article – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Medicine for the One Percent

David Posnett — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:27:56 +0000

We always suspected this: a new study clearly shows that the richer you are, the longer you live in the US of America (Wall Street Journal). This is no small difference! The top 10% (richest) people live on average 10 years longer than the bottom 10% (poorest). Wow! And this is WITH medicare and medicaid, which the political right would have us get rid of all together.

What I would like to see are 2 things.

(1) A comparison with a similar study in civilized “1st world” countries (Canada, UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc.) with better health care coverage that covers the entire population.

(2) A historical comparison: an analysis of life expectancy relative to individual wealth 100 , 50, 20 and 10 years ago in the US. I would like to know whether we have made any progress, and whether (as I suspect) progress has been halted or even reversed.

It will take at least 10-50 years for the effects of Obamacare to show up in such a population wide analysis which measures death rates over many years. At present, only a comparison with other countries can tell us something.

Here is a partial response to my question (2) from the article itself which looks at least at 2 different historical time points: 1920 versus 1940. For men there has been an improvement in longevity (5.9% for the richest men and 1.7% for the poorest men). For women the change in longevity is 3.1% for the richest women. But the poorest women actually live less long -2.1%. This means that if you are a poor woman, you actually would have been better off being born in 1920 rather than in 1940! That is a stunning fact. It is the reverse of progress.

Soaring Costs of Prescription Drugs in the US

David Posnett — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:09:35 +0000

Great article about the soaring costs of prescription drugs in the US. The very same drugs are offered in other countries like Germany and the UK etc, at a small fraction of what we are asked to pay. Who benefits? The drug companies. Since most countries have government limits on the costs of drugs, the drug companies make less of a profit in those countries (but still enough to continue selling there). To make up for what they view as insufficient margins, they go crazy with the prices in the US, where there are no government limits. The free market just doesn’t work when it comes to life saving medicines. Unless you decide that only the lives of the rich are worth saving.

The ACA seems to be working…

David Posnett — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 03:32:16 +0000

Robert Reich discusses the ACA which seems to be working. But there is a lot that needs fixing. Above all what needs fixing is the oft deceitful misinformation. Read on here! Contributed by Arlene Coulter.

Republican Converts to Obamacare

David Posnett — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:02:33 +0000

It is strange how I have been hearing about right wing oponents of Obamacare. When they get really ill, and the situation is life threatening, some of them convert to Obamacare supporters. Its interesting to read these stories (I think). Here is a story about a young Republican operative with testicular cancer!

And meet Butch Matthews from Arkansas too.

Bail-out of the Insurance Industry?

David Posnett — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:11:21 +0000

The Huffington Post has a nice Wendell Potter article addressing how exactly we “bail out” the insurance industry.

The Pot Is Calling the Kettle Black in This Feigned Obamacare Outrage

Here are the highlights:
… In many cases, insurers refused to sell coverage at any price to prospective customers with preexisting conditions. That’s a big reason why the number of uninsured Americans had reached nearly 50 million when Congress passed the reform law.
So it wasn’t the least bit surprising that the first few million who have signed up for coverage since the exchanges opened on Oct. 1 skew older than many expected. People who have been denied coverage for years are far more motivated to get insurance …

In anticipation of this, drafters of the reform law established a $25-billion risk fund to insulate insurers from big losses during the first three years…

Yes, $25 billion is a lot of money, but it is pocket change compared to the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars that have been flowing to private insurance companies for nearly three decades to keep them in the Medicare Advantage program, which has had the unwavering support of Republicans…

We’re talking a lot of money here. In 2012 alone, the GAO calculated that the federal government spent about $135 billion on the Medicare Advantage program….

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, there was no mention of that, or any reference at all to the Medicare Advantage program, the biggest champion of which are Republicans, in The Weekly Standard‘s “bailout” story last week. If they are sincere in their alarm that Obamacare might reward private insurers with an extra $25 billion between now and the end of 2016, they should be apoplectic about the ongoing bailout known as the Medicare Advantage program.

Is Your Medicare Safe under Obamacare?

David Posnett — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:13:50 +0000

50 Million Americans have Medicare (including me) and we have been targeted by scare tactics! So some of us may be worried about the changes under ACA (Obamacare) and what that will mean for our Medicare coverage.

This months AARP bulletin (which I always read) has a great readable article by Marsha Mercer with balanced answers from both sides to key questions such as:

what about cuts to Medicare under the ACA?
my copays are going up…why?
my doctor was dropped by the Medicare Advantage company. Why?
what about drug prescription costs?
is hospital care going to suffer because of decreased payments to hospitals?
does the ACA help Medicare in the long run? Will it still be there is 15 years?

Everyone should get educated on these questions and listen to the pros and the facts!

A More Perfect Union

David Posnett — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 04:23:33 +0000

Why do some consider the Affordable Care Act (ACA) bad for our nation? When one considers that social democratic theories have not played a major role in shaping benefit policy in the United States, it is no surprise that such programs were virtually non-existent here until the implementation of Social Security in 1935. I wonder why that is.

While most Americans pride themselves on being American, we define ourselves by our tolerance and compassion for those less fortunate and a history of inclusion born from the life stories of those who came here with hope for a better life. We owe each other better.

Sure, I could throw you any number of statistics to demonstrate how much good the ACA can do, or how many lives will be saved, or how the quality of the lives of those devastated by the cost of disease and misfortune would benefit but, in the end, they are just numbers and we are not just numbers. We are people. We are people who strive to be better; to live up to the promise of a government that serves all, not just a few. We the people.

So, why is it that some believe that helping your fellow man departs from what we value most? I don’t know. Do you? There are those who would see our house fall before rushing in to shore up its foundation, not because the foundation is failing but because of who is standing in the building.

I suppose that each of us has to determine how we define ourselves. It is a choice. My choice is to believe that I have a responsibility, as a human being, as an American, as a parent, as a son, to help fulfill this promise. The ACA is not perfect but, then again, neither are we.

But we try. We work toward forming a more perfect union. Disease and accident do not apply themselves along ideological lines, or between the wealthy and the poor, the fortunate and unfortunate. We are one people—at least we strive to be.

The Affordable Care Act perhaps represents what is the best part of us. It is not the legacy of one president. It is the legacy of one people. People of compassion and those who recognize that some things transcend the needs of the few—and that we are all better people because of it.

John Bouvier

ACA and the Middle Class

David Posnett — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 03:43:21 +0000

So will the ACA really frustrate the middle class? A nice analysis of what you get for your money and a retort to a misleading NYTimes article is this piece: “The ACA Will Help, Not ‘Frustrate’ the Middle Class” by Jared Bernstein.

The story of Adam (an uninsured young Texan)

David Posnett — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:19:22 +0000

This is your typical story about an uninsured motorcycle rider. A must read.

Adam, the uninsured motorcycle rider