Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Historian Compares HCR to the 1957 Civil Rights Bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 01:53 PM
Original message
Historian Compares HCR to the 1957 Civil Rights Bill
Historian David A. Nichols is the author of A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution.
His article in today's LA Times begins as follows:

Obama's inner Ike: As Eisenhower did with civil rights legislation, the president stuck with healthcare reform.

President Obama gets it. So did President Eisenhower half a century ago. When you are breaking a decades-long legislative logjam, you take what you can get so you can do better later.

Critics deplore the compromises Obama made on healthcare. And it's true that the bill he signed Tuesday doesn't accomplish everything reform advocates had hoped for. But give Obama credit for historical perspective. Covering the millions without health insurance is the civil rights issue of our time. And Obama walked a path analogous to the one Ike walked on civil rights in 1957. Eisenhower proposed a strong bill that year. It seemed a fool's errand -- no civil rights legislation had been passed for 82 years. The proposal included protection for voting rights and authority for the attorney general to enforce an array of civil rights, including school desegregation.

The latter provision, known as "Part III," quickly ran into political trouble. Southern Democrats at the time were the "party of no," and they presented a united front. Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia charged that Eisenhower's bill was "cunningly designed" to authorize the attorney general "to destroy the system of separation of the races in the Southern states at the point of a bayonet." That allegation was the 1950s equivalent of last year's allegations by Republicans that healthcare reform would set up government-run "death panels."

Finally, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson told Ike he had the votes to kill the bill if Part III remained in the legislation. Eisenhower dropped it to salvage voting rights.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-nichols28-2010mar28,0,1041720.story

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Would that mean we are only 7 years away from Single Payer?
That would be fine with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not necessarily seven years
but this means it will be EASIER to take the next step. Which incidentally is what a lot of us who KNOW history have been saying
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Nope
This bill will make it harder, and in fact was designed to do exactly that. It was a bill designed by Dole and Baker to impede universal health care. As folks say, the GOP won't actually repeal this bill. Once the public has a benefit, they hate to see it taken away, or even replaced. It's how the nuts could claim to oppose the bill and demand that they not "touch my medicare". Any attempt to move towards single payer will be difficult because now that a tremendous number of people will either be buying insurance through a subsidy, or are receiving it through an employer. They'll scream bloody murder if any attempt is made to change that.

The only way it comes is if employers start dumping the insurance, and paying the fine because health insurance and really CARE will have gotten prohibitively expensive. If large numbers of people are getting pushed into medicaid, then the states may actually start to move towards single payer at the state level. But by then, the crisis will be deep and I hesitate to think about how bad it will have gotten. Furthermore, it could easily happen when the GOP is in control and we'll get the GOP version of single payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yep and that is the course of US history... every social bill has
actually made things harder to advance....

:sarcasm:

As they say time will tell, but this actually be improved over the decades if past is prologue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Oh, the bill will get improved
There will be a change here, an expansion there. As the weak spots and loop holes are discovered, they will generally be addressed. The GOP will muck around with it a bit here and there, especially the medicaid portions.

My point was that it isn't much of a "stepping stone" to single payer and in fact will make it harder to get there. That was the big problem with the loss of any robust public option. The public option was the way for "incrementalism" to lead us to single payer. With this bill, there is no path to that. Worse, we also have just lost a big incentive for the steady lowering of medicare age. That was another incremental approach, slowly lowering the age of eligibility. But again, the incentive to do that is now lost (reduced) because that population is now mandated to already have insurance.

It doesn't make it impossible, it just take away the creeping incrementalism that could have gotten us to single payer. At this point it's going to take drastic conditions to get there now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
32. very good post. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. That would be fine with me, too.
I'd even settle for a "public option" in a few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. That would be nice, but I think it's too optimistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. That would be nice, but I think it's too optimistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Horseshit
It even legislates inequality in the government exchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I don't know what you mean.
How does HCR legislate inequality?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Multi-tiered plans restricting access to care
(d) Levels of Coverage-

(1) LEVELS OF COVERAGE DEFINED- The levels of coverage described in this subsection are as follows:

(A) BRONZE LEVEL- A plan in the bronze level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.

(B) SILVER LEVEL- A plan in the silver level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.

(C) GOLD LEVEL- A plan in the gold level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 80 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.

(D) PLATINUM LEVEL- A plan in the platinum level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 90 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.


The poor who will be subsidized so that most will only have pitiful 60% actuarial valued plans, which to a poor person, is as good as not having insurance. Access to actual care, even in the government exchange, will correlate directly to the wealth of the policy holder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That is similar to Medigap A, B, C, etc. plans.
The idea is to facilitate comparison of plans offered by different insurance companies. That is not a bad idea.

