“NO VIRGINIA, THERE IS NOT A SANTA CLAUS”.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT.
No, Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus. There used to be, but he died on November Second, 2010. He died when the majority of The American people voted against feeding the least of those among us when they're hungry by voting “R” in the Election. He died when many of this country voted against giving drink to the least of those among us when they're thirsty. He died when most of the people voted against welcoming the least of those among us when a stranger by voting for those who swore to take a hard line on immigration and against any rights for anyone in any way even slightly different. He died when more people than not said 'let the naked die of exposure' with their votes. He died when the majority of The American people said that private health insurance firms were right to label some of us 'subhuman' simply because we had some preexisting health condition that might not ever even cost the company a cent and said that the poor should not even have basic medical care. He died the day the majority of The American people voted that the imprisoned, ,justly or unjustly, should never be visited and should just rot in prison alone. He died the day those who oppose complete equal access to all public buildings, even state and locally owned, for people with disabilities gained a majority in The House of Representatives. He died the day those who say we should not take care of our planet gained enough power in Congress to block any efforts to do so. In short, he died The Day Conservatives took a majority in Te House of Representatives, regardless of anyone's personal reason for voting Republican, The Day True Compassion Died in this Nation. So No Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus any more, although if True Compassion Revived, it is possible that he might too.
Sincerely,
Matthew Lucas Beckett
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Conservative 'Pro Life' Hypocracy
Whether it was the little boy Mark McCall being allowed to die of kidney failure by his insurance company so his heart could be given to their scientist investers to make a cloned heart for their human clone as in 'The System Some Say Needs No Reform',the oldest post on this blog, or me being put to death by my Senator for having the preexisting condition of a head injury as in 'I Sentence You To DeathFor Having A Head Injury' the newest post before this one, the Truth that The Old Health Care System in this country put money over people and in opposing the new system Republicans are showing that they do the same, especially since none of their alternatives even acknowledge the true cost, The Human Cost, of the old system, remains the same. That they put money over life is illustrated by every story past 'The Ultimate Number Cruncher', including those on the environment and the poor in geeral. Therefore, I name any of them who call themselves 'Pro Life' when tey just mean pro live birth, Hypocrates to the absolute extreme. Any who read this and agree with me but ay nothing to their family and friends who do not I strongly encourage to start speaking, Eternitty depends on turning this tide while there is still time.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
I SENTENCE YOU TO DEATH FOR HAVING A HEAD INJURY
THE INSURANCE FIRING SQUAD.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT.
As I walked to the capitol that day, I was nervous. Nervous is not the word. Terrified, actually. I had gotten hit by a car when I was eight and so had been denied health insurance for the ten and a half years since getting toO old to be covered through my parents. But then when health care reform was finally enacted, something I'd hoped for since the early '90s, I thought I would have a chance at shopping for something better than a risk pool required by state law to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, and even at that rate to have a deductible of no lower than $1,000, which meant a $735 Physical Therapy bill had to be paid all out of pocket. But now the new Republican Majority in Congress was poised to repeal the whole thing, and appeared to have the votes even to override President Obama's certain veto. Unless I and others with preexisting health conditions could convince them not to impose this death sentence on some, financial ruin for others, and severe hardship even for those of us who could pay a $735 medical bill.
“Matthew Lucas Beckett,” The Speaker of The House calls my name. “What have you to tell us in wasting our time in repealing Obama Care?”
“At least President Obama does care about those of us with preexisting health conditions and other restrictions to purchasing PRIVATE Insurance under the old system.”
“The market. . .” another Republican begins, but I override him.
“The market worked so well for me, didn't it,” I spit, placing my cancellation of coverage with Golden Rule, Denial of Coverage from World and others, Risk Pool forms and $735 Physical Therapy bill on the overheads before me, so none can miss any of it.
“Well,” says a high ranking Republican Senator. “It's your own fault for being unhealthy.”
Forcing calm, I look him directly in the eyes. “I got hit by a car when I was eight years old,” I say with lethal calm. “I had a plate removed from my leg when I was nine, and have not been an overnight patient in the hospital since. How is that my fault or really even being sick. I had a traumatic brain injury with my acccident aswell, and that's what these companies call a preexisting condition, even though I have had no expenses related to it for years either.”
“That's enough out of you, Mr. Beckett,” says The Senate Majority Leader. “We're here today to repeal Obama Care. Don't confuse us with the facts or try to appeal to our sense of Compassion, because as Conservatives, as you well know, we have none.” He looks at my fellow testifiers. “Anyone else?”
A few others try to convince them not to repeal what for some of us is the only hope we have of life saving medical care, but all to no more avail than me.
“All in favor of Government overreach, wasteful spending and waste aid?” says The Speaker.
As expected, it passes both chambers, The House by a wide margin, The Senate slightly narrower but still the conservative way.
“Now,” says The Speaker. “Since you've been the most vocal and for the longest, you first, Mr. Beckett.”
I blink, puzzled. “Me first for what?” I ask.
“Execution,, of course,” says The Speaker. “As several of you have noted, this vote is a death sentence for all of you wastes of space and air and resources, so no more time will be wasted. And there's nowhere to try to run, we've got all of the exits and entrances covered. Since you're from Texas, we'll let Senator Hutchison do the honors. Go and stand in front of her, and don't waste our time dawdling.”
I feel a stream of urine go down my leg, but at this point don't worry too much about it. Stunned at this level of heartlessness, even from them, but knowing there is no escape, I stand and approach Senator Hutchison, who already has her rifle leveled squarely at my chest.
“I'd say I'll see you in the next life,” I say. “But I don't think we'll end up in the same place.”
“No, we won't,” says Senator Hutchison, cocking her gun.
I lose control of my bowls too, but at this point that doesn't matter.
As she pulls the trigger, I hear my parents scream, “NO!” and then the bullet comes and all goes black.
Undoing Health Care Reform, by Congressional or Judicial Action, would be little better than this for many Americans with preexisting health conditions and other restrictions to purchasing private insurance under the old system. Sincerely, Matthew Lucas Beckett-Messenger.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT.
As I walked to the capitol that day, I was nervous. Nervous is not the word. Terrified, actually. I had gotten hit by a car when I was eight and so had been denied health insurance for the ten and a half years since getting toO old to be covered through my parents. But then when health care reform was finally enacted, something I'd hoped for since the early '90s, I thought I would have a chance at shopping for something better than a risk pool required by state law to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, and even at that rate to have a deductible of no lower than $1,000, which meant a $735 Physical Therapy bill had to be paid all out of pocket. But now the new Republican Majority in Congress was poised to repeal the whole thing, and appeared to have the votes even to override President Obama's certain veto. Unless I and others with preexisting health conditions could convince them not to impose this death sentence on some, financial ruin for others, and severe hardship even for those of us who could pay a $735 medical bill.
“Matthew Lucas Beckett,” The Speaker of The House calls my name. “What have you to tell us in wasting our time in repealing Obama Care?”
“At least President Obama does care about those of us with preexisting health conditions and other restrictions to purchasing PRIVATE Insurance under the old system.”
“The market. . .” another Republican begins, but I override him.
“The market worked so well for me, didn't it,” I spit, placing my cancellation of coverage with Golden Rule, Denial of Coverage from World and others, Risk Pool forms and $735 Physical Therapy bill on the overheads before me, so none can miss any of it.
“Well,” says a high ranking Republican Senator. “It's your own fault for being unhealthy.”
Forcing calm, I look him directly in the eyes. “I got hit by a car when I was eight years old,” I say with lethal calm. “I had a plate removed from my leg when I was nine, and have not been an overnight patient in the hospital since. How is that my fault or really even being sick. I had a traumatic brain injury with my acccident aswell, and that's what these companies call a preexisting condition, even though I have had no expenses related to it for years either.”
“That's enough out of you, Mr. Beckett,” says The Senate Majority Leader. “We're here today to repeal Obama Care. Don't confuse us with the facts or try to appeal to our sense of Compassion, because as Conservatives, as you well know, we have none.” He looks at my fellow testifiers. “Anyone else?”
A few others try to convince them not to repeal what for some of us is the only hope we have of life saving medical care, but all to no more avail than me.
“All in favor of Government overreach, wasteful spending and waste aid?” says The Speaker.
As expected, it passes both chambers, The House by a wide margin, The Senate slightly narrower but still the conservative way.
“Now,” says The Speaker. “Since you've been the most vocal and for the longest, you first, Mr. Beckett.”
I blink, puzzled. “Me first for what?” I ask.
“Execution,, of course,” says The Speaker. “As several of you have noted, this vote is a death sentence for all of you wastes of space and air and resources, so no more time will be wasted. And there's nowhere to try to run, we've got all of the exits and entrances covered. Since you're from Texas, we'll let Senator Hutchison do the honors. Go and stand in front of her, and don't waste our time dawdling.”
I feel a stream of urine go down my leg, but at this point don't worry too much about it. Stunned at this level of heartlessness, even from them, but knowing there is no escape, I stand and approach Senator Hutchison, who already has her rifle leveled squarely at my chest.
“I'd say I'll see you in the next life,” I say. “But I don't think we'll end up in the same place.”
“No, we won't,” says Senator Hutchison, cocking her gun.
I lose control of my bowls too, but at this point that doesn't matter.
As she pulls the trigger, I hear my parents scream, “NO!” and then the bullet comes and all goes black.
Undoing Health Care Reform, by Congressional or Judicial Action, would be little better than this for many Americans with preexisting health conditions and other restrictions to purchasing private insurance under the old system. Sincerely, Matthew Lucas Beckett-Messenger.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
TRUE LIBERTY: THE THREAT FROM INSIDE
TRUE LIBERTY: THE THREAT FROM INSIDE:
Monday,, July Fourth, 2011.
On July Fourth, 1776, a group of Farmers, Ranchers, Statesmen and Intellectuals got together to read and sign a Document declaring what we now know as The United States of America to be and that by right ought to be independent and free of The British Crown. The Revolutionary War, of course, had already begun, sometime in 1775, with “The Shot Heard Round The World”, which to this day no one knows which side fired, British Troops or Colonists, since both sides had orders not to fire unless fired upon. Freedom was born o those two days, in the modern era, although of course Human hearts have always longed for freedom
After eight long years and countless lives lost on both sides, of course, The United States of America was free of The British Crown, although it took almost another century for the practice of Race Based Slavery to end, thus bringing us closer to the true promise of a truly free land and society.
Now, however, we face another threat to freedom, and I am not referring to The Islamic Extremists that use and distort their Religion to launch an ideology of hate and violence, although I do acknowledge that that is a threat, mostly born outside our country although some embers smolder within it.
But I refer to a threat to our freedom and identity as a Nation of Liberty for all born and grown to flourish entirely within our boarders, a movement that ironically has taken the name of the very event that began the modern march to freedom. The Boston Tea Party was an event that occurred when the boiling point had been reached with taxes by The British Crown that filled The Coffers of that crown and did nothing to better the lives of people on this side of the pond. None of King George ii i's taxes built any schools or roads here, they funded wars with France and other European Countries.
The current, completely misnamed “Tea Party Movement” believes any taxes collected by Washington D.C. are of the same ilk as those collected by George III and themselves to be fighting for Liberty just as those long ago colonists were. Would they like none of our public highways and roadways to be maintained? Would they prefer to return to a time when only the children of the wealthy enjoyed the right to an education? And how is ending the education of non wealthy children serving the cause of liberty? Is not an uneducated population in fact easier to subdue and enslave? So is not unfunding public schools in fact fighting against liberty?
Now, I know some will say that no one is talking about ending public education (although I'm sure it has crossed some minds) or essential services like Fire and Police Departments (wouldn't that be scary). It's nonessential services like food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Schip, Environmental Regulations and of course the hated new health care law, which FORCES everyone to buy a product. They say these programs make people dependent on government and saddle them with unnecessary rules and regulations, or make them lazy and unwilling to work. Now, I have never personally been on food stamps, so I can only speak to them second hand, but from what I've heard it's far from living high and large, it's the basic necessities to keep something in people's stomachs so that they can function enough to seek employment and ways to better their prospects, or find some other way out of a situation, but far from what anyone would CHOOSE as a permanent lifestyle. I have never been on Medicaid and was not on Schip as a child, but again from what I understand if people had ANY other options to retain medical care and services, they would, and will typically seek market options as soon as they are financially able. So, food stamps, Medicaid and Schip are not unnecessary programs that deprive people of liberty. Instead, they are programs that are quite necessary for people who have fallen on financially hard times and need a temporary helping hand to get back on their feet, and if we are a Christian Nation as many Conservatives like to claim, are not we as followers of Christ called to care for “The Least of These” (MATTHEEW, CHAPTER 25, verses 31-46) and give people the liberty to eat and have their medical needs taken care of. Medicare, of course, benefits Seniors who have worked hard when they were able and earned being taken care of in their later years, and in no way infringes on their liberty, but undoing it and forcing them to compete on the private market would infringe on their liberty.
Now, I can speak with some first hand knowledge and personal experience on the private Heath Insurance Market. As a child, I suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of being the pedestrian in an auto-pedestrian accident. As long as I was young enough to be covered through my parents' health insurance, I was fine, but since becoming too old to be covered through my parents, I have been unable to retain private Health Insurance because of my “preexisting” health condition, this despite the fact that my overall health history since 1984,, while not spotless, is far from one that suggests that I would likely be a costly client. I do have coverage through my state's Risk Pool, but Texas Law requires that it always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, and of course that does eat into my finances, diminishing my liberty to spend my money elsewhere. More than the money, though, this designation feels to me like I and everyone else with a preexisting health condition who does not have guaranteed health care because a family member is government employed, are having our lives labeled as worth less than those who do not have a preexisting health condition or maybe worth absolutely nothing. This is a great infringement on our liberty, since it designates us second class Human Beings, in principle slaves of a business model off health care which values money above human life. The new Health Care Law bans this kind of discrimination, so it is ironic that the Political Party Founded to end Race Based Slavery wants to keep those of us with preexisting Health Conditions slaves to a business model of Health Care. But, you say, it requires us to buy a product. To drive a car you must have car insurance. All will need health care services some day, so since it is a product that provides a service which everyone will at some point use, it is not infringing on anyone's liberty to say you must be prepared for that day, in fact not buying health insurance was already infringing on one's own liberty, since if one does need medical care and does not have insurance, it will be quite expensive. Also, I would ask, how many of the people complaining about this requirement have made the conscious choice not to purchase heath insurance? My guess is few, if any. Those of us unable to purchase private health insurance under the old system because of preexisting health conditions and other restrictions, however, do have our liberty infringed on by a system that counts our lives as worth less tan money, and by all who seek to return our country's health insurance system to one that can discriminate against people like us. So not only is the new Health Care Law NOT an infringement on anyone's Liberty, but opposing the new law at all is infringing on the liberty of those of us for whom the old,, profits before people driven health care system did not work.
And of course, it is not just people who should have the liberty to live their lives, but all of creation, all living things. Humans have made a mess of much of the natural world. So, if all of creation should have liberty, opposing environmental regulations is also opposing liberty, nature's liberty to create and heal as she sees fit. Saying that we should not act to ensure that she has the space to do so by saying that there should not be any environmental regulations is infringing on nature's liberty. Plus, only continuing to focus on nonrenewable energy sources infringes on the liberty of future generations of humans since when those resources are gone our descendants will then have nothing to fall back on. So environmental regulation is also not infringing on liberty, while opposing it is infringing on both the planet's and future generations liberty.
So the greatest threat to our liberty, on the night of this July Fourth, 2011, is not external but internal. The Tea Party and The Right Wing of The Republican Party, as I have proved beyond doubt above.
Not limited to the so called Tea Party, there is one other infringement on personal liberty that The Republican Party as a whole is guilty of. That is the prejudice, discrimination and hatred of those of us of non Heterosexual Sexual Orientation. As someone as has understood myself to be a Homosexual since I was twenty-two, I have felt their denial of my liberty to be who I truly am and love whom it is natural for me to love for thirteen years. For thirteen years, I have worn a straight mask with all but the few I knew that I could trust and was sure would accept me no matter what,, and that has robbed me of my liberty to be who I truly am, and I know man other Homosexuals and many Bisexuals experience the same lack of liberty every day. Well, no more. I'm taking off the mask by publishing this on my blog, and what will come, will come.
So, in summary, for denying aid to those in need, food, money, medical or otherwise, for refusing to even acknowledge that those of us with preexisting health conditions even exist, for refusing to do anything about the wanton destruction of our planet, and for refusing Bisexuals and we Homosexuals completely equal rights in all ways with Heterosexuals and even presuming to put themselves on GOD'S Throne and morally judge us, I declare Conservatism and The Modern Republican Party, Tea Party and otherwise, the Internal Enemies of Liberty and vow to do all I can through postings on this blog and conversations with those I know who suffer from this infection, to cure America of this disease, and to that end I dedicate my life, m work, my treasure, and my Sacred Honor.
Matthew Lucas Beckett-Messenger.
A Voice In The Wilderness- The Voice of The Voiceless, So Long Trampled and Trodden On,, BUT NO MORE.
Monday,, July Fourth, 2011.
On July Fourth, 1776, a group of Farmers, Ranchers, Statesmen and Intellectuals got together to read and sign a Document declaring what we now know as The United States of America to be and that by right ought to be independent and free of The British Crown. The Revolutionary War, of course, had already begun, sometime in 1775, with “The Shot Heard Round The World”, which to this day no one knows which side fired, British Troops or Colonists, since both sides had orders not to fire unless fired upon. Freedom was born o those two days, in the modern era, although of course Human hearts have always longed for freedom
After eight long years and countless lives lost on both sides, of course, The United States of America was free of The British Crown, although it took almost another century for the practice of Race Based Slavery to end, thus bringing us closer to the true promise of a truly free land and society.
Now, however, we face another threat to freedom, and I am not referring to The Islamic Extremists that use and distort their Religion to launch an ideology of hate and violence, although I do acknowledge that that is a threat, mostly born outside our country although some embers smolder within it.
But I refer to a threat to our freedom and identity as a Nation of Liberty for all born and grown to flourish entirely within our boarders, a movement that ironically has taken the name of the very event that began the modern march to freedom. The Boston Tea Party was an event that occurred when the boiling point had been reached with taxes by The British Crown that filled The Coffers of that crown and did nothing to better the lives of people on this side of the pond. None of King George ii i's taxes built any schools or roads here, they funded wars with France and other European Countries.
The current, completely misnamed “Tea Party Movement” believes any taxes collected by Washington D.C. are of the same ilk as those collected by George III and themselves to be fighting for Liberty just as those long ago colonists were. Would they like none of our public highways and roadways to be maintained? Would they prefer to return to a time when only the children of the wealthy enjoyed the right to an education? And how is ending the education of non wealthy children serving the cause of liberty? Is not an uneducated population in fact easier to subdue and enslave? So is not unfunding public schools in fact fighting against liberty?
