health care

All you need to know about the fabulous American Health Care Act that passed the House of Representatives today is that it is sooooooo fan-freaking-tastic that the folks who wrote the act made sure to exempt themselves from it.

If that is not all you need to know, then try this one.

I got a call late this afternoon from my son. Jon has a blood condition that requires him to be on coumadin, a very dangerous blood thinner, probably for the rest of his life.  He is not supposed to, but every now and then he has tried to go without his medicine.  When he does, the usual response is that he throws a series of pulmonary embolisms.  Some have been enough to put him in the hospital.  So we know at least until a better treatment or a cure comes along -- not likely in the near future -- he will be on coumadin, and will be required to have his blood tested periodically and to have regular checkups at a specialized hematology clinic.  Jon's wife is a cancer survivor; therefore, she also requires periodic specialized checkups and treatment.  When he called, Jon wanted to know if his health insurance carrier can now drop him, even if his insurance comes through his employer.

Let me repeat that.

I got a call from my son, in effect, asking if insurance companies will now be allowed to potentially let him die rather than pay for medication and treatment that has been keeping him alive for the past six years.

What am I supposed to tell him?

And what is Jon's father in law supposed to tell his daughter when she calls later today to ask him the same question?

Should we tell our children to call their representative in congress and ask them?  I would love to hear what any of those guys are telling their children who might be asking them the same question...  Oh, that's right.  Their children won't be asking them that question.  They are exempt from this law.

In the so called greatest country on earth, we are now talking once again about pre-existing conditions, life time or annual caps on coverage, medical review panels, allowing carriers to throw those they do not want to cover off their policies -- i.e., those who need care and treatment.  We are talking about why it is necessary to charge older people more for their health insurance.  Why?  Because they are old and probably require more care, so they should have to pay more.  We are also talking about why it is necessary to make health care for the poor and sick so expensive that they cannot afford it.  What are they supposed to do?  I would say let them eat cake, but then again, they might be diabetic, which means they have a pre-existing condition, which means they should not be covered anyway.   The issues raised ignore any real issue on earth, but then again, some of these issues must be raised.

Such as...

On what planet is being a victim of rape a pre-existing condition?  I am no doctor, but I am unaware of rape being a medical condition.  What on earth did the rape victim do that is related to any physical, psychological or sociological health condition that caused her to be raped?  In the old days, and frankly even now in some places, you would hear some people saying the victim brought it upon herself.  Just look at the way she dressed, and that smile that melted any inhibition away from that knife wielding rapist.  Under this definition, dressing in an attractive manner should be a pre-existing condition.  After all, if she hadn't dressed that way, she would not have been raped.  So I guess Ralph Lauren should be declared an accessory to a pre-existing condition, and all his creations should come with a warning label that wearing this sexy outfit could cause you to lose your insurance coverage.

In a way, I understand the reasoning behind the pre-existing conditions argument.  After all, if you have had a heart attack, you may be more prone to suffering another one.  Would somebody please explain to me how being raped once makes you more susceptible to being raped again.  Are the insurance carriers putting the rapists back on the street and giving them their victims current addresses?  Are the carriers keeping a list of rape victims and deciding for themselves which ones are "easy"?

What sense does any of this make?  Then again, what do you expect from a sixty page piece of legislation that spends nearly ten percent of the space outlawing lottery winners from getting public subsidies for medical insurance.

Aside from the hideous nature of this particular piece of legislation that is so bad the Washington Post called it an abomination that should be a stain for life upon any legislator who voted for it, as I said in an earlier post, none of this legislation will do any good as long as the focus of the argument remains where it is.

The issue we should be talking about, as I said before, is NOT if people are entitled to medical coverage, but the unassailable fact that PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO MEDICAL CARE.

As long as the focus is on medical coverage, the insurance companies control the narrative; therefore, there will always be health insurers to limit access to medical care, because THE INSURANCE CARRIERS HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO PAY FOR MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT.  The only incentive health insurers have is to make sure their companies are profitable, especially if they are for profit companies, as most of them are.  When you allow for profit companies to control access to care and treatment, you will always be debating whether or not people are entitled to medical coverage, not medical care.

And why do we have this ongoing deflection?  Because when you focus the debate on where it should be, the simple fact that people are entitled to medical care, not medical insurance coverage, THERE IS NEVER ANY ARGUMENT.  Nobody argues that Jimmy Kimmel should be able to get his newborn son's open heart surgery.  We all pray for his son's recovery.  By the same token, nobody argues that a child of a welfare recipient born with the same condition as Jimmy Kimmel's son should be able to have his life saved by the same wonderful doctors and the same wonderful medical procedures.  And everyone would also pray for that child's recovery.  And nobody argues that my son should be able to have his blood tested and his coumadin prescription filled without having him be forced to declare bankruptcy.

And in a nutshell, this is why these three examples from different sociological spectrums are each in their own way why the insurance carriers and their shills in congress keep the argument focused on whether or not we are entitled to affordable medical insurance.  Once you focus on health care, rather than health insurance, the carriers have no argument.  Nobody wants to see anyone suffer.  Nobody wants to see anyone die because they could not get the care and treatment they need.  Once you focus on health care, rather than health insurance, nobody takes the side of the insurance carrier denying care and treatment by denying coverage.

ONCE YOU FOCUS ON HEALTH CARE RATHER THAN HEALTH COVERAGE, THE EYE ROLLING, BLUR INDUCING FOG LIFTS, AND THE CARRIERS HAVE NOTHING LEFT AND NOBODY TO SUPPORT THEM.

As such, until our representatives start talking about the right to medical care and treatment, we will always have this problem, because when you talk about medical coverage, you are always talking about the ability of insurance companies to make a profit rather than how to deliver care and treatment to a sick child, a cancer survivor, a rape victim, a person with emotional handicaps -- all the most vulnerable of our society, the ones we should care about the most.

The time is now to put the focus where it should be and where it should have always been.

MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

Once you start with that premise, the rest of it should fall into place.