Posts Tagged ‘health care’

Enjoying Your Health Care, Supreme Court Judges? You’re Welcome.

April 23, 2012

A well-cared-for bunch.

I’ve been lucky for several years – and by lucky, I mean that by eking $350 a month out of my tiny salary, I have had access to most of the medical care that I need.

I worked a decent job my first year out of college (this was 2007, mind you, right before everything went to hell) which offered an insurance plan. When I left that job, I continued that insurance through a provision of US law known as COBRA, which allows people to retain their health care for a certain number of months from a former employer, if they pay the full cost of the insurance. It’s expensive as hell, but when you have a tricky chronic illness like I do, better than nothing.

So I paid COBRA til I landed my next job, which, happily for me, came with health insurance. Eighteen months ago, I lost that job without warning, but continued the insurance policy out of pocket. Now my time has run out.

I know some of you, my valued readers, are joining us from outside the US, from places where, perhaps, there is a modicum of humanity and reason in the health care system. Here’s how it works over here.

Got health insurance through a traditional job? Great.

Are you self-employed? I’m sorry. I hope you have several hundred dollars – or even thousands, if you want to insure your family – per month to spare for insurance premiums with deductibles of at least a few thousand dollars. Oh, you’re not rich? Hm. Well, that’s too bad. I hope you don’t break a leg or get cancer or anything.

Because here in the great United States, you’ll probably die before you can come up with the money for that care on your own.

What a lot of people in my position do is cross their fingers and wait. But most of my impecunious twenty-something friends have fallen under the health-care axe sooner or later – often through bike accidents or broken limbs. When folks like them can’t pay the bills, these costs get spread through the system, causing higher costs for care and insurance for everyone else.

My husband is uninsured, but he’s only been sick twice in about five years.

I brought him to my own doctor once, even though he was sans insurance, because he was having chest pains (fortunately it turned out to be a muscular injury). The appointment involved the doctor listening to him with a stethoscope and asking him questions for ten or fifteen minutes. The bill was $170.

A few years later, he got a severe case of tonsillitis. He had a high fever and couldn’t eat. We were in South Africa, so we found a neighborhood clinic and he got a doctor’s consultation, an immediate penicillin injection, a course of oral antibiotics, painkillers and restorative vitamins all for about the equivalent of $40.

That’s less than the copay for one prescription fill of my daily medicine on my current insurance policy.

My husband doesn’t like being uninsured, but he takes it in stride. The prospect of losing my insurance next week is terrifying, because medically, I ain’t doing so well.

I don’t engage in dangerous activities, smoke or drink. But I have a very painful chronic illness whose symptoms are manageable with daily medication. I’m currently trying to stop taking it every day, in preparation for when I may not be able to get it at all. Because that’s another common gem of the American health-care system. You had that condition before you bought this policy? Sorry, we don’t cover any of THAT care.

Next week, if all goes well, I’ll be purchasing a new policy with a premium of a few hundred dollars a month for my husband and me. This’ll cover five doctor visits per year (with a $30 copay for each). If one of us ends up in the hospital, we’ll be responsible for 40% of the total cost, after a deductible of a few thousand dollars, of course. Non-generic medications?  As if! Maternity care? Don’t be ridiculous. But this is the reality of what we can afford (and there is no guarantee another plan will agree to cover me at all or that I could pay what they decide to charge, based on my history).

We’re willing to scrape about $3,000 a year out of our budget so that, God forbid, if one of us ends up in the emergency room, it’ll be a crisis to the tune of $350, not bankruptcy.

Of course, a lot of Americans are foaming at the mouth right now because the infamous President Obama thinks he can patch things up. The US Supreme Court is now debating whether Obama’s new healthcare law is allowable under the Constitution.

Obama and many liberal allies want to improve Americans’ quality of life (or, depending who you ask, take over the world in his dastardly big-government socialist grip) by making sure that the rich or those with job-related insurance are not the only ones with health care. Obama also wants people to be able to access care for conditions that existed before they obtained their current insurance policy, and he’d like to prevent insurance companies from taking people’s money while they’re healthy, and then revoking their coverage when they get sick (another shining gem of health care in America).

Sounds great, right?

NO! Say conservatives.

Why?

To help insurance companies realistically bear the costs of better access to care for everyone, no more would people like my healthy husband be able to opt out of buying insurance. Everyone would be required to buy it, with government subsidies available for those who can’t afford it on their own.

Excellent, say most liberals. A huge influx of healthy new insurance customers will balance the increased costs of sick people’s care. And besides, nobody ever makes it through life without getting sick or hurt. When it happens to uninsured people, those costs are still borne by the larger system and ultimately passed on to all of us. Let’s make every individual responsible for this human inevitability.

This is an American tragedy! Say most conservatives. How can there possibly be a Constitutional basis for forcing every American to buy a certain product? It’s an unprecedented government intrusion.

Federal legislators narrowly passed Obama’s law. Individual states with conservative majorities challenged it in court. And now the nine justices of the US Supreme Court, five of whom lean conservative, and four of whom lean liberal, are going to decide the issue once and for all.

