healthcare

How can we best care for all people?
How can we best care for all people without spending money government doesn’t have?

I’d like to write about healthcare today. But truthfully, the Intramuralist is a little leery. I want to talk about the ins and outs, facts and effects, good things and bad. I want to wrestle with what’s good and true and right — and what’s not. I want to navigate through the varied opinions and approaches. I want to analyze and assess what could be effective. But I’m hesitant. I’m hesitant due to the current rhetorical climate and the potential onslaught of masses telling me there’s only one right way to think about this. I’m hesitant due to the vocal number who no longer see value in objective analysis… or… who are convinced they are objective. It’s far quicker to point fingers, denigrate and demean than it is to sift through the wisdom on all sides of this important debate.

Let me be clear… 

I don’t believe our legislators as a whole, on either side, are evil. I don’t believe they are motivated by evil. And I don’t believe the motives of either party are entirely impure nor solely designed to assure re-election, financially reward their supporters, or are a part of some grander, nefarious conspiracy to take over the world and put Lex Luther in charge.

What I do believe is that there exist varied approaches to maintain and improve the mental and physical care of the American people. I also believe there exists sincere disagreement with those approaches. Consistent with the mantra of this blog, it’s ok and often healthy for disagreement to exist.

But currently, it’s incredibly difficult to even wrestle through the disagreement and objections because the rhetoric is getting in our way.

I wish people would quit obstructing us… Stop proclaiming why one side is more honorable. Stop proclaiming why one side has handled this so wisely…

 Besides both parties being less than transparent in the development of their approach, representatives from both have also either lied or said some untrue things (… “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”… “Nobody on Medicaid is going to be taken away…”). Both have said some awful things (… the establishing of the Democrats’ “death panels”… the Republicans paying with “blood money”…). This sensational rhetoric skews objectivity and keeps far too many from impartially sifting through what is wise and what is not. Let’s be clear: no party these days seems to have cornered the market on wisdom.

The Intramuralist believes in the healthcare debate, both of the above-offered objectives should be pursued:

1. How to care best for all people.
And 2. How to care best for all people without spending money government doesn’t have.

I will admit, no less, to again being leery of the numbers of people who will attempt to exclaim that only one of the above motives is compassionate…

To care for all people — such as the teen in my community, tragically struck by lightning four years ago, who now has hundreds of thousands of medical bills annually — that is a compassionate motive.

To care without bankrupting government — preserving and planning for the other thousands of programs that aid and abet American workers, farmers, students, etc. that need financial support — that is a compassionate motive. Different approaches can be compassionate. Different does not equate to “mean” nor “cruel.”

But when partisans utilize such false or inflaming rhetoric, they no longer aid and abet the American people. They do not trust us to sort through what’s wise, discern effective solution, nor make our own conclusions.

Recently someone asked me what I’d most like to see happen in this whole healthcare debate. My response was that I’d like to see persons from all sides gather, have some coffee/a beer/whatever together, roll up their sleeves, and work together in crafting a bipartisan approach. Respect each other. Respect the compassion in another’s different approach. Find a way to care for all people without continuing to overspend. I believe we’d be better served if our leaders worked better together.

But I also desire our leaders and legislators to quit attacking the other party as so less honorable than they are. I’d like for the rest of us, too, to quit being seduced by their rhetorical lure. Yes, I desire more respect for one another… and more objectivity in the analysis.

Respectfully…
AR

a tale of two testimonies

In regard to healthcare, I found the following two, recent testimonies fascinating. This is a little lengthier post than usual; however, the contrast is striking and insightful… two people, reacting to the exact same thing. First, from Lisa Morse…

“In 2010, at the age of 30, I ran my first half-marathon. A year later I ran my first full marathon (4:25:10 — you never honestly forget your first marathon time). I was in the best shape of my life. Although I gave myself a few months off from long-distance running, I started planning for my next half-marathon. Unfortunately, I began having intense joint pain in my hands, wrists, hips, knees, ankles, and feet. I was only 31 years old but felt like I was 80 — simply getting out of bed in the morning was a physically painful endeavor. Turning the pages of a book could cause ridiculously excruciating pain. It felt like my joints were being stabbed repeatedly with a knife that was on fire. Imagine going from running a marathon to just a few months later struggling to open a car door.

