I Stand With Natoma Canfield

[berni_mccoy]

I stand with Natoma Canfield, the self-employed house cleaner who has Leukemia and who President Obama discussed in his speech yesterday.

I stand with her because I live with consequences of a chronic disease everyday, am self employed and am barely hanging onto being able to afford health care. If you think health insurance and health care don't mean the same thing to people like Natoma and I, then you are badly informed as to what health care is in this country. I could not afford the medical supplies and drugs that are necessary for my family without insurance. And I can barely afford that. It is the single largest expense my family, and my business has.

Something needs to be done now. The current HCR Bill isn't ideal, but it's far from bad. It will immediately help 31 million Americans who can't get health care now. People with pre-existing conditions who have been denied health insurance, and therefore, health care, until now, will immediately be able to seek health care. They will either be able to insure their children or themselves (individual and small group plans will be immediately made to cover pre-existing conditions) or enlist in the high-risk pool that immediately goes into effect after signing.

And to those who say the HCR Bill won't help Natoma, I say you have no idea. She'd not have lost her insurance if this bill had been in place and her insurance would not have been able to price her out of coverage. As someone who would be on an individual or small-group plan, her pre-existing conditions would not be a reason for refusal. The plans would have to be priced appropriately under the new pricing regulations and the insurance companies would not have been able to price her out of insurance. And given Natoma's current state (and its inevitable impact on her ability to earn income as a self-employed person), there can be no doubt, she'd likely qualify for subsidies for coverage.

This health care bill isn't everything I'd hoped it to be, but, according to Bernie Sanders, there is enough good to pass this bill as is (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/938 ). Howard Dean also stands with Natoma ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7922455 ) as does the entire Progressive Caucus (except Kucinich, who is even reconsidering his position http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/939 ).

It's time for us to stand for the poor, sick and uninsured. It's time to take a stand with Natoma.

[Gman]

1. These dirty diaper kids here already unrec'd this

incredible. These spoiled brats that are still on momma's insurance and think they have the right to force their pie in the sky ideology on anyone.

BTW, K&R.

[JuniperLea]

10. Well, they have theirs, don't they?

That's all the greedy bastiges care about.

[Raineyb]

20. I see you're still pushing that "I got mine screw you" meme.

YOU got insurance so the rest of us who can't afford it even with this bill can go to hell right?

Right back at you!

[spanone]

2. k&r....

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I agree!

K&R

[NJmaverick]

4. People before ideology

[TheWraith]

5. Kicked and recommended. nt

[zipplewrath]

6. I think we actually agree with you

"I stand with her because I live with consequences of a chronic disease everyday, am self employed and am barely hanging onto being able to afford health care. If you think health insurance and health care don't mean the same thing to people like Natoma and I, then you are badly informed as to what health care is in this country. I could not afford the medical supplies and drugs that are necessary for my family without insurance. And I can barely afford that. It is the single largest expense my family, and my business has."

Many of us basically agree with you. Even with insurance, healthcare is marginally affordable. For many, even with health insurance, they find medical care unaffordable. I'm glad you will see some aid in the bill for yourself, I hope it continues to help you keep your head above water. The primary belief of many of us is that you are as much an exception as a rule, and that in the very short "long run", because this bill does so little to control costs, it won't be long before you won't be able to afford healthcare even with your mandated insurance.

Even worse, there are people right now who can't afford health care EVEN WITH INSURANCE
and depending upon the details of their plans, may find the costs increasing for the very insurance they can't afford to use.

This is all very subject to the details of each person and their fiscal situation. But the words that concern us most are the ones where the bill anticipates that people will fall through the cracks. So there are exceptions for those who cannot afford health insurance under any of the means provided, to be exempt from the mandate. Which means in the end, no they won't pay a penalty, but they still won't have health insurance. Not exactly "universal". Kinda strange thing to be written into a bill that can't seem to get too specific on how it's going to cut costs.

