06 September 2007
Sen. Johnson gets it now — but do the rest?
By Donna Smith
DENVER – It was a moving scene. Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota returned to the U.S. Senate today, nine months after suffering a brain hemorrhage that nearly took his life.
I vividly remember that day. I was working at a contract position here in Denver when someone came out of our break room and said some Senator from South Dakota had a stroke or something. My stomach flipped. We had just moved from South Dakota weeks before, and Tim Johnson was one of my U.S. Senators.
When I arrived home that day to my daughter’s home where we were living in a small storage room, a hand-written note was waiting in her mailbox for me. It was to me from Sen. Tim Johnson. The irony of receiving that note on that day was spooky for me. The note is on his U.S. Senate note paper, and he thanked me for my efforts to be a fair reporter in western South Dakota where most media leans heavily and easily to the far right. I still have that note and will treasure it always. It wasn’t easy to report on any Democrat in western South Dakota, and it was kind of him to acknowledge that fact.
But now it is months later. I have been in Michael Moore’s SiCKO and to Cuba for health care, and Sen. Johnson and his family have been through hell and back with his brain injury. Both of our families have much yet to endure.
I listened to his statement today and marveled at his courage. How many of us would step to that microphone and do what he did and what he had obviously fought to do with every fiber of his body. Every American should take great comfort that among all the terrible falsehoods and shams we watch unfold from Washington, these few moments were very human and very American – in the best senses of both.
In part, Sen. Johnson said, “But I return to work today to this great body with a renewed spirit and a sharper focus. I better appreciate today what individuals and families go through when they face crippling hardship – whether that hardship be the consequence of catastrophic health issues, economic hardship, or lack of an opportunity to reach one’s full potential in life.
“I believe I have been given a second chance at life. I vow to take that second chance and work harder than ever to be the best I can be for my state and for my nation; to be a voice for those individuals and families who too often are ignored or forgotten; and to fight to live up to the ideals that have made this nation great. That is my focus and that is my commitment to my constituents back home in South Dakota, to the people of this great nation, and to my colleagues here in Washington.” When he finished his statement, his colleagues stood and honored him with applause, as well they should.
Then our Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, spoke. In his moving tribute to his friend and fellow Democrat, Sen. Reid shared a truth that might have been lost by some but that seared at my heart and soul like a hot knife.
In praising Sen. Johnson’s doctors and acknowledging the serendipity that allowed his medical crisis to occur when and where it did, Sen. Reid inadvertently highlighted some of the very issues the rest of us out in America face today.
Reid said that if the hemorrhage had occurred one day later, Johnson might have been on an airplane bound for South Dakota. OK, that would be bad. It would have taken precious time for a plane to land and for care to reach my Senator. He might have died or had a very bad outcome indeed.
But then Reid added that if the crisis had occurred two days later, Johnson might have been on an Indian reservation. Oooh, now that’s not good. Everybody knows that having a medical emergency on one of the nation’s Indian reservations would necessarily mean pretty lousy chances for high quality trauma care or even minimal stabilization of a medical emergency.
So, my good Senators, Sen. Johnson was blessed to have his emergency in Washington, near an awesome medical facility with doctors who were top-notch and able to work with the best of the best to save his life and to save his brain so we could applaud him today.
Most Americans are not so lucky. We don’t have the insurance benefits and access to quality care that saved Sen. Johnson’s life and brain. And the kicker still is that we – the American taxpayer and voters – give our Congressional members better benefits at better prices and therefore a better chance for life than we even demand for ourselves.
I would like to hold Sen. Johnson to the words he spoke today and challenge him to work now on bringing the health care crisis in this nation forward once again in the Senate. He has a unique perspective and a unique opportunity -- Perhaps a God-given opportunity to argue that he values the health and lives of his constituents and of everyday Americans just as much as he does his own. In my heart, I know he does. Now I just need to find out if he has the courage to stand up and say it in spite of the re-election race decision looming in the not-too-distant future.
In 2004, another U.S. Senator from South Dakota offered a resolution in the Senate saying that every American should have access to health care benefits like those given to every member of Congress at a fair price. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle offered that resolution but was later defeated by the young Republican, John Thune, who introduced Sen. Johnson today as he returned to the Senate. Thune does not believe every American deserves the same health benefits he does.
I would like to challenge Sen. Johnson to go back to that resolution and read it again. Give it your own touches and please reintroduce it again. Let the courage and compassion you now know even more intimately exists in America guide you to bring this discussion back into the Senate before another year and another election cycle – and the deaths of 18,000 more Americans – passes. This nation needs health care reform now, please help us Sen. Johnson.
DENVER – It was a moving scene. Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota returned to the U.S. Senate today, nine months after suffering a brain hemorrhage that nearly took his life.
I vividly remember that day. I was working at a contract position here in Denver when someone came out of our break room and said some Senator from South Dakota had a stroke or something. My stomach flipped. We had just moved from South Dakota weeks before, and Tim Johnson was one of my U.S. Senators.
