For the Sake of Truth, Part 3: People Do Die from Lack of Insurance

Previously known as On the Offensive...I've been posting these on facebook, but decided to switch it over to my blog.

Fact:  On Wednesday October 10th, Mitt Romney said that people don't die from lack of health insurance.

"We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance. We don't have a setting across this country where if you don't have insurance, we just say to you, 'Tough luck, you're going to die when you have your heart attack.' No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it's paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital."

Fact: Absolutely correct. As a future physician, I am not going to turn a person away from medical care they need. So yes, if you show up to a hospital ER, you will get treatment.

Will it be preventative? By definition, no.

Will it be long-term? Be definition, "emergency," no. 

Will it be expensive? Yes. Not everyone that comes into the ER can pay their bills. That cost gets shifted on to the other patients by raising costs on their insurance companies (hence why a Tylenol pill costs $7 at the hospital). In turn, the insurance companies raise premiums on their customers. 

Fact: People do die because of lack of health insurance. If you have insurance, you are more likely to go to a doctor, to catch illnesses ahead of time, to treat them before it becomes out of control. Think: heart disease, diabetes...diseases that are prevalent in communities that are a part of poor communities that usually do not have health insurance. Tell them that not having health insurance does not lead to death, and a painful death.

Opinion: Gov. Romeny goes around saying people need to have "personal responsibility" for their actions. I agree, but do we punish someone so severely by taking away the quality of their life if they make the silly mistake of not purchasing health insurance, or worse, not being able to afford health insurance? No. We are a first world country. We are socially advanced. We are a nation that takes care of each other, especially when others can't take care of themselves. 

His comments are a hallmark of an individual who has not had any experience with or even taken the time to reflect on the condition of people who don't have health insurance. It's really hard to imagine it unless you really, really try, or see it and experience it first or second-hand. This is not an individual who should be making policy. 

Opinion Why does not expanding insurance matter as much to him? Because the people who need it the most are the 47% that are not important Americans to him--they will not vote for him anyways. 

Educate yourself before you vote. 

Articles: 

Death by Ideology -- Paul Krugman, NYTimes

A Possibly Fatal Mistake, Nicholas Kristof, NYTimes

Romney: People Don't Die From Lack of Insurance, NPR

Politics on vacation

Unsurprisingly, I have been avoiding writing about politics much on vacation. I have read about it, rolled my eyes at it, became over joyed by it, but definitely did not write about it. Why? Because I am in Paris. But there are things happening abound that must needs be discussed.

 

1. Justice Roberts restored some of my faith in the Supreme Court. He shook his fist at judicial activism and instead, a month before the decision was to be rendered, told his good friends Antonin, Clarence, and Anthony that they were going to be ridin' solo on this decision, since he wasn't going to allow petty partisianship to affect the decision that he, the Cheif Justice of the highest judicial body in all the land, would make. While I am a bit disheartened at just how happy I am that a conservative justice put the constitution above politics, I can rest easy knowing that America is on it's way to becoming a more morally correct country.

To those who oppose it: we will all use the health care system at least once in our lives. To ensure that our system can actually remain solvent, we must compel everyone to purchase health insurance, prior to actually being sick. This way, we can reduce the number of emergency-room-and-not-gonna-pay visits, allow for physicians to actually provide preventative health care to all (including the underserved population) while knowing that they're going to get paid, push our system to become more efficient and evidence-based, all the while increasing the health outcomes of our nation. More than that though--more people will be able to save money on their premiums, which will help overall. To those who think we should let people without insurance die on the side of the road: I hope a pigeon craps on your head.

 

2. Mitt Romney saying people should get as much education as they can afford. I completely agree with the sentiment--you're trying to say that people strive for higher education and spend their money on that. That being said, your idea of what people can "afford" is a bit skewed Mr. MoneyBags. Not everyone collects $200 dollars when they pass go. Most students and their families cannot "afford" to pay for any real higher education, that's why we have these things called grants and loans. As for your suggestion that people join the military and the government will cover the cost of your education--this is definitely not a feasible option for all those students in our country that cannot afford a higher education, nor is it ideal for all.

