The sick, like me, should speak up
Those with the mendacity to decry the Affordable Health Care Act are taking a position that will be a point of shame in posterity. This is not a partisan issue. It’s a civil rights issue.
For a moment, let’s set aside the fact that the health insurance mandate was originally thought up by Republicans .
Let’s temporarily ignore that a cornerstone of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is the repeal of an act based on the universal health care model that he championed as governor of Massachusetts.
What remains of the dialogue following the Supreme Court’s monumental decision? The left is failing to explain what this means for individuals and businesses and the country as a whole, and the right is whining because they have to either adjust their myopic priorities .
The implementation of major public programs has historically been met with resistance, as have advancements in liberty. Usually because of fear and greed.
Ben Franklin famously observed that nothing is certain but death and taxes. Face it: We’re all dying or will be someday and we must all contribute to the collective if we expect to benefit from it.
I am childless and not by choice. I suppose I could be angry that the ability to procreate is rewarded with tax credits, exemptions, and other breaks but I’m happy to contribute. The future of America’s children is my future.
The passage of the Affordable Care Act protects that future by ensuring that all peoplehave access to the care they need.
I live with multiple overlapping chronic autoimmune and central sensitization conditions, complicated by other recurrent treatment-resistant problems. I’ve made substantial changes and gains in managing my own care, and I’ve made huge sacrifices, but my health has continued to degenerate.
As long as this legislation stands, I do not have to face rejection for health insurance when my COBRA coverage runs out. If it is repealed, my options will be to accept public assistance (something I’ve resisted despite being irrefutably qualified for disability insurance), deplete my parents’ security, or move to one of the nearly 50 countries with universal health coverage.
Many people can’t wrap their minds around the fact that lots of conditions do not have cures and that diagnostic criteria and treatment guidelines change regularly as more is learned about the body and that which thwarts it. Few understand the feeling of futility and isolation when one is on a quest for an answer or remedy that doesn’t yet exist.
If a person is diagnosed with cancer, gets in a horrible accident or has a heart attack, loved ones, medical professionals, even coworkers and acquaintances, rally to support them.
People who develop an aggregate of debilitating symptoms over time do not receive this level of care and attention. In fact, they often face years of invalidation, blame, misdiagnosis and poverty until they have a major medical crisis or die. This is not a standard of care that should be tolerated, let alone perpetuated.
Now, with the elimination of lifetime caps on care and expanded coverage of preventive and integrative medicine, the millions of Americans living with chronic health problems can look ahead to treatment and symptom management options that are currently unavailable or unaffordable.
The country has taken a historic step forward but the Republican Party is promising two steps back if Romney wins in November. For this reason, it is imperative that those of us who are sick and struggling speak up, despite the daunting vulnerability, despite the stigma, and ask for support on Election Day.
Perhaps we can make something meaningful of our misfortune by raising a collective cry that all people deserve hope, health compassion and equality.
Brooke Tourtellot of Kansas City works as a freelance writer and consultant. Reach her by email at oped@kcstar.com or write to Midwest Voices, c/o Editorial Page, The Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108.
George Hunsucker
Northland
11 months, 2 weeks agoBrooke, if you live in MO, you have access to the MO high risk pool don’t you?????
Jon Whitten
11 months, 2 weeks ago“…the ability to procreate is rewarded with tax credits, exemptions, and other breaks…”
Not true, there are absolutely no breaks, incentives or exemptions based on the ABILITY to procreate. It is when one actually becomes a parent and takes on the additional responsibilities, costs and burdens that the considerations are given.
I won’t try to speak about your situation because I’ve not experienced it…please don’t speak to mine if you haven’t been there…agreed?
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks ago“Show me where it is a “right”.”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/sick-me-should-speak/#storylink=cpy
Glad you asked that question K. If access to a basic level of care is a right then of course, the country must provide it, not private for profit businesses. (President Reagan muddied the water when he signed the law forcing emergency treatment from private providers but that’s a topic for another day.) Thus single payer would be the logical and most efficient means of delivery if it is indeed a right..