When I arrived home that day to my daughter’s home where we were living in a small storage room, a hand-written note was waiting in her mailbox for me. It was to me from Sen. Tim Johnson. The irony of receiving that note on that day was spooky for me. The note is on his U.S. Senate note paper, and he thanked me for my efforts to be a fair reporter in western South Dakota where most media leans heavily and easily to the far right. I still have that note and will treasure it always. It wasn’t easy to report on any Democrat in western South Dakota, and it was kind of him to acknowledge that fact.
But now it is months later. I have been in Michael Moore’s SiCKO and to Cuba for health care, and Sen. Johnson and his family have been through hell and back with his brain injury. Both of our families have much yet to endure.
I listened to his statement today and marveled at his courage. How many of us would step to that microphone and do what he did and what he had obviously fought to do with every fiber of his body. Every American should take great comfort that among all the terrible falsehoods and shams we watch unfold from Washington, these few moments were very human and very American – in the best senses of both.
In part, Sen. Johnson said, “But I return to work today to this great body with a renewed spirit and a sharper focus. I better appreciate today what individuals and families go through when they face crippling hardship – whether that hardship be the consequence of catastrophic health issues, economic hardship, or lack of an opportunity to reach one’s full potential in life.
“I believe I have been given a second chance at life. I vow to take that second chance and work harder than ever to be the best I can be for my state and for my nation; to be a voice for those individuals and families who too often are ignored or forgotten; and to fight to live up to the ideals that have made this nation great. That is my focus and that is my commitment to my constituents back home in South Dakota, to the people of this great nation, and to my colleagues here in Washington.” When he finished his statement, his colleagues stood and honored him with applause, as well they should.
Then our Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, spoke. In his moving tribute to his friend and fellow Democrat, Sen. Reid shared a truth that might have been lost by some but that seared at my heart and soul like a hot knife.
In praising Sen. Johnson’s doctors and acknowledging the serendipity that allowed his medical crisis to occur when and where it did, Sen. Reid inadvertently highlighted some of the very issues the rest of us out in America face today.
Reid said that if the hemorrhage had occurred one day later, Johnson might have been on an airplane bound for South Dakota. OK, that would be bad. It would have taken precious time for a plane to land and for care to reach my Senator. He might have died or had a very bad outcome indeed.
But then Reid added that if the crisis had occurred two days later, Johnson might have been on an Indian reservation. Oooh, now that’s not good. Everybody knows that having a medical emergency on one of the nation’s Indian reservations would necessarily mean pretty lousy chances for high quality trauma care or even minimal stabilization of a medical emergency.
So, my good Senators, Sen. Johnson was blessed to have his emergency in Washington, near an awesome medical facility with doctors who were top-notch and able to work with the best of the best to save his life and to save his brain so we could applaud him today.
Most Americans are not so lucky. We don’t have the insurance benefits and access to quality care that saved Sen. Johnson’s life and brain. And the kicker still is that we – the American taxpayer and voters – give our Congressional members better benefits at better prices and therefore a better chance for life than we even demand for ourselves.
I would like to hold Sen. Johnson to the words he spoke today and challenge him to work now on bringing the health care crisis in this nation forward once again in the Senate. He has a unique perspective and a unique opportunity -- Perhaps a God-given opportunity to argue that he values the health and lives of his constituents and of everyday Americans just as much as he does his own. In my heart, I know he does. Now I just need to find out if he has the courage to stand up and say it in spite of the re-election race decision looming in the not-too-distant future.
In 2004, another U.S. Senator from South Dakota offered a resolution in the Senate saying that every American should have access to health care benefits like those given to every member of Congress at a fair price. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle offered that resolution but was later defeated by the young Republican, John Thune, who introduced Sen. Johnson today as he returned to the Senate. Thune does not believe every American deserves the same health benefits he does.
I would like to challenge Sen. Johnson to go back to that resolution and read it again. Give it your own touches and please reintroduce it again. Let the courage and compassion you now know even more intimately exists in America guide you to bring this discussion back into the Senate before another year and another election cycle – and the deaths of 18,000 more Americans – passes. This nation needs health care reform now, please help us Sen. Johnson.
04 September 2007
A union for patients
DENVER – Larry Smith has had enough. Smith plans to take his medical records and his medical payments from Medicare and insurance for his on-going care to a doctor that supports universal health care. No more feeding the beast of for-profit medical groups determined to push more patients – and therefore more revenue – through the door every hour rather than offer the level of care being paid for by millions of Americans. “No more apologizing for getting sick after a lifetime of working and paying for health insurance only to watch everything be lost in an instant to high premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket costs -- and then still have doctor groups deny my care because I cannot pay them more. My father always said you can’t get blood out of a turnip, but in this system, my father has been proven wrong,” Smith said.
As a patient of numerous specialty groups and specialists over the past 20 years, Larry has seen the system which benefited wildly from his business as a patient morph into one in which he must now beg for adequate care. The 63-year-old Denver man is taking the first steps aimed at organizing his fellow patients to demand the quality of care for which they are paying and to demand meaningful health care reform.
