Using a human interest story is not an uncommon strategy for politicians. In an attempt to garner support for an as yet undisclosed plan for healthcare reform the Senate Majority Leader from the Democratic party shamelessly employs this technique.
From Senator Reid’s press release below he claims a woman from his state with a life long history of kidney problems is unable to have the medical treatment the problem requires due to pre-existing condition limitations in insurance coverage.
If Harry Reid so strongly support government intervention in healthcare he might want to explain why the following government intervention is not adequate.
One of the most important protections under HIPAA is that it helps those with preexisting conditions get health coverage. In the past, some employers’ group health plans limited, or even denied, coverage if a new employee had such a condition before enrolling in the plan. Under HIPAA, that is not allowed. If the plan generally provides coverage but denies benefits to you because you had a condition before your coverage began, then HIPAA applies.
Either the government intervention known as HIPAA solves the problem for the woman Reid mentions or it does not. If it does solve the problem his argument is moot. If it does not then why should we believe that this time they will get it right?
Not to cause any more discomfort for the woman with the problem Reid chose to describe and use for political reasons but some questions are raised by this human interest story. If she had the problem her whole life and had a job with coverage until recently is Harry Reid telling us she was denied by pre-existing condition exclusions her entire life? Or did something change? Or is he not telling the whole story? Why didn’t she get the treatment she needs before?
But it all comes down to Harry Reid and company claiming we need healthcare reform. But using Reid’s example for healthcare reform again, if she has had a problem her whole life and may have been denied healthcare by exclusions any time along the way, Medicare, Medicaid or any other government attempts at providing healthcare to everyone has not worked. At the risk of sounding redundant, Harry Reid’s own argument is proof government intervention in healthcare doesn’t work. There is no need to fail again at additional cost. We cannot afford their intervention any longer.
Their intervention has done more to raise the cost of healthcare than anything else. If the market was allowed to work without their meddling competition would fill the gaps and demand would reward the effective coverage and dispatch the ineffective ones.
The question about Reid’s second story is similar to the first. If treatment or a solution was needed many years ago why didn’t it happen? Harry leaves that part out. If nine out of ten people are denied coverage or it is too expensive where are the other details Harry? Why aren’t they in a group plan? Why didn’t they take advantage of your fine COBRA coverage? Why were they denied coverage? And if so many people are experiencing so many problems even with all the Medicare and Medicaid meddling you’ve done for 40 or more years, why would more meddling produce a different result. Some of your own colleagues have on other occasions expressed that when something doesn’t work doing the same thing to fix it and expecting a different result is ridiculous.
But we know you and your political type. If allowed you will do the same thing and get the same results. Nothing will improve but it certainly will cost more. Exactly what we cannot afford. Just like your bailouts, PORK and other out of control spending. We cannot afford it. And neither can the next three or four generations as it stands now. If you keep on spending even more generations will have to pay for your foolishness. And the people you describe will still be without the services they seek.
Here’s one for you. Select between these two simple healthcare reform options. Insurance companies can refuse all claims. Insurance must accept all claims. Neither one will work. If insurance companies refused all claims eventually people would realize paying for insurance was foolish and private insurance would cease to exist. If government required insurance companies to accept all claims they would continuously lose money and private insurance would cease to exist. The undisclosed third choice is no private insurance exists and government runs all healthcare. The costs would continue to rise uncontrollably and the crushing debt would cause our country to cease to exist. The answer does not lie with any of these extremes. If the government removes itself from the healthcare business, and it is a business, the market would be able to work.
We have been fooled into believing government can make everything all right. Even when it cannot. They have been at it for so many years few on this planet remember a time when they did not meddle in healthcare. For as long as they have been at it we would have solved the problem by now if government was the answer. The government should get out of healthcare and for that matter education since it is on the issue table as well. Their meddling in education has wrought the same turmoil as in healthcare. More spending, less results, repeat daily, repeat liberally. Less government is the answer, not more.
We have had a steady increase in more government for longer than the ages of most people alive today. It is time to renew the other choice, less government. Beside the fact that it would be more effective it would also be a refreshing change. Have the government discharge its constitutionally required obligations and leave the rest alone. We would all be better off. But then you would probably not know it for you haven’t seen it before.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
July 8, 2009
Washington, DC— Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement this morning on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:
“Last month I stood here and told you about a young woman from Nevada named Alysia. She was born with a kidney disease – one that she has fought bravely her entire life.
“But lately, things have gotten worse. Like far too many Americans in recent months, Alysia lost her job. And as far too many Americans have learned lately, when you lose your job, your health care often disappears along with it.
“Alysia did what any of us would do in the same situation. She tried to get independent coverage so she can afford the surgery she needs to get better. Her doctors say surgery is imperative, but insurance companies say it’s impossible.