Now, I know some will say that no one is talking about ending public education (although I'm sure it has crossed some minds) or essential services like Fire and Police Departments (wouldn't that be scary). It's nonessential services like food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Schip, Environmental Regulations and of course the hated new health care law, which FORCES everyone to buy a product. They say these programs make people dependent on government and saddle them with unnecessary rules and regulations, or make them lazy and unwilling to work. Now, I have never personally been on food stamps, so I can only speak to them second hand, but from what I've heard it's far from living high and large, it's the basic necessities to keep something in people's stomachs so that they can function enough to seek employment and ways to better their prospects, or find some other way out of a situation, but far from what anyone would CHOOSE as a permanent lifestyle. I have never been on Medicaid and was not on Schip as a child, but again from what I understand if people had ANY other options to retain medical care and services, they would, and will typically seek market options as soon as they are financially able. So, food stamps, Medicaid and Schip are not unnecessary programs that deprive people of liberty. Instead, they are programs that are quite necessary for people who have fallen on financially hard times and need a temporary helping hand to get back on their feet, and if we are a Christian Nation as many Conservatives like to claim, are not we as followers of Christ called to care for “The Least of These” (MATTHEEW, CHAPTER 25, verses 31-46) and give people the liberty to eat and have their medical needs taken care of. Medicare, of course, benefits Seniors who have worked hard when they were able and earned being taken care of in their later years, and in no way infringes on their liberty, but undoing it and forcing them to compete on the private market would infringe on their liberty.
Now, I can speak with some first hand knowledge and personal experience on the private Heath Insurance Market. As a child, I suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of being the pedestrian in an auto-pedestrian accident. As long as I was young enough to be covered through my parents' health insurance, I was fine, but since becoming too old to be covered through my parents, I have been unable to retain private Health Insurance because of my “preexisting” health condition, this despite the fact that my overall health history since 1984,, while not spotless, is far from one that suggests that I would likely be a costly client. I do have coverage through my state's Risk Pool, but Texas Law requires that it always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, and of course that does eat into my finances, diminishing my liberty to spend my money elsewhere. More than the money, though, this designation feels to me like I and everyone else with a preexisting health condition who does not have guaranteed health care because a family member is government employed, are having our lives labeled as worth less than those who do not have a preexisting health condition or maybe worth absolutely nothing. This is a great infringement on our liberty, since it designates us second class Human Beings, in principle slaves of a business model off health care which values money above human life. The new Health Care Law bans this kind of discrimination, so it is ironic that the Political Party Founded to end Race Based Slavery wants to keep those of us with preexisting Health Conditions slaves to a business model of Health Care. But, you say, it requires us to buy a product. To drive a car you must have car insurance. All will need health care services some day, so since it is a product that provides a service which everyone will at some point use, it is not infringing on anyone's liberty to say you must be prepared for that day, in fact not buying health insurance was already infringing on one's own liberty, since if one does need medical care and does not have insurance, it will be quite expensive. Also, I would ask, how many of the people complaining about this requirement have made the conscious choice not to purchase heath insurance? My guess is few, if any. Those of us unable to purchase private health insurance under the old system because of preexisting health conditions and other restrictions, however, do have our liberty infringed on by a system that counts our lives as worth less tan money, and by all who seek to return our country's health insurance system to one that can discriminate against people like us. So not only is the new Health Care Law NOT an infringement on anyone's Liberty, but opposing the new law at all is infringing on the liberty of those of us for whom the old,, profits before people driven health care system did not work.
And of course, it is not just people who should have the liberty to live their lives, but all of creation, all living things. Humans have made a mess of much of the natural world. So, if all of creation should have liberty, opposing environmental regulations is also opposing liberty, nature's liberty to create and heal as she sees fit. Saying that we should not act to ensure that she has the space to do so by saying that there should not be any environmental regulations is infringing on nature's liberty. Plus, only continuing to focus on nonrenewable energy sources infringes on the liberty of future generations of humans since when those resources are gone our descendants will then have nothing to fall back on. So environmental regulation is also not infringing on liberty, while opposing it is infringing on both the planet's and future generations liberty.
So the greatest threat to our liberty, on the night of this July Fourth, 2011, is not external but internal. The Tea Party and The Right Wing of The Republican Party, as I have proved beyond doubt above.
Not limited to the so called Tea Party, there is one other infringement on personal liberty that The Republican Party as a whole is guilty of. That is the prejudice, discrimination and hatred of those of us of non Heterosexual Sexual Orientation. As someone as has understood myself to be a Homosexual since I was twenty-two, I have felt their denial of my liberty to be who I truly am and love whom it is natural for me to love for thirteen years. For thirteen years, I have worn a straight mask with all but the few I knew that I could trust and was sure would accept me no matter what,, and that has robbed me of my liberty to be who I truly am, and I know man other Homosexuals and many Bisexuals experience the same lack of liberty every day. Well, no more. I'm taking off the mask by publishing this on my blog, and what will come, will come.
So, in summary, for denying aid to those in need, food, money, medical or otherwise, for refusing to even acknowledge that those of us with preexisting health conditions even exist, for refusing to do anything about the wanton destruction of our planet, and for refusing Bisexuals and we Homosexuals completely equal rights in all ways with Heterosexuals and even presuming to put themselves on GOD'S Throne and morally judge us, I declare Conservatism and The Modern Republican Party, Tea Party and otherwise, the Internal Enemies of Liberty and vow to do all I can through postings on this blog and conversations with those I know who suffer from this infection, to cure America of this disease, and to that end I dedicate my life, m work, my treasure, and my Sacred Honor.
Matthew Lucas Beckett-Messenger.
A Voice In The Wilderness- The Voice of The Voiceless, So Long Trampled and Trodden On,, BUT NO MORE.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Congressional Republicans seek Eliminaton of Medicare and Medicaid
Rumors fly of Congressional Republicans' demand to completely eliminate Medicaid and Medicare, including all benefits even to current seniors, before they agree to any raising of The Debt Cealing.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
AND THEY PASSED BY, ON THE OTHER SIDE
Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-31and Luke 10:25-37
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was, and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go, and do likewise.”
On Tuesday, January nineteenth, 2010, the voters of Massachuseatts had a similar choice to thee three, and in partly voting as they did to block progress on The Health Care for all Bill, they chose to pass “‘by on the other side.’”
Now, it is in a way understandable to make such a choice. The man was probably bleeding and messy and who knows what diseases, then and now, could have been caught through touching him? Similarly, Health Care for all may mean health care for people with diseases others might not want to get near, and certainly even absent that change is not without risk. The current bills may have unforeseen consequences and may cost a bit to implement, and there is a worldwide economic slow down right now. BUT, many of those who oppose acting on this problem also claim that we are a Christian Nation and rail against what they see as threats to that. But the biggest threat to a Christian Nation and life is not following the words of Jesus Christ. No vote is a foregone conclusion at this point, and if enough people choose compassion over fear and rise up and demand action on this Humanitarian Crisis, Congress will have to listen and act. Some say this is being rushed. Perhaps they haven’t been paying attention for the past seventeen years, because we’ve been talking about this since 1993 if not before. The time for talk is over, the time for action is now. So, if we are truly a Christian Nation, let us rise up and demand that as a congress and as a country, we follow the words of Jesus to the man who replied “the one who had mercy on him” and “Go, and do likewise.”
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was, and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go, and do likewise.”
On Tuesday, January nineteenth, 2010, the voters of Massachuseatts had a similar choice to thee three, and in partly voting as they did to block progress on The Health Care for all Bill, they chose to pass “‘by on the other side.’”
Now, it is in a way understandable to make such a choice. The man was probably bleeding and messy and who knows what diseases, then and now, could have been caught through touching him? Similarly, Health Care for all may mean health care for people with diseases others might not want to get near, and certainly even absent that change is not without risk. The current bills may have unforeseen consequences and may cost a bit to implement, and there is a worldwide economic slow down right now. BUT, many of those who oppose acting on this problem also claim that we are a Christian Nation and rail against what they see as threats to that. But the biggest threat to a Christian Nation and life is not following the words of Jesus Christ. No vote is a foregone conclusion at this point, and if enough people choose compassion over fear and rise up and demand action on this Humanitarian Crisis, Congress will have to listen and act. Some say this is being rushed. Perhaps they haven’t been paying attention for the past seventeen years, because we’ve been talking about this since 1993 if not before. The time for talk is over, the time for action is now. So, if we are truly a Christian Nation, let us rise up and demand that as a congress and as a country, we follow the words of Jesus to the man who replied “the one who had mercy on him” and “Go, and do likewise.”
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Dialogue Over Diatribes
LETTER IN RESPONSE TO NIGHTLINE’S CLOSING ARGUMENT ON FRIDAY, AUGUST SEVENTH, 2009.
QUESTION: WERE THE PROTESTERS AT HEALTH CARE REFORM RALLIES THAT SHOUT SO LOUD ABOUT NO REFORM OR EVEN PROGRESS THAT NO ACTUAL DIALOGUE CAN EVEN TAKE PLACE ORGANIZED FROM THE HIGHER UPS OF THE RANKS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR TRULY GRASS ROOTS?
ANSWER: THEY WERE ORGANIZED FROM THE HIGHER UPS OF THE RANKS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THIS IS THE U.S.A., PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTEST, BUT SINCE THE BILLS HAD AT THAT POINT AT MOST BEEN WRITTEN A WEEK AND ARE I’M SURE EACH SEVERAL HUNDRED PAGES LONG, NO ONE OUTSIDE OF CONGRESS COULD POSSIBLY HAVE READ THEM ALL OR EVEN MOST OF EITHER YET. PEOPLE WERE REACTING TO THE DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION PUT OUT THERE BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY BUREAUCRATS.
MAYBE THE THEN CURRENT PROPOSALS AND NOW ON THURSDAY, APRIL FOURTEENTH, 2011, ACTUAL LAW ARE NOT PERFECT, BUT LET US DISCUSS THEM IN A CIVIL MANNER RATHER THAN SHOUTING “NO HEALTH CARE FOR THE POOR! NO HEALTH CARE FOR THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS! NO HEALTH CARE FOR THE CRITICALLY ILL! NO HEALTH CARE FOR THE SELF EMPLOYED!” SO LOUDLY THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN EVEN BE HEARD. WE’RE A NATION OF LAWS, NOT OF MOB RULE, SO LET THE MOBS BE CIVIL AND MAYBE WE CAN GET SOMETHING DONE. NOW, IF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WATCHED ANY NEWS CASTER OTHER THAN BILL ORYLEE THEY WOULD KNOW THAT IF THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP IT UNDER ALL PROPOSALS THEN CURRENTLY IN DISCUSSION AND NOW ACTUAL LAW, BUT OF COURSE BILL ORILLEE AND HIS ILK WILL INSIST ON SAYING THAT EVERYTHING BEING PROPOSED IS A CANADA STYLE SYSTEM, WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITION, I AM UNABLE TO GET PRIVATE COVERAGE UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM, ALTHOUGH IN TEXAS WHERE I LIVE THERE IS A LAW REQUIRING PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES, OR AT LEAST ONE, TO GIVE COVERAGE UNDER WHAT IS CALLED THE RISK POOL, BUT THIS LAW ALSO REQUIRES THAT MY PREMIUM BE AT LEAST TWICE AS MUCH AS THE MOST EXPENSIVE COMPARABLE PRIVATE COVERAGE, WHICH FOR ME PERSONALLY IS MANAGEABLE BUT FOR MANY TEXANS IS NOT. SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS MAKING PRIVATE COMPANIES UNABLE BY LAW TO DENY COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS, WHICH IN MY CASE IS GETTING HIT BY A CAR WHEN I WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD, A CONDITION WHICH AT THIRTY-FIVE HAS MOST DEFINITELY NOT PROVED IN NEED OF ONGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT IN MY CASE, MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT, BUT A PUBLIC OPTION MIGHT ALSO HAVE WORKED. FOR ONE THING, A PUBLIC OPTION WOULD HAVE GIVEN PEOPE LIKE ME A PLACE TO GO IF PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES FOUND A WAY TO GO BACK TO THEIR OLD TRICKS, WHICHWOULD SIMPLY HAVE ENSURED THAT THEY DID NOT DO SO.
ANYONE WHO IS ON MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ALREADY HAS GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE, AND I DO NOT HEAR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS COMPLAINING ABOUT HAVING THEIR CHOICE OF DOCTORS LIMITED, ANOTHER LIE THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND ITS CONSERVATIVE ALLIES/LACKIES IN CONGRESS HAD PUT OUT THERE. THAT IS OF COURSE A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM, REALLY, THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY, BECAUSE WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE’S LIVES AND HEALTH, THE BUSINESS MODEL IS THE WRONG MODEL. BUSINESS PEOPLE THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT WILL MAKE MONEY, WHEN IN HEALTH CARE THE CONCERN SHOULD BE MAKING PEOPLE HEALTHY WHEN THEY SUFFER FROM INJURY OR ILLNESS, OR PREVENTING ILLNESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO THE BUSINESS MODEL IS CLEARLY THE WRONG MODEL IN THIS INSTANCE. NOW, OF COURSE, THE BUSINESSMEN THAT RUN HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NOT LIKE HEARING THIS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IF THERE HAD BEEN A PUBLIC OPTION THEN THEY COULD HAVE KEPT ONLY COVERING THE PEOPLE THAT WILL MAKE THEM RICHER ANDS LET THE GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF THOSE OF US WHO AT SOME POINT THERE IS AT LEAST A SLIGHTLY ELEVATED RISK MIGHT SOMEDAY NEED SOME KIND OF MEDICAL TREATMENT.
BUT THE POINT IS, THERE IS/WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY, EVERYONE KNOWS THERE IS/WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY, AND IF WE JUST TALK ABOUT IT CIVILLY WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SOLVE IT, WHILE IF PEOPLE KEEP SHOWING UP AT RALLIES AND NOW EVENTS PROTESTING THE NEW LAW THAT GIVES EVERY AMERICAN, EVEN THOSE OF US WITH PREEXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS, ACHANCE AT DECENT, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, AND BEHAVING LIKE BARBARIANS BY SHOUTING SO LOUDLY THAT NO INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION CAN BE HAD, WE MAY GET NORTHING OR WE MAY GET SOMETHING BUT IT MAY NOT BE AS GOOD AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN IF ALL SIDES HAD HAD INTELLIGENT AND CIVIL INPUT, AND NOW THOSE OF US WITH PREEXISTING CODITIONS MAY GET A WIFF OF JUSTICE IN HEALTH CARE ONLY TO HAVE IT SNATCHED AWAY BEFORE WE EVEN TASTE IT IF WE'RE ADULTS AND WHEN WE'VE BARELY TASTED IT IF WE'RE MINORS. IF ANY OF THESE ORAL THUGS READ THIS, I CHALLENGE THEM TO PROVE THEIR COURAGE BY BEHAVING IN A CIVIL MANNER AND ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE AT THESE MEETINGS AND EVENTS RATHER THAN ORAL THUGGARY AND ENCOURAGING THEIR COMPANIONS TO DO THE SAME, BECAUSE SHOUTING SO LOUD THAT NO VIEW BUT ONE’S OWN CAN BE HEARD IS ONLY A SIGN OF COWARDICE, SO ANY WHO READ OR HEAR THIS AND JUST KEEP SHOUTING ARE COWARDS, AND I CHALLENGE THEM TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT COWARDS.
SINCERELY,
MATTHEW L. BECKETT
FREE LANCE FICTION WRITER AND FOUNDER AND C.E.O. OF TRIPLE-BLADE PICTURES AND avoiceinthewilderness-wildvoicenet.blogspot.com AND THUS THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS IN THIS AND OTHER MATTERS.
QUESTION: WERE THE PROTESTERS AT HEALTH CARE REFORM RALLIES THAT SHOUT SO LOUD ABOUT NO REFORM OR EVEN PROGRESS THAT NO ACTUAL DIALOGUE CAN EVEN TAKE PLACE ORGANIZED FROM THE HIGHER UPS OF THE RANKS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR TRULY GRASS ROOTS?
ANSWER: THEY WERE ORGANIZED FROM THE HIGHER UPS OF THE RANKS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THIS IS THE U.S.A., PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTEST, BUT SINCE THE BILLS HAD AT THAT POINT AT MOST BEEN WRITTEN A WEEK AND ARE I’M SURE EACH SEVERAL HUNDRED PAGES LONG, NO ONE OUTSIDE OF CONGRESS COULD POSSIBLY HAVE READ THEM ALL OR EVEN MOST OF EITHER YET. PEOPLE WERE REACTING TO THE DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION PUT OUT THERE BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY BUREAUCRATS.
MAYBE THE THEN CURRENT PROPOSALS AND NOW ON THURSDAY, APRIL FOURTEENTH, 2011, ACTUAL LAW ARE NOT PERFECT, BUT LET US DISCUSS THEM IN A CIVIL MANNER RATHER THAN SHOUTING “NO HEALTH CARE FOR THE POOR! NO HEALTH CARE FOR THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS! NO HEALTH CARE FOR THE CRITICALLY ILL! NO HEALTH CARE FOR THE SELF EMPLOYED!” SO LOUDLY THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN EVEN BE HEARD. WE’RE A NATION OF LAWS, NOT OF MOB RULE, SO LET THE MOBS BE CIVIL AND MAYBE WE CAN GET SOMETHING DONE. NOW, IF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WATCHED ANY NEWS CASTER OTHER THAN BILL ORYLEE THEY WOULD KNOW THAT IF THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP IT UNDER ALL PROPOSALS THEN CURRENTLY IN DISCUSSION AND NOW ACTUAL LAW, BUT OF COURSE BILL ORILLEE AND HIS ILK WILL INSIST ON SAYING THAT EVERYTHING BEING PROPOSED IS A CANADA STYLE SYSTEM, WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITION, I AM UNABLE TO GET PRIVATE COVERAGE UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM, ALTHOUGH IN TEXAS WHERE I LIVE THERE IS A LAW REQUIRING PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES, OR AT LEAST ONE, TO GIVE COVERAGE UNDER WHAT IS CALLED THE RISK POOL, BUT THIS LAW ALSO REQUIRES THAT MY PREMIUM BE AT LEAST TWICE AS MUCH AS THE MOST EXPENSIVE COMPARABLE PRIVATE COVERAGE, WHICH FOR ME PERSONALLY IS MANAGEABLE BUT FOR MANY TEXANS IS NOT. SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS MAKING PRIVATE COMPANIES UNABLE BY LAW TO DENY COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS, WHICH IN MY CASE IS GETTING HIT BY A CAR WHEN I WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD, A CONDITION WHICH AT THIRTY-FIVE HAS MOST DEFINITELY NOT PROVED IN NEED OF ONGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT IN MY CASE, MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT, BUT A PUBLIC OPTION MIGHT ALSO HAVE WORKED. FOR ONE THING, A PUBLIC OPTION WOULD HAVE GIVEN PEOPE LIKE ME A PLACE TO GO IF PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES FOUND A WAY TO GO BACK TO THEIR OLD TRICKS, WHICHWOULD SIMPLY HAVE ENSURED THAT THEY DID NOT DO SO.