Smith is walking away from the largest cardiology practice in his area – and the same practice that treated his father all the way through a heart transplant, death and income in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from Smith family insurance and savings – and Larry is transferring his care to a Denver cardiologist that supports universal health care.
“Ask your doctor if they support universal health care,” Larry said. “Look around that waiting room at the signage. If the first thing you see is the reminder that payment is expected BEFORE your doctor’s visit, consider checking out this group a bit more before you turn over your life or the life of someone you love to them. What assurances have they given to you about your satisfaction or your well-being based on pre-payment for service?”
Additionally, Smith urges physicians and providers who are serious about supporting universal health care to prominently post that support where patients can note that philosophy. “Does your physician value every human life? Or does your doctor value only those with the right coverage or checking account balance or credit rating? The answer fundamentally changes your focus and your doctor’s focus. You have a right to know these things before the doctor lays a hand on you or someone you love.”
Smith adds that if the doctor’s primary goal is to help him feel better and get well, that is to be rewarded with his business as a patient.
“I have no objection to my doctor earning money – even very good money – for good performance. But right now, the system rewards my doctor for keeping me sick and in need of more tests and more referrals and more follow-up appointments and more spending. The focus is not on my health but on his wealth.”
Smith will also ask the national organization Physicians for a National Health Program to encourage its physician-members to post their membership status for all patients and patient families to see.
At the end of September in Washington, D.C., Larry will formally launch his patients’ union organizing efforts following a vigil on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial at sundown on Friday, Sept. 28. The vigil is in memory of Tracy Pierce, a young Kansas City area husband and father who died after his insurance company denied him treatment, and the vigil also honors those still fighting for care now.
Several of the people who appear in Michael Moore’s film, SiCKO, are attending the vigil, including Tracy’s widow Julie Pierce, Adrian Campbell, Dr. Linda Peeno, Dawnelle Keys – along with Larry and Donna Smith. They have recently organized a patient advocacy group, American Patients for Universal Health Care, apuhc.com.
There will be a vigil honoring Paul that same night in Denver, on the West Steps of the Capitol at 7 p.m.
31 August 2007
Colorado's Perlmutter quotes old polical boss
By Donna Smith
DENVER -- Ed Perlmutter, the U.S. Representative for House District 7 in Colorado, spoke to a group of constituents in Lakewood, Colo., on Wednesday and quoted an old political powerhouse when I asked him about health care lobbyist money as an influence on the health care reform debate.
The quote, in its cleaned-up form, turns out to be well-known:
"If you can't take their money, drink their liquor, screw their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don't belong here." -- Jesse Unruh, Speaker, California State Assembly, 1961-1969.
Known as “Big Daddy Unruh,” he also was credited with saying that money is the mother’s milk of politics. He was a powerful force on the national political scene and his political life served as a case study on “machine politics.”
It was interesting to have Unruh’s name come up in today’s session.
During the questions and answer period of Perlmutter’s meeting, I asked the freshman Congressman about making meaningful changes in health policy law and about bringing debate on health care reform to Congress. He pointed out that Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado’s 1st Congressional District is in a powerful position a vice chair on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where health care is a major focus.
I countered that I appreciated DeGette’s potential power, but that I had concerns about the fact that her second highest contributing group in terms of her campaign financing is from health care related lobbyists. I suggested that while that doesn’t unequivocally mean that her loyalty is to those lobbyists that it does and should raise a red flag for voters like me who are concerned about health care reform.
When Perlmutter came to her defense with the Unruh quote, I was a bit taken aback. He went on to explain that because he represents a diverse district with Republicans, Democrats and Independents, he receives campaign contributions from a wide variety of individuals and interests, but that does not mean he panders to individual contributing interests. “I have faith in Diana,” he added.
Audience members added their questions about why the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without universal health care.
Another woman echoed my concerns about why those approved for Social Security Disability must then wait two years for Medicare health benefits. That seems inherently unfair when a person has been determined to be too disabled to work but then languishes without insurance or burdens other insurance plans or is unable to secure coverage at any price in today’s health insurance environment.
I told Perlmutter that Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told me he would look into that too and would work to change that. The lag time between my husband Larry’s approval for Social Security Disability and his eligibility for Medicare coverage was one of the financially devastating factors that led to our bankruptcy as he fought his artery disease and I fought cancer.
All-in-all, Perlmutter said he is anxious to read all the health care reform proposals selected by Colorado’s 208 Commission and learn about the provisions of each proposal before settling on his preferred position. He pointed out that health care issues drive nearly 20 percent of the national economy and it is a complicated problem. He did not offer much support for universal health care. He didn’t speak against it.
I thanked him for his attentiveness, gave his staffer a copy of my July 17, 2007, testimony before the House Judiciary sub-committee, and told him I looked forward to meeting with him in Washington, D.C., as scheduled for Sept. 26, before the vigil on the Lincoln Memorial steps on Sept. 28 at sundown.