Even the lowest level of coverage will be a huge improvement over being uninsured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. "That is not a bad idea"
Multi-tiered access to care, correlating to one's wealth, creates a mult-tiered citizenry. It is a terrible idea.



"Even the lowest level of coverage will be a huge improvement over being uninsured."

Its basically the same. Tell a man who needs heart surgery to come up with 40% of the cost. Might as well be dead, bankrupt or both.



Just to bring this back to the original topic, Civil Rights legislation isn't based on the notion that people's general welfare, opportunities and rights should correlate to their wealth, and that there should be tiers of rights up to the free market to put a price on and distribute as they see fit. This is a private market based reform that makes greater efforts to preserve shareholders' stakes than to create an egalitarian system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. "Its basically the same."
It is not basically the same. Catastrophic coverage is better than no coverage, just as Plan A of Medigap is better than no Medigap.

The bottom tier does not pay 60% of every bill. It's a package that costs 60% of what some other package costs. The details haven't been worked out yet, but it's likely that the most essential services will be paid for, just as they are in Medigap plan A.

The current HCR law is not as good as a single payer system, but it will improve the lives of people who would otherwise be unable to get any health insurance.

You are overstating your case when you say the bottom tier is "basically the same" as being uninsured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. "You are overstating your case"
:rofl:

No. That would be putting it in the same class as Civil Rights legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Bingo
There's no real way to compare the two. But if there were, the civil rights law would have insisted that African Americans buy lunch at the counter, even if they aren't allowed to sit there. They will rely upon free market forces to ultimately let them actually sit at the counter. But we'll subsidize their lunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Snap!
:rofl:

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ysabel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. aye...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Check out post #21
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
16. President John Adams did what......?
From another place.......

It turns out that this is not the first bill to require private citizens to get health care. In 1798, the fifth congress passed and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase health care insurance.

That's Founding Father John Adams.

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. This is an interesting precedent
which will help Democrats defend the constitutionality of the recently passed legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yah, but...it's got to be used by Democrats.....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. That was one specific case for a small group of sailors in the days of scurvy
It was in no way a public health care program and it put the onus on poorly paid sailors so that the owners wouldn't have to pay for their illnesses.

It's a bad comparison to make to public health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-10 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
33. What comparison to public health care?
It indicates legislation back then requiring seamen to get health insurance from a private company - which is what the new HCR does.

And how can the Health Care Reform legislation just passed be 'public health care' with no public option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
21. Actually HCR solidifies institutional racism
It creates a caste system of health care based on ability to pay for insurance and other medical bills on top of that.

If you are Black in this country you are far more likely to be low-income with more health risks and lower life expectancy. AIDS, diabetes and cancer are more prevalent in the Black community. In addition, there are other risks like sickle-cell anemia. An insurance company will charge more for pre-existing conditions; they are allowed to charge up to 3X as much by law. From the start, most lower income Blacks will end up paying more for insurance coverage than many whites, especially middle-class whites, who have a better diet and fewer pre-existing conditions.

Yes, there will be a government subsidy, but the subsidy is fixed to the average Bronze level, regardless of the insurance you might want to buy. This virtually guarantees inferior coverage for those who are low-income in America. A lower working class person would not have the expendable income to buy better coverage. For example, let's say your subsidy is $600. This is tied to the Bronze level of insurance. The Gold level might cost $1000 per month, the Silver, $800 per month. Since most low-income households don't have $200-$400 per month in expendable income lying around, the choice will have to be the Bronze.

But with the Bronze, the co-pays are significantly higher, and a lower income person might not actually be able to afford a trip to the doctor or the medications needed for an illness or condition. This means that the lower income person will still avoid going to the doctor until things get desperate. By that time, the window for a relatively inexpensive cure or treatment may have passed; or the condition might be so bad that not much can be done. The co-pay for a large-scale procedure will be beyond the monthly income of the lower income person. Medical bankruptcy is still a looming threat if you hold a Bronze policy. And if you survive the large scale procedure, the insurance company can raise your rates. The subsidy may no longer cover the cost of the whole policy.

What these means for Blacks in America is that, since they are far more likely to be low-income, they will get an inferior insurance policy that will often be relatively useless. As a result, they will get worse health care, late treatment, and earlier death. The truly poor (below the poverty line) will actually have better healthcare, being put on Medicaid, although cuts in Medicaid are certainly a possibility down the line.