ANYONE WHO IS ON MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ALREADY HAS GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE, AND I DO NOT HEAR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS COMPLAINING ABOUT HAVING THEIR CHOICE OF DOCTORS LIMITED, ANOTHER LIE THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND ITS CONSERVATIVE ALLIES/LACKIES IN CONGRESS HAD PUT OUT THERE. THAT IS OF COURSE A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM, REALLY, THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY, BECAUSE WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE’S LIVES AND HEALTH, THE BUSINESS MODEL IS THE WRONG MODEL. BUSINESS PEOPLE THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT WILL MAKE MONEY, WHEN IN HEALTH CARE THE CONCERN SHOULD BE MAKING PEOPLE HEALTHY WHEN THEY SUFFER FROM INJURY OR ILLNESS, OR PREVENTING ILLNESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO THE BUSINESS MODEL IS CLEARLY THE WRONG MODEL IN THIS INSTANCE. NOW, OF COURSE, THE BUSINESSMEN THAT RUN HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NOT LIKE HEARING THIS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IF THERE HAD BEEN A PUBLIC OPTION THEN THEY COULD HAVE KEPT ONLY COVERING THE PEOPLE THAT WILL MAKE THEM RICHER ANDS LET THE GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF THOSE OF US WHO AT SOME POINT THERE IS AT LEAST A SLIGHTLY ELEVATED RISK MIGHT SOMEDAY NEED SOME KIND OF MEDICAL TREATMENT.
BUT THE POINT IS, THERE IS/WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY, EVERYONE KNOWS THERE IS/WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY, AND IF WE JUST TALK ABOUT IT CIVILLY WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SOLVE IT, WHILE IF PEOPLE KEEP SHOWING UP AT RALLIES AND NOW EVENTS PROTESTING THE NEW LAW THAT GIVES EVERY AMERICAN, EVEN THOSE OF US WITH PREEXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS, ACHANCE AT DECENT, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, AND BEHAVING LIKE BARBARIANS BY SHOUTING SO LOUDLY THAT NO INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION CAN BE HAD, WE MAY GET NORTHING OR WE MAY GET SOMETHING BUT IT MAY NOT BE AS GOOD AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN IF ALL SIDES HAD HAD INTELLIGENT AND CIVIL INPUT, AND NOW THOSE OF US WITH PREEXISTING CODITIONS MAY GET A WIFF OF JUSTICE IN HEALTH CARE ONLY TO HAVE IT SNATCHED AWAY BEFORE WE EVEN TASTE IT IF WE'RE ADULTS AND WHEN WE'VE BARELY TASTED IT IF WE'RE MINORS. IF ANY OF THESE ORAL THUGS READ THIS, I CHALLENGE THEM TO PROVE THEIR COURAGE BY BEHAVING IN A CIVIL MANNER AND ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE AT THESE MEETINGS AND EVENTS RATHER THAN ORAL THUGGARY AND ENCOURAGING THEIR COMPANIONS TO DO THE SAME, BECAUSE SHOUTING SO LOUD THAT NO VIEW BUT ONE’S OWN CAN BE HEARD IS ONLY A SIGN OF COWARDICE, SO ANY WHO READ OR HEAR THIS AND JUST KEEP SHOUTING ARE COWARDS, AND I CHALLENGE THEM TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT COWARDS.
SINCERELY,
MATTHEW L. BECKETT
FREE LANCE FICTION WRITER AND FOUNDER AND C.E.O. OF TRIPLE-BLADE PICTURES AND avoiceinthewilderness-wildvoicenet.blogspot.com AND THUS THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS IN THIS AND OTHER MATTERS.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
"LET MY PEOPLE GO!" The Conservative House of Bondage
THIS COUNTRY'S CREED IS 'EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW', SO LET'S LIVE UP TO OUR CREED IN HEALTH CARE, HOUSING, FOOD AND ELSEWHERE. OR WE CAN CONTINUE TO BE LIKE THE FOLLOWING:
LET MY PEOPLE GO:
THE CONSERVATIVE HOUSE OF BONDAGE.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
“Move, slave,” says John Boehner, as he cracks the whip across my back. “If you ever want to see a doctor, you'd better finish building my new chair of power fast.”
“Yes, Master,” I reply, for I do need to see a doctor soon about my flu like symptoms, but since I have a preexisting health condition and am over eighteen, my only option is to be The Speaker of The House's slave until he sees fit to give me a doctor visit, since the job I did before becoming his slave did not pay enough for me to pay for the treatment I need out of pocket.
“If I could just have a morsel of food,” I hear one of my fellow slaves say. “I haven't eaten in three days. I don't have the strength. . .”
“You'll find the strength unless you want to go another week without food,” snarls Kay Baily Hutchison from behind her. “You lazy, worthless. . .”
“All right, that's enough Kay,” says my master, who is of course also the head of the whole Republican Palace Building Operation. “It's no use blaming a dog for being a dog.”
My blood boils at this remark. None of us are dogs. We're simply people who have preexisting health conditions, or environmental pollution triggered health conditions, or cannot at the moment totally provide for our own needs as far as food and clothing and shelter go, or have a disability that makes us unable to completely take care of ourselves, or who happen to be Homo-or-Bi-Sexual, whom The Conservative Majority have deemed unworthy of being in society at large, gathered, and brought all here to build their Conservative Palace to give them a life of ease while we all work as their slaves for the occasional nugget of decency that they may throw at us if they choose. However, my flu is worsening, so I really need that medicine, and so I keep my thoughts to myself.
“Did someone tell you to quit working!” I feel the whip crack hard across my back, and reel, but quickly recover and get back to work, working double time to make up the seconds lost to my musings, for if I slow down the work overall, ,I will only get my medicine when I'm at death's door, if then, if ever.
We all work until the sun has set and no one can see any more, since it is a new moon and the stars are obscured by clouds.
Then I receive my injection, as brutal and unpleasant as they can make it, and a warning. “Get lost in thought gain tomorrow, and there will be no more treatment at all, and when your belly is totally empty, you'll die. Now, go fetch the water and be quick about it. And don't spill any again,or else,” the medical technician calls out the last as I walk towards the distant well with an empty bucket, for I did stumble in the pitch black night and spill a fourth of the full to the brim bucket last night.
As I near the well, however, I behold a strange sight. The well seems to be on fire, yet the flames that engulf it do not destroy. I take a step back, uncertain, when a Voice comes from it.
“Matthew, Son of James, Approach,” it says.
I obey, uncertain what this means, although from a vague and distant past long before my enslavement, I have a vague sense that this should be familiar. When I near, I look at the burning well uncertainly.
“Set down your bucket and remove your tennis shoes and socks,” says the Voice. “You stand on sacred ground.”
I obey, knowing that this is familiar, yet my pre-slave life is so distant now I still cannot place it.
“I have heard your cries,” says the Voice. “I have heard the cries of the uninsured and under-insured, of the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned, the planet and of the outcasts. I AM The GOD of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, The Prophets and The Line of David, who came to the world in The Man Jesus Christ. I shall deliver my people from this House of Bondage, this Conservative House of Bondage, as from The Egyptian House of Bondage of old. Leave your bucket here along with your footwear, go to your Pharaoh, John Boehner, announce yourself MY Messenger and tell him that I have said, once again,”LET MY PEOPLE GO!”.
I do as instructed. “And HE says “LET MY PEOPLE GO!” I conclude.
The Speaker of The House is so incensed by this pronouncement, that he seizes a rifle from a nearby guard and points it at me. Suddenly, though, he screams as the rifle and the arm holding it catch fire. At the same moment, the chains that bind all of us snap and fall away. Then The Voice Speaks for all to hear.
“I have told you again and again to treat the less fortunate in all walks of life and in all ways less fortunate well, and not to judge one another, but to leave that to ME. But you have stubbornly refused to hear these words, preferring instead to focus on minor phrases of MY BOOK which you incorrectly interpret to condone the judging of others, ignoring the overall call for Justice to those in need in all ways and love for all. Therefore, I loose the bonds of those you had made your slaves and now put you under their judgment. Whatever they decide your fate should be, it shall be, for they have endured brutality and inhumane treatment at your hands for so long, justice demands they be at least given a say in your fate.”
Our enslavers tremble in terror as we, their former slaves, gather to discuss their fate. After much argument, conversation and discussion, we come to a unanimous decision, and I am appointed to pronounce our verdict.
“You have denied the right of those of us with preexisting health conditions to have the opportunity to shop around for a competitive rate for decent, affordable health insurance,” I begin, and they tremble even more, which I cannot deny brings s slight, inner smile. “You have sought to deny those unable to get a private school education any kind of quality education. You have worked to undermine any and all efforts to save this planet from the ecological catastrophe that now seems inevitable. You have sought to starve and parch to death, let die of exposure without shelter or clothing, let die of treatable disease and rot alone in prison whether guilty or innocent, those most vulnerable in society, and you have sought to deny the very right to exist any of what you consider 'abnormal' sexual orientation.” I can see the fear in all of their eyes and think I even see a damp patch on a few pairs of pants, and I can;t deny some satisfaction in the sights. “Therefore,” I conclude, and the tension in the room is palpable. “We have decided. . .” I pause as long as I can, wanting them to feel our sweat of many years and for many reasons, just a little bit longer. At last the moment has no choice but to come. “To forgive you for everything and let you go as you choose.”
“You have chosen well,” says The Voice of THE LORD. “For no mortal should make such a judgment of another.”
“Then I judge myself,” says one of the old guards, and before any can react puts her gun in her mouth and eats a bullet.
“Yes. For all that we have done, we must be punished,,” says a high ranking former oppressor.
“Your self condemnation now that you have seen the error of your ways is punishment enough,” I say, and mean it.
A few more cannot stand the sudden realization of how wrong they were about everything and take their own lives, but most over time find a way to adapt to the new understanding of reality in which all people are free to be who we each and all are, a unique Child of GOD, lovingly and wonderfully made in HIS Image and each with something to offer to HIM and to each other. AMEN.
WE CAN BE LIKE THE ABOVE, UNWORTHY OF THE TITLE OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
LET MY PEOPLE GO:
THE CONSERVATIVE HOUSE OF BONDAGE.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
“Move, slave,” says John Boehner, as he cracks the whip across my back. “If you ever want to see a doctor, you'd better finish building my new chair of power fast.”
“Yes, Master,” I reply, for I do need to see a doctor soon about my flu like symptoms, but since I have a preexisting health condition and am over eighteen, my only option is to be The Speaker of The House's slave until he sees fit to give me a doctor visit, since the job I did before becoming his slave did not pay enough for me to pay for the treatment I need out of pocket.
“If I could just have a morsel of food,” I hear one of my fellow slaves say. “I haven't eaten in three days. I don't have the strength. . .”
“You'll find the strength unless you want to go another week without food,” snarls Kay Baily Hutchison from behind her. “You lazy, worthless. . .”
“All right, that's enough Kay,” says my master, who is of course also the head of the whole Republican Palace Building Operation. “It's no use blaming a dog for being a dog.”
My blood boils at this remark. None of us are dogs. We're simply people who have preexisting health conditions, or environmental pollution triggered health conditions, or cannot at the moment totally provide for our own needs as far as food and clothing and shelter go, or have a disability that makes us unable to completely take care of ourselves, or who happen to be Homo-or-Bi-Sexual, whom The Conservative Majority have deemed unworthy of being in society at large, gathered, and brought all here to build their Conservative Palace to give them a life of ease while we all work as their slaves for the occasional nugget of decency that they may throw at us if they choose. However, my flu is worsening, so I really need that medicine, and so I keep my thoughts to myself.
“Did someone tell you to quit working!” I feel the whip crack hard across my back, and reel, but quickly recover and get back to work, working double time to make up the seconds lost to my musings, for if I slow down the work overall, ,I will only get my medicine when I'm at death's door, if then, if ever.
We all work until the sun has set and no one can see any more, since it is a new moon and the stars are obscured by clouds.
Then I receive my injection, as brutal and unpleasant as they can make it, and a warning. “Get lost in thought gain tomorrow, and there will be no more treatment at all, and when your belly is totally empty, you'll die. Now, go fetch the water and be quick about it. And don't spill any again,or else,” the medical technician calls out the last as I walk towards the distant well with an empty bucket, for I did stumble in the pitch black night and spill a fourth of the full to the brim bucket last night.
As I near the well, however, I behold a strange sight. The well seems to be on fire, yet the flames that engulf it do not destroy. I take a step back, uncertain, when a Voice comes from it.
“Matthew, Son of James, Approach,” it says.
I obey, uncertain what this means, although from a vague and distant past long before my enslavement, I have a vague sense that this should be familiar. When I near, I look at the burning well uncertainly.
“Set down your bucket and remove your tennis shoes and socks,” says the Voice. “You stand on sacred ground.”
I obey, knowing that this is familiar, yet my pre-slave life is so distant now I still cannot place it.
“I have heard your cries,” says the Voice. “I have heard the cries of the uninsured and under-insured, of the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned, the planet and of the outcasts. I AM The GOD of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, The Prophets and The Line of David, who came to the world in The Man Jesus Christ. I shall deliver my people from this House of Bondage, this Conservative House of Bondage, as from The Egyptian House of Bondage of old. Leave your bucket here along with your footwear, go to your Pharaoh, John Boehner, announce yourself MY Messenger and tell him that I have said, once again,”LET MY PEOPLE GO!”.
I do as instructed. “And HE says “LET MY PEOPLE GO!” I conclude.
The Speaker of The House is so incensed by this pronouncement, that he seizes a rifle from a nearby guard and points it at me. Suddenly, though, he screams as the rifle and the arm holding it catch fire. At the same moment, the chains that bind all of us snap and fall away. Then The Voice Speaks for all to hear.
“I have told you again and again to treat the less fortunate in all walks of life and in all ways less fortunate well, and not to judge one another, but to leave that to ME. But you have stubbornly refused to hear these words, preferring instead to focus on minor phrases of MY BOOK which you incorrectly interpret to condone the judging of others, ignoring the overall call for Justice to those in need in all ways and love for all. Therefore, I loose the bonds of those you had made your slaves and now put you under their judgment. Whatever they decide your fate should be, it shall be, for they have endured brutality and inhumane treatment at your hands for so long, justice demands they be at least given a say in your fate.”
Our enslavers tremble in terror as we, their former slaves, gather to discuss their fate. After much argument, conversation and discussion, we come to a unanimous decision, and I am appointed to pronounce our verdict.
“You have denied the right of those of us with preexisting health conditions to have the opportunity to shop around for a competitive rate for decent, affordable health insurance,” I begin, and they tremble even more, which I cannot deny brings s slight, inner smile. “You have sought to deny those unable to get a private school education any kind of quality education. You have worked to undermine any and all efforts to save this planet from the ecological catastrophe that now seems inevitable. You have sought to starve and parch to death, let die of exposure without shelter or clothing, let die of treatable disease and rot alone in prison whether guilty or innocent, those most vulnerable in society, and you have sought to deny the very right to exist any of what you consider 'abnormal' sexual orientation.” I can see the fear in all of their eyes and think I even see a damp patch on a few pairs of pants, and I can;t deny some satisfaction in the sights. “Therefore,” I conclude, and the tension in the room is palpable. “We have decided. . .” I pause as long as I can, wanting them to feel our sweat of many years and for many reasons, just a little bit longer. At last the moment has no choice but to come. “To forgive you for everything and let you go as you choose.”
“You have chosen well,” says The Voice of THE LORD. “For no mortal should make such a judgment of another.”
“Then I judge myself,” says one of the old guards, and before any can react puts her gun in her mouth and eats a bullet.
“Yes. For all that we have done, we must be punished,,” says a high ranking former oppressor.
“Your self condemnation now that you have seen the error of your ways is punishment enough,” I say, and mean it.
A few more cannot stand the sudden realization of how wrong they were about everything and take their own lives, but most over time find a way to adapt to the new understanding of reality in which all people are free to be who we each and all are, a unique Child of GOD, lovingly and wonderfully made in HIS Image and each with something to offer to HIM and to each other. AMEN.
WE CAN BE LIKE THE ABOVE, UNWORTHY OF THE TITLE OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Texas Legislature Says, 'Keep Poor Kids In Their Place'
KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
In the basement of The Texas State Capital, the Republican Legislators met in a closed door, emergency session.
“How could there have been more than eleven thousand people rallying to stop school closings?” asked one. “Our plans depend on this.”
“Yes,” said another. “And more importantly, how do we counter this apparent movement against the core of our agenda? This is much bigger and much more important than simply saving money now for the short term well being of the state, as important as that is.”
“Yes,” said The Speaker of The Texas House. “The whole future depends on this. We need large class sizes, overworked teachers and administrators in the public schools to ensure our economic future. The children that come from families that mean they really deserve a quality education can afford private schools.”
“Agreed,” said The Majority Leader. “We don't want the children of middle and certainly lower class families to start getting upity ideas in their heads. How will we keep them where they belong, underfoot, if they get too well educated. I mean, they should know their place in society, but if a high quality education fills their inferior heads with too many 'Liberal' ideas about equality and social advancement, we'll lose our seudo servants. So, what do we do about these rallies?”
“Putting out information suggesting they have a socialist agenda has had some effect, so we should keep that up,” said a newly elected member.
“And counter rallies are also good to keep up,” said a young page.
“Yes, but we must do more to ensure victory,” said The Speaker.
“We could send notices to our richest contributors, reminding them that a well educated underclass will be bad for their lifestyles and urging them to act against this movement,,” said an older legislative aid.
“And we can call on our allies in Washington to do what they can at the national level to defund education and make it easier for us to do so,” said another young page.
“Did you just say the word 'defund'” said The Majority Leader of The Texas Senate as all eyes turned on the the young man and he took several steps back at what was in those eyes.
“We NEVER use that word aloud,” said another high ranking Texas State Senator. “There could be people listening. Do you know what a word like that getting out there as having come from this group could do?”
“Sss...sss....sorry,” stammered the terrified young man. “It www...www...won't happen again.”
“See that it does not,” said The Speaker. There was no need to say 'or else' for his tone left no doubt of the threat.
“We could also start some rumors among our constituents about well educated underclass people already beginning to get foolish ideas about equality and upward social mobility,,” suggested another member of The Texas House.
“And some of those would have some fact to them,” added a State Senator.
“Yes,” said The Majority Whip for The Texas House. “I have heard of several cases of that of late, and we must put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.”
“Yes,” said The Speaker. “We don't want our rich friends' lifestyles disrupted, so let's get on all of this and more. After all, we can't have poor and middle class kids getting the same quality education as rich kids if we are to keep the former in their proper place.”
“Yes,” said The State Senate Majority Leader. “And we absolutely must keep them in their place.”