DENVER -- Ed Perlmutter, the U.S. Representative for House District 7 in Colorado, spoke to a group of constituents in Lakewood, Colo., on Wednesday and quoted an old political powerhouse when I asked him about health care lobbyist money as an influence on the health care reform debate.
The quote, in its cleaned-up form, turns out to be well-known:
"If you can't take their money, drink their liquor, screw their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don't belong here." -- Jesse Unruh, Speaker, California State Assembly, 1961-1969.
Known as “Big Daddy Unruh,” he also was credited with saying that money is the mother’s milk of politics. He was a powerful force on the national political scene and his political life served as a case study on “machine politics.”
It was interesting to have Unruh’s name come up in today’s session.
During the questions and answer period of Perlmutter’s meeting, I asked the freshman Congressman about making meaningful changes in health policy law and about bringing debate on health care reform to Congress. He pointed out that Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado’s 1st Congressional District is in a powerful position a vice chair on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where health care is a major focus.
I countered that I appreciated DeGette’s potential power, but that I had concerns about the fact that her second highest contributing group in terms of her campaign financing is from health care related lobbyists. I suggested that while that doesn’t unequivocally mean that her loyalty is to those lobbyists that it does and should raise a red flag for voters like me who are concerned about health care reform.
When Perlmutter came to her defense with the Unruh quote, I was a bit taken aback. He went on to explain that because he represents a diverse district with Republicans, Democrats and Independents, he receives campaign contributions from a wide variety of individuals and interests, but that does not mean he panders to individual contributing interests. “I have faith in Diana,” he added.
Audience members added their questions about why the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without universal health care.
Another woman echoed my concerns about why those approved for Social Security Disability must then wait two years for Medicare health benefits. That seems inherently unfair when a person has been determined to be too disabled to work but then languishes without insurance or burdens other insurance plans or is unable to secure coverage at any price in today’s health insurance environment.
I told Perlmutter that Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told me he would look into that too and would work to change that. The lag time between my husband Larry’s approval for Social Security Disability and his eligibility for Medicare coverage was one of the financially devastating factors that led to our bankruptcy as he fought his artery disease and I fought cancer.
All-in-all, Perlmutter said he is anxious to read all the health care reform proposals selected by Colorado’s 208 Commission and learn about the provisions of each proposal before settling on his preferred position. He pointed out that health care issues drive nearly 20 percent of the national economy and it is a complicated problem. He did not offer much support for universal health care. He didn’t speak against it.
I thanked him for his attentiveness, gave his staffer a copy of my July 17, 2007, testimony before the House Judiciary sub-committee, and told him I looked forward to meeting with him in Washington, D.C., as scheduled for Sept. 26, before the vigil on the Lincoln Memorial steps on Sept. 28 at sundown.
Bravo to Larry Smith
Donna Smith yesterday posted an entry on Michael Moore's blogsite about her husband Larry's rather brilliant idea about unionizing patients. It's pretty simple. Don't patronize doctors who aren't for single-payer, universal health care. Larry's a union man, and it shows in his thinking here. (By the way, if you've never heard Natalie Merchant sing this classic, you'll be richer for finding a way to hear it.)
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
Florence Reece/ Stormking Music, Inc.(BMI)
Come all you good workers
good news to you I’ll tell
of how the good old union
has come in here to dwell
Which side are you on boys?
Which side are you on?
My daddy was a miner
he’s now in the air and sun
he’ll be with you fellow workers
until the battle’s won
Which side are you on boys?
Which side are you on?
They say in Harlan County
there are no neutrals there
you’ll either be a union man
or a thug for J. H. Claire
Which side are you on boys?
Which side are you on?
Oh workers can you stand it?
oh tell me how you can
will you be a lousy scab
or will you be a man?
Which side are you on boys?
Which side are you on?
Don’t scab for the bosses
don’t listen to their lies
poor folks ain’t got a chance
unless they organize
Which side are you on boys?
Which side are you on?
Cancer Society focuses ads on uninsured
The New York Times reports today that the Cancer Society's $15 million ad budget for the coming year will focus on the uninsured. The article notes, "The campaign was born of the group’s frustration that cancer rates are not dropping as rapidly as hoped, and of recent research linking a lack of insurance to delays in detecting malignancies."
Other disease-fighting charities have applauded the move.
Before we get too misty-eyed about what a good sign this is, let's point out that the Cancer Society's theme is the "consequences of inadequate health coverage." That promotes buying more health insurance, putting more money into bonus checks to Aetna executives at the expense of struggling families. j
Then again, before we get to cynical, the Cancer Society risks its funding with these ads from foundations associated with the obscenely profitable medical-industrial industry. That money is crucial to the existence of the society. They have to walk a fine line here.
Celinda Lake's research shows that fear entrenches the status quo. Hopefully these ads will inspire anger and not fear. Which will it be?
Other disease-fighting charities have applauded the move.
Before we get too misty-eyed about what a good sign this is, let's point out that the Cancer Society's theme is the "consequences of inadequate health coverage." That promotes buying more health insurance, putting more money into bonus checks to Aetna executives at the expense of struggling families. j
Then again, before we get to cynical, the Cancer Society risks its funding with these ads from foundations associated with the obscenely profitable medical-industrial industry. That money is crucial to the existence of the society. They have to walk a fine line here.