[azmouse]

7. Count me in.

What happen to this woman shouldn't happen to anyone in this country.

[leftstreet]

8. UnRec. OH NOES!!! Think of the self employed house cleaners!!!11

Please

There's no reason insurance companies should even be at the table

[JuniperLea]

12. How compassionate of you...

:eyes:

I see it's just fine and dandy with you that people loose their last nickle to pay for health care... how sweet.

[leftstreet]

14. Yes, let's force millions of citizens to spend their 'last nickle' on insurance

How is THAT compassionate?

:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

28. I'd rather be broke and know that lives have been saved...

That's compassion... people are more important... to most of us anyway. Clearly you don't see things that way. I hope you and your money are very happy together.

[leftstreet]

LOL! So now insurance companies save lives?

:rofl:

Silly me, I thought healthcare did that

[JuniperLea]

49. Way to miss the point entirely...

Why am I not surprised?

Just keep swilling that Kool Aid...

[liberalhistorian]

46. People will still use their last nickle to pay for health

care under THIS bill. And plenty of people WITH insurance use their last nickle to pay for health care. Having insurance means dipsquat, unless you consider having to fight profit-before-people bean counters for every little bit of coverage, no matter how sick you are, to actually be a good thing.

[JuniperLea]

52. Have you bothered to read the restrictions this places on insurance companies?

I thought not.

[liberalhistorian]

61. So you have no problem with people who make just enough

not to qualify for the subsidies but who can't afford the premiums being criminalized because of it? Being punished for being sick? You really think the expansion of private insurance companies, whose ONLY concern is making profits and who only make those profits by denying their services, i.e., coverage, without any public option or medicare-for-all is actually the way to go? You honestly believe that for-profit insurance companies are going to truly follow the restrictions allegedly placed on them, instead of finding loopholes around them? And do you really think that, when they do, they'll actually suffer any consequences for it? Whereas those of us who would make too much for the subsidies but not enough to pay the premiums would be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the insurance companies. You REALLY believe that penalizing people who can't afford premiums, which truly criminalizes, is the way to go? REALLY? Wow.

[JuniperLea]

75. No... you don't get it...

You've swallowed the kool aid pitcher whole... did you even bother to read the section on insurance company restrictions? No, I thought not.

[liberalhistorian]

76. Uh, yeah, I did. And I still say that it's bullshit.

The companies will do what they do best, find loopholes around them, like they always do. And they'll get away with it, as they usually do. The government may not be all that trustworthy in a lot of ways, but private companies sure as shit are not, either. And when they collude to screw people in the name of "helping" them, as they're doing now, then it's really all over.

[JuniperLea]

9. K&R! We don't have the luxury of waiting for another bill to go through the mill!

People are in need now! We have to start somewhere! If this doesn't work, then change it! Honest to freaking GAWD! Lives are in the balance here FCOL!

[freddie mertz]

11. I hate the way this woman is being exploited. nt.

[JuniperLea]

13. Exploited?

Seems to me she's happy enough to share her story... she's the one who reached out...

[freddie mertz]

16. That doesn't mean her sincere gesture is not being exploited. nt.

[JuniperLea]

31. She reached out... she asked for this... she is pushing it still...

Get over it.

[freddie mertz]

36. It is not about me "getting over" anything. nt.

[JuniperLea]

51. It's about you "getting over" the fact you are wrong...

She instigated this... she invited this... she is fueling this... she has a dog in this race, and a lot of us "get it" and support her.

You cannot be exploited if you are the driving force. If anything, she is exploiting the situation in an attempt to get what she wants... and I say bravo!

[liberalhistorian]

47. Ah, yes, the "get over it" meme.

Like "get a life" and "grow up", usually brought forth by people who can't think of anything else to say and who don't have any substantial arguments other than insults.

[JuniperLea]

50. Way to miss the point entirely...

Had you kept up with the conversation... no, never mind...