Numerous Google searches told me I most likely had psoriatic arthritis. I made an appointment with my doctor and the testing began. Because psoriatic arthritis isn’t something you can directly test for, I had to be tested for everything else that it might be. Blood tests ruled out rheumatoid arthritis, lyme disease, and parvovirus. I was then referred to a rheumatologist and officially diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory arthritis in which an overactive immune system attacks the connective tissue in the joints. If it is not treated, it can lead to irreversible joint damage. 15-30 percent of long-time psoriasis sufferers (I have had it since the age of 14) develop psoriatic arthritis, and I am one of the lucky ones. My rheumatologist prescribed hydroxychloroquine, a form of quinine, which suppresses the immune system. It provided some relief and life became a little bit easier — I even started running again — but my immune system still wasn’t working properly and I needed frequent doses of Aleve.
In 2014, my insurance plan changed and the rheumatologist I had been seeing for the past two years was no longer an in-network provider, so I had to change doctors. Although I grumbled about it at the time, it was probably one of the best things to happen to me medically since the pain began. My new doctor was astounded by the swelling in my ankles and in addition to telling me that I should absolutely not go on any more 10-mile runs (unless I wanted to start talking about ankle replacement surgery), he wanted to pursue a much more aggressive treatment plan. He prescribed Humira for me and the life-changing effects were almost immediate. My psoriasis cleared up entirely, the joint pain eased considerably, my energy levels increased, and I started to feel pretty good again. Humira is another immuno-suppressant. Although it sounds counter-intuitive, with a suppressed immune system I am sick much less often and much less severely than I was prior to Humira. In the two or three times a year I get sick now, I can usually work through it: pre-Humira I was sick once a month (or more) during the flu season and would miss at least three days of work at a time. Humira allows me to be a more productive, tax-paying member of society.

My two medications retail for $4,900/month and $175/month, which annually amounts to the cost of approximately 87 iPhones.

My experience with psoriatic arthritis and Humira have taken place entirely within the timeframe that Obamacare has been in effect. I do not have a job that provides health insurance. For the past 14 years, I have worked for a sole-practitioner attorney. I am his only full-time assistant. I serve as receptionist, office manager, paralegal, and more. My boss has always treated me well and is, quite honestly, much like family. I have helped to build his law practice into the success that it is today. My husband is a self-employed public policy consultant. We purchase our insurance on the marketplace and rely on the Obamacare subsidy to make ends meet. For our family of three, our silver plan premium (without the subsidy) is about $840/month. Our premium will increase substantially next year, especially if the ACA is repealed, and we will be paying more money for less coverage. If we lose our subsidy and our rate increases the 20-30 percent that is projected, our premium will be unaffordable for us. Without insurance, my two medications retail for $4,900/month (Humira) and $175/month (hydroxychloroquine—generic), which annually amounts to the cost of approximately 87 iPhones. On a side note, Humira was $3,200/month when I was initially prescribed it two and a half years ago—the drug has been on the market for 16 years, so the research and development has been done and over with for a long time. This mark-up should shock the conscience of anyone with a soul.

Thanks to Obamacare, my insurance cannot drop me or charge me more due to my condition. I have worked, paid taxes, and been insured my entire adult life. I am college-educated. Aside from the Obamacare subsidy I receive, I have never relied on public assistance. Psoriatic arthritis is not the result of unhealthy choices or stupid life decisions. I realize I am expensive to treat medically, but I am also a valuable member of society, as are many other similarly-situated people. No one is an island, and despite Ayn Rand’s writings to the contrary, civilized society requires a bit of compassion.”