Celinda Lake's research shows that fear entrenches the status quo. Hopefully these ads will inspire anger and not fear. Which will it be?
One features images of uninsured cancer patients, appearing hollow and fearful. “This is what a health care crisis looks like to the American Cancer Society,” the narrator begins. “We’re making progress, but it’s not enough if people don’t have access to the care that could save their lives.”The NYT piece also refers to a 2003 study estimating that one of every 10 cancer patients was uninsured and other surveys that "have found that one of every four families afflicted by cancer, which is projected to kill 560,000 Americans this year, is effectively impoverished by the fight, including one of every five with insurance."
The other commercial depicts a young mother whose family has gone into debt because her insurance did not fully cover her cancer treatment. “Is the choice between caring for yourself and caring for your family really a choice?” the narrator asks.
30 August 2007
What she has learned
Heather Bennett, a daughter of Larry and Donna Smith, was in "SiCKO" along with her parents. It was her house in Denver that the couple were headed to at the film's beginning — Heather's husband on his way to Iraq to do "some plumbing," as her son explained. Heather describes herself as "the proud daughter of Larry and Donna Smith." She's right to be proud, because her parents have done this country proud by not shutting up, not resting, but instead relentlessly leading and speaking out. They've done that despite the uncomfortable label of "health care system victim" that catapulted them into what might seem to be a catbird's seat. In fact, both Donna and Larry are more akin to being transformed into canaries in the mine.
Those of us who have been hurt by the despicable U.S. healthcare system have a duty, as Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, mothers, friends, and most of all as human beings, to speak out. The private health insurance industry will hurt you too. And if that doesn't outrage you, like the bumpersticker says, you're not paying attention. Heather's family understands. Here's Heather's column.
What I have learned...
By Heather Bennett, proud daughter of Larry and Donna Smith
My parents are featured in the Michael Moore film, "SiCKO." I am one of their six children and I am the daughter who volunteered her home when they had no place to go. I offered my home out of love and understanding that this was what I could do for them at the time. I could not erase the years of financial burden placed on them by their health care woes, but I could offer a soft place to land. For them, the opportunity to tell their story in this movie has been uplifting, dignifying and — and admittedly difficult at times. What people do not know — what people cannot see - is the private struggle behind the scenes for them and for their adult children.
It bothers me that our family did not feel comfortable sitting down and having this conversation together. Perhaps it is too idealistic to think that families do that today. Do adult children know how their parents have planned for the future? Do parents talk about health care concerns and needs? Or are we so caught up in the “me” and in keeping everything private that we don’t stop to talk about it? What is the emotion behind this? Is it fear, embarrassment or shame?
When people ask me why my parents are in the film and why I think this is so important, I answer that my parents are an example of what a couple might have to go through even though they are both working and are fully covered under multiple insurance plans. What I have come to understand over the past few weeks is that the importance of this movie is even simpler than that. It is about having the conversation and then doing something about it.
Inability to have conversations is a big part of the problem in America today. We are so careful about what we say, how we say it, when we say it and to whom we say it that often we decide it is easier not to have the conversation at all. As Michael Moore asks in this film, “Who are we?” My answer is that we are lots of individuals or small family units that are pretty uncaring and unconcerned for those around us. I would argue that Moore’s statement about the “me not we” ideology has bled past our every day dealings with the outside world, straight into our family lives. I know that I myself have learned things about the struggles they have faced by watching them give interviews or reading my mom’s eloquent words posted on a blog or a newspaper article. I also know that I feel utterly unprepared to assist as my parents age.
We live in a different time. Gone are the days that families stayed close together, generation upon generation living in the same community - taking care of each other. In our family, discussions on health care issues, financial issues and independent living issues rarely take place. What is the source of the stubbornness that stops these conversations from happening? How can we regain that connectedness?
If you are the child of an aging parent, I urge you to sit down with your parent(s) and have this discussion. Talk to them about their health. Talk to them about their healthcare. Ask the tough questions. What will happen if there is a major illness? What will happen if that illness is so debilitating that assisted living is required? Would your parent be able to survive the financial drain that a health issue can cause?
Not only do these conversations need to happen within families, but we need to take those discussions and turn them into action. Start with your State Representative, your Congressional Representative and your Senator. Where do they stand on universal health care or a single-payer plan. Have they taken money from the health care lobby? If so, why? Pledge your support for a bill in Congress - HR 676. Challenge each of the Presidential Candidates for 2008 to really explain their health care plan. The voices that rise up from our families, to each state House to the halls of Washington should be filled with anger and outrage at a system that is failing so many. For every day that we do not take action, 50 more people will die.
I wish that I had asked these questions earlier. I wish that I had been engaged in discussions with my parents on an entirely different level. In America, we must get back to a focus on “we”. It starts with asking the questions and planning for the future. Parents must feel no shame or loss of dignity in telling their children what they might need to survive a major illness. Children need to be prepared before something happens.
