healthcare debate

Better Than a Poke in the Eye... Oh Wait! House Healthcare Bill Passes But at a Terrible Price

Hortense of Jezebel says

By a vote of 290-194, the U.S. House of Representatives has just passed an amendment that bans the use of federal funds to cover abortions for anyone covered under a proposed government-run health care plan.

According to the Associated Press, “the amendment also prevents private insurers from covering abortions for anyone getting federal subsidies to help pay their premiums.” [AP]

Read the quote in context here.

Cowards. I totally get the logic of the thing. And there’s a better than zero chance that it’ll get “lost” in the conference committee that reconciles this bill with the Senate version. And once it looked like it was going to pass anyway a bunch of vulnerable Dems were able to pile on, since it really is a problematic issue in a lot of districts.

But it’s still a major blow and a real toss reproductive rights under the bus move. And not, exactly, what we elected the moral cowards to do just over a year ago.

Not a "Golden Rule Insurance" Policy: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You

Back in June, 2008, when George Bush was still president, Barack Obama was nothing but a junior in-the-minority-party Senator from Illinois who thought he could get away with challenging Hillary Clinton for the nomination, Denise Grady of The New York Times wrote

When the Golden Rule Insurance Company rejected her application for health coverage last year, Peggy Robertson was mystified.

“It made no sense,” said Ms. Robertson, 39, who lives in Centennial, Colo. “I’m in perfect health.”

She was turned down because she had given birth by Caesarean section. Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, Golden Rule did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified.

Read the article here.

I admit the impression I got when I read the write-up at DailyKos was that this had all happened just a day or two ago and just around the corner. But just a little bit of Googling demonstrated it’s not actually topical at all…

...or wouldn’t be if…

...it wasn’t a perfect snapshot of the kind of jackass crap that drove the initiative for healthcare reform in the first place!

And why didn’t we hear howls from various and assorted right-wing psycho teabaggers, tenthers, and deathers with travel and sign-making expense accounts from Fox “News?” Well, you could say it was because Golden Rule is a private corporation and therefore more Infallable in Every Decision than the pope. But it could also be because Golden Rule’s founder was a major right-wing moneybags. But I digress.

The fact of the matter is that (going perhaps against common progressive wisdom) the environment private insurance operates into is aggressively stacked against it — yeah, they make money… and for that matter yeah, they can only make money by fucking sick people over — and it’s bull-whiz like telling healthy women they have to get sterilized before they can get insurance is a perfect example of why they’re not up to the task.

Golden Rule, a relatively small insurer (however pretentious its erstwhile pretentions of grandeur might have been) didn’t have the clout to negotiate efficiently with major medical centers that provide things like, oh, say, birthing centers and obstetrics surgeries. So they did what by the “logic” of the marketplace made the second-most sense: they refused to insure someone with FHPS (fecund healthy person syndrome.)

The idea behind healthcare reform, even the really watered-down versions, is in classic (Teddy) Roosevelt style, to create big enough markets for medical services to rebalance the market clout of service providers.

The reason people keep talking about a public option (and why, by the way, we need one) is that insurance-industry assholes like the little pencil-pecker at Golden Rule who cooked up the get-sterilized-first exception are still there pecking away with their pencils. A public option will help keep them in check as well. Not so much by increasing their profitability as giving people an alternative when their private insurer of choice starts making out-of-control demands.

But seriously? Get a caesarian before you get Healthcare? That might have been fine for George Bush and what was left of his party in 2008. But this is America and that kind of crap… from a pro-life private company, by the way, was and is intolerable.

Domestic Violence and "Pre-existing Conditions" as Artifacts: Another Reason for Healthcare Reform

Not to sound dumb or callous or anything but in the context of health insurance as presently formulated in the United States it makes economic sense to define domestic violence as a “preexisting condition” for which insurers can profitably add insult to injury.

As constituted the insurance industry is a low-profit business. Considerably lower-profit compared to almost any other healthcare-industry sector. The problem is that in low-profitability situations there are high marginal benefit for cutting corners and screwing customers. I mean, if you can get a customer paying $13,000 a year for insurance, and then deny coverage when she hospitalizes her partner or one of her children or when she’s hospitalized by a domestic partner, you’ve just put that $13,000 towards your bottom line. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if you can do that three more times you’ve freed $52,000, enough to put one FTE headcount to work doing nothing but tracking down more paying customers to fuck over. Or 5.2 maximum campaign contributions (for the time being anyway) to help make sure what you’re doing isn’t correctly redefined as criminal fraud.

So yeah, that’s the way the system works. Pre-existing conditions, including the morally reprehensible but evidently profitable domestic-violence precondition are an artifact of that system. I don’t think it’s how the system ought to work. It’s certainly not how it has to work. But evidently all 40 Republican Senators and at least 3 Democratic senators it’s important enough for insurers to continue forcing domestic violence victims to pay for their injuries out of pocket that they’re willing to vote against healthcare reform. Sort of a shame when you think about it. Surely they’re not all partner and child abuse sympathizers.

Crime Victims and Healthcare: AlwaysArousedGirl Notes Two More Victims

AlwaysArousedGirl has another reminder that what does not kill us does not always make us stronger.

Were they mixed up with drugs and gangs as was originally suggested by the newspaper? Only in the most tangential sense; the shooter had been sent to their apartment complex to settle a drug debt but had mixed his instructions. He was told to find the third building from the road. Instead he ended up at its neighbor. His boss, you see, had not included the pool house in his count. The shooter had.

As you can no doubt imagine, my friends’ medial bills ran well into six figures. “They must have had horrible insurance,” you’re probably thinking, and that’s one of the great ironies of this tale. From years before the attack until this very day they have both been employed by a very large, nationwide company which has a reputation for treating their employees well. They have the same insurance now that they had then. And all these years later and despite numerous fund-raising events and private donations, they still owe tens of thousands of dollars that they’ll be paying down for years to come.

...

No matter where you stand on health care reform or any other issue, please let your congress members know how you feel:

Congress.org
Project Vote Smart
Contacting the Congress

Read the quote in context here.

I’ll repeat what I said not that long ago...

If I was a legislator promoting the healthcare initiative currently being debated in Congress I think I’d be inclined to determine whether it’s really true that there’s really currently no Federal provisions for healthcare for the victims of violent crime then I’d attach an authorizing rider to the bill. Then I’d accuse anyone unwilling to support the healthcare-reform bill soft on crime and indifferent to the plight of crime victims.

Awesome post, AAG.

Not that most "free market" conservatives are men or anything...

Know how (nominally) “free market” conservatives are always saying America’s private healthcare system is better because Canadians have to wait for hip replacements? Vix ofThe Over-Educated Nympho indirectly points out what most serious health-care policy wonks know: ‘wingers keep bringing up the hip replacement example because that procedure is one of only a few where wait times here are shorter than wait times there.

I’m going to the gynecologist this morning.

I am pretending that I am so not completely nervous. Sure it’s been a very slow year as far as friendly visitors who’ve cum calling (always with a wrapped twinkie, of course), but there’s always that freak chance that there’s something wrong. I tried to go to the gyno four months ago but they told me my insurance only covered one exam a year. What the fuck? Dude, what if I’d had crotch rot? Would I have to wait until the year’s billing cycle was over to deal with a horrendous Itch situation?

She said it here.

Yeah, tackling general healthcare provision models is a bit outside my bailiwick but OEN expresses concern about barriers to the possible detection and treatment of socially transmittable diseases and that’s a concern of mine too. Also the other day I ran into a chain-store pharmacist who doesn’t receive health insurance benefits and I think that’s just so out of control I’m a little over-alert to the issue.

Syndicate content