evidence

it's helping poor kids.

And by the time this health insurance bailout kicks in for me, it will have been 20 years since I had regular medical care. That has nothing to do with rage or myopia.

[frazzled]

22. Yeah, so where were you 18 years ago?

You're going to lay it on this administration--the first that has ever made it possible for people to get insurance who can't afford it--for the crap that's been going on for decades? For the fact that you had no insurance?

Where were you kicking and screaming 18 years ago about the evils of the system? Were you in the streets? Were you writing letters? Where were you during the Clinton administration on this issue? Where were you during the Bush administration screaming for health reform? I doubt you were, because you knew you weren't going to get it. The people get something for the first time, and you turn around and kick the administration that got it, got the best they could, better than anything before, in the teeth.

[mzmolly]

37. .

:toast:

[Number23]

44. You are simply awesome.

[Scurrilous]

10. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Puzzler]

11. Some of the article's comments are truly sick...

... "why should my insurance premiums help her?"

Er... that's how insurance works. It's not intended to be a private personal account.

[otohara]

31. Indeed

you'd think he started a war based on a pack of lies.

[banned from Kos]

12. thank you! thank you! I posted this -the Wraith did also - POST this EVERYWHERE

WE win one battle at a time!

[eridani]

13. Really nice for sick affluent people

Only 12,000 of 6 million eligible are participating, mainly because, though prices are lower than in similar programs offered by states, they are still way out of the reach of most people.

[Fumesucker]

14. Affluent people are the only ones who count..

Those who can't afford insurance don't deserve medical care..

[mzmolly]

16. Those who researched the expansion of health care, realize that Obama increased

medicaid eligibility to those in higher income brackets. Further, free clinics are funded in the legislation. But, let us not be blinded by the millions who are benefiting.

[dflprincess]

21. The "affordable care" act

extended Medicare eligibility to 133% of the poverty level. The 2011 poverty line for a single adult is a gross income of $10,890 so the income limt for a single person is a whopping $14,483.70.

The community clinics that are being funded are not able to provide major medical care like chemo, radiation or major surgeries.

The current plans available in Minnesota for those with preexisting conditions have monthly premiums between $307 and $414 a month depending on the plan chosen. Not that bad provided you don't need any on going care because these plans also have an out of pocket maximum of $5,950 - not a hard number for a cancer patient to reach and, if you divide that out of pocket by 12, it comes out to $495.83/month. Add the premium in and a person could be looking at an average monthly medical expense between $802 and $909.

Per an article in the Star Tribune a few months ago, it's becoming apparent that these high out of pocket plans are keeping people from seeing their doctors - even when they have chronic conditions that need monitoring. Fewer people are scheduling their "free" screenings because they know they can't afford follow up if it is needed. Really all most people with these plans are doing is making a monthly contribution to the insurance company their policy is with and praying they don't need any medical care.

Insurance companies are already paying out less because of these high out of pocket plans yet they continue to raise premiums and post record profits. This is not going to change with the "affordable care" act.

[eridani]

24. +10000 n/t

[Safetykitten]

27. Very true.

[mzmolly]

33. You're confusing Minnesota Care with the Federal Pre-Existing Condtion, plan.

From the article: Fortunately for me, I've been saved by the federal government's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, something I had never heard of before needing it.

It's part of President Obama's health care plan, one of the things that has already kicked in, and it guarantees access to insurance for U.S. citizens with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months.

The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies).

More on the actual program we're discussing. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/mn.html

And, as you surely know, you needn't pay a 5900 medical bill in 12 months. Further, why not divide 50,000 by 12 and compare that to the 5900 figure you note? THAT is the comparison between the Obama plan and what we had prior, which was NOTHING for those with pre-existing conditions.

[dflprincess]

45. No I am not. The information came from the link below:

https://www.pcip.gov/StatePlans.html

It takes you to the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan page at Healthcare.gov. From there you select the state you need "coverage" in. The plan available in Minnesota is listed as being run by the Department of Health and Human Services. Though I did look at the premiums for people in my age bracket - which are the same as what the group policy I have through my employer are. The max out of pocket of $5950 is also the same as my private policy. I wonder if this federal program is setting the standard for private insurers. While maximum out of pockts have been going up I've never had a policy where it was this high.