The new law, then, sets up an insurance "caste" system, whereby Blacks will get worse coverage and health care than whites (on average). This is the very definition of institutionalized racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. This, not HCR, is institutionalized racism:
From the Declaration of Independence (1776):

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries ... He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

From the U. S. Constitution:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

From an article in the San Francisco News April 2, 1942:

INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY

Living in the Following Area:

All that portion of the City and County of San Francisco, lying generally west of the of the north-south line established by Junipero Serra Boulevard, Worchester Avenue, and Nineteenth Avenue, and lying generally north of the east-west line established by California Street, to the intersection of Market Street, and thence on Market Street to San Francisco Bay.

All Japanese persons, both alien and non-alien, will be evacuated from the above designated area by 12:00 o’clock noon Tuesday, April 7, 1942.

No Japanese person will be permitted to enter or leave the above described area after 8:00 a.m., Thursday, April 2, 1942, without obtaining special permission from the Provost Marshal at the Civil Control Station located at:

1701 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California

The Civil Control Station is equipped to assist the Japanese population affected by this evacuation in the following ways:

1. Give advise and instructions on the evacuation.

2. Provide services with respect to the management, leasing, sale, storage or other disposition of most kinds of property including real estate, business and professional equipment, household goods, boats, automobiles, livestock, etc. 3. Provide temporary residence elsewhere for all Japanese in family groups.

4. Transport persons and a limited amount of clothing and equipment to their new residence as specified below.

The Following Instructions Must Be Observed:

1. A responsible member of each family, preferably the head of the family, or the person in whose name most of the property is held, and each individual living alone must report to the Civil Control Station to receive further instructions. This must be done between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 2, 1942, or between 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Friday, April 3, 1942.

2. Evacuees must carry with them on departure for the Reception Center, the following property:

a. Bedding and linens (no mattress) for each member of the family.
b. Toilet articles for each member of the family.
c. Extra clothing for each member of the family.
d. Sufficient knives, forks, spoons, plates, bowls and cups for each member of the family.
e. Essential personal effects for each member of the family.

All items carried will be securely packaged, tied and plainly marked with the name of the owner and numbered in accordance with instructions received at the Civil Control Station.

The size and number of packages is limited to that which can be carried by the individual or family group.

No contraband items as described in paragraph 6, Public Proclamation No. 3, Headquarters Western Defense Command and Fourth Army, dated March 24, 1942, will be carried.

3. The United States Government through its agencies will provide for the storage at the sole risk of the owner of the more substantial household items, such as iceboxes, washing machines, pianos and other heavy furniture. Cooking utensils and other small items will be accepted if crated, packed and plainly marked with the name and address of the owner. Only one name and address will be used by a given family.

4. Each family, and individual living alone, will be furnished transportation to the Reception Center. Private means of transportation will not be utilized. All instructions pertaining to the movement will be obtained at the Civil Control Station.

Go to the Civil Control Station at 1701 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 2, 1942, or between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 3, 1942, to receive further instructions.

J. L. DeWITT
Lieutenant General, U. S. Army
Commanding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Institutionalized racism has many forms. Locking in economic inequality is what this bill does.
Read the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kind of Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I'm listening to these people rather than the account of the oncoming fictional racism
http://www.thecharlottepost.com/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=News&refno=2481
Members of the CBC say they believe the bill will make significant impact in the black community.


“We cast our votes for all those people who deserve health care but simply can’t afford it. We cast our votes for our senior citizens who will see their prescription drug costs go down. We cast our votes for our children and grandchildren, so that they can live longer, fuller and healthier lives. We cast our votes in the memory of those people who didn’t have preventive care and died prematurely,” said a statement from Congressional Black Caucus Chair Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) applauding the passage. “We were vocal advocates for provisions in the bill to combat health disparities, illnesses and diseases that disproportionately affect our community. To those who suffer from those health disparities, our vote tonight carries significance similar to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in that it fulfills a dream that has been elusive for far too long and for far too many Americans.”


Accordng to a CBC document, other key provisions in the legislation that CBC members fought to have included are:


• Expanded support for community health centers, which play a vital role in expanding access to preventive and other care in our nation’s most vulnerable communities.


• Greater support for programs that will increase the racial and ethnic diversity in the nation’s health workforce, as well as improved data collection so that we can better measure health inequities and develop solutions to end all health disparities.


• Strengthening the existing Office of Minority Health at HHS, creating new Offices of Minority Health across HHS agencies, and establishes the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH an Institute.