“Here, here,” said everyone else, raising air cups of chamaign and then drinking deeply from the imaginary cups.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
In the basement of The Texas State Capital, the Republican Legislators met in a closed door, emergency session.
“How could there have been more than eleven thousand people rallying to stop school closings?” asked one. “Our plans depend on this.”
“Yes,” said another. “And more importantly, how do we counter this apparent movement against the core of our agenda? This is much bigger and much more important than simply saving money now for the short term well being of the state, as important as that is.”
“Yes,” said The Speaker of The Texas House. “The whole future depends on this. We need large class sizes, overworked teachers and administrators in the public schools to ensure our economic future. The children that come from families that mean they really deserve a quality education can afford private schools.”
“Agreed,” said The Majority Leader. “We don't want the children of middle and certainly lower class families to start getting upity ideas in their heads. How will we keep them where they belong, underfoot, if they get too well educated. I mean, they should know their place in society, but if a high quality education fills their inferior heads with too many 'Liberal' ideas about equality and social advancement, we'll lose our seudo servants. So, what do we do about these rallies?”
“Putting out information suggesting they have a socialist agenda has had some effect, so we should keep that up,” said a newly elected member.
“And counter rallies are also good to keep up,” said a young page.
“Yes, but we must do more to ensure victory,” said The Speaker.
“We could send notices to our richest contributors, reminding them that a well educated underclass will be bad for their lifestyles and urging them to act against this movement,,” said an older legislative aid.
“And we can call on our allies in Washington to do what they can at the national level to defund education and make it easier for us to do so,” said another young page.
“Did you just say the word 'defund'” said The Majority Leader of The Texas Senate as all eyes turned on the the young man and he took several steps back at what was in those eyes.
“We NEVER use that word aloud,” said another high ranking Texas State Senator. “There could be people listening. Do you know what a word like that getting out there as having come from this group could do?”
“Sss...sss....sorry,” stammered the terrified young man. “It www...www...won't happen again.”
“See that it does not,” said The Speaker. There was no need to say 'or else' for his tone left no doubt of the threat.
“We could also start some rumors among our constituents about well educated underclass people already beginning to get foolish ideas about equality and upward social mobility,,” suggested another member of The Texas House.
“And some of those would have some fact to them,” added a State Senator.
“Yes,” said The Majority Whip for The Texas House. “I have heard of several cases of that of late, and we must put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.”
“Yes,” said The Speaker. “We don't want our rich friends' lifestyles disrupted, so let's get on all of this and more. After all, we can't have poor and middle class kids getting the same quality education as rich kids if we are to keep the former in their proper place.”
“Yes,” said The State Senate Majority Leader. “And we absolutely must keep them in their place.”
“Here, here,” said everyone else, raising air cups of chamaign and then drinking deeply from the imaginary cups.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
CRISS'S CRITICAL CONCUSSION
CRISS'S CRITICAL CONCUSSION.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
I couldn't believe it when I opened the letter from the insurance company that had insured me for twenty-six years, as long as I could stay on my parents plan. “Application for coverage DENIED.” I had assumed that since I had been with them since I was born that my application as an independent adult would be a sure thing, but nowhere in the letter did it even mention in passing our long history.
“Criss, what's wrong?” asked my mother, and I realized that my lower jaw was hanging open and quickly closed it.
“They've denied my application for my own coverage.”
“What?” cried both of my parents in unison. “Why?”
I read through the letter very carefully before answering. “There's a lot of fancy language and super technical terms,” I finally reply. “But at its root it appears to be my concussion in seventh grade from that soccer ball to the head, which they list as a 'preexisting condition' and so say they won't cover me.”
“But that's illegal under the new law,” my dad said.
“Not for adults until 2014,” I reminded him. “And if much of our congressional delegation has its way the law will be gone long before that step towards true justice happens.”
As my friend Martha had been dealing with this problem for three years then, I was fairly familiar with it.
“Well, we thought our company would be your best chance, dear,” my mom said. “But it's not the only option.”
She was right about that of course, so I applied to a whole bunch of other companies, but all denied me coverage because of my seventh grade concussion. “But I haven't been a patient in the hospital in thirteen and a half years,” I all but screamed at the representative on the phone line at one of the companies I called for clarification.
“No, but you might be at some point in the future and that's just too big of a financial risk for us to take.”
I asked what the point of health insurance was then? and when he started verbally floundering I breathed a curse and hung up.
“Well,” I said to my parents with a bitter laugh. “I guess I'll just have to stay healthy.”
They both nodded apprehensively, for what else could be said or don?
I managed to follow that plan for a year and three months, but now as I sit in my doctor's office having come in with a great pain in my chest, I hear the dreaded words.
“You have congestive heart failure, Criss.”
“But I'm only twenty-seven,,” I protest, for I have always thought of this as something that happens to old people.
My doctor nods in sympathy. “I know, Criss. It is not unheard of in young people, though, although admittedly unusual. The good news is at your age and in your otherwise good health you're a prime candidate for heart transplant surgery.”
I laugh bitterly. “Yeah, if I hadn't had a concussion in seventh grade and so been unable to retain private insurance as an adult. So, if I don't get treated, how long have I got?”
Tears welling in her eyes, for she has been my family doctor for my whole life, she finally manages to say: “I'll put it this way, Criss. If there's anything you've always dreamed of doing or anywhere you've always dreamed of going, do it and go there now.”
My world collapsed around me, for this is not at all the timing that I had had in mind for my end, not that I'd thought about it much at all, thinking it would be a long way off, but there is nothing I can do about it now.
So, as soon as I can, I arrange two weeks of backpacking in Europe and one week in Asia. My parents and I enjoy all the travel, although my immanent demise is never far from our minds. As they pass out food on our flight back to the states, I feel unimaginable pain in my chest, clutch it, hear my parents start to sob and then I die right in my seat and everything of this world fades and is gone.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
I couldn't believe it when I opened the letter from the insurance company that had insured me for twenty-six years, as long as I could stay on my parents plan. “Application for coverage DENIED.” I had assumed that since I had been with them since I was born that my application as an independent adult would be a sure thing, but nowhere in the letter did it even mention in passing our long history.
“Criss, what's wrong?” asked my mother, and I realized that my lower jaw was hanging open and quickly closed it.
“They've denied my application for my own coverage.”
“What?” cried both of my parents in unison. “Why?”
I read through the letter very carefully before answering. “There's a lot of fancy language and super technical terms,” I finally reply. “But at its root it appears to be my concussion in seventh grade from that soccer ball to the head, which they list as a 'preexisting condition' and so say they won't cover me.”
“But that's illegal under the new law,” my dad said.
“Not for adults until 2014,” I reminded him. “And if much of our congressional delegation has its way the law will be gone long before that step towards true justice happens.”
As my friend Martha had been dealing with this problem for three years then, I was fairly familiar with it.
“Well, we thought our company would be your best chance, dear,” my mom said. “But it's not the only option.”
She was right about that of course, so I applied to a whole bunch of other companies, but all denied me coverage because of my seventh grade concussion. “But I haven't been a patient in the hospital in thirteen and a half years,” I all but screamed at the representative on the phone line at one of the companies I called for clarification.
“No, but you might be at some point in the future and that's just too big of a financial risk for us to take.”
I asked what the point of health insurance was then? and when he started verbally floundering I breathed a curse and hung up.
“Well,” I said to my parents with a bitter laugh. “I guess I'll just have to stay healthy.”
They both nodded apprehensively, for what else could be said or don?
I managed to follow that plan for a year and three months, but now as I sit in my doctor's office having come in with a great pain in my chest, I hear the dreaded words.
“You have congestive heart failure, Criss.”
“But I'm only twenty-seven,,” I protest, for I have always thought of this as something that happens to old people.
My doctor nods in sympathy. “I know, Criss. It is not unheard of in young people, though, although admittedly unusual. The good news is at your age and in your otherwise good health you're a prime candidate for heart transplant surgery.”
I laugh bitterly. “Yeah, if I hadn't had a concussion in seventh grade and so been unable to retain private insurance as an adult. So, if I don't get treated, how long have I got?”
Tears welling in her eyes, for she has been my family doctor for my whole life, she finally manages to say: “I'll put it this way, Criss. If there's anything you've always dreamed of doing or anywhere you've always dreamed of going, do it and go there now.”
My world collapsed around me, for this is not at all the timing that I had had in mind for my end, not that I'd thought about it much at all, thinking it would be a long way off, but there is nothing I can do about it now.
So, as soon as I can, I arrange two weeks of backpacking in Europe and one week in Asia. My parents and I enjoy all the travel, although my immanent demise is never far from our minds. As they pass out food on our flight back to the states, I feel unimaginable pain in my chest, clutch it, hear my parents start to sob and then I die right in my seat and everything of this world fades and is gone.
A CALL FOR JUSTICE, MANIFEST OF THEUNINSURED AND UNDER ISURED
Let all who bend and groan beneath a mountain of debt from their medical bills from being under insured or completely uninsured rise up and say “NO MORE!” Let the rich, privileged and powerful be silent, and for once listen to that still small voice in all and each of us that says “justice denied one is justice denied all.” Let those who have the money to pay for insurance but are denied coverage because of a ‘preexisting’ medical condition stand up and say NO MORE. Let all of those whom the business model of health care has failed stand up and tell congress in one voice “ENOUGH TALK. THE TIME FOR DEBATE AND DELAYS IS OVER. THE TIME FOR ACTIONIS NOW.” Let all those for whom a business model does work be silent and listen to their family and friends and neighbors for whom it does not. The House Reform Bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by The President by February Tenth, 2010, or the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah will be dealt upon this land, since destruction comes not from openness but from closed hearts.
Thus sayeth The Lord, The God of Hosts: I hate your mouths that open in praise while your hearts are closed. My children suffer and die every day needlessly, and you quarrel about states rights and money. The love of money is the root of all evil. Those who put profit before people are not my children. Open your hearts to the suffering of those failed by a health system driven by money, and do what is right, and demand your elected leaders do what is right. You have until February Tenth, or the burning sulfur of old shall slay the righteous and the wicked throughout this land.
For The Mouth of The Lord has spoken it.
Obviously some of this is outdated, since The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act are now the law of the land. However, there are still many who oppose these measures and are seeking through legislative and judicial means to undo them. So let me speak primarily to these people for a moment, although of course I also speak to supporters of the new law, as always. In two places on this blog, both independently and as part of my response to my letter from Senator John Cornyn, I have published my letter from Golden Rule Canceling my Health Insurance Coverage they say on their letter because I failed to mention on my application when it asked what major health issues I had had within the past five years that seventeen years earlier I got hit y a car, but the letter also refers directly to the preexisting conditions matter, and when I called the company after receiving this letter I was told that had they known about what happened to me when I was eight years old they would not have issued me a policy when I was twenty-five years old. So, when I hear people talk about undoing the new law, and non of the replacements I have heard proposed by Conservatives even mention the words preexisting conditions, it gives me the impression that those of us with preexisting conditions are simply regarded as not important enough to worry about. In Texas there is an Insurance Risk Pool for people like me, but Texas Law requires that it always be twice as expensive as comparable,private coverage, and even at that the lowest deductible I could get was $1,000, so all of a recent $735 Physical Therapy Bill for some tendonitous in my left arm, and by the way I am left-handed, had to be paid entirely out of pocket. When, at a recent panel discussion on Health Care that I attended, I asked the Conservative on the panel point blank what about those of us with preexisting conditions?, his only solution was to let insurance companies charge everyone Risk Pool Rates, which of course will drive those who consider themselves healthy away, raising rates even more for the rest of us. Which brings me back to the point that to me it seems The Conservative Opposition to the new law indicates that they regard those of us with preexisting health conditions and other barriers to purchasing private insurance under the old system as simply unimportant, which needless to say makes me rather angry. Therefore, I ask everyone who opposes the new law to look and listen carefully to all of those around you, and I suspect almost all of you will find that you know someone whom the old system failed but the new system may not, and I ask you to open your heart and your mind to hear their story and consider how the new law could help them, either immediately or in 2014, and reconsider your position, because those of us with preexisting conditions are Human Beings too, and we have hopes and dreams too, but with the added financial burden of The Risk Pool described above or even worse no insurance at all, either because that cost is unaffordible or because someone lives in a state that has no such program, one major illness or injury could take all of those away, take away our liberty by a medical debt we can never pay, or even take away our very lives.
Thus sayeth The Lord, The God of Hosts: I hate your mouths that open in praise while your hearts are closed. My children suffer and die every day needlessly, and you quarrel about states rights and money. The love of money is the root of all evil. Those who put profit before people are not my children. Open your hearts to the suffering of those failed by a health system driven by money, and do what is right, and demand your elected leaders do what is right. You have until February Tenth, or the burning sulfur of old shall slay the righteous and the wicked throughout this land.
For The Mouth of The Lord has spoken it.
Obviously some of this is outdated, since The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act are now the law of the land. However, there are still many who oppose these measures and are seeking through legislative and judicial means to undo them. So let me speak primarily to these people for a moment, although of course I also speak to supporters of the new law, as always. In two places on this blog, both independently and as part of my response to my letter from Senator John Cornyn, I have published my letter from Golden Rule Canceling my Health Insurance Coverage they say on their letter because I failed to mention on my application when it asked what major health issues I had had within the past five years that seventeen years earlier I got hit y a car, but the letter also refers directly to the preexisting conditions matter, and when I called the company after receiving this letter I was told that had they known about what happened to me when I was eight years old they would not have issued me a policy when I was twenty-five years old. So, when I hear people talk about undoing the new law, and non of the replacements I have heard proposed by Conservatives even mention the words preexisting conditions, it gives me the impression that those of us with preexisting conditions are simply regarded as not important enough to worry about. In Texas there is an Insurance Risk Pool for people like me, but Texas Law requires that it always be twice as expensive as comparable,private coverage, and even at that the lowest deductible I could get was $1,000, so all of a recent $735 Physical Therapy Bill for some tendonitous in my left arm, and by the way I am left-handed, had to be paid entirely out of pocket. When, at a recent panel discussion on Health Care that I attended, I asked the Conservative on the panel point blank what about those of us with preexisting conditions?, his only solution was to let insurance companies charge everyone Risk Pool Rates, which of course will drive those who consider themselves healthy away, raising rates even more for the rest of us. Which brings me back to the point that to me it seems The Conservative Opposition to the new law indicates that they regard those of us with preexisting health conditions and other barriers to purchasing private insurance under the old system as simply unimportant, which needless to say makes me rather angry. Therefore, I ask everyone who opposes the new law to look and listen carefully to all of those around you, and I suspect almost all of you will find that you know someone whom the old system failed but the new system may not, and I ask you to open your heart and your mind to hear their story and consider how the new law could help them, either immediately or in 2014, and reconsider your position, because those of us with preexisting conditions are Human Beings too, and we have hopes and dreams too, but with the added financial burden of The Risk Pool described above or even worse no insurance at all, either because that cost is unaffordible or because someone lives in a state that has no such program, one major illness or injury could take all of those away, take away our liberty by a medical debt we can never pay, or even take away our very lives.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
CUT OFF AT THE KNEES, THE TRUE NATURE OF 'COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM'
CUT OFF AT THE KNEES, THE STORY OF A MENTAL COLLAPSE AND THE TRUTH OF 'COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE'
It was the biggest headache I'd ever had. Or that's what I thought at the time. When it persisted, Susan, my wife, insisted that we go to the emergency room.
“Sam,” she said. “This isn't normal. There could be something seriously wrong.”
Well, it turned out there was something seriously wrong.
“You have inflammation of the brain,” my doctor informed me. “If untreated, it could prove fatal, although the more likely outcome is to be locked inside yourself in a coma like state, more or less, although there will be periods when you are aware of what's going on but will still be unable to participate.”
My world was collapsing around me, I thought death sounded like the preferable alternative to that, although since I'd just met Susan a year ago and we'd only been married for three months, I hadn't really planned on that either.
“Sam,” my doctor, Dr. Lucy Collestub brought me out of my dark musings. “It's completely treatable, so none of that will happen. The new treatment now available has a very high success rate. I'm just obligated to let you know all possibilities.”
“So how much will the treatment cost,” I ask. “Because I'm sure my insurance won't pay for it if it's a new treatment.”
“They have to,” said Susan. “It's the law now.”
“So it is,” I say, suddenly remembering the new law that puts the patient before profits. “So what is the treatment, Dr. Collestub?”
“It's Lucy,Sam. We've known each other too long for that kind of formality. The treatment is two-fold. We'll operate as soon as possible to relieve the swelling itself. But then there is a six month series of. . .treatments, for want of a better term, to ensure that it does not return. We should schedule that surgery for as soon as possible.”
We ended up scheduling the surgery for exactly three weeks from that day, with the 'treatments' to start a week later. But then, a week and two days before the surgery, I got the letter from my two Republican Senators and one Republican House Member.
“Dear Sam,” it read, for I had made substantial enough donations to all of their campaigns that we were mutually on a first name basis. “We regret to inform you that your surgery and follow up treatment have been canceled. Since they would not have been paid for before this new law, and we feel the new law is an illegal one, we are preventing treatment under it where possible so that when we undo it there will not be people that had things covered that they shouldn't have so that there will be no shocks. Please destroy this letter as soon as you've read it so that this information doesn't get out. Sincerely...”
I stopped. There was nothing sincere about any of this,, except that when I called Lucy and the hospital they confirmed that there had been an order from our Congressional Delegation to cancel my treatment that apparently had the force of law even though it was just them, and like that my fate was sealed. I couldn't believe it. I was a lifelong Republican and had supported all of them financially and at the voting booth very well and numerous times, yet now when I had a problem, they were cutting me off at the knees to ensure that the new law on health insurance did not gain sight among the people as beneficial. For the first time I myself began to see how beneficial it could be and to regret having railed so against it myself when it was just 'those lazy people that don't want to work' who had wanted it, for I had worked my whole life and was certainly not lazy. I began to consider that maybe many who would benefit from this law were not lazy, and might just have preexisting health conditions like my concussion of many years ago, which was why brain treatment would not have been covered under the old law, and for other reasons beyond their control and that a law saying insurance companies can't do that is a good idea.
On one of the days when I was having such musings, I felt a great pain in my entire head, particularly my face, and suddenly found that I could no longer speak or even blink voluntarily. During the last few weeks, Susan and Lucy and I have tried repeatedly to contact our members of Congress to get them to reconsider, or to get a court to overrule them, all without any result. On the day that my brain collapsed to all outside interactions except occasionally being able to type, as I am now typing my story, we received word that one judge had sided with us, but the other two judges on the panel had declined to hear the case, so even that was not an actual ruling in our favor, not that it would matter now anyway, for the treatment was only preventative, not curative once this has happened. So I'm locked inside myself for life except for brief periods when I can type as I'm typing this story, but this ends this story, which is good since this period of even being able to type I can feel coming to. . .
My husband intended to type 'an end' here, but his hands seized up before he could. Where is your compassion now, conservatism?
She finishes with an unintelligible curse, and that's the end of this story as it was received.