I urge you to see this movie - parents and children together. Start the conversation and then take action. When you start the conversation, you may be surprised at what you learn. I know I have been.
Those of us who have been hurt by the despicable U.S. healthcare system have a duty, as Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, mothers, friends, and most of all as human beings, to speak out. The private health insurance industry will hurt you too. And if that doesn't outrage you, like the bumpersticker says, you're not paying attention. Heather's family understands. Here's Heather's column.
What I have learned...
By Heather Bennett, proud daughter of Larry and Donna Smith
My parents are featured in the Michael Moore film, "SiCKO." I am one of their six children and I am the daughter who volunteered her home when they had no place to go. I offered my home out of love and understanding that this was what I could do for them at the time. I could not erase the years of financial burden placed on them by their health care woes, but I could offer a soft place to land. For them, the opportunity to tell their story in this movie has been uplifting, dignifying and — and admittedly difficult at times. What people do not know — what people cannot see - is the private struggle behind the scenes for them and for their adult children.
It bothers me that our family did not feel comfortable sitting down and having this conversation together. Perhaps it is too idealistic to think that families do that today. Do adult children know how their parents have planned for the future? Do parents talk about health care concerns and needs? Or are we so caught up in the “me” and in keeping everything private that we don’t stop to talk about it? What is the emotion behind this? Is it fear, embarrassment or shame?
When people ask me why my parents are in the film and why I think this is so important, I answer that my parents are an example of what a couple might have to go through even though they are both working and are fully covered under multiple insurance plans. What I have come to understand over the past few weeks is that the importance of this movie is even simpler than that. It is about having the conversation and then doing something about it.
Inability to have conversations is a big part of the problem in America today. We are so careful about what we say, how we say it, when we say it and to whom we say it that often we decide it is easier not to have the conversation at all. As Michael Moore asks in this film, “Who are we?” My answer is that we are lots of individuals or small family units that are pretty uncaring and unconcerned for those around us. I would argue that Moore’s statement about the “me not we” ideology has bled past our every day dealings with the outside world, straight into our family lives. I know that I myself have learned things about the struggles they have faced by watching them give interviews or reading my mom’s eloquent words posted on a blog or a newspaper article. I also know that I feel utterly unprepared to assist as my parents age.
We live in a different time. Gone are the days that families stayed close together, generation upon generation living in the same community - taking care of each other. In our family, discussions on health care issues, financial issues and independent living issues rarely take place. What is the source of the stubbornness that stops these conversations from happening? How can we regain that connectedness?
If you are the child of an aging parent, I urge you to sit down with your parent(s) and have this discussion. Talk to them about their health. Talk to them about their healthcare. Ask the tough questions. What will happen if there is a major illness? What will happen if that illness is so debilitating that assisted living is required? Would your parent be able to survive the financial drain that a health issue can cause?
Not only do these conversations need to happen within families, but we need to take those discussions and turn them into action. Start with your State Representative, your Congressional Representative and your Senator. Where do they stand on universal health care or a single-payer plan. Have they taken money from the health care lobby? If so, why? Pledge your support for a bill in Congress - HR 676. Challenge each of the Presidential Candidates for 2008 to really explain their health care plan. The voices that rise up from our families, to each state House to the halls of Washington should be filled with anger and outrage at a system that is failing so many. For every day that we do not take action, 50 more people will die.
I wish that I had asked these questions earlier. I wish that I had been engaged in discussions with my parents on an entirely different level. In America, we must get back to a focus on “we”. It starts with asking the questions and planning for the future. Parents must feel no shame or loss of dignity in telling their children what they might need to survive a major illness. Children need to be prepared before something happens.
I urge you to see this movie - parents and children together. Start the conversation and then take action. When you start the conversation, you may be surprised at what you learn. I know I have been.
29 August 2007
Kaiser disinformation about Colorado proposals
Kaiser's "daily reports" gives absolute misinformation, the opposite of the truth, on the Colorado health care reform proposals. If they weren't expert on this, I'd say it was a misunderstanding. But these guys know what they're doing. This therefore seems malicious.
They write, "The most expensive option would be the government-run single-payer plan, which would cost an estimated $26.6 billion annually."
That's in contrast with the $30 billion we now pay for health care in Colorado.
I wrote Kaiser:
August 20, 2007 Prepared for: The Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform
BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR COLORADO - Provides care through a public program expansion and access to private insurance coverage with low-income subsidies through a Health Insurance Exchange. Individuals who purchase private coverage would have access to a limited core set of benefits, with premiums copays.
467,200 - number remaining uninsured $595 million - increase in health spending
SOLUTIONS FOR A HEALTHY COLORADO - Provides coverage to Colorado residents under a Core Limited Benefit Plan in the private sector and expands coverage under Medicaid and Child Health Plus (CHP+). Low-income people who are not be eligible for the government programs would receive a premium subsidy.