• Inclusion of coverage for resident of the U.S. territories, including a significant infusion of new Medicaid dollars, as well as access to the Exchange so that Americans in the territories will have access to affordable, high-quality health insurance plans.


• Guarantees transparency on rates and enables state insurance commissioners to recommend to the National Insurance Commissioner whether a particular insurer should participate in the Health Insurance Exchange, taking into account excessive or unjustified premium increases in making that determination. This will hold private insurers accountable, ensure affordability and help provide quality coverage for American families.


Increased funding for community health centers and new investments to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants—both beginning in the next fiscal year—will have the biggest impact on disadvantaged communities in rural and urban areas such as Baltimore, Md.

http://www.afro.com/sections/news/national/story.htm?storyid=468

According to an analysis by Baltimore HealthCare Access, a local nonprofit dedicated to increasing access to healthcare, more than 600,000 uninsured Marylanders, including more than 63,000 in Baltimore City, will gain access to affordable coverage the federal legislation: By January 2014, 31,793 uninsured residents could qualify for Medicaid, when the program is expanded to include all persons under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). And, 32,372 more uninsured Baltimoreans with incomes between 134 percent- 400 percent of FPL can get subsidized health coverage through the exchanges.

Without these reforms, people will continue to delay getting needed preventative care such as screenings that can detect early prostate, colon and breast cancers and prevent early death. America will continue to have some 47 million people who are left out of the system, who are without a medical home and of necessity will use emergency rooms, thus adding to the ever-increasing yearly cost of health care. While we spend almost $2.5 trillion per year on health care, we spend less than 3 percent of our health budget on population-based prevention.

What is the health care exchange? A lot of people don’t understand what that is.

The exchange is a marketplace, a place where individuals and small businesses can pool their purchasing power to buy health insurance. Right now you’re IBMs and all these big organizations can go bargain with health plans for better benefits at a cheaper rate but individuals and small companies don’t have that power. So exchanges can bring all these people together to create that purchasing power to get insurance, because the more people who are in it, the cheaper it is for everyone. So when you’re an individual, you’re now part of a pool that can use your purchasing power and shop for insurance.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/health-bill-will-iron-397860.html
This country needs a health system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection and universal access to care, including mental health care. A balanced health system that focuses more attention on prevention is both more cost-effective and more humane. Hopefully, this legislation begins to move us in that direction.

Dr. David Satcher, the director of the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at Morehouse School of Medicine, was the 16th U.S. surgeon general.

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-03-24/politics-city-county-government/state-health/what-does-obamas-health-care-reform-mean-for-you

What about this idea of a mandate that everyone has to have health insurance or face a fine? How will that affect communities of color?

There will need to be a lot of outreach that’s linguistically and culturally appropriate. Some groups are excluded from the mandate. People who do not have access to insurance like undocumented immigrants will not have to buy insurance under the mandate, and then hopefully people will understand what the exemptions and hardship exclusions are. But none of this takes effect until 2014 when the health insurance exchanges goes into effect .. and the exchange is supposed to help.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I hope you are right, but locking in economic inequality is not good for communities in which
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 09:36 PM by Nikki Stone1
poverty is overrepresented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kind of Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I do get your point about locking in economic inequality
But I think the most pressing issue when it come to health care in the African-American community - as well as I'm sure other minority groups - as the former surgeon general said is establishing a health system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection, and this includes the provision of immediate medical help for the uninsured that will begin this year.

Even the so-called poo-pooed Bronze plan that I understand is under the exchanges not implemented till 2014, provides preventive and primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, physician services, outpatient services, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging and screenings (including x-rays), maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, radiation and chemotherapy, and mental health and substance abuse services that at least meet minimum standards set by Federal and state laws. In addition, plans could charge no cost-sharing.

It may seem like nothing to you and others, but I see many of as already being locked in economic inequality and this step is incredibly good and in the right direction out for all minorities. No action is definitely keeping us firmly locked in for a longer time coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Thank you so much, KoB. I saw the post you responded to and actually saw
little dots before my eyes. For real.

Some of the stuff being said about this bill is absolutely un-freaking real. Gene Rodenberry couldn't come up with some of this stuff.

P.S. I've worked with Dr. Satcher before. He is a truly lovely man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kind of Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I'm with you. I'm especially listening to what people of
color are saying about this bill - it's not all positive because we all prefer the public option, but the overwhelming majority are not EVEN thinking about throwing it out.

Wow, you worked with Dr. Satcher! That is soooo cool. I just love him, kindness wrapped in smarts wrapped with good looks to boot!

You've got to tell me sometimes what you were working on with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC