Who needs healthcare?

I saw this article on Al Jazeera America on millennials and healthcare reform. Specifically, that without the millennials, healthcare reform will fail, but because of the economic situation, millennials don’t want health insurance. Jonathan Betz wrote the article entitled, “’I don’t need health care’: Millennials threaten success of reform.” It should also be noted that so many people tried to sign up for health insurance through the exchange that it took some states' exchanges offline. Good thing the House GOP us protecting all these people...oh wait.

Betz profiles a young woman who is disgusted by the mandate requiring everyone to purchase healthcare. This young woman, Stacie Smeal, lives a healthy lifestyle. She makes a valid point about the costs, “I just can’t comprehend working 35 hours a week, where I’m bringing in, after taxes, $200, $250 a week, just so I can have health insurance that I might use once that year. Who wants to work just for your health insurance?”

However, if we had universal healthcare that wouldn't be an issue. Dodged a bullet there, right guys. The insurance exchange opened Tuesday. The article states that the exchange hopes to attract 2.7 million of the 17 million uninsured 18 to 34 year old. This is the group least likely to be insured. Without young people, the cost of Obamacare increases.

A lot of people who are supporters or critics of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) say the bill unfairly targets young people. If you don’t sign up there is a fine of $95 or up to a 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.

There is debate over the actual costs of the program. The government estimates the cost of health insurance will be between $129 and $240 per month for young people. Although, if they don’t have the money to buy the insurance then they probably won’t have the funds to pay the fine. Many young people are managing the occasional visit for less than the cost of insurance, and only worry if they get in an accident.

So this is when I’m going to be the nag, we should have universal healthcare. We have this shitty option because our elected leaders are pretty fucking stupid, see the faux crisis resulting in a governmental shutdown. However, insurance is hella important. Come close, let me tell you a story…

I have an uncle who served in the military, he’s your second amendment loving, kind of racist (or as I like to put it Midwest racist) uncle we all have. While in the service he hurt his knee, both of them I think. It healed and he went home. However, he then worked a blue collar job for the next 40 years, and his knee started giving him trouble again, obviously. His insurance refused to pay for the knee replacement he needed because he was uninsured for a while as a young man, during his childhood. Fortunately, the VA eventually paid for it after fighting tooth and nail.The argument was that the injury occurred during the time he was uninsured. There is some true to that, manual labor didn't help it, but it was originally injured during the war.

See insurance companies are the enemy. They will deny claims for any reason they can find, which means any time you are uninsured, they will try to say long term problems originated then. It is their job to make money off of you so they don’t want to pay out claims. So even if it is tight, I highly recommend you pay for insurance.

I also, have one more thing to say about those interviewed in the article. These are obviously people with some privileges. I don’t mean that they can’t have an opinion, but I think it is important to note. After all growing up in poverty leave people with health issues like asthma, diabetes, etc. Issues that require long-term medical care if not indefinite. They also aren’t living in food deserts and suffering from poor nutrition. One of the things that struck me in the article was the assertion that young people were being punished for striking out on their own, welp, yeah. That’s kind of how adulthood works for those not in the most privileged class.

Mitt Romney believes poor people should just go to the ER when sick.

Mitt Romney is arguing that the poor should just go to the ER when ill because that's a good idea. Also, the actual quote is more along the lines of, "At least we didn't let them die." Romney pretty much calls the ER a substitute for insurance. This was on Huffington Post this morning with video, and I couldn't resist.

So anecdotal, I worked in an ER processing intake while in undergrad during the graveyard shift. I can tell you, ER doctors, nurses, and staff do not believe the ER should substitute for insurance, and often the uninsured or those on Medicaid were treated poorly. I could tell you about how staff would make the uninsured and underinsured wait for hours before taking them. Not everyone mind you, but a lot of the people on staff were resentful of those who weren't insured.

Romney's quote:

"Well, we do provide for people who don't have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care."

First, Romney's selective amnesia strikes again; he has no memory of his universal health care law in Massachusetts.

When asked whether he believed in universal health care, Romney responded, "Oh, sure." I think the question was poorly phrased. Universal health care isn't like believing in God. Universal health care exists. He continued to say:

"Look, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way."

Actually, Mittens, going to the emergency room isn't completely free. It contributes to the system that increases insurance premiums for all of us.