133,400 - number remaining uninsured $271 million - increase in health spending
A PLAN FOR COVERING COLORADO - Provides coverage to Coloradans through a public program expansion and a mandatory private pool for all residents not eligible for the public program. It provides a minimum benefits package in a private pool and premium assistance based on income for those who cannot afford insurance. All plans would provide a comprehensive minimum benefits package, and differ mainly on cost-sharing amounts.
106,500 - number remaining uninsured $1.3 billion - increase in health spending
COLORADO HEALTH SERVICES SINGLE PAYER PROGRAM - A single payer plan that would provide coverage to all residents of the state, including state and local workers, and residents currently covered under Medicare, Tricare, Veteran’s Health, Indian Health Services and Federal Health Benefits programs. Provides comprehensive health care benefits for all - benefits of the Colorado Medicaid benefits package plus
preventive dental. Consumers would have their choice of providers and hospitals within the state.
0 - number remaining uninsured $1.4 billion - decrease in health spending
How is that the most expensive program?
Write them too.
They write, "The most expensive option would be the government-run single-payer plan, which would cost an estimated $26.6 billion annually."
That's in contrast with the $30 billion we now pay for health care in Colorado.
I wrote Kaiser:
Your daily report is inaccurate. Read the Lewin Group's report on the Colorado reform proposals. The single-payer option is the least expensive, not the most, as you state. One proposal would cost $595 million more; one $1.3 billion more; one $271 million more; and the single-payer program SAVES $1.4 billion.The Lewin Group Technical Assessment of Four Health Care Reform Proposals (Proof Report)
SAVES! That's the opposite of what you wrote. Please correct this immediately.
This is from the Lewin report:
August 20, 2007 Prepared for: The Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform
BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR COLORADO - Provides care through a public program expansion and access to private insurance coverage with low-income subsidies through a Health Insurance Exchange. Individuals who purchase private coverage would have access to a limited core set of benefits, with premiums copays.
467,200 - number remaining uninsured $595 million - increase in health spending
SOLUTIONS FOR A HEALTHY COLORADO - Provides coverage to Colorado residents under a Core Limited Benefit Plan in the private sector and expands coverage under Medicaid and Child Health Plus (CHP+). Low-income people who are not be eligible for the government programs would receive a premium subsidy.
133,400 - number remaining uninsured $271 million - increase in health spending
A PLAN FOR COVERING COLORADO - Provides coverage to Coloradans through a public program expansion and a mandatory private pool for all residents not eligible for the public program. It provides a minimum benefits package in a private pool and premium assistance based on income for those who cannot afford insurance. All plans would provide a comprehensive minimum benefits package, and differ mainly on cost-sharing amounts.
106,500 - number remaining uninsured $1.3 billion - increase in health spending
COLORADO HEALTH SERVICES SINGLE PAYER PROGRAM - A single payer plan that would provide coverage to all residents of the state, including state and local workers, and residents currently covered under Medicare, Tricare, Veteran’s Health, Indian Health Services and Federal Health Benefits programs. Provides comprehensive health care benefits for all - benefits of the Colorado Medicaid benefits package plus
preventive dental. Consumers would have their choice of providers and hospitals within the state.
0 - number remaining uninsured $1.4 billion - decrease in health spending
How is that the most expensive program?
Write them too.
The Science of Change
How do people change?
After a rough day yesterday, I was ready to say that they don't.
Former Governor Dick Lamm autographed his latest book for me, writing that single-payer advocates should keep up the good work: "History is on your side," he wrote.
I wasn't sure at all yesterday that was true. I'd just met with a progressive Denver group about a vigil to be held on 28 September for the victims of our health care system: 18,000 a year, 50 a day — including my brother. The spokesperson for the group wasn't as interested when I said that no, Michael Moore wouldn't be at the vigil.
Beyond that, the group's leader said they'd be happy with any reform proposal for Colorado that comes out of the 208 Commission — or actually, they'd be supportive of any progressive proposal.
I said there was only one progressive proposal that the commission was considering: the single-payer proposal from Health Care for All Colorado.
The person shrugged and said the group has members supporting all of the proposals. No doubt true — all but the underwriters' proposal, anyway.
SEIU has a proposal that has very meager benefits with a $35,000 cap — meaning that if you're in an accident forget staying out of bankruptcy. It would leave 465,000 uninsured of Colorado's 780,000 currently uninsured, at an additional cost of about $600 million. On the plus side, they don't have mandates to buy shoddy products from for-profit companies.
A group of safety-net providers has a proposal that would have both individual and business mandates to buy inadequate insurance, further enriching insurance companies, adding to the numbers of underinsured, and expanding the safety net. It would add $1.3 billion to the current total state health spending of $30 billion, with about 100,000 still uninsured.
The underwriters have a proposal that would have individual mandates to buy insurance, but no business mandates. A $50,000 cap. It would leave about 133,000 uninsured, and cost another $271 million.
Health Care for All Colorado's single-payer proposal would SAVE $1.4 billion — lowering that total health bill in the state. It would cover everyone. Three-quarters of Colorado's households would pay less for health coverage than they do now. Colorado businesses that currently insure their employees would pay less than they do now. The benefit package is a rich one.