Also, the concept of, "if you're willing to serve, we can help you" as he puts it baffles me because increasing our rate of higher education IS serving--the more highly educated individual we have, the more economic output they can produce, the happier the general population will be. Either way, this further underscores my concern that Mr. Romney's childhood and subsequent life bathed in wealth has pushed him far out of touch with the "common man." So much so that the small bouts of volunteer work or interactions with the masses cannot mend the gaping hole in his understanding of the life the common folk. A man like this cannot be the President of the 99%.

My Mistake: Commentary on Douthat's latest article

Everyone makes mistakes. I made one today, I read the Ross Douthat column. My husband saw my hand making a increasingly taunt fist on the table, and immediately forwarded me a funny online comic.

I really shouldn't read them. It's not that I don't appreciate the other view, I do when it's well thought out and does not simply ignore reality. He claims Obama has ignored discussing unemployment rates and the economy in favor of discussing social issues. True, the past few weeks have been flooded with social debates, rather than commentary on the economy. Why though? Because the social issues have been forced to the forefront by the GOP, and what else is the President to do other than to respond? It is a campaign year, and it is a bit ridiculous to fault him for commenting on the numerous GOP foot-in-mouth moments (re: Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a slut).

Yes, social issues have taken over the news coverage greatly for the past few months. Many Republican pundits have lamented that we are talking about these "inferior" issues rather than the main issue facing America--the economy. I could not disagree more. While we are most certainly grappling with global economic crisis, we must never forget that it is more than the economy that affects citizen's lives--the social issues affect us everyday: access to health care, women's health, the ability to have your relationship federally recognized, freedom of speech no matter how repulsive, education allowing for social mobility, etc. These issues cannot be ignored, they are truly the foundation of our country and what makes us still the country where many people would (and do) walk through fire to live in.

Will the President address his economic policy and the unemployment rate in this country? Most certainly, after all, he will be forced to on the campaign trail. Do I think most Americans can understand that this is a global crisis, and it will take time, more than 4 years to pull us fully into the black again? Yes. Do I think most Americans will think we are better off now than in 2008, and realize that going back to Bush-era economic policies would be devastating? I sure hope so. But to endeavor to fault the President for responding to social issues that are critically important, well that is simply foolish and narrow-minded Mr. Douthat.

A lot

A lot has happened in the past few days. President Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage, Tyler finished his final class at UTSA, my students took my Biology end of course (EOC) exam, and we went to a great restaurant.

I don't think I'll get to all that in this post. Let's take one thing at a time.

Today honestly felt like nothing I have ever experienced before. Watching my students take the EOC test was a moment that made me understand a little bit what parents probably feel towards their children--an overwhelming sense of pride. I saw them open up their test books, I saw them underline, highlight, star, cross off answers...use all the techniques I taught them. I saw them pick the right answers, I saw them get confused and pick the wrong answer. But they worked so hard, and I just couldn't help the smile plastered on my face for the first 30 minutes of class.

One student in particular, B, came to my tutoring since...February. Any time I had tutoring, she'd be there. During school, after school, heck, even once before school I think. And I was lucky enough to be testing with her today. I feel an unexpected attachment to her and a deep investment in how she did on the test. Just watching her circle the word transcription and write DNA --> mRNA on the paper was just enough to make me understand...remember, realize, why I did Teach For America. I taught her that. I did! Not any random thing, but me...up in the front of a class, coming up with lessons, teaching the general and nuances. Isn't that amazing to think about? If I didn't teach it, they didn't learn it. Sometimes the weight of responsibility becomes all too apparent. I am so proud to have been able to be her teacher, and well, a teacher to all my students--even the ones that make me want to tear my hair out.

There is an indescribable value to having good teachers in this world. Am I the best teacher? By far and away no. But I care about my students, invest time and effort, and if I were staying in the profession, I might I would get there. I hope that something can happen soon in terms of education reform to make it possible for all students to receive an equal and fair education by well trained teachers implementing best practices.

Either way, today has made me thankful, proud, and happy. I feel like I have accomplished something, even just a little. 

Why I Can't Vote for Romney

Even if I weren't a liberal, it's because he is beyond a flip-flopper: he is a liar. Maybe not on purpose, but he definitely does not stand for many things he's stood for before.