Romney also asserts that states have their own way of doing things:

"Again, different states have different ways of doing that. Some provide that care through clinics. Some provide the care through emergency rooms. In my state, we found a solution that worked for my state. But I wouldn't take what we did in Massachusetts and say to Texas, 'You've got to take the Massachusetts model.'"

Just to be clear, Romney's home state, which is the example he uses, has universal health care, but the rest of us shouldn't have that. We should use the more costly ER method.

Women under Obamacare

Issue 3: Assault on Health Care in Ohio

I know you’re reading this thinking, this can’t be real, but is it friends.  It is almost as though every time I wake in the morning I get email alerts about the bat-shit crazy legislation the GOP is trying to push through Ohio’s General Assembly.  Well, I do, but that isn’t the point.

Issue 3 is Ohio’s attempt to opt out of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Because some conservative somewhere plans to run on the “we want to pay more platform” or the more than likely “I represent people with money.” 

Issue 3 appears on this November’s ballot, remember they count on a smaller turnout because there isn’t a major election, but Issues 2 & 3 are more than enough reason to venture out.  Vote NO on Issue 3.  Vote NO on Issue 2. I’m all about the NO this year.

If passed Issue 3 will have long lasting negative effects in the areas below (and more):

Workers Comp

COBRA

Child Support Enforcement Orders

College and University Student Health Insurance Coverage Requirements

Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Tax Levies

Regulation of Insurance Company Practices

School Immunizations and Disease Tracking

For more information:

http://www.progressohio.org/blog/2011/09/website-launch-heralds-beginning-of-the-campaign-against-ill-advised-issue-3.html

http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/vote-no-issue-3?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://votenoissue3.com/

Cobra subsidy set to end September 1st

Ok, so why didn't I know about this? No idea. Really, I'm pretty on top of these things. I read a lot of blogs.

Cobra, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, is set to end on Thursday. Cobra allows people to continue with their health insurance plans after leaving their employment. This has a variety of subject matter including Title X, which allows the Public Health Services Act to deny income tax deductions to employers for contributions to group health plans.

In 2009, the feds subsidized Cobra reducing the costs for unemployment by 65%. According to The Kaiser Family Foundation the subsidy brought costs under control:

The average monthly cost of maintaining COBRA coverage without the subsidy is about $1,137 for a family policy and $410 for an individual, according to calculations from The Kaiser Family Foundation. With the subsidy, costs plummet to a more affordable $398 per month for a family and $144 for individuals.

Clearly, without the subsidy people are going to go without insurance, which is find because we have a public option...wait that's not right. Cobra enrollment ended in May 2010, but extensions for the subsidies prolonged them for the past 15 months. People would still qualify will lose that benefit on September 1. The $25 billion Cobra subsidy was predicted to help 7 million laid off workers and their families, but Kaiser found that the program doubled after the subsidy was made available. This implies many people couldn't afford insurance without the subsidy so I guess those program numbers will bottom out.

Important stats for this conversation:

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that nearly 59 million Americans went without health insurance coverage for at least part of 2010. Federal health officials said 4 million more Americans went without health insurance that year compared to 2008.

Currently, about 9.1 percent of Americans are unemployed, according to the most recent statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This is a serious concern for the unemployed. But then again who cares. They're just poor people. But let's continue to fight for the rich people's rights to keep their money. Without insurance those pesky poor people won't be around for long [sarcasm].

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/204002/20110825/cobra-subsidy-to-end-on-sept-1.htm

And 1 to women

I meant to cover this earlier, but as of August 1st bill control will be covered by private health insurance plans.

Take a minute. Still with me? Good. Shiny.

Starting in August 2012, birth control will be seen as preventative care (yep, that's pretty awesome because apparently being a woman is a preexisting condition look to the approved health care reform law).

The new guidelines cover birth control, voluntary sterilization, and other preventative women's services. All of this is covered under the Affordable Heath Care Act. Also included breast feeding support, HPV screening, counseling for STDs, etc.

I'm not rushing out to celebrate yet. While this could be awesome, it could also be overturned just as easily given how much conservatives are trying set women back mostly through reproductive rights and health.

Issue 2 or a New Post to Save Cari's Career...

Not really though, but wrap your mind about people letting this woman teach. Who knows the subversive horrors she'll instill in the minds of the youth? I mean a feminist, pro-gay, anti-poverty message. The damage to be done. However, I concede that my last post had an argumentative title.