It was the biggest headache I'd ever had. Or that's what I thought at the time. When it persisted, Susan, my wife, insisted that we go to the emergency room.
“Sam,” she said. “This isn't normal. There could be something seriously wrong.”
Well, it turned out there was something seriously wrong.
“You have inflammation of the brain,” my doctor informed me. “If untreated, it could prove fatal, although the more likely outcome is to be locked inside yourself in a coma like state, more or less, although there will be periods when you are aware of what's going on but will still be unable to participate.”
My world was collapsing around me, I thought death sounded like the preferable alternative to that, although since I'd just met Susan a year ago and we'd only been married for three months, I hadn't really planned on that either.
“Sam,” my doctor, Dr. Lucy Collestub brought me out of my dark musings. “It's completely treatable, so none of that will happen. The new treatment now available has a very high success rate. I'm just obligated to let you know all possibilities.”
“So how much will the treatment cost,” I ask. “Because I'm sure my insurance won't pay for it if it's a new treatment.”
“They have to,” said Susan. “It's the law now.”
“So it is,” I say, suddenly remembering the new law that puts the patient before profits. “So what is the treatment, Dr. Collestub?”
“It's Lucy,Sam. We've known each other too long for that kind of formality. The treatment is two-fold. We'll operate as soon as possible to relieve the swelling itself. But then there is a six month series of. . .treatments, for want of a better term, to ensure that it does not return. We should schedule that surgery for as soon as possible.”
We ended up scheduling the surgery for exactly three weeks from that day, with the 'treatments' to start a week later. But then, a week and two days before the surgery, I got the letter from my two Republican Senators and one Republican House Member.
“Dear Sam,” it read, for I had made substantial enough donations to all of their campaigns that we were mutually on a first name basis. “We regret to inform you that your surgery and follow up treatment have been canceled. Since they would not have been paid for before this new law, and we feel the new law is an illegal one, we are preventing treatment under it where possible so that when we undo it there will not be people that had things covered that they shouldn't have so that there will be no shocks. Please destroy this letter as soon as you've read it so that this information doesn't get out. Sincerely...”
I stopped. There was nothing sincere about any of this,, except that when I called Lucy and the hospital they confirmed that there had been an order from our Congressional Delegation to cancel my treatment that apparently had the force of law even though it was just them, and like that my fate was sealed. I couldn't believe it. I was a lifelong Republican and had supported all of them financially and at the voting booth very well and numerous times, yet now when I had a problem, they were cutting me off at the knees to ensure that the new law on health insurance did not gain sight among the people as beneficial. For the first time I myself began to see how beneficial it could be and to regret having railed so against it myself when it was just 'those lazy people that don't want to work' who had wanted it, for I had worked my whole life and was certainly not lazy. I began to consider that maybe many who would benefit from this law were not lazy, and might just have preexisting health conditions like my concussion of many years ago, which was why brain treatment would not have been covered under the old law, and for other reasons beyond their control and that a law saying insurance companies can't do that is a good idea.
On one of the days when I was having such musings, I felt a great pain in my entire head, particularly my face, and suddenly found that I could no longer speak or even blink voluntarily. During the last few weeks, Susan and Lucy and I have tried repeatedly to contact our members of Congress to get them to reconsider, or to get a court to overrule them, all without any result. On the day that my brain collapsed to all outside interactions except occasionally being able to type, as I am now typing my story, we received word that one judge had sided with us, but the other two judges on the panel had declined to hear the case, so even that was not an actual ruling in our favor, not that it would matter now anyway, for the treatment was only preventative, not curative once this has happened. So I'm locked inside myself for life except for brief periods when I can type as I'm typing this story, but this ends this story, which is good since this period of even being able to type I can feel coming to. . .
My husband intended to type 'an end' here, but his hands seized up before he could. Where is your compassion now, conservatism?
She finishes with an unintelligible curse, and that's the end of this story as it was received.
Friday, March 11, 2011
STOP THE BREATHING MACHINE,THE REPEAL OF THE RIGHT TO BASIC HEALTH CARE
THE REPEALING OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE.
The mood in The G.O.P. Headquarters after the vote was jubilant.
“We did it,” said the Minority leader of The House. “We undid Obama Care.”
“Yes,”chimed in his whip. “Good buy to government run Health Care.”
“Amen,”chorused another. “So do we go for Medicare or Medicaid next?”
“Ultimately both,' said the minority leader of the Senate. “But we'll have to turn the American people against each in turn just as we turned them against this before we even bring either up as things to undo. We must tread carefully, for both of those have taken root and become ingrained in people's consciousness and so will be much harder to undo, but we will eventually undo all but private sector run Health Care, since that's the only sector that can really do anything right.”
Everyone there raised a glass to that, and the party went on.
Meanwhile,in New York City, a patient was being prepped for heart surgery when the news of the repeal came through. Five minutes after the news came through, the doctor doing the surgery received a phone call. The staff preparing the patient and the patient himself, the single father of three young children, heard the doctor arguing with the person o the phone for some time, although they could not understand the words. Finally, with one last angry shout, the doctor slammed down the receiver and stormed into the operating room.
“Stop the prep,” she said, to everyone's shock. “His insurance says this is a no go.”
“They can't,” protested the man. “The law now says. . .”
The doctor checked her watch.
“As of eight minutes ago, they can,” she said bitterly. “Because that's the time that Congress repealed decent, affordable health care for all ?Americans.”
“But without this surgery I'll die, said the man. “And then who will take care of my babies? I have no family of any kind to take them.”
“Probably the state,” she said with a humorless smile. “The same state that says what your insurance company just did is okey.”
In New Bronswick New Jersey,, a patient was in the midst of a cancer treatment when her insurance company called and canceled her treatment.
Both patients died before the week was out.
“Well,” aid the minority leader of the Senate at a subsequent victory party. “Our business donors have certainly been expressing their appreciation for undoing mandatory medical care providing, and there have been no adverse effects. No one who matters has died or been permanently incapacitated, as SOME predicted, and the voters certainly look to be happy with us come November, at least the ones that matter, and of course the nobodies that do suffer won't be voting if they're dead or unable to function, so overall it is a win-win for all who really matter. Cheers.”
He raised his glass and all drank deeply to his toast.
The mood in The G.O.P. Headquarters after the vote was jubilant.
“We did it,” said the Minority leader of The House. “We undid Obama Care.”
“Yes,”chimed in his whip. “Good buy to government run Health Care.”
“Amen,”chorused another. “So do we go for Medicare or Medicaid next?”
“Ultimately both,' said the minority leader of the Senate. “But we'll have to turn the American people against each in turn just as we turned them against this before we even bring either up as things to undo. We must tread carefully, for both of those have taken root and become ingrained in people's consciousness and so will be much harder to undo, but we will eventually undo all but private sector run Health Care, since that's the only sector that can really do anything right.”
Everyone there raised a glass to that, and the party went on.
Meanwhile,in New York City, a patient was being prepped for heart surgery when the news of the repeal came through. Five minutes after the news came through, the doctor doing the surgery received a phone call. The staff preparing the patient and the patient himself, the single father of three young children, heard the doctor arguing with the person o the phone for some time, although they could not understand the words. Finally, with one last angry shout, the doctor slammed down the receiver and stormed into the operating room.
“Stop the prep,” she said, to everyone's shock. “His insurance says this is a no go.”
“They can't,” protested the man. “The law now says. . .”
The doctor checked her watch.
“As of eight minutes ago, they can,” she said bitterly. “Because that's the time that Congress repealed decent, affordable health care for all ?Americans.”
“But without this surgery I'll die, said the man. “And then who will take care of my babies? I have no family of any kind to take them.”
“Probably the state,” she said with a humorless smile. “The same state that says what your insurance company just did is okey.”
In New Bronswick New Jersey,, a patient was in the midst of a cancer treatment when her insurance company called and canceled her treatment.
Both patients died before the week was out.
“Well,” aid the minority leader of the Senate at a subsequent victory party. “Our business donors have certainly been expressing their appreciation for undoing mandatory medical care providing, and there have been no adverse effects. No one who matters has died or been permanently incapacitated, as SOME predicted, and the voters certainly look to be happy with us come November, at least the ones that matter, and of course the nobodies that do suffer won't be voting if they're dead or unable to function, so overall it is a win-win for all who really matter. Cheers.”
He raised his glass and all drank deeply to his toast.
Friday, March 4, 2011
ONCE ONE IS BORN, CONSERVATIVES DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HUMAN LIFE
FROM THE WOMB TO THE CRADLE, OR THE GRAVE
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT.
I thought that I would always look back upon the day Joan told me she was pregnant as one of the happiest days of my life. We'd been trying to have a baby for three years. Then, one day near the end of June,2011, she came home from the doctor's office and said, “Great news, Sam. It's not the flu, it's morning sickness. I'm pregnant!” We were both so happy we danced all night, although of course we did not drink. Looking back, I should have known there would be a curve ball, because there always has been in my life.
At Joan's six month check-up, the doctor gave us the grim news. “The fetus is sick,” he said. I couldn't even begin to pronounce the name of the disease she said it had.
“What does that mean?” Joan asked before I could get the words out.
“It means,” said the doctor “that the baby if it is born at all will only live at most a few hours after birth and those few hours will be excruciating for it, because this disease is incurable, extremely painful and always terminal. I should also mention that if you do come to term there may be complications for you as well, Joan.”
“What kind of complications?” we both asked as one.
“It could be nothing, or it could be anything from infertility to terminal for you as well, Joan. I'll leave you two alone to discuss your options.”
Not that there seemed to us to be much to discuss. If the baby was not even certain to come to term and if it did it would die after only a few excruciating hours, and Joan might also die.
“We've decided that I'll have an abortion,” Joan told the doctor when he returned. The words cost us both a lot, given the past three years, but if the baby would only live at most a few agonizing hours and there was no cure for the disease and Joan might also die, and even if she didn't we might never be able to try to have a baby again, there was not a good option, but this was the least bad. At least, that's what we thought.
“There's been a federal injunction against this abortion,” we were told when we arrived at the clinic the day Joan's pregnancy was to be terminated.
“A what?” I asked, dumbfounded, sure that I must have misheard.
“Congress passed what they called an emergency bill last night forbidding Joan from having an abortion,” he said.
Questions of all sorts flooded my mind, the first of which were “How did they know?” and “What business of theirs is our family tragedy?”
“Well, since you are on Medicaid,” said the abortion provider, “Congress asserts that it has the right to say how federal dollars are spent. As for how they found out, I couldn't say.”
But I suddenly realized that I could. “That stranger in the lobby when we saw Doctor Travers,” I said to Joan. “He must have been an agent of the new 'Decency and Morality Police Act'. For people that used to talk about keeping government out of people's lives, this Conservative Congress is sure intrusive into people's personal affairs.” This was not by any means the first of these that I had noticed since January of this year, but it was by far the most extreme.
“What options do we have?” Joan asked the doctor.
“None,” he said.
“None,” agreed the lawyer we contacted next. “We could sue, but the legal process takes longer than the duration of your pregnancy, Joan, even without any bumps, and there are always bumps. You could write to your members of Congress, urging them to lift this injunction, but otherwise...” he trailed off and shook his head.
I knew that both of our senators would have voted against such an absurd and intrusive bill anyway, but I did write to our house member, who wrote back to say that the sanctity of life must be preserved above all.
I wrote back, “You do understand that if this baby is born at all it will only live a few excruciating hours and Joan could also die?”
His response isn't even worth repeating, but I wrote back, “and of course there will be no problem with Medicaid paying for any and all treatment relative to the pregnancy and related matters after the birth?” and I never heard from him again.
As Joan entered her seventh and eighth months, she began to experience great bouts of severe pain, and as the final month of her pregnancy began, she was confined to bed 24/7. Her medical bills began piling up, for there were many that Medicaid refused to pay, and I got no satisfaction from writing to our representative either, no response at all. Yet just enough was paid for to keep Joan alive and pregnant until the day of delivery. One day, near the end of January, 2012, Joan went into labor.
We rushed to the hospital, where, a few hours later, our baby was born, covered in blood and screaming in agony. Soon, Joan was also screaming, as the blood continued to flow from the birth canal.
“Do something for her!” I screamed at the doctor after ten minutes of total inaction on his part.
He faltered. “Sam, I can't. There's been another federal injunction, saying once the baby is born any and all medical expenses must be paid for by you or her, no Medicaid money, and...”
“And we don't have that kind of money and everyone involved knows it,” I finish. “So they forbid us from ending an incredibly high risk pregnancy to deliver a baby who has been in agony since birth and is already starting to turn blue, but once the baby's born we're out in the cold?”
The doctor stares and shakes his head helplessly. “Under the system briefly in place a couple of years ago, insurance might have been different, but Medicaid is a federal program, so the federal government can make the rules as they see fit, and there's nothing we can do until the next election.”
The baby gives one final scream and then goes stiff and gray. Moments later, I hear Joan's death cry and my heart stops beating.
“Until death do us part,” I murmur to myself. “But it shouldn't have been this soon. As for the baby, I guess they only care about it from the womb to the cradle, even if the cradle is a grave.”
The doctor patted my arm in sympathy, then left me alone to mourn my wife of fifteen years and love of my life since childhood and the child I never got to know at all, since her only cradle was to be a grave.
BY MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT.
I thought that I would always look back upon the day Joan told me she was pregnant as one of the happiest days of my life. We'd been trying to have a baby for three years. Then, one day near the end of June,2011, she came home from the doctor's office and said, “Great news, Sam. It's not the flu, it's morning sickness. I'm pregnant!” We were both so happy we danced all night, although of course we did not drink. Looking back, I should have known there would be a curve ball, because there always has been in my life.
At Joan's six month check-up, the doctor gave us the grim news. “The fetus is sick,” he said. I couldn't even begin to pronounce the name of the disease she said it had.
“What does that mean?” Joan asked before I could get the words out.
“It means,” said the doctor “that the baby if it is born at all will only live at most a few hours after birth and those few hours will be excruciating for it, because this disease is incurable, extremely painful and always terminal. I should also mention that if you do come to term there may be complications for you as well, Joan.”
“What kind of complications?” we both asked as one.
“It could be nothing, or it could be anything from infertility to terminal for you as well, Joan. I'll leave you two alone to discuss your options.”
Not that there seemed to us to be much to discuss. If the baby was not even certain to come to term and if it did it would die after only a few excruciating hours, and Joan might also die.
“We've decided that I'll have an abortion,” Joan told the doctor when he returned. The words cost us both a lot, given the past three years, but if the baby would only live at most a few agonizing hours and there was no cure for the disease and Joan might also die, and even if she didn't we might never be able to try to have a baby again, there was not a good option, but this was the least bad. At least, that's what we thought.
“There's been a federal injunction against this abortion,” we were told when we arrived at the clinic the day Joan's pregnancy was to be terminated.
“A what?” I asked, dumbfounded, sure that I must have misheard.
“Congress passed what they called an emergency bill last night forbidding Joan from having an abortion,” he said.
Questions of all sorts flooded my mind, the first of which were “How did they know?” and “What business of theirs is our family tragedy?”
“Well, since you are on Medicaid,” said the abortion provider, “Congress asserts that it has the right to say how federal dollars are spent. As for how they found out, I couldn't say.”
But I suddenly realized that I could. “That stranger in the lobby when we saw Doctor Travers,” I said to Joan. “He must have been an agent of the new 'Decency and Morality Police Act'. For people that used to talk about keeping government out of people's lives, this Conservative Congress is sure intrusive into people's personal affairs.” This was not by any means the first of these that I had noticed since January of this year, but it was by far the most extreme.
“What options do we have?” Joan asked the doctor.
“None,” he said.
“None,” agreed the lawyer we contacted next. “We could sue, but the legal process takes longer than the duration of your pregnancy, Joan, even without any bumps, and there are always bumps. You could write to your members of Congress, urging them to lift this injunction, but otherwise...” he trailed off and shook his head.
I knew that both of our senators would have voted against such an absurd and intrusive bill anyway, but I did write to our house member, who wrote back to say that the sanctity of life must be preserved above all.
I wrote back, “You do understand that if this baby is born at all it will only live a few excruciating hours and Joan could also die?”
His response isn't even worth repeating, but I wrote back, “and of course there will be no problem with Medicaid paying for any and all treatment relative to the pregnancy and related matters after the birth?” and I never heard from him again.
As Joan entered her seventh and eighth months, she began to experience great bouts of severe pain, and as the final month of her pregnancy began, she was confined to bed 24/7. Her medical bills began piling up, for there were many that Medicaid refused to pay, and I got no satisfaction from writing to our representative either, no response at all. Yet just enough was paid for to keep Joan alive and pregnant until the day of delivery. One day, near the end of January, 2012, Joan went into labor.
We rushed to the hospital, where, a few hours later, our baby was born, covered in blood and screaming in agony. Soon, Joan was also screaming, as the blood continued to flow from the birth canal.
“Do something for her!” I screamed at the doctor after ten minutes of total inaction on his part.
He faltered. “Sam, I can't. There's been another federal injunction, saying once the baby is born any and all medical expenses must be paid for by you or her, no Medicaid money, and...”
“And we don't have that kind of money and everyone involved knows it,” I finish. “So they forbid us from ending an incredibly high risk pregnancy to deliver a baby who has been in agony since birth and is already starting to turn blue, but once the baby's born we're out in the cold?”
The doctor stares and shakes his head helplessly. “Under the system briefly in place a couple of years ago, insurance might have been different, but Medicaid is a federal program, so the federal government can make the rules as they see fit, and there's nothing we can do until the next election.”
The baby gives one final scream and then goes stiff and gray. Moments later, I hear Joan's death cry and my heart stops beating.
“Until death do us part,” I murmur to myself. “But it shouldn't have been this soon. As for the baby, I guess they only care about it from the womb to the cradle, even if the cradle is a grave.”
The doctor patted my arm in sympathy, then left me alone to mourn my wife of fifteen years and love of my life since childhood and the child I never got to know at all, since her only cradle was to be a grave.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
WHO CARES IF SICK, POOR KIDS ARE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?
SICK POOR KIDS AN ENDANGERECSPECIES? WHO CARES?
BY
MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
At the capital building of Texas, The Republican controlled House of Representatives met in a closed door session and was gaveled to order by The Speaker.
“Our state faces a budget shortfall of almost a quarter trillion dollars,” he said. “We must have a balanced budget, and since it would be a mortal sin to even discuss raising taxes, we must cut somewhere. Cutting from the top would cost us campaign contributions, so we must cut from the bottom, since they give no campaign contributions anyway.”
“So,” interrupted The Democratic Minority Leader, his conscience not allowing him to remain silent any longer. “You would balance the budget by taking away poor children's right to see a doctor, further endangering those already most at risk if they get sick?”
“It's not like the Human Race is endanger of going extinct,” said The Chair of The Appropriations Committee. “If a few children whose parents refuse to shoulder their responsibility to care for their children when their children are sick die, so be it. It won't cause our species to go extinct.”