Each of the three PCIP plan options provides preventive care (paid at 100%, with no deductible) when you see an in-network doctor and the doctor indicates preventive diagnosis. Included are annual physicals, flu shots, routine mammograms and cancer screenings. For other care, you will pay a deductible before PCIP pays for your health care and prescriptions. After you pay the deductible, you will pay 20% of medical costs in-network. The maximum you will pay out-of-pocket for covered services in a calendar year is $5,950 in-network/$7,000 out-of-network

The United States remains the only first world country where seriously ill people and their loved ones not only have to worry about the illness but how to pay for it as well. We are still the only western nation that allows people to die because they cannot afford to access care.

[mzmolly]

47. A portion of the information you noted was correct. However the

rates were not.

I also don't feel that it is fair to focus on the max out of pocket costs etc., without comparing that to what might have been pre-health care reform.

HCR is progress. And, while I have a utopian vision rooted in free health/dental care for all, I appreciate the progress the President has made. Especially given today's political climate.

[eridani]

23. Those benefits don't kick in until 2014. Furthermore, expanding Medicaid eligibility--

--means exactly jackshit if Medicaid funding is constantly being cut. States just can't affford to implement it.

[mzmolly]

34. Horrors!

Those without a medical condition, must wait for 2014 or until they have a diagnosis, vs. having NO COVERAGE AT ALL, EVER?! :eyes:

[eridani]

39. What good is "coverage" that you can't use? n/t

[mzmolly]

48. Why can't you use it?

Don't you pay a copay now?

How about a deductible?

What about having a pay check debited for the cost of premiums? These things are not NEW due to reform. Reform simply gives more people access to coverage.

We can't afford the $300 a month plus, that comes out of our pay either, but we haven't a choice.

[EFerrari]

17. Yep.

[mzmolly]

15. Affluent?

Did you read the article?

[eridani]

25. Yes--high risk pool insurance is TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE for

---all but 12,000 of the 6 million eligible for it.

[mzmolly]

36. Source?

Thanks.

[eridani]

42. ---

That makes 12,000 out of 6 million. If the high risk pool prices were actually affordable, that fact would spread like wildfire by word of mouth.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110210/NEWS/302109946/1010&rssfeed=rss01

National enrollment in a pre-existing condition health plan created by last year's healthcare reform law has increased by 50% in the past three months to more than 12,000 Americans, HHS said Thursday.

[mzmolly]

46. The link doesn't work for me.

Regardless, it takes time to get a program up and running as is demonstrated by your quote above: "National enrollment in a pre-existing condition health plan created by last year's healthcare reform law has increased by 50% in the past three months to more than 12,000 Americans, HHS said Thursday." I expect we'll continue to see more and more people enroll as they become aware of the program.

[bluestate10]

29. Probably not. But the claim is the classic tactic to dismiss anything good

that President Obama has accomplished. The tactic is as raw and as dishonest as any one that a birther or teabagger would use.

[mzmolly]

35. Exactly.

The woman had to choose between losing her home, or going without health care coverage ala cobra after losing a job. I guess that's the new "affluent" as defined by some DU-ers. It's amazing what passes for rational around here.

[eridani]

41. Sorry--the basic moral premise underlying health care reform is utterly vile

That premise would be that the more money you have, the better the health care that you deserve.

24 year olds whose parents can afford to add them to the family health care plan = worthy
24 year olds whose parents cannot afford to add them to the family health care plan = unworthy

People who can afford expensive high risk insurance = worthy
People who cannot afford expensive high risk insurance = unworthy

Platinum plan = the best people
Gold plan = better people
Silver plan = OK people
Bronze plan = unnacceptable people
Lead/dirt plan (3x the price for people 55-64) = disposable human garbage people.

[mzmolly]

49. What bullshit.

Instead of looking at the fact that those 18-24 can now remain on their parents policy, you're focusing on the fact that some might have to either pay a premium, or wait until they have a need? Instead of looking at the fact that those with pre-existing conditions can't be denied coverage or be charged more, you're pissing about the choice factor in the plans? A 24 year old without insurance, would be wise to choose a lower cost option. It's not rocket science. And, it's not elitism.

By the way, how do you pay for health insurance now?

[mzmolly]

20. "We had to start using a home equity line of credit to pay for our health insurance premiums..."

With the recession, both of our businesses took a huge hit -- my husband's income was cut in half, and the foundations that had supported my small nonprofit were going through their own tough times.