So which is the progressive proposal? Which is the sustainable proposal?
When I heard this group would not be backing the single-payer proposal and wouldn't co-sponsor the vigil, I couldn't stop my eyes from crying. Damn eyes.
It doesn't hurt when conservatives spread their misinformation. Today's paper had a conservative columnist saying that the great challenges of the Republican party will be to maintain troops in Iraq and keep private health insurance. Eh.
What hurts is that the people who should be behind single-payer have convinced themselves that they're smarter than that — that there has to be an interim step between injustice and justice. What would that have looked like with ending slavery? With the Civil Rights Movement? And when they say that change is impossible, it makes it impossible. We won't get to single-payer until progressive groups embrace it. We'll never convince the social Darwinists and libertarians. But these folks should be with us.
It was therefore a relief to read Susan Rosenthal's The Science of Change: How it Happens and How it Doesn't. She lays out a strategy of hope. The three parts of change are:
After a rough day yesterday, I was ready to say that they don't.
Former Governor Dick Lamm autographed his latest book for me, writing that single-payer advocates should keep up the good work: "History is on your side," he wrote.
I wasn't sure at all yesterday that was true. I'd just met with a progressive Denver group about a vigil to be held on 28 September for the victims of our health care system: 18,000 a year, 50 a day — including my brother. The spokesperson for the group wasn't as interested when I said that no, Michael Moore wouldn't be at the vigil.
Beyond that, the group's leader said they'd be happy with any reform proposal for Colorado that comes out of the 208 Commission — or actually, they'd be supportive of any progressive proposal.
I said there was only one progressive proposal that the commission was considering: the single-payer proposal from Health Care for All Colorado.
The person shrugged and said the group has members supporting all of the proposals. No doubt true — all but the underwriters' proposal, anyway.
SEIU has a proposal that has very meager benefits with a $35,000 cap — meaning that if you're in an accident forget staying out of bankruptcy. It would leave 465,000 uninsured of Colorado's 780,000 currently uninsured, at an additional cost of about $600 million. On the plus side, they don't have mandates to buy shoddy products from for-profit companies.
A group of safety-net providers has a proposal that would have both individual and business mandates to buy inadequate insurance, further enriching insurance companies, adding to the numbers of underinsured, and expanding the safety net. It would add $1.3 billion to the current total state health spending of $30 billion, with about 100,000 still uninsured.
The underwriters have a proposal that would have individual mandates to buy insurance, but no business mandates. A $50,000 cap. It would leave about 133,000 uninsured, and cost another $271 million.
Health Care for All Colorado's single-payer proposal would SAVE $1.4 billion — lowering that total health bill in the state. It would cover everyone. Three-quarters of Colorado's households would pay less for health coverage than they do now. Colorado businesses that currently insure their employees would pay less than they do now. The benefit package is a rich one.
So which is the progressive proposal? Which is the sustainable proposal?
When I heard this group would not be backing the single-payer proposal and wouldn't co-sponsor the vigil, I couldn't stop my eyes from crying. Damn eyes.
It doesn't hurt when conservatives spread their misinformation. Today's paper had a conservative columnist saying that the great challenges of the Republican party will be to maintain troops in Iraq and keep private health insurance. Eh.
What hurts is that the people who should be behind single-payer have convinced themselves that they're smarter than that — that there has to be an interim step between injustice and justice. What would that have looked like with ending slavery? With the Civil Rights Movement? And when they say that change is impossible, it makes it impossible. We won't get to single-payer until progressive groups embrace it. We'll never convince the social Darwinists and libertarians. But these folks should be with us.
It was therefore a relief to read Susan Rosenthal's The Science of Change: How it Happens and How it Doesn't. She lays out a strategy of hope. The three parts of change are:
Social support. People need support from others to overcome feelings of powerlessness, to create strategies for change and to act on them. In the context of supportive relationships, we learn that we are neither crazy nor powerless. By pulling together, we give each other hope and strength....Forcing people to buy inadequate insurance from the industry that has created our healthcare crisis is taking the kettle off the fire. It's not progressive. It's capitulation. It's not what's "feasible." It's a dead end.
Presenting problems as solvable. To change their behavior, people need to see themselves and the world differently, in ways that make change seem possible....
Michael Moore’s film, "Sicko," has made a huge impact, not only because it reveals the horrors of the American medical system, but because it shows them to be neither necessary nor inevitable.
Repetition. When the level of struggle is high, people seem to change overnight in a kind of explosive chain reaction. At all other times, the dominant ideas are those that maintain the status quo. Changing those ideas requires patient and repeated encouragement. It’s like boiling water.
You put the kettle on the stove and turn up the heat, but nothing seems to happen. Do you remove the kettle in disgust at the failure of heat to boil water? Of course not!
If you invite them to the table....
John Edwards has this exactly right.
And it's the problem with his own health care reform proposal, which sure seems to keep the health insurance industry at the table.
His plan is, however, the best of the bunch from the three front runners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