“The Human Species no,” came the retort of The Ranking Democrat of The Health and Human Services Committee. “But poor children are becoming something of an endangered subspecies within The Human Species, and taking away their only option for getting Medical Care except for Emergency Room Care, at which point it it is often too late, will further endanger them.”
“Do their parents contribute to our campaigns?” asked The Speaker..
“Of course not,” replied the other. “Their barely scraping by for their own families needs.”
“Are they contributing significantly to society?”
“That depends on your definition of contributing,” replied the other. “Financially, of course not. But in other ways. . .”
“Then who cares even if sick,poor kids are an endangered species? Who cares if they go totally extinct? It would teach their parents to do their jobs and take care of their own, so let it be so if it is so. Who cares about sick, poor kids?”
“I do,” said The Minority Leader, standing.
“So do I,” said another high Ranking Democrat, standing as well.
One by one, every Democrat in the room and a few highly Religious Republicans stood, the last reluctant to break from their party but feeling from their Consciences that their professed Faith compelled them to do so if it was to a Faith of anything more than lip service, a Faith of any real substance.
Even with these defections, however, there were still enough Republican votes in The House to force it through, and so it passed, went to the senate where it passed with even less vocal opposition, even though every single Democrat and a few very Christian Republicans voted against it, and then it was signed by The Governor with no opposition but great fanfare.
“Well,” said The Minority Leader. “I guess that we can add sick, poor children to the endangered species list, at least here in Texas and in the mood sweeping the nation soon the rest of the nation as well.”
His senate counterpart nodded. “They'll be extinct in less than ten years if this keeps up, and it shows no signs of abating.”
All nodded somberly, not knowing how to change this trend, even though they knew they should make the effort.
ENDANGERED CHILDREN JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE POOR AND SICK? HOW ISTHAT LIVING UP TO ANY OF OUR IDEALS? THINK ON IT, AND THINK WELL. HERE I END.
BY
MATTHEW LUCAS BECKETT
At the capital building of Texas, The Republican controlled House of Representatives met in a closed door session and was gaveled to order by The Speaker.
“Our state faces a budget shortfall of almost a quarter trillion dollars,” he said. “We must have a balanced budget, and since it would be a mortal sin to even discuss raising taxes, we must cut somewhere. Cutting from the top would cost us campaign contributions, so we must cut from the bottom, since they give no campaign contributions anyway.”
“So,” interrupted The Democratic Minority Leader, his conscience not allowing him to remain silent any longer. “You would balance the budget by taking away poor children's right to see a doctor, further endangering those already most at risk if they get sick?”
“It's not like the Human Race is endanger of going extinct,” said The Chair of The Appropriations Committee. “If a few children whose parents refuse to shoulder their responsibility to care for their children when their children are sick die, so be it. It won't cause our species to go extinct.”
“The Human Species no,” came the retort of The Ranking Democrat of The Health and Human Services Committee. “But poor children are becoming something of an endangered subspecies within The Human Species, and taking away their only option for getting Medical Care except for Emergency Room Care, at which point it it is often too late, will further endanger them.”
“Do their parents contribute to our campaigns?” asked The Speaker..
“Of course not,” replied the other. “Their barely scraping by for their own families needs.”
“Are they contributing significantly to society?”
“That depends on your definition of contributing,” replied the other. “Financially, of course not. But in other ways. . .”
“Then who cares even if sick,poor kids are an endangered species? Who cares if they go totally extinct? It would teach their parents to do their jobs and take care of their own, so let it be so if it is so. Who cares about sick, poor kids?”
“I do,” said The Minority Leader, standing.
“So do I,” said another high Ranking Democrat, standing as well.
One by one, every Democrat in the room and a few highly Religious Republicans stood, the last reluctant to break from their party but feeling from their Consciences that their professed Faith compelled them to do so if it was to a Faith of anything more than lip service, a Faith of any real substance.
Even with these defections, however, there were still enough Republican votes in The House to force it through, and so it passed, went to the senate where it passed with even less vocal opposition, even though every single Democrat and a few very Christian Republicans voted against it, and then it was signed by The Governor with no opposition but great fanfare.
“Well,” said The Minority Leader. “I guess that we can add sick, poor children to the endangered species list, at least here in Texas and in the mood sweeping the nation soon the rest of the nation as well.”
His senate counterpart nodded. “They'll be extinct in less than ten years if this keeps up, and it shows no signs of abating.”
All nodded somberly, not knowing how to change this trend, even though they knew they should make the effort.
ENDANGERED CHILDREN JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE POOR AND SICK? HOW ISTHAT LIVING UP TO ANY OF OUR IDEALS? THINK ON IT, AND THINK WELL. HERE I END.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
PLUG UP THE DOUGHNUT HOLE
THE DOUGHNUT HOLE.
All the Conservatives and Republicans met in the basement of their headquarters after the first part of the law requiring, decent affordable health care for all went into effect, the ban on private insurance companies denying coverage to minors because of a pe-existing condition.
“We still have until 2014 to stop the law from applying to adults as well,” said Rep. Joe Baillly. “And we may well have control of Congress again before then and so be able to undo this wasteful spending and unnecessary government interference with private business, which was doing just fine and is ALWAYS better than government at anything. Those they wouldn't cover don't deserve to be covered.”
“All true, Joe,” said Micheal McCAll, minority leader of the House. “But we must be careful to avoid seeming against health care for all children, because almost everybody loves children.”
There were many nods to this.
“But we must find a way to ensure that what some call the doughnut hole is never filled in, turning it into a roll.”
There were puzzled looks, and Micheal shrugged.
“I like to eat well. Keep the rabble down so that the rich can have their fill and more is our mantra, after all.”
“Hear, hear,” all chorused, raising imaginary glasses.
“So how do we ensure that this hole is never filled in? Should we take Congress back for the rich in November, it will be easy to just undo law that only takes effect in the future, but we should have a plan, even if we do not take back both chambers, for preventing this law from going fully into effect. It must be our top priority for long term growth of our philosophy.”
Senator Harold Truinkey fell silent as the ancient elder Republican Statesmen Yogdald Brewnecka cleared his throat and slowly stood, black robes billowing out behind him.
“My friends,” he said. “What we must do has many aspects. We must continue the campaign of fewer choices and all the other deceptions that we have been doing. But we must also show the children negatively affected by all having access to a doctor, and if there are none we must create some. Any ideas??”
“Well,”said Joe, “I have a nephew whose been in a wheelchair and unable to speak since he was three because of some medical condition, so I could put him on the web and on TV. and say that his injuries are recent and due to seeing the wrong doctor because of the new law.”
“That's good,” said the ancient man. “What else?”
“I'm a certified doctor, “ said Frank Lunderhurg. “I can easily get into hospitals and ensure that not all new patients make a full recovery, thus showing the new system does not work.”
The ancient man said that this also sounded good.
“I could tell stories of not fully compensated doctors doing a poor job.”
“Is that true?” a young page asked.
The Senator looked up. “Not as far as I know, but the public won't know that.”
“Yes, the public must be made to firmly believe that any and all moves to reform the old system are bad for America,” said Joe.
“Indeed,” said the ancient man. “Well, we seem to have a good solution and a good start on implementing that solution. It is late though, so let us go to bed and dream about this and then plan more in the morning.”
They all agreed and thus the first meeting of The Society to plug up the doughnurt hole before it is filled in was concluded and adjourned.
All the Conservatives and Republicans met in the basement of their headquarters after the first part of the law requiring, decent affordable health care for all went into effect, the ban on private insurance companies denying coverage to minors because of a pe-existing condition.
“We still have until 2014 to stop the law from applying to adults as well,” said Rep. Joe Baillly. “And we may well have control of Congress again before then and so be able to undo this wasteful spending and unnecessary government interference with private business, which was doing just fine and is ALWAYS better than government at anything. Those they wouldn't cover don't deserve to be covered.”
“All true, Joe,” said Micheal McCAll, minority leader of the House. “But we must be careful to avoid seeming against health care for all children, because almost everybody loves children.”
There were many nods to this.
“But we must find a way to ensure that what some call the doughnut hole is never filled in, turning it into a roll.”
There were puzzled looks, and Micheal shrugged.
“I like to eat well. Keep the rabble down so that the rich can have their fill and more is our mantra, after all.”
“Hear, hear,” all chorused, raising imaginary glasses.
“So how do we ensure that this hole is never filled in? Should we take Congress back for the rich in November, it will be easy to just undo law that only takes effect in the future, but we should have a plan, even if we do not take back both chambers, for preventing this law from going fully into effect. It must be our top priority for long term growth of our philosophy.”
Senator Harold Truinkey fell silent as the ancient elder Republican Statesmen Yogdald Brewnecka cleared his throat and slowly stood, black robes billowing out behind him.
“My friends,” he said. “What we must do has many aspects. We must continue the campaign of fewer choices and all the other deceptions that we have been doing. But we must also show the children negatively affected by all having access to a doctor, and if there are none we must create some. Any ideas??”
“Well,”said Joe, “I have a nephew whose been in a wheelchair and unable to speak since he was three because of some medical condition, so I could put him on the web and on TV. and say that his injuries are recent and due to seeing the wrong doctor because of the new law.”
“That's good,” said the ancient man. “What else?”
“I'm a certified doctor, “ said Frank Lunderhurg. “I can easily get into hospitals and ensure that not all new patients make a full recovery, thus showing the new system does not work.”
The ancient man said that this also sounded good.
“I could tell stories of not fully compensated doctors doing a poor job.”
“Is that true?” a young page asked.
The Senator looked up. “Not as far as I know, but the public won't know that.”
“Yes, the public must be made to firmly believe that any and all moves to reform the old system are bad for America,” said Joe.
“Indeed,” said the ancient man. “Well, we seem to have a good solution and a good start on implementing that solution. It is late though, so let us go to bed and dream about this and then plan more in the morning.”
They all agreed and thus the first meeting of The Society to plug up the doughnurt hole before it is filled in was concluded and adjourned.
My Response To The Letter From Senator Cornyn
This is the letter I sent in response to the letter I received from Senator Cornyn
Dear Senator Cornyn,
Thank you for taking the time to write me back regarding my concerns and the concerns of some of my friends regarding health care reform. I have sent a paper letter on this matter to both you and Senator Hutchison, as well as numerous E-mails to both of you as well as Governor Perry, Lt. Governor Dewhurst and Attorney General Abbott, and you are the only one who has had the courtesy to send me a real response, which I very much appreciate.
You say in your letter that you often hear the frustrations of Texans struggling to meet their health care needs in the current system. I am certainly one of those Texans, as I am sure you realize. I appreciate that you are open to hearing this frustration and understand the need for real health care reform. However, obviously we have a difference of opinion about exactly what kind of reform is needed and what the new law now in effect does and does not do about these needs.
You say that the new law will spend $2.6 Trillion over the ten years starting in 2014. Because I got hit by a car in the summer of 1984, wen I was eight years old, the only health insurance that I have been able to retain since becoming to old to be covered through my parents is The Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool, and while it is far better than nothing,, it is required by Texas Law to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, which means with them I paid $469 a month last year, for a yearly total of $5,628 and since it goes up every year to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, it will be even more this year, plus there was an additional increase when I turned thirty-five last November. I realize that at face value this is much less than a tenth of half a trillion dollars, but for an individual or an individual family it is quite a bit. Because of my preexisting medical condition, however, under pre2010 Law, there was no other option for me, no competition, no choice, it was The Risk Pool or no health insurance at all. Even at that rate, the lowest deductible I could get was $1,000, which meant my parents and I had to pay all of a recent $735 Physical Therapy Bill entirely out of pocket, so even though my left arm, my favored hand, is now hurting again, as you can imagine I am reluctant to seek further treatment. Under the new law, come 2014, I could shop for a better rate without facing that kind of discrimination and probably get a plan with a low enough deductible to seek further treatment while still paying a lower premium.
You also say in your letter that the new legislation raises taxes by more than half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, negatively impacting job growth and the economy when in fact if employers have lower health care costs, as they will under this new law, they will hire more, not less, so job growth will increase and the economy improve. Certainly if premiums continue to skyrocket, as they will without action, and a repeal would mean inaction at least for a time, employers will hire less or not offer health insurance at all, which would put all the burden on the individual. If everyone has to buy insurance, insurance companies will have a broader base to draw from and so can make the same amount of money with lower rates to other businesses and to individuals and individual families, driving down business and individual costs and thus increasing hiring while allowing companies to offer health insurance benefits, positively impacting job growth and the economy.
You say that the new law will create substantially higher and broader Medicare payroll taxes, which could harm small businesses, new taxes on medical treatments, which will ultimately mean higher costs for patients, and new taxes on health care benefits. But elsewhere you say that Medicare is nearly bankrupt, so if we are to keep our promise to our current Seniors, as I know we all want to do, is not paying more into the system the best and really only solution, and there are exemptions written into the law for small businesses which you know as well as I do. Are the higher costs you are talking about higher than the $735 Physical Therapy Bill that my parents and I had to pay entirely out of pocket as discussed above? Since my preexisting condition could not be used as a barrier under the new law, I could have a deductible low enough that at least some of my therapy would have been paid for, while still paying a lower premium than $469 a month,
You say this law will nearly bankrupt Medicare to create a new entitlement program, which to me suggests that you do not think those of us with preexisting medical conditions are entitled to decent, affordable health care. Also, as I said above, how can it increase the Medicare Taxes and yet take funds away from Medicare? Furthermore, perhaps some people who are on Medicare because of a disabling medical condition and not because of age could get off Medicare and onto Private Insurance under the new law, since it does not in fact create a whole new government insurance plan, particularly without the Public Option which was left out of the final bill, but instead requires that the private insurance market treat all Americans,even those of us with preexisting medical conditions, with dignity and respect.
You also say that that half of those gaining coverage under the new law,approximately 16 million Americans, will have Medicaid as their only option, and that 24 million Americans will still be without health insurance under the new law, but Medicaid is certainly better than nothing, and less expensive for individuals than the risk pool. It is also cheaper than The Emergency Room, which is where people without insurance often get treated, and only when their condition is much more expensive to treat than it would have been if a doctor caught it earlier. Leaving 24 million Americans uninsured is certainly not perfect, but if 56 million Americans are currently without health insurance, that's a far better number, plus the rest could be taken care of in future legislation, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and scrap a law that gives 32 million more Americans access to decent, affordable health insurance simply because it does not cover 100% of uninsured people. In a story I have heard told several times, a boy is walking along the beech throwing washed up star fish back into the ocean. A man walks up to him and says “Why are you bothering? You cant possibly make a difference for all of them?” The boy looks at the star fish in his hand and says “makes a difference to this one,” and tosses it. Maybe the new law does not help everybody, but if it helps some it makes a difference to them and is still a step in the right direction, and so we should not scrap it and start all over, we've talked about health care reform since the 1970s, and if we scrap this law and start all over, it could be another forty years before anything gets done. Instead, let's leave the new law in place and improve upon it where it needs improvement, but leave in place what is good, like the ban on preexisting conditions exclusions. Since none of the common sense ideas for reform on your web page even mention preexisting conditions, how would they achieve a remaining number of uninsured Americans lower than 24 million of the approximately 56 million uninsured under the old system?
You say that the dramatic expansion of Medicaid noted above will force state taxpayers to spend even more money, which for Texas is around 27 billion dollars, over the next decade, but what would we spend on Emergency Room care for uninsured people over the same period without the new law? We pay for the treatment of those who cannot pay for their own medical treatment one way or another , and a doctor visit that addresses a medical issue early on costs a lot less than an emergency room visit.
You note in your letter that health care premiums have more than doubled in the past ten years, and since The Risk Pool is required by Texas Law to always be twice as expensive as comparable,private coverage, my premiums have gone up twice that much. Under the profits driven old system, however, I have no choice, no competition, no alternative, no other options. Since I got hit by a car when I was eight years old, it is my only option. Under the new system I could shop for a better rate than $469 a month, probably with a low enough deductible that a $735 Physical Therapy bill could be at least partially covered.
You also say that the new law does nothing to address rising health care costs, when in fact it does, at least for those of us with preexisting health conditions and other barriers to purchasing private insurance under the old system, because if I can shop for a competitive rate rather than having The Risk Pool as my only option, my costs, and the costs of others in my situation, will go down, and with the opportunity to purchase a plan with a lower rate and a lower deductible, I could have medical treatments at least partially paid for that currently I cannot, so my costs and the costs of others in my situation would go down. With a broader base to draw from, Insurance Companies will be able to make the same amount of money with lower rates, so everyone's costs will go down.
You say in your letter that according to The congressional Budget Office, small businesses will continue to face status quo premium increases and premiums for families purchasing insurance on their own will increase by 10 to 13 percent in addition to the status quo. While this could prove true for some, in fact everyone will have the ability to shop around for a competitive rate, rather than the only one option some of us currently have under the profits/money first system, so as insurance companies face competition for everyone's business, including those of us with preexisting health conditions, rates will by necessity of staying in business ultimately decrease for everyone. Plus, as you know as well as I do, there are elements of the new law specifically designed to help small businesses with the new requirements, and in any case, the primary need for health care reform has always been to increase access to care, not just to lower monetary costs.
Your letter mentions that The Obama Administration's own Chief Actuary issued a report saying that national health expenditures will increase rather than decrease under the new law, and while on a strictly face value basis this statement may be true, it will only be because more people will be able to afford necessary and in some cases life saving medical treatments and so will be receiving them. So yes, with more people getting medical care, there will be more medical/health expenditures, but more people receiving medical treatment when needed seems to me like a positive, not a negative, outcome of the new law. These will not be expenditures for anyone but the patients, so for any privately insured person, as more of us will be able to be under the new law, this will not cost the public anything. Medicaid will, but so would The Emergency Room Care such people would receive if they were treated at all under the old system, and Emergency Room Care would be even more expensive. So there will be more overall Medical Expenditures, but only because more people will be seeking and receiving treatment.
So in fact the new law will in many ways lower financial costs for health care at an individual and broader level. However, the primary purpose of health care reform was always to help the 56 million uninsured and the under insured obtain decent, affordable health care, addressing the Human cost of/problems with the old system and put people before money, not strictly to lower the overall monetary costs but do nothing to help people adversely effected by the old, profits over people, system. People should always come before money, and the Human Life Expenditure of going back to a system where insurance companies can deny coverage and or treatment to someone because of a preexisting health condition or other restriction far outweighs any financial expenditures the new law may add to the public budget, which many will not, as I already pointed out. Human life outweighs money in every moral tradition in history and in the world today, and so spending even $227Billion at a state wide level to make sure that every Texan has access to decent, affordable health care is a very small price to pay in the broader scheme of things. As I said earlier, I spent close to $5,600 on premiums alone last year, and without the preexisting conditions exclusion ban in the new law but not in any of your suggestions, will spend even more in the coming year if the new law is repealed, with annual Risk Pool Rae Increases to ensure that I always pay twice the amount of comparable, private coverage.