If health care is a privilege confined only to those you have means to pay then preconditions for enjoying that privilege can be placed on the prospective patients e.g having insurance (or a Romney sized wad of dough). The mandate in O-care merely codifies that precondition. Therefore, you don’t get health care unless you have insurance.
Personally I think that life was put before liberty and pursuit of happiness for a reason. The logical corollary then would be that access to a basic level of health care for the maintenance of said life. That’s why I’m a fan of single payer.
Mark Robertson
11 months, 2 weeks agoLife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights granted by our Creator.(God) Health care, like food, clothing and shelter is not a right. The U.S. is a very generous country though, and those who are not able to provide for their own health care have private charitable options. If the government would get out of health care, charitable donations and options would greatly increase. And Mark Hastert, you say that single payer(government health care)would be the most logical and efficient means of delivery of health care if it is a right. Whether it’s a right or not, have you read anything about single payer systems around the world? The systems have be a disaster everywhere, including Canada. It is so obvious. Read anything by Sally Pipes or Dr. David Gratzer, both Canadians and Canadian health care experts. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
JR Beillenhouser
11 months, 2 weeks agoFunny how it is always those dastardly Republicans fault. How uninformed, old, and pathetic.
“Personally I think that life was put before liberty and pursuit of happiness for a reason. The logical corollary then would be that access to a basic level of health care for the maintenance of said life. That’s why I’m a fan of single payer.”
Yet when confronted with basic science about life, you approve of abortion. So, really, you are for life first only when it suits you. As usual the intent of our founding father’s documents are subverted.
Brooke -
I feel bad for you. I’m sorry for your issues. I think the big fallacy is that this law is going to make things better. In reality, it is not. There are not enough doctors to go around. There is not enough money to go around. Your type of treatment may not be approved. What then? Also, the law will break the bank. Then people will be dying in the streets.
Should we have healthcare reform? Yes. Is this the right law? No. Does that make you right and me wrong? No.
Let’s find a better solution.
I seem to remember a Ben Franklin quote that was thrown around alot by liberals when the Patriot Act was signed. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Why did civil libertarians believe that was bad but this could possibly be good. BTW, with the way that Homeland Security under Obama has been run, now with drones spying on people, why no fuss from those same people? Politics as usual.
JR Beillenhouser
11 months, 2 weeks agoMr Robertson has a great point Mark. If Life is a right, why don’t we get free food? That is more important to life than health care.
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks ago“have you read anything about single payer systems around the world? The systems have be a disaster everywhere, including Canada.”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/sick-me-should-speak/#storylink=cpy
That could not be more wrong. Where in the world did you get that silliness? Do some more reading, try something besides Fox, then explain to us how all of them rank ahead of the US in efficiency and outcomes. A New England Journal of Medicine study ranks us a 37th world wide in quality but #1 in cost. In Great Britain and Canada too attempts to change the public health services were met with voter outrage. I’ll stand by my assertion, it’s the most efficient and overall most effective.
As to the free food question, well we do e.g. Food Stamps. Most Americans (except terrible, no-good very bad conservatives LOL) agree that we’d look real bad if we let citizens in trouble starve in the street. And it’s not really free we all pay for it when we can so that it’s there for any of us when we need it.
Public health care is not free, we pool our money into a fund called taxes to pay for it. It’s no different than private health insurance, just cheaper and more effective.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 2 weeks agoOK, Brooke, I agree about putting aside that the mandate started as a Republican idea. But, wait. Let’s do it right and throw it away forever, since it’s not true. I know, I know, you have heard it many times from people like Nancy Pelosi on House floor and Mark Hastert right here on these blogs. But the fact is, it’s not true.
Unfortunately, we do not have an honest press who will call out the liberals when they say the mandate came from the Republicans. Therefore, we do hear it a lot, even though it’s not true. You, see, what they are referring to is a paper published by the Heritage Foundation back in the early 90’s. It was a rebuttal of the Clinton health care proposal. It was the Clinton proposal that contained universal care. If Heritage was responded to Clinton, how could Heritage have been first?