[berni_mccoy]

15. She's stood up for herself in case you didn't know.

She wrote a letter to Obama, she wanted her voice heard and she was interviewed on Countdown. If you actually took the time to listen to her, she's being vocal all on her own, just like I am. And millions more like us.

[freddie mertz]

17. I watched the speech. nt.

[berni_mccoy]

18. You missed her interview?

[freddie mertz]

21. I saw that too.

Her situation is terrible, and she is a victim of holding American citizenship.

Unfortunately, the current bill will do little if anything to help her.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

32. Oh please...

Exactly how does it NOT do something for her? You didn't listen to her at all... what bullshit... if you had, you'd certainly understand.

[freddie mertz]

37. I have listened to her, and my issue is not with her.

It is with the people exploiting her.

[JuniperLea]

You mean the people who are allowing her voice to be heard?

The people that are giving her the air time she has begged for?

:eyes:

There is a cause and effect here... she is the cause... she is inviting this.

[sabrina 1]

33. Yes, I do too.

But that's what people fall for. One case singled out while the millions who cannot afford insurance at all, and will be forced to pay for premiums they cannot use, is never addressed.

Added to that, protection money will be collected for the Insurance Ind by the IRS from those who are just above the level where they can get subsidies but cannot afford to buy a premium.

But close your eyes and don't think about any of these things. Wait until they happen, when it is too late to fix them. As is happening now in Mass. No wonder we lost Ted Kennedy's seat. Those people have experienced this bill for three years.

The American people cannot get what they have a right to, because they can always be persuaded to settle. Politicians and their bosses in Big Business know their customers well.

In Europe, this would not work. People would not overlook the outrageous policies of a government that refuses to provide them with what every other civilized nation considers to be a right. No politician would dare to try this, or s/he would not be in office for long.

Americans treat their government the way ineffective parents treat spoiled children. They fall their excuses and reward bad behavior. Until that changes, we will get what we deserve.

[liberalhistorian]

48. +1,000,000,000,000!

Couldn't have said it better. And this bill will be a disaster that Dems will be blamed for for decades to come. Especially by those who can't get subsidies, but who can't afford the premiums and by those who pay through the nose for premiums but are lucky to get any coverage at all. Once again, health INSURANCE is NOT and DOES NOT GUARANTEE health CARE. They are two different things.

[SammyWinstonJack]

73. !!!

:thumbsup: x3

[JoseGaspar]

19. This is impressively cynical...

Those who stand against exclusively private health-care also stand against the poor, the sick, and the uninsured?

Really?

They are blinded by spoiled brat "ideology"?

Really?

And those who are for the HCR... they are not deal-cutting, lobbyist-pandering, politically calculating, centrist rip-off artists. They are philanthropists - lovers of the poor and down-trodden.

Insurance reform, for the benefit of the poor.
Bank bailouts, for the benefit of the poor.
Afghanistan, for the benefit of the poor.
Education "reform", for the benefit of the poor.

Don't do me any more favors... please.

[freddie mertz]

23. It is just more exploitation of a real person's struggle.

For political and rhetorical advantage.

Very sickening.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

27. The lie is claiming or implying that her situation will any way improve...

With passage of this bill.

[leftstreet]

25. +1

:applause:

Welcome to DU!

[Echo In Light]

34. Standard RW tactics: apply phony outrage, tsk-tsk critics over supposed lack of______(fill in blank)

Has to be grounded in artificial moral outrage, when in most instances, one can 'hear' the words of the RWer and realize there's little empathy/sympathy involved

[freddie mertz]

38. Sometimes outrage is sincere. nt.

[Echo In Light]

39. To be sure. Sometimes, however, it's as phony as a $3 bill

[freddie mertz]

40. Fortunately, you are not accusing me or anyone else of RW insincerity here. nt.

[Echo In Light]

41. No. And to be honest, I haven't followed the thread to read your postings

[freddie mertz]

42. That's reassuring. Thanks. nt.

[spanone]

45. i promise, i won't do you any favors.