I understand the financial cost of the old system is great, but The Greater Cost is The Human Cost. Being forced to pay Risk Pool rates and get risk Pool benefits simply because I got hit by a car at eight years old, this despite the fact that the last time I was an overnight patient in the hospital was the following summer, when I was nine years old, when I had a bone regrowth corrective plate removed from my leg since the bone had healed, dehumanizes me and everyone else the industry model deems unworthy of private coverage. Under a key provision of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, come 2014 my application for private health insurance could not be denied because of my preexisting health condition and so I would not be subject to this kind of discrimination. This law, therefore, restores those of us with preexisting conditions to full Human Beings with all the rights of full Human Beings, giving us a fair and level playing field on which to compete and an open market in which to shop. Having read all of the common sense reforms on your web page, I saw nothing that would help those of us with preexisting health conditions, in fact the matter was never even mentioned, and to me banning the preexisting conditions exclusion is the most common sense health care reform that there could possibly be. In your letter and on your web page, you focus on the monetary costs of the old and new systems and you say that because the new system does not do enough to lower the monetary cost it should be scrapped and more time spent working towards a solution. Your calculations, however, fail to take into account the far greater cost of the old system and of undoing the new system, namely The Human Cost, which every moral tradition in history and in the world today always ranks far above any monetary costs. As someone who was unable to retain private insurance under the old system but could under the new system, every time I hear talk of undoing the new system, it gives me the impression that my life is regarded as worth less than the lives of those without preexisting health conditions and worth less than money. The fact that the bill to repeal the new law is called The Government aste and Overreach Act leaves me with the impression that my life and the lives of everyone else with preexisting Health Conditions are regarded as waste, reinforcing tie above impression. Below is a scanned copy of my cancellation of coverage letter from Golden Rule, which my impression is those who oppose the new law regard as perfectly fair and correct. If these are inaccurate impressions, please explain to me how so?
GoldenRule8
December 17, 2001
Matthew L Beckett
3806BrookfieldDr
Arlington TX 76001-5282
Identification No.: 054514928
Insured: Matthew Beckett
Claimant: Matthew Beckett
Dear Mr. Beckett:
Your request for benefits has been reviewed very carefully.
Before an insurance certificate can be issued, it is necessary that a formal application be
completed. This is the only thing we have to tell us if an applicant is eligible and if a
certificate can be issued.
If the application is approved, a copy of it is attached and made part of the certificate.
This is done so the insured can check the answers and notify the company if any are
incorrect. On the front of the certificate there is a warning, in bold face type, to "Check
the Attached Application." The warning goes on to state, "Please read the copy of the
application attached to your policy. If it is not complete or has an error, please let us
know immediately. An incorrect application may cause your coverage under the policy
to be voided or a claim to be reduced or denied."
During the course of investigating your claim, medical records were requested and
received from Dr. Bradley Wasson at Family Health care Associates and Hanger
Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. These medical records indicate significant medical history
that was not reported on your application for insurance coverage. The medical records
from Dr. Wasson indicate that you have a history of a closed head injury with residual
neurological disorders, wasting of the muscles in your right hand and a decrease in the
right kidney function. You were seen on November 22, 1999, with indication of
hyperreflexive reflexes and on December 4, 2000, (the day before you completed your
application) with notation ofcontractures developing on both feet. You were then
Golden Rule Insurance Company
Home Office
712 Eleventh Street
Lawrenceville, Illinois 62439
¥S- (618)943-8000
www.goldenrule.com
Golden Rule Insurance Company
Golden Rule Building
7440 Woodland Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana 46278-1719
¥S" (317) 297-4123
www.goldenrule.com
Matthew L Beckett
Page 2
December 17, 2001
referred for a walking stick/cane evaluation. If you would like to review your medical
records, please contact Dr. Wasson.
According to this information, your response to the following application questions
were incorrect or incomplete: 17, 18d, 2 Id, 23 and 28. Enclosed is a copy of the
application for your reference.
Based on the above, material misstatements were made on your application for
insurance. Therefore, Golden Rule is exercising its right to rescind your coverage.
Your certificate has been voided; it has been set aside from the date of issue, as though
it was never in effect. Any premium presently in the collection system, as well as all
other premiums paid, will be refunded to you shortly.
The claims submitted for you are currently being denied due to the voidance of your
certificate. In addition, we reserve all rights under the contract of insurance including
those under the Preexisting Conditions provision.
Failure to cash your premium refund check will be deemed a rejection of our
decision to void your coverage. Golden Rule may then file a declaratory judgment
action in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine our rights under the
policy/certificate.
Golden Rule will no longer be able to collect your Federation of American Consumers
and Travelers (FACT) membership dues. To avoid any concerns you may have about
your refund amount, your premium refund check includes the amount we collected on
behalf of FACT. We have not recovered this amount from FACT. You are still a
member. If you wish to remain a member, you should arrange to send your payments
directly to FACT. Their toll free number is 1-800-USA-FACT (1-800-272-3228), or
you may write to them at:
FACT
Membership Service Office
P.O. Box 104
Edwardsville, IL 62025
You also mention being disappointed in the process under which health care reform was done. You claim this legislation was developed behind closed doors rather than through an open and transparent process allowing careful consideration of complex legislation affecting all 300 million Americans, when in fact the original bills in each Chamber were not, were they? If they were not openly and carefully considered, why did it take nine months to get bills? The Reconciliation was
done in closed door sessions, but how many times have Republicans done the same with controversial legislation? The Chaney Energy Task Force,for instance,comes to mind. Those who live in glass houses should think carefully before throwing stones. You also say that it was passed with political payoffs, which again brings The Bush Energy Bill and glass houses to mind. You say that after Massachusetts sent Senator Scott Brown to Washington in January, the seldom used reconciliation tactic was used to pass health care reform without full consideration and debate. But that's not really being very honest, is it? Because The House and Senate Bills were fully considered and debated, weren't they? Furthermore, Reconciliation means that there were minimal differences between what passed the senate and the final bill, in fact, as I understand it, The House merely passed The Senate Bill exactly as it was, and so saying that it had not been fully considered and debated is not really true, s it? Also, how many times have Republicans used Reconciliation to pass controversial legislation?
You say that Reconciliation was used to enact t a $2.6 trillion new entitlement program. The new law, however,, leaves the private insurance system intact, it merely compels them to treat all Americans, even those of us with preexisting health conditions and other barriers to purchasing private insurance under the old system, with dignity and respect. It does not put all of us on a government plan, it merely says that that private insurance companies have to give us reasonable coverage at a reasonable rate. If by entitlement program you mean that I think I am entitled to be treated with dignity and respect by an insurance company and not be denied the opportunity to seek reasonable coverage at a reasonable rate in the private market simply because I got hit b a car twenty-seven years ago and that others with preexisting health conditions should also not be denied this opportunity, then I guess one might call this an entitlement program. Typically, however, entitlement program refers to government run and funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and since the new law leaves the private insurance market in place and merely says that it can no longer discriminate against those of us with preexisting health conditions, please explain to me how this is an entitlement program under that definition.
You say you understand the current system needs reform and do not believe the status quo is acceptable, but it seems to me you see only the financial costs of the old and new systems, while to me the much greater cost of the old system is The Human cost. The old system puts money above people, reducing those of us deemed unprofitable to an almost subhuman status in relation to health care, and without a ban on the preexisting conditions exclusion and a mechanism to enforce and ensure it, which The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health care and Education Reconciliation Act provide but nothing I found on your website or have heard from any other Republicans does, we will continue in this status, and that, to me, is the truly greatest need in changing the status quo.
You say that you believe The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be repealed and replaced with realistic reforms that lower health care costs, address entitlement spending, and increase access to to health care coverage, but without a preexisting conditions exclusions ban, the costs for those of us with preexisting conditions will not be lowered and our access to care will continue to be limited and shrink every year as our rates continue to go up to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage while being legally unable to offer lower deductibles than $1,000, making $735 Physical Therapy Bills only paid by patients, making further therapy not affordable even if necessary, and none of what is on your website nor what I have heard from other Republicans even mentions addressing the preexisting health conditions problem.
You also fail to mention that Senate Bill 3152 to repeal The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is called The Government Overreach and Waste Bill. Is this because you do not want me to get the impression that you consider me and everyone else with preexisting health conditions waste? Because that is certainly the impression that I do get. Republican opposition to Health Care Reform from day one and the fact that none of the common sense reforms on your website address preexisting conditions at all give me the distinct impression that Conservatives value money above my life and the life of everyone else with a preexisting health condition, and using the word Waste in the name of the bill to repeal the new law does nothing to dissuade me of this view. If this is an incorrect view of your party's position, please explain to me how so.
You say that the right kind of reform will emphasize individual choice, and trusting patients, their families and their doctors-not insurance company or government bureaucrats- to make health care decisions. At present I am limited because the lowest deductible I could get with The Risk Pool even at no more than twice the rate of comparable, private coverage, was $1,000, and so I had to pay all of a recent $735 physical therapy bill for some tendonitus in my left arm entirely out of pocket and so even though my left arm, my favored hand, is now hurting again, I am reluctant to seek further treatment. None of what you call the common sense reforms on your website would give me an individual choice or trust me, my family and my doctor, to make decisions on this because none of it says anything about addressing the preexisting conditions exclusions of private insurance companies under the old system, and without that I will not have a choice, it will be The Risk Pool or nothing, no competition, no alternatives, no individual choice,no leaving health care decisions to me, my family and my doctor, it will all be about what can I afford on a $1,000 deductible, particularly with my high premiums. Also, the new law in no way gives government bureaucrats the ability to make health care decisions about patients, it merely says that insurance companies cannot make such decisions and that they must be left in the hands of patients, their families and their doctors, not an insurance company bureaucrat who would think more about the financial good of the company than the good health of the patient. I encourage you to visit my blog avoiceinthewilderness-wildvoicenet.blogspot.com and read 'THE SYSTEM SOME SAY NEEDS NO REFORM',the oldest post, to see an example of how insurance company bureaucrats make health care decisions. It is a work of fiction, and there is some exaggeration in it, but the attitude towards Mark McCall expressed by the insurance agents is, I believe, an accurate portrayal of the way the old system worked, in putting profits ahead of patients. The true crux of the problem with the old system was that it did put money before people. So while I understand that reducing monetary costs is important, I believe the much more important matter is to reduce the human cost, which I believe the new law does while none of the alternatives I have seen and heard proposed by Republicans do. Is the new law perfect? I'm sure it's not, but it's a vast improvement over the old system, and as someone who lives with a preexisting health condition because I got hit by a car when I was eight years old, I say let's keep the new law and improve upon it, not repeal it and replace it with some other legislation that does nothing for those of us with preexisting health conditions and so while addressing the financial cost of the old system does nothing to rectify the human cost, which is a far greater cost by all historic and present moral systems in the world.
You say that health care affects every American and you believe that we need to get it right. I agree with both of those statements, and as just stated I'm sure the new law is not perfect. However, there are many Americans adversely effected by the preexisting conditions exclusions currently on many private plans, and the new law bans such discrimination, and as one of those Americans, I believe in that respect at least, the new law does get it right, and in not seeking to address this problem, Republican ideas on Health Care Reform get it wrong. I have to ask, is your opinion that we did not get it right this time grounded more in the substance of the new law or in the fact that it was put forward by a Democratic President, regardless of what is best for the country and the people?
I have visited your website and looked at what you call the 'common sense' reforms you support. You want patients to have more control over their health care. I want that too. Under the old system, big business controlled it and since I was deemed to be an unprofitable patient, I could not obtain private insurance, which left the risk pool as my only option, and while it is far better than nothing, above I have discussed the premiums I pay on and deductible I can get with it and so I obviously do not have much control over my health care under the current system and have no other options, no competition, no market choice. Under the new system, I could not be denied care because such a plan with such a deductible was my only option because I got hit by a car twenty-seven years ago, so if the new system is undone, what specifically are you proposing as an alternative to the preexisting conditions exclusions ban in the new law that would make sure that I as a patient had control over my health care and not a system that only gives me one option for a health insurance provider or a business model that values money above human life?
Access to information so that I can make informed decisions with my doctor sounds good, but what specifically are you proposing to do for that that the new law does not?
I want a choice of providers too, but at present all I can get is The Risk Pool. Under the new law come 2014 I will be able to shop around. What specifically are you proposing that would do that for me if the new law is undone?
I want patients, including myself, to be treated fairly too, the old system does not. It being illegal to deny coverage or care because of preexisting health conditions does treat me fairly, so as an alternative to Justice Care, what specifically are you proposing to help me with this NOW, not after another decade or two of study? Lower premiums and higher paychecks sounds good, but what specifically would you do to help this? As a Christian, if I need to pay more in taxes to Caesar to ensure that 'The Least of Those Among' us get taken care of when sick, I for one am willing to do so, and I believe inaction or further delays on this justice will create a much larger moral debt for this nation.
A “public plan” for all was never what was being proposed this time and we both know it, don't we? A public option (and by the way what is your insurance plan?) would give people an alternative so that if insurance companies went back to business/money over people, people like me would have had somewhere else to go, which would have insured tat big business did become once more the driving force for health care, since they would have lost a lot of customers if it did.
I have delay of treatment and denial of care right now under the old system. I recently had tendonitus in my left arm, my favored hand, and attended physical therapy for a time. My arm pain stopped for awhile, but now it has returned. However, after having to pay all of a $735 physical therapy bill entirely out of pocket because the lowest deductible I could get on The Risk Pool for even just the twice as expensive as comparable,private coverage rate was $1,000, I am reluctant to seek further treatment. If I could obtain private insurance, as I can come 2014 under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I would have options, some of which would make this not be the case, so what specifically are you proposing that would help me in this area now?
There are provisions of the new law that help small businesses with the mandate, and big companies should provide benefits anyway, which would be cheaper if all bought insurance since insurance companies would have a bigger pool to draw from and so could make the same amount of money at lower rates for everyone.
You say the new law will result in lower wages and fewer jobs. In fact, it will only be lower wages because with health care costing less, companies won't need to give workers as high health care benefits, and fewer jobs only because people will not feel that thy must stay tethered to a job just to keep health care benefits, which under the old system many did, particularly those with already sick family members, which could give people more time with sick family members.
Cutting down on fraud sounds good, but does not really do anything about the preexisting conditions exclusions, which is the true heart of the real need for reform, and allegations of fraud seem much more widespread than actual evidence of it.
I appreciate you at least having the courtesy to respond to my correspondence
Sincerely,
Matthew Lucas Beckett
Dear Senator Cornyn,
Thank you for taking the time to write me back regarding my concerns and the concerns of some of my friends regarding health care reform. I have sent a paper letter on this matter to both you and Senator Hutchison, as well as numerous E-mails to both of you as well as Governor Perry, Lt. Governor Dewhurst and Attorney General Abbott, and you are the only one who has had the courtesy to send me a real response, which I very much appreciate.
You say in your letter that you often hear the frustrations of Texans struggling to meet their health care needs in the current system. I am certainly one of those Texans, as I am sure you realize. I appreciate that you are open to hearing this frustration and understand the need for real health care reform. However, obviously we have a difference of opinion about exactly what kind of reform is needed and what the new law now in effect does and does not do about these needs.
You say that the new law will spend $2.6 Trillion over the ten years starting in 2014. Because I got hit by a car in the summer of 1984, wen I was eight years old, the only health insurance that I have been able to retain since becoming to old to be covered through my parents is The Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool, and while it is far better than nothing,, it is required by Texas Law to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, which means with them I paid $469 a month last year, for a yearly total of $5,628 and since it goes up every year to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage, it will be even more this year, plus there was an additional increase when I turned thirty-five last November. I realize that at face value this is much less than a tenth of half a trillion dollars, but for an individual or an individual family it is quite a bit. Because of my preexisting medical condition, however, under pre2010 Law, there was no other option for me, no competition, no choice, it was The Risk Pool or no health insurance at all. Even at that rate, the lowest deductible I could get was $1,000, which meant my parents and I had to pay all of a recent $735 Physical Therapy Bill entirely out of pocket, so even though my left arm, my favored hand, is now hurting again, as you can imagine I am reluctant to seek further treatment. Under the new law, come 2014, I could shop for a better rate without facing that kind of discrimination and probably get a plan with a low enough deductible to seek further treatment while still paying a lower premium.
You also say in your letter that the new legislation raises taxes by more than half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, negatively impacting job growth and the economy when in fact if employers have lower health care costs, as they will under this new law, they will hire more, not less, so job growth will increase and the economy improve. Certainly if premiums continue to skyrocket, as they will without action, and a repeal would mean inaction at least for a time, employers will hire less or not offer health insurance at all, which would put all the burden on the individual. If everyone has to buy insurance, insurance companies will have a broader base to draw from and so can make the same amount of money with lower rates to other businesses and to individuals and individual families, driving down business and individual costs and thus increasing hiring while allowing companies to offer health insurance benefits, positively impacting job growth and the economy.
You say that the new law will create substantially higher and broader Medicare payroll taxes, which could harm small businesses, new taxes on medical treatments, which will ultimately mean higher costs for patients, and new taxes on health care benefits. But elsewhere you say that Medicare is nearly bankrupt, so if we are to keep our promise to our current Seniors, as I know we all want to do, is not paying more into the system the best and really only solution, and there are exemptions written into the law for small businesses which you know as well as I do. Are the higher costs you are talking about higher than the $735 Physical Therapy Bill that my parents and I had to pay entirely out of pocket as discussed above? Since my preexisting condition could not be used as a barrier under the new law, I could have a deductible low enough that at least some of my therapy would have been paid for, while still paying a lower premium than $469 a month,
You say this law will nearly bankrupt Medicare to create a new entitlement program, which to me suggests that you do not think those of us with preexisting medical conditions are entitled to decent, affordable health care. Also, as I said above, how can it increase the Medicare Taxes and yet take funds away from Medicare? Furthermore, perhaps some people who are on Medicare because of a disabling medical condition and not because of age could get off Medicare and onto Private Insurance under the new law, since it does not in fact create a whole new government insurance plan, particularly without the Public Option which was left out of the final bill, but instead requires that the private insurance market treat all Americans,even those of us with preexisting medical conditions, with dignity and respect.
You also say that that half of those gaining coverage under the new law,approximately 16 million Americans, will have Medicaid as their only option, and that 24 million Americans will still be without health insurance under the new law, but Medicaid is certainly better than nothing, and less expensive for individuals than the risk pool. It is also cheaper than The Emergency Room, which is where people without insurance often get treated, and only when their condition is much more expensive to treat than it would have been if a doctor caught it earlier. Leaving 24 million Americans uninsured is certainly not perfect, but if 56 million Americans are currently without health insurance, that's a far better number, plus the rest could be taken care of in future legislation, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and scrap a law that gives 32 million more Americans access to decent, affordable health insurance simply because it does not cover 100% of uninsured people. In a story I have heard told several times, a boy is walking along the beech throwing washed up star fish back into the ocean. A man walks up to him and says “Why are you bothering? You cant possibly make a difference for all of them?” The boy looks at the star fish in his hand and says “makes a difference to this one,” and tosses it. Maybe the new law does not help everybody, but if it helps some it makes a difference to them and is still a step in the right direction, and so we should not scrap it and start all over, we've talked about health care reform since the 1970s, and if we scrap this law and start all over, it could be another forty years before anything gets done. Instead, let's leave the new law in place and improve upon it where it needs improvement, but leave in place what is good, like the ban on preexisting conditions exclusions. Since none of the common sense ideas for reform on your web page even mention preexisting conditions, how would they achieve a remaining number of uninsured Americans lower than 24 million of the approximately 56 million uninsured under the old system?
