Good afternoon,
Hi, Ms. DeParle. I was just spending the afternoon counting the number of millions of dollars in your back account that came from businesses in the health care industry - - the industry you are now seeking to reform. I got up to $5.8 million dollars and that's only in the last three years before you were appointed to the WHOHR. You must spend a lot of time thinking about that money - - it's so much I can hardly get my brain around it myself. But that's just me, because I've never seen a million dollars, not in all my years of working put together.
Anyway, you probably wanted to talk about reforming the health insurance industry. I think you might have made the least money from health insurers in those last three years before your appointment. Maybe that's why they're your current whipping boy. But who can say?
If you’re an American under the age of 65, there's roughly a 50/50 chance that you will find yourself without coverage at some point in the next decade.1
Simply put, losing insurance can happen to anyone.
Yes, and now that you mention it we have this thing called COBRA, which stands for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, and which has been around for quite some time now. COBRA gives anyone who loses their group insurance the right to continue paying for it on their own at nearly the same rate for up to 18 months. Recent federal legislation extended that timeframe to 36 months. States also have laws (usually referred to as "mini-COBRA" laws) that provide similar extension rights and in some cases more lenient extension rights.
So is the issue here the *opportunity* to continue paying for insurance, or the *ability* to continue paying for insurance? Those are two very different things.
At yesterday's health reform event, President Obama told the story of Natoma, a self-employed woman in Ohio who found herself in the position of losing her health insurance after yet another rate hike from her insurance company:
OK. So you mean the *ability* to pay for insurance. So what we are really talking about here is the affordability of insurance premiums in general, not necessarily the loss of coverage due to a specific event.
"She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent … she couldn't make ends meet. So January was her last month of being insured.
Say now, the Obama plan would have relieved Natoma of the difficulty of her decision by making it for her: she would not have had the option of foregoing insurance because of the individual mandate. So, whether the reason was that she couldn't make ends meet, or that she just wanted to spend her money on something else, she would not have had the option either way.
You might respond by saying that your reform efforts will lower premiums. Every experience however is to the contrary.
And while I'm thinking about it, if Natoma really couldn't make ends meet, how come she didn't qualify for Medicaid? Details, details.
Like so many responsible Americans -- folks who work hard every day, who try to do the right thing -- she was forced to hang her fortunes on chance... And on Saturday, Natoma was diagnosed with leukemia…
Well of course she was, otherwise why would Obama be talking about her in a speech? But is Natoma's story everyone's story? Here's something from the source you cite on the uninsured: "45 percent of Americans in households making between $50,000 and $100,000 went without health insurance at some point between 1997 and 2006." (see page 2) Do you suppose those moderately well-off households were "forced to hang their fortunes on chance" or do you suppose that they just decided of their own free will to do so?
Should we have the freedom to make bad choices? Perhaps you don't think so, but I do.
Here's something else: "57 percent of Americans under 30 went without insurance between 1997 and 2006." (also on page 2) One might suppose that young and healthy individuals without a lot of disposable income might want to spend their money on other more important things, like repaying educational debt, or building up some good credit history, or maybe putting away early for retirement. Shouldn't they be able to? Your plan for an individual mandate would saddle youths just out of school with an expensive mandate to purchase a product that they will make very little use of. Not good news for young kids, considering that they will also have the highest Social Security Tax imposition ever to deal with, a national debt to be serviced that will amount to 90% of GDP, and a likely doubling of the state and federal outlays for Medicaid. Where exactly is all that money supposed to come from?
"Part of what makes this issue difficult is most of us do have health insurance, we still do.... But what we have to understand is that what's happened to Natoma, there but for the grace of God go any one of us."
Yep, Ms. DeParle, unfortunate things happen to people sometimes, and they don't always have millions in the bank like you to fall back on. Like the young kids that will be forced to buy health insurance when they don't need it and don't want it. That's a rather unfortunate thing, and they won't have yet made their millions.
For Natoma and the millions of other Americans forced to face the burden of medical bills they can't pay while at their most vulnerable -- the time is now for health insurance reform. Watch the video of Natoma's story and learn what more you can do to help spread the word about the need for reform.
Medical bills they can't pay? Now wait a minute, we started out talking about the affordability of *insurance,* and now you are talking about the affordability of health *services.* Those are two very different things, yes? It would be important for the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform to understand that.
Because, you know, if we are going to start talking about medical bills and the actual cost of health care services then we have to start a whole different conversation.
50/50 is the latest number in 'Health Reform by the Numbers,' our online campaign to raise awareness about why we just can't wait any longer for health insurance reform. Help spread the word by sharing this message with your family, friends and online networks.
Oh, dear, you're wrapping up already and we never got to talk about medical bills! Like, why can't we talk about the cost of chemotherapy drugs? You know, the kind poor Natoma will need for her cancer treatment? Maybe we can't talk about the cost of chemotherapy drugs for Natoma because of the $80 billion dollar sweetheart deal you cut with big pharma. From the LA Times:
Under the deal, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, agreed to provide $80 billion in cost savings over 10 years. It also promised to promote healthcare reform in a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. In return, the White House agreed to consider the $80 billion as a cap on PhRMA's costs in the overhaul legislation. In addition, the White House agreed not to require rebates on sales of commonly prescribed drugs to patients enrolled jointly in Medicaid and Medicare.
So, Ms. DeParle, your boss traded the support of the pharmaceutical industry in exchange for TAKING ANY DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS OFF THE TABLE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. This is how our elected leaders are dealing with the "biggest threat to our nation's balance sheet?"
Hey, um. The Kaiser Foundation had this to say about prescription drugs: "While prescriptions are a relatively small share of overall health spending (11%), they are a key driver of health spending trends, growing almost twice as fast all other health services in recent years."(1-1)
And when Barack Obama was running for President he said: "The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion [a year], to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality."(2-2)
So is it clearer now why we're not talking about health care costs? Obama traded away $300 billion dollars worth of potential savings in health care costs in order to get pharma's support for his current health insurance reform effort. They're untouchable now. And they got it for a promise.
Let's get it done.
Yeah. I'm feeling pretty "did" these days. Can't wait for tomorrow . . .
---------------
1 Department of the Treasury, The Risk of Losing Health Insurance Over a Decade
(1-1) Kaiser Family Foundation, Prescription Drugs
(2-2) BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL
No comments:
Post a Comment