It’s also not correct to say what Heritage put forth resembled Obamacare at all. The huge difference is Obamacare focuses on the individual, cradle to grave, with all of the attenuate costs. Heritage’s paper focused on protecting the public from other people’s uninsured catastrophic expenses. It involved the purchase of low premium, very high deductible health care policies to protect the public from the large, uninsured expenses.
So, please stop referring to the mandate as a Republican idea, because that just is not true.
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks agoOh,Kent, wrong, again. You should do your own research. The Republicans invented the mandate as a rebuttal to the Clinton plan. The mandate, in fact it was seen as a free market alternative (See the LA Times quote below). And I do believe that Romneycare preceded O-care and I do believe that there is documented evidence of Republicans (including Newt Gingrich, Tommy Thompson, Bill Frist, Chuck Grassly… do I need to go on? Google, give it a try!) voicing their agreement with the idea.
This from the LA Times
” the individual health insurance mandate and discovers that not only was the provision designed by Republicans as an alternative to President Bill Clinton’s health care reform plan in the 1990s, but it was specifically seen as a way to prevent a “government takeover” of health care:”
I think that adds a little clarity to your obfuscation. You certainly are good at muddying the water and red herrings. Sorry but the facts aren’t on your side on this one.
Mark Robertson
11 months, 2 weeks agoFirst of all Mark Hastert, the “study” you cite is not from the New England Journal of Medicine, it’s from the World Health Organization, and it is greatly flawed. It relies heavily on life expectancy rate and infant mortality rate. Yes, the U.S. life expectancy rate ranks about 31, however, life expectancy rates have many factors other that health care, including: homocide rate, the number of accidents, diet, ethnic diversity etc.
The U.S. has a higher homicide rate than many other Western nations. In 2004 the rate was 5.9 per 100,000 persons. In contrast, the rate was 1.95 in Canada, 1.64 in France, and .98 in Germany. The U.S. also has more car accidents. The Dept. of Transportation estimates that there were 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people from auto accidents in 2006. In Canada, the number was 9.25, France 7.4 and Germany 6.19. Homocides and car accidents alone significantly bring down life expectancy. Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A and M and John Schneider of the University recently found that Americans who don’t die in homocides or car accidents outlive people in every other Western country. And the World Health Organization defines live birth as any infant who, once removed from the mother, “breaths or shows any other evidence of life…” The U.S. counts all births that show any sign of life, regardless of birth weight of prematurity. The U.S. leads in treating premature births. They try to save so many more. Many other nations have less stringent criteria. And a 2008 study in Lancet Oncology found that , compared to Europeans and Canadians, Americans had a better survival rate-five years after diagnosis-for thirteen out of sixteen of the most common cancers.(David Gratzer, “American Cancer Care Beats the Rest,” Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2008) The problems with U.S. health care are the result of it already being nearly half government run and highly overregulated. It is far from a free market. Free market forces are the answer to bringing down costs and improving care. Health savings accounts would bring about more direct pay, which is the answer to lowering costs. Even with all of its current problems brought about by government involvement, the U.S. still has one of the great health care systems in the world. Where do world leaders go for major health care? In fact where do many Canadians go. The answer is the same, the good ole USA. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Mark Robertson
11 months, 2 weeks agoAnd Mark Hastert, In Canada, a country of about 33 million, there are currently around 800,000 on waiting lists for surgery and other necessary treatments. 15 years ago the average wait time between a referrel from a primary care doctor and treatment from a specialist was around 9 weeks. It is now more than 18 weeks.(Nadeem Esmail and Michael Walker,”How Good is Canadian Health Care,” Fraser Institute, Nov. 2007) And Britain’s hospitals are in complete disrepair. Every year more than 100,000 patients contract illnesses and infections that they didn’t have prior to admission to NHS hospitals. There are also more than a million on waiting lists needing medical care and waiting for hospital admission, and 200,000 more just waiting to get on the waiting list. And each year the NHS cancels more than 100,000 operations.(Top Ten Myths of American Health Care, by Sally Pipes, p. 129) A look at what Obamacare would do to us. It has to be smashed to smitherines. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
JR Beillenhouser
11 months, 2 weeks agoMark - Who cares. Obama and the Dems passed it. They own it.
