A pre-existing condition, and other health-care catastrophies
[Tired of my political posts? You might want to read my latest Acharei Mot-Kedoshim post, not to mention my recent Tazria-Metzora posts, instead.]
If you haven't seen Jimmy Kimmel's true story, told to his audience, about his newborn son's near-death from a heart condition, I can't recommend it strongly enough: Watch it here.
I also recommend that you read Without Obamacare, what happened to kids like Jimmy Kimmel's son?
Here's a little clarification regarding coverage of pre-existing conditions under the Republican health care plan just passed by the House of Representatives.
If the Senate passes this new health-care so-called insurance plan, there goes my nursing-home funding, not to mention mental-health-facility funding and home health care funding.
Did I mention how the Republican health care plan would affect women's health coverage specifically?
Did I also mention that people who find themselves without health insurance for any reason, such as being between jobs or otherwise too broke to pay for it, will find their premiums going sky-high when they apply for new insurance? I contend that this is a classic case of blaming the victim, since no one in his or her right mind would go without health insurance if they could afford to pay for it.
Other targets of the blame-the-victim approach to health coverage will be those 50 or older, but too young for Medicare, who will be charged hefty premiums for the crime of getting older instead of dying young--here's AARP's report from last month about that. This will hurt our son, our friends' children, our younger relatives and their children, and our younger friends and colleagues and their children. Nor will those with pre-existing conditions be spared--heaven help Jimmy Kimmel's now-baby boy, because the government probably won't.
Some journalists/news commentators at the MSNBC television station asked why the Republicans were in such a hurry to pass a health plan that they didn't even wait to see the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of the plan's effects on the budget and the people. The journalists' conclusion was that a reduction in health care costs is necessary to enable Congress to cut taxes. [See The Rachel Maddow Show, 5/4/17 telecast, "GOP uses health care as means to tax cuts for the wealthy."] In other words, those of us who are not rich will be paying, through reduced and/or much-more-expensive health-care coverage, for tax cuts that will largely benefit the rich.
Related: It's about profit.
Monday, May 8, 2017 update: The senators currently working on the health-care bill are all white males. Women (even if they're among the five Republican female senators) and minority members need not apply, since what we would have to say about our own health care is, apparently, of no concern to the Senate.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017 update: Trumpcare: Tax cuts for the super rich on the backs of the disabled
Friday, May 12, 2017 update that I should have posted last Sunday: Multibillionaire Warren Buffett rails against the Republican health-care plan, saying that "it is a huge tax cut for guys like me," he said. "And when there's a tax cut, either the deficit goes up or they get the taxes from somebody else."
If you haven't seen Jimmy Kimmel's true story, told to his audience, about his newborn son's near-death from a heart condition, I can't recommend it strongly enough: Watch it here.
I also recommend that you read Without Obamacare, what happened to kids like Jimmy Kimmel's son?
Here's a little clarification regarding coverage of pre-existing conditions under the Republican health care plan just passed by the House of Representatives.
If the Senate passes this new health-care so-called insurance plan, there goes my nursing-home funding, not to mention mental-health-facility funding and home health care funding.
Did I mention how the Republican health care plan would affect women's health coverage specifically?
Did I also mention that people who find themselves without health insurance for any reason, such as being between jobs or otherwise too broke to pay for it, will find their premiums going sky-high when they apply for new insurance? I contend that this is a classic case of blaming the victim, since no one in his or her right mind would go without health insurance if they could afford to pay for it.
Other targets of the blame-the-victim approach to health coverage will be those 50 or older, but too young for Medicare, who will be charged hefty premiums for the crime of getting older instead of dying young--here's AARP's report from last month about that. This will hurt our son, our friends' children, our younger relatives and their children, and our younger friends and colleagues and their children. Nor will those with pre-existing conditions be spared--heaven help Jimmy Kimmel's now-baby boy, because the government probably won't.
Some journalists/news commentators at the MSNBC television station asked why the Republicans were in such a hurry to pass a health plan that they didn't even wait to see the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of the plan's effects on the budget and the people. The journalists' conclusion was that a reduction in health care costs is necessary to enable Congress to cut taxes. [See The Rachel Maddow Show, 5/4/17 telecast, "GOP uses health care as means to tax cuts for the wealthy."] In other words, those of us who are not rich will be paying, through reduced and/or much-more-expensive health-care coverage, for tax cuts that will largely benefit the rich.
Related: It's about profit.
Monday, May 8, 2017 update: The senators currently working on the health-care bill are all white males. Women (even if they're among the five Republican female senators) and minority members need not apply, since what we would have to say about our own health care is, apparently, of no concern to the Senate.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017 update: Trumpcare: Tax cuts for the super rich on the backs of the disabled
Friday, May 12, 2017 update that I should have posted last Sunday: Multibillionaire Warren Buffett rails against the Republican health-care plan, saying that "it is a huge tax cut for guys like me," he said. "And when there's a tax cut, either the deficit goes up or they get the taxes from somebody else."
posted by Shira Salamone at 1:06 AM
4 Comments:
Meanwhile, (R) Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador said, "Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”
Riiiiight.....
Labrador has a pre-existing condition called "wishful thinking" that could very well kill people.
I recently got my hands on the Republican policy handbook - a slim volume by Jonathan Swift called "A Modest Proposal."
For the uninitiated, here's some information from Amazon.com: "[In addition to "Gulliver's Travels] Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal," in which he straight-facedly suggests that Ireland could solve its hunger problems by using its children for food."
Ouch. That's too close for comfort.
Post a Comment
<< Home