And second, from Mary Katherine Ham…

“You may know me as a political pundit and writer who has spoken publicly about how the Affordable Care Act negatively affected my family. What you might not know is two years ago, I was a seven-month-pregnant widow with one toddler who got a letter two weeks after my husband died, informing me I’d lost my third or fourth health insurance plan since the Affordable Care Act passed. If you’ll remember, the promise was that I could keep my plan if I liked it. I could not.
I predicted what would happen to my family’s insurance, and to much less fortunate people subjected to the exchanges with us, many of whom have seen doubled premiums and tripled deductibles. If you’ll remember, the promise was everyone’s premiums would go down. They did not. For predicting it, I was routinely called a lying hack in public. It’s a hazard of the job, but I wasn’t lying. I was right. I also thought it was improbable the federal and state governments could handle building these exchanges and that they’d likely blow up and be inoperable, thereby preventing people like me from actually purchasing the new plans the ACA required we purchase. Again, I was not lying for partisan gain.

ACA has helped people. I know some of them well! I have two friends with serious health challenges, one of whom I can say was probably kept alive by Obamacare; the other by the fact she was able to keep her grandfathered pre-ACA plan. I am not in the habit of asserting any piece of health legislation is either perfect or a tool of evil designed by hateful actors. They’re not. I will not assert either of these fundamentally shallow and manipulative things about either ACA or adjustments to it (and, yes, this piece of House legislation is an adjustment or a reform, not a repeal, which would change dramatically in the Senate if taken up and change again before eventual passage).

It has come to my attention that, even among those who should know, or assert they know a lot about health care policy and the market, many don’t know that people like me exist. But there are many of us, many with far fewer resources than I, who now have much more expensive, less effective, junkier, nearly unusable plans than we had back when our allegedly “junk” plans were outlawed. Again, we are not the only ACA story. But we are part of the story, we were sold a bill of goods, and we’re often overlooked.
There aren’t a lot of good answers, here. There are many reasons for that, which start in the mid-20th century with a fundamental distortion of health-care markets through wage-and-price controls, and then a tax benefit that incentivized employer-based health insurance. ACA was not a good answer. AHCA likely isn’t a super one either.
In any system, and any change to a system, there will be people who come out on both the good and bad sides of the deal. When Obamacare supporters denied this truth applied to ACA, it was wrong. There’s the possibility of marginal improvement to it, but not if you do nothing, as insurers and customers alike pull out of exchanges because they can’t afford to stay in them. Yet another major provider announced this week it will drop out of the Virginia exchange. Republicans were elected several elections over to address just this problem.

Most people who aren’t in the individual market, which is the one most affected by ACA, have no idea what the plans look like. It is a market where the costs of the bill’s mandates are more visible, even when subsidized. When I cite exorbitant deductibles, folks tell me to suck it up and pay $3,000. I laugh at a $3,000 deductible. What in the old system was considered a very high deductible is now among the lower available, and premiums for any kind of deductible are high, even with subsidies. Many families have to hit $12,700, and they’re paying a mortgage-sized premium. For many, the purchase becomes hard to justify or supplants an actual mortgage or similar outlays.
Arguing about this as if beneficiaries of ACA don’t exist isn’t right. Arguing about it as if people like me don’t is also not right. ACA was never the panacea it was sold as and it remains distinctly un-utopian in its results. Lazy characterizations of things you like as perfect—and of people you oppose as big fans of people dying—are not particularly helpful to actual people.
So if you’re weaving a utopian or dystopian scenario for Facebook, remember reality is almost always less extreme and more nuanced than you’re asserting, and you probably know a real human on both sides of every imperfect adjustment to our Frankenstein system.
One of them was a pregnant widow who had to spend her 32nd week of pregnancy and the first week after her husband’s funeral calling midwives, doctors, insurance companies, and help lines to make sure she’d still have the third plan she was promised she could keep.

