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