[Cleobulus]

29. How would it help immediately if people still have to shell out thousands of dollars...

in out of pocket expenses?

[Political Heretic]

30. Natoma Cantfield will go to bed after HCR praying the same prayer she prayed before HCR:

Dear God, please don't let me ever get really sick. Since there's nothing to address the overall cost of care.

So if you make median income, you get a subsidy bringing your out of pocket annual cost for premium down to about $5,500 (taken from Keiser Foundation's subsidy calculator, and assumes the "silver" or mid-range plan option.) Not exactly chump change.

Then, you have the cost of your deductible, say $1,000. Could be less, could be more, but I've payed $1,000 before when I once had insurance through and employer and its common, so let's use it for example.

Now, say you have a year were you need serious health care. You have tests, hospitalization, surgery, and physical therapy to follow. You out of pocket expenses don't cap until over $10,000. Technically you are on the hook for more than that, since the Senate bill raise the cap threshold to a little over $10,000 up from what House version suggested as the cap. But I don't remember the exact number, so let's use the lower House one just to be safe - 10,000.

At a 80/20 insurance split, that cap is easy to reach when you need serious care.

So, in this year you are at approximately $16,500 in out of pocket medical costs making $45,000 a year (this is all calculated using that near-median income figure.) For many if not most families, that's bankrupting. If that would have happened to me when I still was living in my own home, it would have put me on the street.

Here we are, the "greatest" country in the world, and after this year of pissing and moaning about health care - we get insurance mandates to by shitty private insurance that doesn't address cost of care and leaves working class families on the hook beyond what they can afford if they ever get really sick.

So after this "reform" we have the 46 million uninsured Americans still praying the same prayer they prayed before health care: Dear God, please don't let me or anyone in my family ever get seriously sick. Because if we ever have to access health care for anything other than a cold or a check-up, it will break us.

Meanwhile - Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland are all guaranteeing their citizens health care for free or drastically reduced costs.

USA! USA! USA!

I'm just curious if it ever turns your stomach, you who use the "46 million uninsured" for your political talking point while selling a bill that leaves them as fucked as they ever were.

Just curious about that one...

Full disclosure: I am uninsured, low-income

[Marr]

35. It's time to take a stand with Aetna. I mean-- Natoma. Whatever.

I'll be very interested in hearing what supporters have to say on the subject of "improving the bill later" in a year or so.

Depending on how the elections go, I suspect it'll be either, "well, the Democrats lost seats because of those disloyal liberals and now we can't do it" or "we tried for a year, but it's time to move forward".

[ecstatic]

43. K&r. I can't believe how bitter and selfish some people are

Why would someone unrec this?

[grahamhgreen]

55. Because the bill will not help her - it is a disingenuous argument.

[apocalypsehow]

Because they don't care about the millions this bill will help - just their tidy, perfect little

ideology. And you're right: it is a symptom of bitterness and selfishness, combined with a heapin' helping of hate & rage.

[liberalhistorian]

44. One more time, with feeling. Health INSURANCE is NOT

health CARE. It DOES NOT MEAN you will get needed care, period. It means you can pay through the nose for ridiculous premiums and outrageous deductibles, premiums and deductibles that you often cannot afford, and get absolutely NOTHING for it. Except having to pay more and more and get less and less. You're still punished for getting sick or disabled, you can still lose everything and have your credit ruined and be hounded by medical collectrolls, etc., etc. This is nothing but a giveaway to the money-sucking for-profit insurance companies who only MAKE money if they DENY you needed care, turning the usual free market model on its head.

In other words, this is complete horseshit that won't help anyone.

[grahamhgreen]

53. THE BILL WILL NOT HELP HER!!! (excerpt)

from the bill-

"An individual shall be deemed to be an eligible... if such individual—

has not been covered under creditable coverage ... during the 6-month period prior to the date on which such individual is applying for coverage..."