My family may be the trade-off that was worth it for you to implement ACA. And I’m actually fine with you thinking that, as long as you don’t pretend we and the rest of the people like us don’t exist. We’re probably never going to stop arguing about this, but arguing responsibly and empathetically is better.”

Striking, isn’t it? … how for some, the Affordable Care Act has been helpful, and for others, the exact same law has been hurtful.

I’m thinking most of us need to broaden our perspective… maybe… just maybe.

Respectfully…
AR

actions vs. words

pic_giant2_111114_SM_Jonathan-Gruber_0Certain truths will always stand the test of time. I, for one, also find it fascinating when the truths are biblical. So much of current culture seems wired to remove any acknowledgement or accreditation to God. I can’t believe that’s good.

Here for one is a truth I think we each at least act like we embrace: actions speak louder than words. We are called not to love each other “with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” Actions will always speak louder; speech can be hollow; our actions back up what we believe. For example…

  • If we preach to our teens how substance abuse is a dangerous thing, then we can’t be putting all sorts of impurities into our own bodies.
  • If we proclaim to be voices of tolerance, then we can’t spew at those who share different opinions on Facebook and Twitter.
  • And if we advocate supporting the candidates of greatest integrity, then we can’t turn a blind eye to one of the parties.

Perhaps the place that the actions/words axiom is most visible this week is in the whole healthcare law presentation. Yes, I know many of us are fatigued of this frequent topic; some may say they’re sick of it. I agree. I would add that as has been referenced here since its inception, the Intramuralist is equally sick of the means in which the law was passed, and in the past week, my figurative nausea has only increased.

As now carried by an array of news sources (and referenced in Sunday’s post), Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of Obamacare, acknowledged that the only way the Affordable Care Act was passed was to play on “the stupidity of the American voter.” After the story transgressed from solely conservative sites and then into mainstream media, the White House finally paid attention to the claim. Pres. Obama responded Sunday while on his overseas trip: “I just heard about this… The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run.” Yet actions speak louder than words…

  • Gruber was hired in 2009 as a consultant by the administration and was paid $392,000 for one year of work.
  • Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, West Virginia, and Vermont all paid Gruber for his services. (Wisconsin originally paid Gruber $400,000 for the same material, requested by then-Gov. Jim Doyle (D).  Gov. Scott Walker (R) later declined Gruber’s presence.)
  • Democrat leaders of both the Senate and House praised Gruber publicly at the time (note: Rep. Nancy Pelosi now denies knowing Gruber… note: actions… words…).
  • The notably liberal Daily Kos cited Gruber’s involvement in 2010 as a “key requirement for… legislative proposals to be put forth for Congressional consideration.” They represented Gruber having deep ties to the White House.
  • Gruber visited the White House multiple times, including in the Oval Office with Obama, other experts, and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Gruber has said they had to manipulate the CBO.
  • Gruber also talked multiple times about intentionally misleading the public, even adding in one video: “Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay?”
  • In 2006, then Sen. Obama acknowledged a professional relationship, saying he had “stolen ideas liberally” from Gruber.
  • We know other mistruths were presented regarding healthcare (ie. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”… “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”).

Jonathan Gruber is a credibility problem for the administration and this law. It’s not that Gruber was the sole architect of Obamacare, but he was certainly instrumental — a fact that Pres. Obama does not seem willing to currently, oratorically admit. For the President to instead suggest that he “just heard about this” and that this is simply “some adviser,” shows that Obama is attempting to drown out the ethical piercing currently plaguing his perceived signature, legislative accomplishment.

Such tells me two more things: one, the integrity of the law and people knowingly involved are in question. And two, actions will always speak louder than words.

Respectfully…

AR

this used to be my playground

As we watch the events of the past 6 weeks — the flawed rollout of Obamacare and the resulting rhetorical responses — the opportunists who partisanly pounce on perceived Armageddonish, administrative activity — and the loyalists who adhere blindly to minimizing or even dismissing the negativity — I struggle with how to discuss this well.