But actually, this is about Ohio SB 5, which has now been christened Issue 2. It's all shiny and new again. The referendum on the anti-union/workers' rights essentially cutting their rights to collective bargaining leaving everyone of the mercy of companies in an at will state. (I've spent several weeks in Cleveland this month working on research for my thesis on women returning to work and public assistance, which another post all together.)

Issue 2 falls between two other hefty bills, well at least one. Issue 1: changing the mandatory retirement age for judges (yeah not really as sexy as worker and health care, but hey why not). Issue 3: will nullify Ohio participation in the federal health care reform.

These will all be Yes/No on the ballot, but we don't know yet how they'll be worded. What we do know is that the language will be confusing on the last two of these three. Ohio Ballot Board will be meeting next week to decide on the language.

The meeting will be open to the publics:

The gathering is set for 10 a.m. in the Finan Finance Hearing Room of the Senate Building, the annex connected to the east side of the Statehouse. The meeting is open to the public and will also be streamed live online at www.ohiochannel.org.

The whole article can be found here: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/28/sb-5-referendum-will-be-issue-2-on-november-ballot.html?sid=101

Its like they didn't even read the Health Care bill before they repealed it.

Probably not. So the House voted to repeal the Health Care bill, but to pander to their base Republicans are throwing around buzz words like ABORTION [say it out loud in a lower octave]. The No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, was introduced today. It is the Hyde amendment banning federal funds for abortion. It was introduced in tandem with the Protect Life Act that would ban any federal funds for abortion under the health reform law.

Boehner says abortion is one of their highest legislative priorities. Can you feel NOW, the Feminist Majority, and Planned Parenthood gearing up for a fight? Most likely this bill is going to die; they usually do, but I think it highlights a few things about what we're dealing with.

To begin with let's look at my favorite Boehner quote, " Our members feel very strongly about the sanctity of human life. We listened to the American people. We made a commitment to the American people under the Pledge to America and we're continuing to fulfill our commitment." Except war, the death penalty, and sick people, then death is ok.

Obviously the Health Care bill doesn't include any coverage for abortion, which Republicans might have known if someone bothered to read what they are complaining about in fact the bill went further to ensure abortion services are entirely paid from the patient premiums by people who have chose a private plan that covers abortion.

Well happy Roe v. Wade this weekend. Nothing says thanks for ensuring my rights like legislation trying to limit them.

House votes to repeal Health Care and ushers in a new era of stupidity

Today the House voted to repeal Health Care. I know you're all as excited about this as I am. 245 to 189, three Democrats jumped in with the Republicans. The House Republicans are doing a victory dance, but Senate Democrats are shelving any repeal of the bill. Additionally, President Obama said he'd veto, and veto he better. Essentially, repealing the bill would increase the cost to the American public and cost millions U.S. citizens health care. Of course this also comes after HHS released a report saying that the repeal would leave 130 million Americans uninsured because of pre-existing conditions...I wonder if being a woman still counts as a pre-existing condition?

Regardless, the opposition to Health Care is ridiculous, and something only people of privilege or seriously misinformed persons would buy into.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/138897-house-votes-to-repeal-healthcare-law

Comso, Feminist Zine?

This was pointed out on the Feministing Community page, and I couldn't help but get all excited about it.  Comso Magazine's website has a brief article, more a call to arms, about health care reform siting that women's rights are in jeopardy!  They want their readers to fight down the Stupak-Pitts amendment!  Loving it! 

I'm usually pretty hard on Cosmo, and found the article kind of funny to because it assumes their readers have no idea what is going on with health care reform.  But regardless, damn right!  They call for their readers to sign a petition and contact their representatives to let them know women's rights shouldn't be up for debate, left out of health care reform, or hindered.  Hot damn ladies! 

What the hell...Health Care Reform

According to the Huffington Post the House passed the Health Care bill at the expense of abortion rights.  I never said federally funded abortions, and I love the idea of a public option.  However, it is my understanding that this anti-abortion amendment added to the bill does not only limit funding for abortions from a public option, but also from all private companies operating in the exchange.  

And just to be sure the we won't be doing this again for another 40 years or so.  Not good enough!

Pre-Existing Condition: Woman?

Broadsheet had this lovely video, and I couldn't help but post it. In light of domestic violence being named a pre-existing condition, and the neglect of women's health concerns in the health care reform bill I thought it was necessary.