You say that the dramatic expansion of Medicaid noted above will force state taxpayers to spend even more money, which for Texas is around 27 billion dollars, over the next decade, but what would we spend on Emergency Room care for uninsured people over the same period without the new law? We pay for the treatment of those who cannot pay for their own medical treatment one way or another , and a doctor visit that addresses a medical issue early on costs a lot less than an emergency room visit.
You note in your letter that health care premiums have more than doubled in the past ten years, and since The Risk Pool is required by Texas Law to always be twice as expensive as comparable,private coverage, my premiums have gone up twice that much. Under the profits driven old system, however, I have no choice, no competition, no alternative, no other options. Since I got hit by a car when I was eight years old, it is my only option. Under the new system I could shop for a better rate than $469 a month, probably with a low enough deductible that a $735 Physical Therapy bill could be at least partially covered.
You also say that the new law does nothing to address rising health care costs, when in fact it does, at least for those of us with preexisting health conditions and other barriers to purchasing private insurance under the old system, because if I can shop for a competitive rate rather than having The Risk Pool as my only option, my costs, and the costs of others in my situation, will go down, and with the opportunity to purchase a plan with a lower rate and a lower deductible, I could have medical treatments at least partially paid for that currently I cannot, so my costs and the costs of others in my situation would go down. With a broader base to draw from, Insurance Companies will be able to make the same amount of money with lower rates, so everyone's costs will go down.
You say in your letter that according to The congressional Budget Office, small businesses will continue to face status quo premium increases and premiums for families purchasing insurance on their own will increase by 10 to 13 percent in addition to the status quo. While this could prove true for some, in fact everyone will have the ability to shop around for a competitive rate, rather than the only one option some of us currently have under the profits/money first system, so as insurance companies face competition for everyone's business, including those of us with preexisting health conditions, rates will by necessity of staying in business ultimately decrease for everyone. Plus, as you know as well as I do, there are elements of the new law specifically designed to help small businesses with the new requirements, and in any case, the primary need for health care reform has always been to increase access to care, not just to lower monetary costs.
Your letter mentions that The Obama Administration's own Chief Actuary issued a report saying that national health expenditures will increase rather than decrease under the new law, and while on a strictly face value basis this statement may be true, it will only be because more people will be able to afford necessary and in some cases life saving medical treatments and so will be receiving them. So yes, with more people getting medical care, there will be more medical/health expenditures, but more people receiving medical treatment when needed seems to me like a positive, not a negative, outcome of the new law. These will not be expenditures for anyone but the patients, so for any privately insured person, as more of us will be able to be under the new law, this will not cost the public anything. Medicaid will, but so would The Emergency Room Care such people would receive if they were treated at all under the old system, and Emergency Room Care would be even more expensive. So there will be more overall Medical Expenditures, but only because more people will be seeking and receiving treatment.
So in fact the new law will in many ways lower financial costs for health care at an individual and broader level. However, the primary purpose of health care reform was always to help the 56 million uninsured and the under insured obtain decent, affordable health care, addressing the Human cost of/problems with the old system and put people before money, not strictly to lower the overall monetary costs but do nothing to help people adversely effected by the old, profits over people, system. People should always come before money, and the Human Life Expenditure of going back to a system where insurance companies can deny coverage and or treatment to someone because of a preexisting health condition or other restriction far outweighs any financial expenditures the new law may add to the public budget, which many will not, as I already pointed out. Human life outweighs money in every moral tradition in history and in the world today, and so spending even $227Billion at a state wide level to make sure that every Texan has access to decent, affordable health care is a very small price to pay in the broader scheme of things. As I said earlier, I spent close to $5,600 on premiums alone last year, and without the preexisting conditions exclusion ban in the new law but not in any of your suggestions, will spend even more in the coming year if the new law is repealed, with annual Risk Pool Rae Increases to ensure that I always pay twice the amount of comparable, private coverage.
I understand the financial cost of the old system is great, but The Greater Cost is The Human Cost. Being forced to pay Risk Pool rates and get risk Pool benefits simply because I got hit by a car at eight years old, this despite the fact that the last time I was an overnight patient in the hospital was the following summer, when I was nine years old, when I had a bone regrowth corrective plate removed from my leg since the bone had healed, dehumanizes me and everyone else the industry model deems unworthy of private coverage. Under a key provision of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, come 2014 my application for private health insurance could not be denied because of my preexisting health condition and so I would not be subject to this kind of discrimination. This law, therefore, restores those of us with preexisting conditions to full Human Beings with all the rights of full Human Beings, giving us a fair and level playing field on which to compete and an open market in which to shop. Having read all of the common sense reforms on your web page, I saw nothing that would help those of us with preexisting health conditions, in fact the matter was never even mentioned, and to me banning the preexisting conditions exclusion is the most common sense health care reform that there could possibly be. In your letter and on your web page, you focus on the monetary costs of the old and new systems and you say that because the new system does not do enough to lower the monetary cost it should be scrapped and more time spent working towards a solution. Your calculations, however, fail to take into account the far greater cost of the old system and of undoing the new system, namely The Human Cost, which every moral tradition in history and in the world today always ranks far above any monetary costs. As someone who was unable to retain private insurance under the old system but could under the new system, every time I hear talk of undoing the new system, it gives me the impression that my life is regarded as worth less than the lives of those without preexisting health conditions and worth less than money. The fact that the bill to repeal the new law is called The Government aste and Overreach Act leaves me with the impression that my life and the lives of everyone else with preexisting Health Conditions are regarded as waste, reinforcing tie above impression. Below is a scanned copy of my cancellation of coverage letter from Golden Rule, which my impression is those who oppose the new law regard as perfectly fair and correct. If these are inaccurate impressions, please explain to me how so?
GoldenRule8
December 17, 2001
Matthew L Beckett
3806BrookfieldDr
Arlington TX 76001-5282
Identification No.: 054514928
Insured: Matthew Beckett
Claimant: Matthew Beckett
Dear Mr. Beckett:
Your request for benefits has been reviewed very carefully.
Before an insurance certificate can be issued, it is necessary that a formal application be
completed. This is the only thing we have to tell us if an applicant is eligible and if a
certificate can be issued.
If the application is approved, a copy of it is attached and made part of the certificate.
This is done so the insured can check the answers and notify the company if any are
incorrect. On the front of the certificate there is a warning, in bold face type, to "Check
the Attached Application." The warning goes on to state, "Please read the copy of the
application attached to your policy. If it is not complete or has an error, please let us
know immediately. An incorrect application may cause your coverage under the policy
to be voided or a claim to be reduced or denied."
During the course of investigating your claim, medical records were requested and
received from Dr. Bradley Wasson at Family Health care Associates and Hanger
Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. These medical records indicate significant medical history
that was not reported on your application for insurance coverage. The medical records
from Dr. Wasson indicate that you have a history of a closed head injury with residual
neurological disorders, wasting of the muscles in your right hand and a decrease in the
right kidney function. You were seen on November 22, 1999, with indication of
hyperreflexive reflexes and on December 4, 2000, (the day before you completed your
application) with notation ofcontractures developing on both feet. You were then
Golden Rule Insurance Company
Home Office
712 Eleventh Street
Lawrenceville, Illinois 62439
¥S- (618)943-8000
www.goldenrule.com
Golden Rule Insurance Company
Golden Rule Building
7440 Woodland Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana 46278-1719
¥S" (317) 297-4123
www.goldenrule.com
Matthew L Beckett
Page 2
December 17, 2001
referred for a walking stick/cane evaluation. If you would like to review your medical
records, please contact Dr. Wasson.
According to this information, your response to the following application questions
were incorrect or incomplete: 17, 18d, 2 Id, 23 and 28. Enclosed is a copy of the
application for your reference.
Based on the above, material misstatements were made on your application for
insurance. Therefore, Golden Rule is exercising its right to rescind your coverage.
Your certificate has been voided; it has been set aside from the date of issue, as though
it was never in effect. Any premium presently in the collection system, as well as all
other premiums paid, will be refunded to you shortly.
The claims submitted for you are currently being denied due to the voidance of your
certificate. In addition, we reserve all rights under the contract of insurance including
those under the Preexisting Conditions provision.
Failure to cash your premium refund check will be deemed a rejection of our
decision to void your coverage. Golden Rule may then file a declaratory judgment
action in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine our rights under the
policy/certificate.
Golden Rule will no longer be able to collect your Federation of American Consumers
and Travelers (FACT) membership dues. To avoid any concerns you may have about
your refund amount, your premium refund check includes the amount we collected on
behalf of FACT. We have not recovered this amount from FACT. You are still a
member. If you wish to remain a member, you should arrange to send your payments
directly to FACT. Their toll free number is 1-800-USA-FACT (1-800-272-3228), or
you may write to them at:
FACT
Membership Service Office
P.O. Box 104
Edwardsville, IL 62025
You also mention being disappointed in the process under which health care reform was done. You claim this legislation was developed behind closed doors rather than through an open and transparent process allowing careful consideration of complex legislation affecting all 300 million Americans, when in fact the original bills in each Chamber were not, were they? If they were not openly and carefully considered, why did it take nine months to get bills? The Reconciliation was
done in closed door sessions, but how many times have Republicans done the same with controversial legislation? The Chaney Energy Task Force,for instance,comes to mind. Those who live in glass houses should think carefully before throwing stones. You also say that it was passed with political payoffs, which again brings The Bush Energy Bill and glass houses to mind. You say that after Massachusetts sent Senator Scott Brown to Washington in January, the seldom used reconciliation tactic was used to pass health care reform without full consideration and debate. But that's not really being very honest, is it? Because The House and Senate Bills were fully considered and debated, weren't they? Furthermore, Reconciliation means that there were minimal differences between what passed the senate and the final bill, in fact, as I understand it, The House merely passed The Senate Bill exactly as it was, and so saying that it had not been fully considered and debated is not really true, s it? Also, how many times have Republicans used Reconciliation to pass controversial legislation?
You say that Reconciliation was used to enact t a $2.6 trillion new entitlement program. The new law, however,, leaves the private insurance system intact, it merely compels them to treat all Americans, even those of us with preexisting health conditions and other barriers to purchasing private insurance under the old system, with dignity and respect. It does not put all of us on a government plan, it merely says that that private insurance companies have to give us reasonable coverage at a reasonable rate. If by entitlement program you mean that I think I am entitled to be treated with dignity and respect by an insurance company and not be denied the opportunity to seek reasonable coverage at a reasonable rate in the private market simply because I got hit b a car twenty-seven years ago and that others with preexisting health conditions should also not be denied this opportunity, then I guess one might call this an entitlement program. Typically, however, entitlement program refers to government run and funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and since the new law leaves the private insurance market in place and merely says that it can no longer discriminate against those of us with preexisting health conditions, please explain to me how this is an entitlement program under that definition.
You say you understand the current system needs reform and do not believe the status quo is acceptable, but it seems to me you see only the financial costs of the old and new systems, while to me the much greater cost of the old system is The Human cost. The old system puts money above people, reducing those of us deemed unprofitable to an almost subhuman status in relation to health care, and without a ban on the preexisting conditions exclusion and a mechanism to enforce and ensure it, which The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health care and Education Reconciliation Act provide but nothing I found on your website or have heard from any other Republicans does, we will continue in this status, and that, to me, is the truly greatest need in changing the status quo.
You say that you believe The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be repealed and replaced with realistic reforms that lower health care costs, address entitlement spending, and increase access to to health care coverage, but without a preexisting conditions exclusions ban, the costs for those of us with preexisting conditions will not be lowered and our access to care will continue to be limited and shrink every year as our rates continue to go up to always be twice as expensive as comparable, private coverage while being legally unable to offer lower deductibles than $1,000, making $735 Physical Therapy Bills only paid by patients, making further therapy not affordable even if necessary, and none of what is on your website nor what I have heard from other Republicans even mentions addressing the preexisting health conditions problem.
You also fail to mention that Senate Bill 3152 to repeal The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is called The Government Overreach and Waste Bill. Is this because you do not want me to get the impression that you consider me and everyone else with preexisting health conditions waste? Because that is certainly the impression that I do get. Republican opposition to Health Care Reform from day one and the fact that none of the common sense reforms on your website address preexisting conditions at all give me the distinct impression that Conservatives value money above my life and the life of everyone else with a preexisting health condition, and using the word Waste in the name of the bill to repeal the new law does nothing to dissuade me of this view. If this is an incorrect view of your party's position, please explain to me how so.
You say that the right kind of reform will emphasize individual choice, and trusting patients, their families and their doctors-not insurance company or government bureaucrats- to make health care decisions. At present I am limited because the lowest deductible I could get with The Risk Pool even at no more than twice the rate of comparable, private coverage, was $1,000, and so I had to pay all of a recent $735 physical therapy bill for some tendonitus in my left arm entirely out of pocket and so even though my left arm, my favored hand, is now hurting again, I am reluctant to seek further treatment. None of what you call the common sense reforms on your website would give me an individual choice or trust me, my family and my doctor, to make decisions on this because none of it says anything about addressing the preexisting conditions exclusions of private insurance companies under the old system, and without that I will not have a choice, it will be The Risk Pool or nothing, no competition, no alternatives, no individual choice,no leaving health care decisions to me, my family and my doctor, it will all be about what can I afford on a $1,000 deductible, particularly with my high premiums. Also, the new law in no way gives government bureaucrats the ability to make health care decisions about patients, it merely says that insurance companies cannot make such decisions and that they must be left in the hands of patients, their families and their doctors, not an insurance company bureaucrat who would think more about the financial good of the company than the good health of the patient. I encourage you to visit my blog avoiceinthewilderness-wildvoicenet.blogspot.com and read 'THE SYSTEM SOME SAY NEEDS NO REFORM',the oldest post, to see an example of how insurance company bureaucrats make health care decisions. It is a work of fiction, and there is some exaggeration in it, but the attitude towards Mark McCall expressed by the insurance agents is, I believe, an accurate portrayal of the way the old system worked, in putting profits ahead of patients. The true crux of the problem with the old system was that it did put money before people. So while I understand that reducing monetary costs is important, I believe the much more important matter is to reduce the human cost, which I believe the new law does while none of the alternatives I have seen and heard proposed by Republicans do. Is the new law perfect? I'm sure it's not, but it's a vast improvement over the old system, and as someone who lives with a preexisting health condition because I got hit by a car when I was eight years old, I say let's keep the new law and improve upon it, not repeal it and replace it with some other legislation that does nothing for those of us with preexisting health conditions and so while addressing the financial cost of the old system does nothing to rectify the human cost, which is a far greater cost by all historic and present moral systems in the world.
You say that health care affects every American and you believe that we need to get it right. I agree with both of those statements, and as just stated I'm sure the new law is not perfect. However, there are many Americans adversely effected by the preexisting conditions exclusions currently on many private plans, and the new law bans such discrimination, and as one of those Americans, I believe in that respect at least, the new law does get it right, and in not seeking to address this problem, Republican ideas on Health Care Reform get it wrong. I have to ask, is your opinion that we did not get it right this time grounded more in the substance of the new law or in the fact that it was put forward by a Democratic President, regardless of what is best for the country and the people?
I have visited your website and looked at what you call the 'common sense' reforms you support. You want patients to have more control over their health care. I want that too. Under the old system, big business controlled it and since I was deemed to be an unprofitable patient, I could not obtain private insurance, which left the risk pool as my only option, and while it is far better than nothing, above I have discussed the premiums I pay on and deductible I can get with it and so I obviously do not have much control over my health care under the current system and have no other options, no competition, no market choice. Under the new system, I could not be denied care because such a plan with such a deductible was my only option because I got hit by a car twenty-seven years ago, so if the new system is undone, what specifically are you proposing as an alternative to the preexisting conditions exclusions ban in the new law that would make sure that I as a patient had control over my health care and not a system that only gives me one option for a health insurance provider or a business model that values money above human life?
Access to information so that I can make informed decisions with my doctor sounds good, but what specifically are you proposing to do for that that the new law does not?
I want a choice of providers too, but at present all I can get is The Risk Pool. Under the new law come 2014 I will be able to shop around. What specifically are you proposing that would do that for me if the new law is undone?
I want patients, including myself, to be treated fairly too, the old system does not. It being illegal to deny coverage or care because of preexisting health conditions does treat me fairly, so as an alternative to Justice Care, what specifically are you proposing to help me with this NOW, not after another decade or two of study? Lower premiums and higher paychecks sounds good, but what specifically would you do to help this? As a Christian, if I need to pay more in taxes to Caesar to ensure that 'The Least of Those Among' us get taken care of when sick, I for one am willing to do so, and I believe inaction or further delays on this justice will create a much larger moral debt for this nation.
A “public plan” for all was never what was being proposed this time and we both know it, don't we? A public option (and by the way what is your insurance plan?) would give people an alternative so that if insurance companies went back to business/money over people, people like me would have had somewhere else to go, which would have insured tat big business did become once more the driving force for health care, since they would have lost a lot of customers if it did.
I have delay of treatment and denial of care right now under the old system. I recently had tendonitus in my left arm, my favored hand, and attended physical therapy for a time. My arm pain stopped for awhile, but now it has returned. However, after having to pay all of a $735 physical therapy bill entirely out of pocket because the lowest deductible I could get on The Risk Pool for even just the twice as expensive as comparable,private coverage rate was $1,000, I am reluctant to seek further treatment. If I could obtain private insurance, as I can come 2014 under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I would have options, some of which would make this not be the case, so what specifically are you proposing that would help me in this area now?
There are provisions of the new law that help small businesses with the mandate, and big companies should provide benefits anyway, which would be cheaper if all bought insurance since insurance companies would have a bigger pool to draw from and so could make the same amount of money at lower rates for everyone.
You say the new law will result in lower wages and fewer jobs. In fact, it will only be lower wages because with health care costing less, companies won't need to give workers as high health care benefits, and fewer jobs only because people will not feel that thy must stay tethered to a job just to keep health care benefits, which under the old system many did, particularly those with already sick family members, which could give people more time with sick family members.
Cutting down on fraud sounds good, but does not really do anything about the preexisting conditions exclusions, which is the true heart of the real need for reform, and allegations of fraud seem much more widespread than actual evidence of it.
I appreciate you at least having the courtesy to respond to my correspondence
Sincerely,
Matthew Lucas Beckett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)