 

As said, I believe the Affordable Care Act makes government too big, costs too much, and allows for too much potential corruption.  There are better ways to care for those in need of affordable health insurance, as a one-size-fits-all insurance policy does not actually fit all.

 

Let me repeat, too, that I am disturbed at the unprecedented enactment, as no law of this economic magnitude has been previously passed without at least some bipartisan support.  This isn’t a game.  More than one point, one vote, or one run-batted-in should be necessary to enact such major legislation.  However, Pres. Obama advocated and executed this approach, and I thus respectfully hold him responsible.

 

I’ve learned, however, from my thoughtful friends who consistently camp on a distinct side of the partisan aisle that when a like scenario unfolds, many lose respect and trust in our nation’s leaders.  Many, for example, lost trust in Bush 43 due to the Iraq invasion and/or his response to Hurricane Katrina.  Many now are losing trust in Obama due to the way he’s handled healthcare.  Throw in the fact that the trust of 2 more of our most previous presidents, Bush 41 and Clinton (1) also was eroded.  Bush 41 promised not to raise taxes, but did so anyway.  Clinton, no less, split microscopic grammar hairs attempting to alter the definition of “is” via his extra curricular Oval Office activities.

 

And so, yes, I struggle with how to discuss this well.  I must thus again return to what is elementary.  If our leaders only governed with the basic, ethical, elementary rules, perhaps then our trust would not evaporate so dramatically.  Let’s go back to what we learned in kindergarten.  Let’s return to the playground…

 

Healthcare, etal., should have been handled like this (with my semi-subtle, editorial comments in between):

 

  1. Let everyone play.  (Not just those who think like you.)
  2. Don’t judge a kid who’s different.  (Yes, we’re all kids.  You’re kids.  And If you can’t  talk nicely to a kid who’s different and consider how they feel, you’re acting superior.  When you act superior, you’re being judgmental.  Judgment is ugly.  Even in kids.)
  3. Let the children run.  (If they fall and scrape their knee or break something, they’ll learn from it — and be wiser in the future.  We don’t have to make a rule that prohibits children from running.  We don’t have to legislate everything!  Geepers.  Let all of us learn!)
  4. Say what you mean and mean what you say.  (Lying is bad.  We learned that in preschool.)
  5. No throwing dirt.  (I repeat:  no throwing dirt.)
  6. Know your job and respect authority.  (Recognize that you are not an authority on all things; and refrain from doing things that are not within your job description.)
  7. Be a good sport.  (In the minority or majority.)
  8. If you choose to lick the monkey bars during cold weather, don’t blame anyone else.  (Don’t blame the person who dared you; don’t blame the weather.  Take responsibility for your own actions.)
  9. Remember these rules are only for the playground.  (Our job is not to establish rules for the bathroom and the gym.  We don’t have to govern every area.)

 

And the number one playground rule Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, and Congress should have learned:

10. If you can’t abide by the rules, then don’t play on the playground.

 

Respectfully,

AR

who you work for

Attractive trait #1:  humility.

 

Note that I didn’t say dormancy nor being trampled upon nor squelched into submission.  I’m speaking of authentic, genuine, attractive and contagious humility — an increasingly rare trait… perhaps even more difficult to cultivate.

 

With all the ongoings of the week — watching the federal government attempt to administer a colossal, complex policy — witnessing the realm of reactions, I was reminded of a message I felt we need to send to each of our elect and their staffs…

 

To the President… to Congress… to the Cabinet… to each of their aides.

To the Democrats… Republicans… independents… and even the colloquially categorized extremists.

 

We have one humble message for you.  You will need humility to hear it; we will attempt to be as humble as possible in how we say it.

 

To the elect… You keep forgetting this.  You keep arrogantly spewing and spouting and thinking you know best.  You keep talking past each other.  Sometimes you even talk down to one another.

 

Why the berating?  Why the demeaning?  Why diminish your own integrity to score some sort of partisan points?