JR Beillenhouser
11 months, 2 weeks agoLibs are too stupid to get it. That is until they need that operation to live. Then they are going to find out the hard way.
Mark Robertson
11 months, 2 weeks agoA rare set of identical quadruplets born…to a Calgary(Canada) woman at a Montana hospital are in good health…The naturally conceived baby quads-Autum, Brooke,Calissa, and Dahlia-were delivered by caesarean section Sunday in Great Falls…Their mother, Calgarian Karen Japp, was transferred to Benefits Hospital in Montanna last week when she began showing signs of going into labour, and no Canadian hospital had enough neonatal intensive-care beds for all four babies.(Michele Lang “Calgary’s quads: Born in U.S.A.” Calgary Herald, August 17th, 2007) Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks agoMark, I’m sorry but your atatistics aren’t relevant. Our per capita expenditures are the highest in the world and our outcomes are way way down the list. The UN infant mortality ranks us at 34th and ven our own CIA factbook at 49th! You seem tho be of the opinion that no care is better than waiting for health care. Now take a look at Germany’s system
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks agothe mandate started as a Republican idea. “But, wait. Let’s do it right and throw it away forever, since it’s not true. I know, I know, you have heard it many times from people like Nancy Pelosi on House floor and Mark Hastert right here on these blogs. But the fact is, it’s not true.”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/sick-me-should-speak/#storylink=cpy
God, this is so good. Here’s an excerpt from the actual document, kindly note the year. The article is from that liberal rag Forbes Magazine.
With these considerations in mind, in 1989, Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation proposed a plan he called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans.” Stuart’s plan included a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance,” which he framed explicitly as a way to address the “free rider” problem and employer mandates (emphasis added):
“Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.
This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services—even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself…
A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection, which would end the problem of middle-class “free riders” on society’s sense of obligation”
Notice how many times Butler calls it a mandate? Notice that the proposal dates from 1989?
Now I’m gonna enjoy the afterglow….
JR Beillenhouser
11 months, 2 weeks agoMark - you confuse the Heritage Foundation with Congress. Who cares.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 2 weeks agoMark Hastert, you can say it any way you wish, but it’s not true. Requiring insurance in a state is far different than requiring insurance in a country. Also, very high deductible, catastrophic policies are far different from cradle to grave care.
And as for the LA Times….get real with your sources?
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks agoWell Kent I guess you didn’t read the actual excerpt from the Heritage Foundation paper dated 1989 (ah, the sin of omission). Unless you believe in time travel I think that settles the matter. Conservatives conceived, embraced, and promoted the mandate until Obama beat them with their own stick.
I guess JR didn’t read the partial list of Republican congressional supporters. I am heartened that you’re reduced to the point of simple denial,
Now, repeat after me; the mandate was a conservative idea, the mandate was a conservative idea,the mandate was a conservative idea,the mandate was a conservative idea,the mandate was a conservative idea,the mandate was a conservative idea…… LOL!