Political writer Paul Begala, in a recent Newsweek Magazine/Daily Beast column, applauds Obamacare – or at least denigrates the conservative Justices (no surprise there – his pieces are usually a mix of liberal cheerleading and big-time political name-dropping).

He echoes what a lot of commentators have noticed about the Justices’ arguments. Conservative Justices see a slippery slope: if the government can force us to buy health insurance, who’s to say it can’t then force us to buy cell phones, burial insurance or broccoli?

It’s bad enough when your parents tell you to eat your vegetables. But the President? Ouch.

Begala points out an obscure 1792 law signed by George Washington requiring every white, able-bodied man between 18 and 45 to purchase a musket and ammunition. Clearly, the Founding Fathers imagined a Constitutional precedent for forcing us to buy something for the good of the nation.

Begala says it’s ludicrous to compare burial insurance to health insurance in this context: “we don’t have a burial-insurance crisis in America.” A lack of burial insurance is not bankrupting American families, eating up 17% of our national budget each year, and leaving Americans to die – as in one recent California case Begala cites, of an uninsured man whose appendix burst when he put off going to the doctor, afraid of the cost –  because they can’t afford medical care.

I’m glad the Justices are there to decide this question in the best interest of the American people, according to our laws.

Were I on the Supreme Court, I would have to recuse myself immediately. In fact, I’m so personally biased I probably shouldn’t even be writing this blog post, in case my simple, self-pitying, ham-handed analysis influences anyone’s opinion.

Unlike the impartial Justices, I lose a lot of sleep to dark worries about what’s going to happen to me when my current insurance runs out. On bad days, I wake up to a forest fire under my skin and lie there wondering if I should take my medicine today, or save the limited supply for a day that might be worse.

The Justices, as well as their legislative colleagues, probably don’t have these worries. As Begala points out, the health care of uninsured people in America adds over $1,000 per year to the policies of those who buy insurance, but Justice Samuel Alito dismissed this as a “small” concern.

Perhaps he only thinks it’s small, Begala says, “because as a government employee his health-care bills are paid by We the People.” Indeed, the ones in charge of the nation’s health-care policy enjoy remarkable health-care themselves.

As Congress furiously debates the so-called Buffett Rule, a liberal election-year stunt which would up millionaires’ tax rates to thirty percent, I watch and shrug. Between my federal, state and local taxes as a self-employed person, thirty percent is about what I pay. As a freelance journalist, I suspect that that 30% hits me a little harder than it would hit Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who paid about 15% last year on his $250 million fortune. I’m putting off grocery shopping till my next check arrives, and he’s installing an elevator for his cars in his $12 million villa.

But when I pay my taxes every quarter, I imagine myself paying for police and traffic lights and sidewalks and Grampa’s social security, and I don’t mind too much.

Congress and the Supreme Court Justices apparently have no problem with requiring us to pay taxes. Since our taxes support their top-notch health-care plans, I guess the principle is this: it’s ok to require me to pay for YOUR health-care, but heaven forbid I be required to pay for my own.

When I whined intemperately about my woes on Facebook this week, a friend replied sharply with her own suggestions, including getting family to lend money for my care, or pawning my belongings. Or I could “register as poor and go to a free clinic.” She also suggested going to Canada or England so I could get my care for free.

My generous parents have helped me to get care when things were really desperate, but that’s not a sustainable solution, and I’m an adult who doesn’t want to ask. I do have some nice wedding gifts stashed away – maybe a lovingly given crystal pitcher could pay for a round or two of meds, but the thought makes me sad. I bet a free clinic could patch me up if I sprained an ankle, but even experienced practitioners frequently know nothing about my medical condition – it’s not very common and is poorly understood. I respectfully doubt that a free clinic is equipped to deal with me. Maybe another country would take me in, but airfare’s pretty expensive. Plus, on a system-wide level, I bet taxpayers in those countries wouldn’t view my care as “free”.

I do deserve a lecture, for making such a public show of my problems while also shooting down well-meant suggestions. But I’m writing this because I bet many people can relate to my situation, and no-one – from my Facebook friends to my doctor, who recommends physical therapy at $100-$400 a month (from a practitioner who does not take insurance at all) – has provided a viable answer.

Good luck, Supreme Court. You could never trust me to figure this out, and besides, I have enough to worry about.

The Violation of the Bishops

February 12, 2012

Timothy Dolan, President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (photo from the LA Times)

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, America’s President and one of its most prominent religious groups have launched a brawl that reminds us yet again what a royal pain women are. They can get pregnant – but even worse than that, nowadays, they can decide whether or not to get pregnant.

This week, Obama drew the ire of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops when he announced that Catholic-run institutions – such as schools and hospitals which serve and employ people of all backgrounds – could no longer deny their female employees insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Perhaps I shouldn’t read too much into it, but I can’t help it. I infer that Catholic employers welcome only those females who are abstinent, pregnant/trying to become pregnant, or infertile/menopausal.