 

Rep. Alan Grayson, granted you hail not from my home state, but what would cause you to stoop so low to compare the Tea Party to the Klu Klux Klan this week?  What are you thinking?  Why are you behaving in such an arrogant way?

 

Still such is not what we most need to remind each of you.

 

Again, to the elect…

 

What’s your logic?  What’s your justification?  Why do you use your positions of power to represent only the 1%, 37% or 51%?

 

Congress, thinking of representing only a limited percentage of people, why would you pass legislation (note:  see “Care Act,” arguably “affordable”) with zero votes from another party?  How and why is it appropriate to pass colossal, complex policy that only one party supports — especially when that policy impacts 100% of the people?

 

Still not our message…

 

With growing calls for Health & Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius to resign, Sebelius took to the microphones to not-so-humbly share that, “the majority of people calling for me to resign I would say are people who I don’t work for…”

 

My message to Sebelius, to the President, to Congress, to the aides, to all persons from all parties:  you work for us.  You don’t work for a person.  You don’t work for any select percentage of people.  You work for us.

 

Remembering that should keep each of you a little more humble… and maybe even a little more attractive.

 

Respectfully,

AR

affordable care problem

The current, primary problem with the new healthcare law isn’t all the major glitches with the website.  Truth be told, if all Intramuralist readers based their opinion of our ongoing dialogue on the initial days of our website, we, too, would probably have far fewer numbers than the some 2,000 of you that are regular visitors.

 

The primary problem isn’t even the deep polarization surrounding the law.  Democrats supposedly love it — a historic, long-coveted legislative victory!  Republicans hate it — we’re doomed via this socialist, massive government control!

 

No, it’s not even the consistently negative public opinion of the law.  From CNN’s most recent poll this month, showing 56% in opposition of the legislation to even Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart — not known for any conservative allegiance — calling the law/rollout a highly descriptive “turd” on this week’s broadcast.

 

I really don’t believe any of the above are the primary problem.

 

As stated repeatedly amidst these posts, the Intramuralist has serious concerns about the Affordable Care Act.  Having read the entire piece prior to its passage, there are multiple, specific aspects and implications driving my concern, primarily in regard to cost, inefficiency, economics, and increased government control.  Nonetheless, I don’t see it as the current primary problem.

 

Let’s return to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) profound statement from March of 2010, saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

 

The current, primary problem with Obamacare is that we still can’t find out what’s in it.  There’s too much controversy, too much salesmanship, and too many ambiguities or potential mistruths.

 

Regarding the controversy, remember that the law was enacted without a single Republican vote.  When Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) was elected and the chances for a filibuster-proof bill fizzled, the Senate then utilized an obscure budgetary tactic even though the bill was not about the budget.  Any significant piece of legislation passed in such a manipulated way would seem to invite such controversy.

 

There’s also too much salesmanship.  Instead of objective analysis, the elect and their microphone-loving cohorts are trying to convince instead of educate.  Education allows for the good and the bad; however, our leadership works instead to convince us of only the good or the bad.

 

Just yesterday, for example, I received two ironically contrasting emails.  One was from a conservative writer, telling me that “Obamacare is broken beyond repair.”  The other was from Obama, telling me he needs me “to be a part of Team Obamacare” and tell everyone I know about the law.  The challenge with both of those messages is that they only include the good or the bad.  They are trying to sell us on a product or perspective.

 

Lastly, there exist too many ambiguities and potential mistruths… the whole idea that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep” it… the “death panels”… and just this week, HH&S Sec. Kathleen Sebelius (the current most likely candidate to be thrown under the bus, by the way) saying the President didn’t know anything about the website failures beforehand… former Obama Press Sec. Robert Gibbs saying “there’s no doubt” people at HHS and those involved knew… CBS News saying the website is providing “incredibly misleading” estimates.  The ambiguous examples are countless.  It’s simply too hard to know what’s true.

 

The current, primary problem with the healthcare law?  Nancy Pelosi was wrong; we still don’t know what’s in it, as we remain in the fog of the controversy.

 

Respectfully,

AR