“They refuse to cover her. They call her kidney disease a ‘preexisting condition.’ Everyone else calls this a tragedy.
“Alysia isn’t the only Nevadan who has written me about this injustice.
“Caleb Wolz is a high school student from Sparks, Nevada. Like so many kids, he used to play soccer when he was younger. But now he just sticks to skiing and rock climbing. You can forgive him for giving up soccer, though. You see, Caleb was born without any legs.
“As kids grow up, they grow out of their shoes. A lot of kids probably get a new pair every year. But Caleb, who is 17, has needed a new pair of prosthetic legs every year since he was five years old.
“You can probably guess where this is going. Caleb’s insurance company has decided it knows better than his doctor – and has decided Caleb doesn’t need legs that fit.
“Even after looking at pictures of the bruises and abrasions Caleb suffered from prosthetics that were too small, his insurance company decided once again that his preexisting condition is too expensive to deal with.
“These stories are hard to hear, but they are not hard to come by. They are extraordinary, but they are not unique. This happens to women all over southern Nevada just like Alysia and boys across northern Nevada like Caleb. It happens to people on the east coast and the west coast. It happens to Americans in small towns and big cities.
“Every day, private insurance companies look at a patient’s medical history and the prescriptions they’ve filled. Then they deny them coverage or charge them exorbitant rates because of the patient’s age or a specific illness.
“For every 10 Americans who try to get health care, nine of them never buy a plan because insurance companies deny them or make it too expensive.
“Most of us were not born with a kidney disease like Alysia’s – and unlike Caleb, most of us were born with both of our legs. But unless you are in absolutely perfect health – without a history or a risk of anything from heart disease to high cholesterol to hay fever – you’re out of luck.
“Some insurance companies even treat caesarean sections as a preexisting condition – and sometimes even accuse women of scheduling unnecessary C-sections when they give birth.
“More than half of all Americans live with at least one chronic condition, and those conditions cause 70 percent of the deaths in America. Yet right now, insurance companies that care more about profits than about people are in complete control of our wellbeing.
“They are holding Americans’ health hostage – and far too many of us cannot afford the ransom.
“Reforming health care is a complex endeavor. But one part of Democrats’ vision for health care is simple: We are going to give people control over their own health. We are no longer going to let greedy insurance companies use a patient’s preexisting condition as an excuse to deny them the coverage they need.
“We will lower the high costs of health care. We will make sure every American has access to that quality, affordable care. And we will make sure people still have the power to choose their own doctors, hospitals and health plans.
“If we leave it up to private insurance companies that are more interested in keeping their profits up than keeping us healthy, that won’t happen. Nor will it happen if our Republican colleagues continue to defend the status quo.
“A few weeks ago, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives said the following: ‘I think we all understand that we’ve got the best health care system in the world.’
“How can one defend a health care system that goes out of its way not to care for people’s health? And how can anyone celebrate such a system with a straight face?
“That health care system told Alysia she can’t get the kidney surgery she needs. That health care system told Caleb he can’t get the legs he needs. I think they would respectfully disagree with the Republican Leader.
“Insurance companies and most of our Republican colleagues seem to share a common philosophy: They both reflexively and recklessly say ‘no,’ for no good reason. That’s a philosophy we can’t afford.
“If you are fortunate enough to have coverage that you like, you can keep it. But if you don’t like the fact that your insurance company can deny you coverage whenever it feels like it, you’ll agree we need to change the way things are.”
###
The Democratic majority has been unable to produce party unity on healthcare reform as reports indicate the Saturday vote on HR3962 may be delayed. Vulnerable Democrats are worried about the 2010 elections. The GOP has similar concerns about their possible comeback in those same elections. And yet both parties seem unwilling to accept widespread rejection by the public and respond responsibly. The fight is purely political.
Time to ratchet up contact to your elected reps. As the healthcare reform saga continues in the nation’s capital those in the majority confirm the loyal opposition is not the party of ‘no’ but the only ones trying to eliminate insane portions of current proposals in Congress.
The only certain outcome of liberal healthcare reform is more taxes and less control for individuals over their healthcare decisions. Each version proposed in Congress has come with a slightly lower estimate on costs over the life of the legislation. Based on previous experience with government forecasts for government programs with the possible exception of the CBO indicate the actual costs will exceed any current estimates. The CBO can only predict based on information available at the time and since the various versions change on an almost daily basis that task is made nearly impossible. You can be sure it will cost more than anyone will tell you now.
The Dream Act has been around for a while and like the shamnesty defeat in the summer of 2007 it has been shot down once. Together with yes votes on bailouts any member of Congress voting for shamnesty risks defeat in 2010 unless they are secure in a liberal saturated district willing to open all borders and ignore the rule of law.