The official line from the Catholic Church is that birth control is immoral – God wants you to have as many babies as possible, so United States public policy should not promote or enable contraception. Never mind that repeated polls on the topic of contraception in America reveal that a majority of voters support the availability of birth control, and that a huge percentage of American women (up to 99%, according to some sources), including Catholics, have used it. In current polls on this particular Catholic health-care fracas, even a majority of Catholics themselves believe that these institutions’ employees should have access to birth control. Even a Fox News poll shows that a majority of those asked support Obama’s mandate.

This is probably because, if you ignore the outrage over religion for a minute, a giant US employer is denying its staffers important health care, which other employers routinely offer, for reasons that are not practically, financially or legally based.

This hasn’t stopped Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, as well as the Republican Presidential candidates, from trumpeting that they will not abide this terrible intrusion upon America’s freedom of religion.  Some Democrats in Congress have agreed that the Catholic institutions should not have to pay for insurance that covers birth control.

Our Founding Fathers obviously thought freedom of religion was important – it’s the first item up for business on the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights, first line of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I’m no Constitutional scholar. But here is my understanding of this sentence:

The Bill of Rights in stick figures.

Ok, I get it, the waters here are tricky. By telling Catholic employers that their health-care policies must cover contraceptives against their sacred moral convictions, isn’t the US Government making a law that forces a particular religious group to curtail the practice of their religion?

Perhaps government has no right to make any kind of mandate about what employers or insurers should or shouldn’t cover (anyone opposed to Obamacare can explain it to you). Why should Catholic-run institutions have to offer insurance that covers birth control, when they’re morally opposed to it?

For my part, for all the screaming about Constitutional protections for religious practice, I’m still not convinced that the bishops’ stance falls under the protection of the Bill of Rights. As far as I can tell, Obama is not mandating that anyone become Catholic or not become Catholic (“no law respecting the establishment of religion”), and he’s not curtailing the ability of anyone to practice their Catholic faith (“prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).  What he is curtailing is the ability of a Catholic employer to press its beliefs on non-Catholic employees (or, as polls suggest, Catholics who use birth control despite the word of His Holiness).

But because politicians and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops can howl much louder than average Americans who support fair insurance practices, Obama has suggested a compromise on his mandate. Instead of the Catholic institutions paying the cost of the health insurance that provides birth control, the insurers used by these institutions will instead be required to pick up the tab for the Catholic employees’ contraceptives. That way, Catholic institutions are not being forced to pay for something they find immoral.

Of course, this hasn’t dampened the rage one bit. The bishops still find the whole thing wretched, because in the end, the women their church employs will still have easy access to birth control, and that is what the bishops can’t abide.

It’s clear to me that in this case, “freedom of religion” in fact means the freedom of powerful Catholics to press their beliefs on others. And here we have the extraordinary proposition that religious devotees are not truly free to practice their religion unless they’re also able to force others to comply with their beliefs.

Because no-one is more qualified to decide what happens to ordinary working women’s ovaries than a group of powerful, celibate men.

Some Republicans insist that Obama’s compromise is not feasible because it’s unfair to burden the Catholic institutions’ insurers with the cost of birth control coverage. It only adds to an already over-burdened system and will drive costs up for everyone. But this isn’t realistic. Most insurers already cover contraceptives. If you were to ask the insurers of the female employees of Catholic-run institutions if they could bear to cover the cost of those women’s birth control, I bet the only problem would be that the insurers could not say “yes” fast enough to quell their fears that the women would become pregnant on the insurer’s dime.

Many news stories on this topic report that the bishops’ rights or freedoms have been “violated”.  Just as American and European politicians should stop likening ideologically opposed colleagues to Hitler, let’s not pretend that Catholic bishops are in any way “violated” by a woman’s having access to birth control. Insurance policies are being required to offer contraception coverage to American workers regardless of their employers’ religious beliefs; it’s not as if the bishops are being forced to organize anti-child rallies in the candlelit bedrooms of women who use Nuva-Ring. Last time I checked, my choice to avoid pregnancy does not stop any bishop anywhere from living his life as he chooses (unless, of course, the life he chooses is a mission to control my reproductive health – but especially since I don’t work for him, I doubt he has legal grounds for that).

Here are some diagrams for you:

Reality.

Reality.

Reality.

Now that I said all that, I don’t actually believe that this whole mess has anything to with an investment in protecting Americans’ sovereign rights. Just imagine the uproar if the large-scale American employer in question was Muslim instead of Christian, and denied its employees coverage of some sort of preventive medical care to which devotees of Islam are opposed, and Obama pronounced that this Muslim-run employer had the right to arbitrate its employees’ access to medical treatment according to the employer’s religious beliefs.

All the happy inter-faith community centers in the world could not drown out the screams of “Sharia!”

In truth, it’s all about who’s powerful and popular in America (Christians), and who’s got a lot of money and government lobbying power (Christians).

Like I said before, let’s face it, women are just going to be a problem either way. Between paying for the care associated with childbearing and paying for birth control, insurers will always choose the latter, and those darn women will go on continuing the human race (or not), no matter what the bishops or the health care system has to say. Meanwhile, the majority of citizens in a democracy support public policy that makes birth control easily available – not to mention the importance of some forms of birth control in preventing deadly infections. If you also believe that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has more of a voice than it should in American health-care policy, feel free to share this essay.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 782 other followers