She WAS covered just a month ago, so she is NOT eligible - which is the whole problem with this monstrosity - there is so much verbiage that it will be construed to mean whatever the team of lawyers hired by big insurance wants it to mean.

WE MUST HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO BIG INSURANCE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7928444&mesg_id=7928599

Bill - http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

[robinblue]

56. you like just leads to the DU page -nothing specific. Can you fix it please?

[grahamhgreen]

57. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7928444&mesg_id=7928599

Bill - http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

[berni_mccoy]

58. Actually, we don't know exactly when she lost her insurance and she'd be eligible for

the high-risk pool until then if she just lost her insurance last month.

I believe she lost it when it renewed during the middle of last year when she could not afford the increase. She was diagnosed last month with Leukemia (which is not why she lost her insurance).

[grahamhgreen]

60. The President said whe lost it in January - link, text

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/15/obama-full-text.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

"THE PRESIDENT: So here's what happens. She just couldn't afford it. She didn't have the money. She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent, she couldn't make her mortgage. And despite her desire to keep her coverage, despite her fears that she would get sick and lose the home that her parents built -- she finally surrendered, she finally gave up her health insurance. She stopped paying it -- she couldn't make ends meet.

So January was her last month of being insured."

[robinblue]

71. Thank you.

[berni_mccoy]

59. YES IT WILL!!!! (high-risk pool will cover her)

and then pre-existing condition clause will kick in. She didn't lose her insurance a month ago (if you have evidence contrary to that, please link). Even so, she'd be covered by the high-risk pool.

[grahamhgreen]

65. According to the President - she lost it in JAN - text

"THE PRESIDENT: So here's what happens. She just couldn't afford it. She didn't have the money. She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent, she couldn't make her mortgage. And despite her desire to keep her coverage, despite her fears that she would get sick and lose the home that her parents built -- she finally surrendered, she finally gave up her health insurance. She stopped paying it -- she couldn't make ends meet.

So January was her last month of being insured. "


http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/15/obama-full-text.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

[berni_mccoy]

67. Again, it doesn't give a specific time

and even if it was last month, the high-risk pool will kick in.

[grahamhgreen]

78. Can you show me the relevant wording in the bill?

[Cleobulus]

74. High risk pools are generally more expensive...

She couldn't afford the insurance she had back in January, what would help her be able to afford being in a high risk pool?

[Political Heretic]

62. That's not correct. In the interest of accuracy, she should be part of a "pool" of people

otherwise "uninsurable" that would have their own temporary plan.

[grahamhgreen]

66. Could you show me that in the legislation?

link -

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

[freddie mertz]

70. I think this is the provision they are talking about.

From the "immediate provisions" part of the legislation:

"Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions.
 Coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational."

Not sure if she is eligible or what "Affordable" means in this case.

[grahamhgreen]

77. I could not find that wording in the legislation. nt

[freddie mertz]

80. Right. It's from a summary.

Totally confused by it all anyway.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoseGaspar]

69. Explain to him that...

... we shouldn't allow the factual to become the enemy of the spin.

(Is "GFY" more help for the poor?)

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[berni_mccoy]

79. Far too many disgusting responses here. Totally unbelievable to see DU hate against sick people.

[freddie mertz]

81. No one "hates sick people."

The only argument is over how they are used in rhetoric.

[berni_mccoy]

82. Get real. If she were standing up for Single Payer, the very same people in this thread

being nasty and mean toward her and I would be lauding her as a champion. That's the fucking truth and you know it. But instead, because she and I choose to support getting real health care reform passed now that will benefit millions of sick people and eventually lead to more reform, purists have to jump all over us because we aren't going far enough.

[freddie mertz]

83. So far as I can see, no one has any issue with this woman.

It's about the rhetoric of others.

We can disagree on that without dragging her into it.

Maybe we should just let it rest then.