George Hunsucker
Northland
11 months, 2 weeks agoKent & JR, don’t forget you are dealing with makes you shake your head and wonder…
Mark Robertson
11 months, 2 weeks agoMr. Hastert, I realize that liberals usually aren’t bothered by facts, but your claim that “our outcomes are way down on the list,” is a lie, as my facts and sources point out. I guess I should have listened to those who say to not get into an argument with a liberal because it is often not rational. And waiting for health care service is deadly. Just who waits for health care in this country like they do in the socialist systems? My 52 year old brother had a heart attack last week. He does have insurance from his very “middle class” job. He was able to drive himself to the hospital because he didn’t want to pay the high ambulance cost. He was in surgery in less than an hour after he arrived at the emergency room. They essentially immediately took him into surgery and he is doing fine. Glad he was in this country. Along with Singapore and a few other more free market systems, the U.S. has the best health system in the world, as my previous sourced facts point out. The reasons for higer costs are government involvement diminishing free market forces, third party payments, public and private, and great technology and technological breakthroughs that so often happen in the U.S. do cost money at the beginning. Obamacare takes care of that though with the new taxes on medical devices. That tax would(and has already) greatly diminish medical technology advandcement in this country. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Mark Robertson
11 months, 2 weeks agoStates do have a right to mandate certain things,(se 10th Amendment) the federal government, despite what John Roberts says, cannot mandate the purchase of a product. By the way, many states do mandate car insurance, but there are still a number of car owners who don’t have car insurance. And, the father of Canadian universal government run “health care,” Claude Castonguay, now has regrets about leading and urging Canada down that road in the 1970s. Castonguay now says the system is in “crisis” and has called for the private sector to step in.(Antonia Maioni, The Castonguay Report.”) Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Kent Mueller
11 months, 2 weeks agoMark, Mark, Mark discussion and proposal are quite different. The only reason this is even being discussed is because liberals want to paint the picture a different color than reality. Discussions and legislation are very different things. Seems what you are proving is the conservatives are better at looking at all the angles before making a decision. I certainly don’t see that from the left very often.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 2 weeks agoMark…you have never mentioned if there is a difference between high deductible, low premium policies and cradle to grave care.
Any difference? I mean other than night and day? lol
George Hunsucker
Northland
11 months, 2 weeks agoStrange that Brooke has not answered my question of 2 days ago?????
What about the MO high-risk pool?
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks ago“Mark…you have never mentioned if there is a difference between high deductible, low premium policies”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/sick-me-should-speak/#storylink=cpy
…because that’s not and never was your point. You, and apparently others, are trying to run away from the fact that the mandate, the most important piece of O-Romneycare originated as a conservative idea. Don’t you remember writing this?
“OK, Brooke, I agree about putting aside that the mandate started as a Republican idea. But, wait. Let’s do it right and throw it away forever, since it’s not true.”
I remember it. I remember furnishing you the the name. date a,d an excerpt from the Heritage Foundation paper that proposed it. I remember naming a number of prominent congressional Republicans who supported the idea. I also remember saying that if they’d bee smart they’d have claimed it, declared victory, and moved on. Now they just look like a bunch of obstructionist sore losers.
BTW George I am a little familiar with the MO High Risk Pool. For a young person say Brooke’s age the premiums run from about $250-$275/ month with $1,000- $5,000 out of pocket deductibles. These premiums are much more affordable now because there were reduced by about 25% in 2011 because of…….you guessed it, Obamacare!
George Hunsucker
Northland
11 months, 2 weeks ago“As long as this legislation stands, I do not have to face rejection for health insurance when my COBRA coverage runs out. If it is repealed, my options will be to accept public assistance (something I’ve resisted despite being irrefutably qualified for disability insurance), deplete my parents’ security, or move to one of the nearly 50 countries with universal health coverage.”
This statement is patently false in MO Brooke… You have guaranteed coverage NOW without 0’care—
Mark Hastert
11 months, 2 weeks agoOh George, the old version of the MO high risk pool was considerably more costly and harder to get into. Just as an exercise in futility look at the rate you’d pay for yourself and the Mrs if to didn’t have Medicare (thanks to us smart libs). It would definitely deplete your gold hoard. On behalf of all us smart libs, you are welcome!
JR Beillenhouser
11 months, 2 weeks agoMedicare won’t exist in a few years. We’ll certainly thank you for that.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 1 week agoMark, once again you put words into other people’s mouths. How unbecoming. You are the one who doesn’t understand my point, not me. I know what I’m saying.
To confuse a discussion in a paper that involved low premium, high deductible insurance policies with cradle to grave care is playing fast and loose with the facts.