I've managed to stay out of most health care debates because you're either talking to someone who is on the same page as you or you're talking to someone who is not looking to having their mind changed. Not to mention the talking points have been brought up by many people who are not only smarter than me but good debaters. What more could I bring to the table?
Big change is scary. It has to be. There are no perfectly right answers; we're not arguing over facts. Such a complex issue cannot be argued in black and white terms, yet here we are - the polarizing effect of the last decade or so has forced us to "take a side" in order to counter those who refuse to stand closer to center. Fear has ignited one side; frustration the other.
We can't have public forums because apparently this issue is too dangerous to even discuss - democrats are liars, republicans are idiots, and the insurance companies and lobbyists are happy to stand back and let the plebeians destroy each other. Provided they're uninsured of course.
I recently listened to a This American Life podcast regarding a special subcommittee meeting into the fine print of insurance policies.
Rescission happens when an insurance company cancels a client's policy because they believe the client lied when they applied for the policy -- the client pretended that they were healthier than they really were, the client concealed a serious and expensive illness, or the client simply made a mistake and omitted something about his or her health that the insurance company wanted to know.
Schakowsky was referring to Robin Batin, a 59-year-old woman who was a registered nurse for 30 years. In June 2008, she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed a double mastectomy immediately. In the subcommittee hearing, she testified that her insurance company refused to pay for her surgery.
"The Friday before I was to have my double mastectomy, Blue Cross and Blue Shield called me by telephone and told me my chart was red-flagged," said Batin.
Schakowsky explained what the insurance company found, "There was something on her chart earlier about a dermatitis that they took to mean pre-cancerous, and even though the dermatologist called and said 'please, this is acne, do not deny her the breast cancer treatment,' they said no.
"It took months for her to finally get the surgery that she needed, by which time the tumor had doubled," said Schakowsky.
At the hearing, representatives of the insurance companies who testified were asked by a subcommittee member, "Doesn't it bother you that people are going to die because you insist on reviewing a policy that somebody took out in good faith and forgot to tell you that they were being treated for acne -- doesn't that bother you?"
"Yes sir it does," said one of the heads of three insurance companies in attendance at the hearing. "And we regret the necessity that that has to occur even a single time."
Later the CEOs were asked "Would you commit today that your company will never rescind another policy unless there was intentional fraudulent misinformation?"
All three said no.
President Obama said it best today when he said "I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business.. I just want to hold them accountable."
Yet even in what is probably the highest level of public forum, there are those who feel that it's unfair the guy with the microphone gets to speak without anyone giving an immediate counterpoint. It's sad when the loudest political protest of the 2000's has been from people who agree that health care reform is needed but do not agree with the proposed solution. Give 'em credit - they don't make shitty songs or make online petitions when they want to see change. They just march right up and tell you what they don't want.
It's obvious reform is needed. I think most peoploe agree with that. And many questionable pieces of the bill will certainly get ironed out in time; not to mention hey, things can be changed and modified if we find it's not working. We just have to get going. We can't subcommittee and dilute this to death - it's too important, and important things are worth taking risks for.
I am sorry this is long, but rather than argue with people on facebook I decided I'd just write my thoughts down and leave it at that. I leave you with my favorite part of today's speech.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
Also, Ellen's going to be on American Idol! Crazy! What a wild world we live in!