Abortion Anyone?

The Broadsheet over at Salon made a nice list of why abortion should be included by health insurance. The argument is that abortion is a medical procedure and should be covered by insurance, but some, and I won't point fingers, would have abortion not covered. Many people agree that abortion should be covered by health insurance because health care should dictate coverage not politics. Anyway this is the list from Salon:

1. Abortion is legal medical care.

2. Abortion is common, mainstream medical care. It is one of the most common surgical procedures in America.

3. Abortion is already broadly covered. Between 50 and 85 percent of women who have private insurance, including employer-sponsored plans, have coverage for abortion care.

4. Covering abortion does not raise the abortion rate.

5. Covering abortion makes abortion safer.

6. Covering abortion is what the people want. [More people agree that abortion should remain legal now than when Roe v. Wade was passed by the Supreme Court.]

7. Excluding abortion from coverage sends us down a slippery "moral" slope.

8. And about that "elective" business. Kissling: "Let's have insurance companies hold an annual poll of subscribers and decide on a majority basis what gets covered. Let's especially ask if they want their premiums to pay for obesity-related diseases, smoking-related diseases, STDs, neonatal intensive care where the life expectancy is less than 5 percent and put a cap on care for people over 80."

9. Without coverage, there is no "choice." Sex -- a natural human drive for most -- entails risks. Even with the best prevention measures, there will be unintended pregnancies. Jacobson: "Women must be able to make the choice of whether or not to bear children because unintended pregnancy entails emotional, financial and psychic costs that will be borne only or largely by the woman."

10. Megan Carpentier, former Jezebel writer and current editor of News and Politics of Air America Radio, sums it up thusly: "Why should abortion be covered? Because sometimes abortion is medically necessary, and the government shouldn't be writing regulations from Washington that tell a woman in Kansas when that is. Because exempting cases of rape and incest, as the Hyde Amendment does, means that women who are victims of rape and incest don't get the coverage they're supposed to have anyway, because there's no way to police whether their pregnancies are the result of government-approved circumstances. Because there's no actual government money that's going to get spent on the so-called public option, so it's a question of whether you, with your own money, can get insurance that covers what you choose to have it cover. And because eliminating coverage that currently exists through federal law is just another back-door way for the antiabortion movement to make it more difficult and expensive for women to get a legal medical procedure, since they can't convince women not to have abortions on the 'merits' of their arguments."

I slimmed down the earlier portion of the list because it was massive, but the later ones need a little more explanation.

Health Care and Getting Somewhere

I've been concerned for a while about national health coverage which leaves out women. Women's bodies are a highly contested subject...usually by those without a vagina. Women's health care is marginalized and usually left on the sidelines. However, last week it was announced that the national health care plan is going to cover some abortions (in the case of rape and incest). It isn't much, but it is something.

Now, lets talk about birth control, an extended maternity stay after labor, breast cancer care, the HPV vaccine for all students before entering high school (boys, too...vaccinate two generations and stop the spread of HPV and lower the rates of cervical cancer), and a serious medical look at many women's inability to organism. Then maybe we can talk. Having been a proponent of a national health care system for a long time doesn't change the fact I'm going to urge my representatives not to vote for a federal health care plan if it neglects women. I hope all women do the same.

WalMart Supports Workers' Right to Health Insurance Now

Walmart now supports workers' right to health insurance. This is a pretty drastic change for a corporation which used to hand our federal assistance forms to new employees.

Specifically, Walmart has come out in support of requiring companies to provide health insurance/coverage to their employees. The mandate requiring health coverage and benefits is largely contested by just about every business association in DC, including, but not limited to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Walmart wrote a joint letter with SEIU and the Center for American Progress...yeah, you read that right. This could mean a variety of things, and trust me I'm running through all the devious scenarios that Walmart could be up to. The article implies, Walmart could be attempting to mend fences with the liberals and make friends in Washington. Walmart has expanded benefits for workers in the recent past, but it has also been successfully fighting and winning lawsuits on the state evel which would have required companies to provide insurance.

The typical arguments apply on each side for and against the mandate: it is essential for health care reform and it is an unnecessary burden for small businesses. The letter composed by Walmart, SEIU, and the Center for American Progress calls for varying degrees of contributions by different size companies.

I'm still scratching my head over this one...