So frustrated with our an employment-based, non-continuous coverage, for-profit system. Noting that attempts to destroy Roe were through taking bites at it for years from every angle, makes me wonder if same strategy might work. Now would be an opportune time to ask representatives for providing Medicaid to foster/adopted children for LIFE, not just childhood. Physical & mental issues that these children have are often lifelong.
Excerpt from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/health_care_foster.pdf
As children experience more adverse childhood experiences—including child maltreatment, parental substance use disorder, parental divorce or separation, parental incarceration, and domestic violence—they are at an increased risk for long-term and lifelong medical issues, such as adulthood heart disease, stroke, cancer, respiratory diseases, diabetes, depression, and other conditions (Merrick et al., 2019).
If it's put out there, then we can really see who cares about children after they are born in a post-Roe world. Currently, foster/adopt kids on Medicaid can have private insurance as well, Medicaid then acts as the backup coverage in case someone loses a job (or their Hobby Lobby insurance won't cover birth control for a teen!) So they can't argue we're taking away choice of coverage and some Medicaid programs do charge for premiums based on income at least for adults.
I know, Republicans think only rich people should have sex and that will fix the problem of paying for Medicaid, but they have unintended fetal-alcohol pregnancies too and they for the most part are one head injury away from not being able to work themselves to keep their private coverage. Please post your thoughts - I want to have my letter-writing binge well-thought out.
The Repugs seem to believe in Social Darwinism. I suppose that's something Ayn Rand was keen on?
(Never read her and can't bear to)
I suppose the theory is, we are mammals fundamentally, and taking care of the sick weakens our gene-pool.
They leave conciousness and human intelligence out of the equation. If we were not a social species, caring for each other, we would not have evolved from our animal origins.
Plus, it's only the poor who would have their genetically unfit "weeded out". So the wealthy, with every health intervention, would theoretically become less fit?
I spent most of my adult life overseas--in a country that had national health care (I won't say which one--privacy concerns). People had no hesitation to see a doctor if they were feeling under the weather--completely unlike what I see in the US, where people try to treat themselves for as long as possible with over-the-counter stuff, and only go to a clinic or hospital if things get really bad. There, it cost only the equivalent of about $10 to visit an ordinary doctor's office, or $20 to go to a hospital outpatient clinic. In either case, you usually could see a doctor within 40 minutes of showing up. The hospitals were very, very different from the US-style hospital, because they also had very large outpatient wings, with dozens of doctors on hand to see hundreds of patients every day. Everyone had their national insurance card with their medical information on it, so no matter where you were in the country, if you got in an accident and hauled off to the hospital somewhere, they'd immediately have your medical history.
The national insurance plan covered most things, but not all, so you could also purchase private insurance to cover other things, like expensive cancer treatments, rare chronic conditions, etc. My wife and I also carried one of these extra private plans--and a good thing, too, because my wife was later diagnosed with breast cancer (this was around 20 years ago). The national plan covered the mastectomy, but the private plan covered the reconstruction, so we didn't pay out of pocket for anything. She got wonderful care, no complaints.
After moving back to the US, it took me a while to "get off the ground" on the business I was starting. For 1 1/2 years I was receiving Medicaid (very difficult to get on that--they don't make it easy!), but now I use "Obamacare." It still costs a lot, and the deductible is horrendous (fortunately, I have no medical conditions). But I personally know several people here in the US who have gone bankrupt due to medical conditions. It rarely happened in that other country. As I see it, the insurers and healthcare providers here are really in the game together to maximize their incomes, and the sky's the limit, because, basically, it's "Pay up or die, motherfucker." It's an extractive, extortionary set-up, and the task it achieves with greatest efficiency is separating people from their assets. And just hope that your end, when it eventually comes, comes quickly, because if you spend a few years in the nursing home, you'll eventually be cleaned up of everything you've owned: accounts, stocks, house, etc., as the system hoovers up $6000/month for a crappy room, begrudging minimal service, plus fees for this, that and the other thing, etc., not to mention the ongoing medical bills. Eventually the state kicks in the coverage after your net worth hits $2000. After you kick the bucket, your heirs will get nothing but your "personal effects."
Meanwhile, the healthcare and insurance execs feed their yachts.
Businesses could pay higher wages if they don't have to partially fund health insurance. I have a Republican friend who became paralyzed after an accident. This happened to her in her 60s and she is on Medicare. She sadly discovered Medicare would cover the therapy she needs. That experience has changed her mind and she is now in favor of Universal Healthcare.
Our healthcare system is a shambles. The frontline workers are shellshocked and the executives are making more money now than ever before.
”Higher profits drove those companies’ stocks. The coronavirus pandemic has led to people delaying care, resulting in insurers retaining premiums that otherwise would have been paid out as medical claims. Years of large acquisitions also started paying off, as health insurance companies have morphed into conglomerates that also encompass lucrative drug benefits middlemen, physician groups, pharmacies, and a host of other services and providers.”
https://www.statnews.com/2022/05/12/health-insurance-ceos-raked-in-record-pay-during-covid/
There was one health insurance CEO from a decade ago who made a big splash when he bragged that he skimmed a nickel out of every single dollar that went through his company. It was obscene how much he made and he quietly retired sometime after that thanks to his big negative publicity from that brag. I wish I could remember his name because he was infamous for that boast. He’s still an asshole, though.
It’s still the same industry that profits from denying health care to many.
So you're talking about offering lifetime healthcare coverage to one group at time (until the population is covered) and starting with a high- risk group. Sane people will think, "It's good idea- it will help a very vulnerable group and save us all money in the long run." The others will voice the usual objections and put their character flaws on display for all to see.
I like it. At the same time, I've noticed it's impossible to shame shameless people into doing the right thing.