I'm not saying a politician is not allowed to change their mind: in fact I think that politicians, with great thought and self-reflection, should most certainly change their minds in light of new evidence. But that's not what's going on. Much like the girl in high school who changes what she wears, how she does her hair, and what books she reads to impress the person she wants to date, Governor Romney changes his stated views based on what he thinks other people want to hear. 


Case #1: In 1994, Mr. Romney supported a world with "full equality" for gays and lesbians. What does full equality mean? To most anyone you ask, that means having the same rights as all other American citizens. But this is back in Massachusetts, a fairly liberal state, where Mr. Romney also championed ground-breaking health reform that has been fiscally and socially beneficial to the population. 


Now though? He's radically shifted his position--pandering to the right and hard-right voters to show that he's not just a cyborg moderate who continue to enforce President Obama's policies that he once endorsed. 


Mr. Romney and his supporters continue to claim that he has never changed his position on gay rights, but simply that the gay community changed what it wanted:

"What happened was that the gay community changed their perspective as to what they wanted," Romney told CNN's Piers Morgan...

Apparently Mr. Romney's definition of "full equality" differs from everyone else's. 


Case #2: In 1994, then again in 2002, Mr. Romney said repeatedly that he was pro-choice, and would not enact any legislation that would infringe on a woman's right to choose. Let's take a closer look at those elections: in 1994 -- he was up against Ted Kennedy, a staunch and unwavering liberal, for his Massachusetts senate seat, and in 2002 he was running for governor again in Massachusetts. 


I will not argue that Mr. Romney has always personally been pro-life, but I used to respect that he would not allow his personal beliefs to influence the policies of the majority. Apparently he changed his mind though, as he now supports the 2004 Republican platform that is clearly pro-life. He says it's because when he was governor he grappled with legislation about embryonic stem cell research, was put off by the "cavalier" way medical researchers discussed disposing of those embryos, and changed his mind about policies regarding abortion. Right, that makes sense. Lots of sense. Loads of sense. 


Let's not look at the fact that those two elections where he ran on "pro-choice" statements, but later did not follow through, were in a liberal state, and now when he is vying for the Republican nomination he's Mr. Abstinence-education-and-human-life-amendment. Sure, makes sense. 


And finally, Case #3, for those of you that are still not convinced that the only thing Mr. Romney stands for is winning, is his flip-flop on health care. Health care breakdown:


1. In order to receive health care, you must pay for it. For some people this means out of pocket, for most that means health insurance.


2. If you do not have health insurance, either because you never thought you'd need it, the premium cost was too high, you were denied on the basis of a pre-existing condition (i.e. cancer), or you were kicked off of your insurance based on a pre-existing condition (i.e. you forgot to mention that you had pneumonia when you were 5, and may have potentially caused your colon cancer, so you no longer have health insurance), then you simply do not receive the care you need.


3. Truth: the people that fell in the category described in step #2, would die without care, or go to the hospital for acute treatment, not be able to pay, and shift the burden of payment on to the taxpayers. 


So, Mr. Romney put forth a conservative plan to deal with this problem: make it illegal for insurance companies in MA to deny coverage or raise premium costs based on pre-existing conditions. But in order to pay for that, he had to ensure that the pool of insured people widened, so viola! The individual mandate was born. Why not have every pay for health insurance, and subsidize those who can't? It will allow everyone access to health care and create a healthier state for the same cost! This is, in fact, exactly what it did in MA. 


It is an amazing piece of legislation that Mr. Romney was proud to have spear-headed. It worked so well in fact, that in 2009, when President Obama was grappling with health care reform on a national level, Mr. Romney published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post suggesting that the President look to Massachusetts policy as a model for the national program. 


But that was then, and this is now--when Romney-care has suddenly turned into "Obama-care." Now he repeats over and over at rallies that he will repeal Obama-care on day one. He now emphatically contradicts himself, saying Massachusetts health care was never meant to be a model for the national policy. 


For these reasons and more, the prospect that Mr. Romney could be our future president frightens me. A president should be someone who can stand their ground despite pressure to cave, someone who has well thought through policies, laws, and values that he sticks by, and someone that people can trust. Mr. Romney has made it clear that he embodies none of those characteristics. He had my support as a bipartisan conservative in Massachusetts, and has my vehement opposition as a thoughtless drone in 2012.