We had to start using a home equity line of credit to pay for our health insurance premiums (which by that point cost as much as our monthly mortgage). When the bank capped our home equity line, we were forced to cash in my husband's IRA.

The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house.

We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost.

Nope. Not affluent.

[ctaylors6]

30. It helps self-employed people especially

I agree the premiums plus out of pocket costs are high, and too cost prohibitive for the majority of people who need it. But there is a big section of the population with pre-existing conditions (conditions that aren't even all that serious but prevent them from getting private insurance) who can afford the high risk pools, state or federal, and for those people it's a huge relief to have the pools available.

My husband and I are self-employed and speak from experience on this matter. We exhausted COBRA and are now in the process of trying to get insurance privately (Unlikely because of pre-existing conditions) or through our state's high risk pool. We are very fortunate to be able to afford the premiums and costs. But this process has made me more concerned than ever about obtaining health care in this country.

By the way, the legislation has caused an unfortunate side effect for kids. Insurance companies cannot exclude children anymore because of pre-existing conditions. I thought that was awesome until I realized that now insurance companies won't offer kid-only policies. So the parent get denied for pre-existing conditions (some not all that serious), and the kids can't get insurance. So the whole family has only the high risk pools available.

The whole situation is so messed up.

[bluestate10]

26. It is the first step on the road to Single Payer health care.

Realistically, President Obama got all that he could get in the environment that he fought in for HCR. As the benefits become clearer, more voters will start to see the wisdom of HCR and begin to demand more progress toward Single Payer. Canada and Massachusetts illustrate that once voters experience the benefits of HCR, they like it. Canadians are rightfully proud of their system, 78% of Massachusetts residents now like the results of HCR. Look to Vermont with hopeful eyes, because that state is going for the real deal.

[mzmolly]

38. Agreed.

:hi:

[eridani]

40. What MA demonstrates is that healthy people don't know shit about how good their insurance is

Just like they don't know shit about how good their fire extinguishers are. For the screwjob perpetrated on the minority of actual sick people in MA, see the following.


http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/docs/2011/AJM_Mass-Reform-hasnt-stopped-med-bankruptcies.pdf

Massachusetts reform hasn't stopped medical bankruptcies: Harvard study


The percentage of personal bankruptcies linked to medical bills or illness changed little, and the absolute number actually increased in Massachusetts after the implementation of its landmark 2006 law requiring people to buy health insurance, a Harvard study says.

The new study, which appears in today’s American Journal of Medicine, found that between early 2007 and mid-2009, the share of all Massachusetts bankruptcies with a medical cause went from 59.3 percent to 52.9 percent, a non-significant decrease of 6.4 percentage points. Because there was a sharp rise in total bankruptcies during that period, the actual number of medical bankruptcy filings in the state rose from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.

The findings have national implications because the Obama administration’s health law is largely patterned after the Massachusetts plan, including its individual mandate. One of the administration’s arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.

To explain why medical bankruptcies persist in Massachusetts, the authors of the new study write: “Health costs in the state have risen sharply since reform was enacted. Even before the changes in health care laws, most medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts – as in other states – afflicted middle-class families with health insurance. High premium costs and gaps in coverage – co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services – often left insured families liable for substantial out-of-pocket costs. None of that changed. For example, under Massachusetts’ reform, the least expensive individual coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian carries a premium of $5,616, a deductible of $2,000, and covers only 80 percent of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services.”

[mzmolly]

50. Has it saved family homes? How about saving people money?

According to the Families USA report, Iowa households earning less than $100,000 annually will be about $2,390 better off in 2019. Households with income under $30,000 will be $3,505 better off; households with income between $30,000 and $50,000 will be $1,976 better off; and households with income between $50,000 and $100,000 will be $1,462 better off once the federal reforms are fully implemented.

"As this report makes clear, the Affordable Care Act will put extra cash in the pocketbooks of Iowa families - those who now have health coverage and those who are currently uninsured,"

Read More: http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/report-health-care-reform-saves-iowans-money/article_371f21a0-fc1d-11e0-8149-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1gG91ZH5j

[eridani]

43. In a sense it is. When the wheels come off due to skyrocketing costs-

--single payer will be the only alternative left.

The only acceptable way to have private insurance involved with universal health care is for the government to directly dictate prices and benefits, as happens in Japan, Germany, France, etc. HCR has already shown that we can't achieve cost control like those other countries have. As long as private insurance exists, we won't be able to control costs.