thereductbox.com LA Blog Wire

Healthcare Costs Bankrupt Even Those With Health Insurance

Mike Stagg — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:50:31 -0700

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that "an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured."

This is scary. Why?

Because more than half of all bankruptcies (prior to the current economic bust) were related to healthcare expenses. You can read the report on this fact here (PDF).

If you do the math (61% of all bankruptcies involve medical expenses; 75% of medical expense bankruptcies involve people who HAD health insurance), you'll find that somewhere around 40% of all bankruptcies involve medical expenses of people who had health insurance.

"Underinsurance is the great hidden risk of the American health care system," Elizabeth Warren told the Times. She co-authored the 2007 report on healthcare bankruptcies cited above. “People do not realize they are one diagnosis away from financial collapse.”

The Times reports:

Last week, a former Cigna executive warned at a Senate hearing on health insurance that lawmakers should be careful about the role they gave private insurers in any new system, saying the companies were too prone to “confuse their customers and dump the sick.”

“The number of uninsured people has increased as more have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance,” Wendell Potter, the former Cigna executive, testified.

To put a human face on the issue, the Times tells the medical tale of woe of Lawrence Yurdin, a 64-year old computer specialist living in Texas. To make a long story short, Mr. Yurdin faced tens of thousands of dollars of unexpected medical expenditures if he got necessary heart procedures, even though he had health insurance coverage.

Things turned out well for Mr. Yurdin, though, the Times reports:

But as of Wednesday, his future insurance problems are largely solved: he qualifies for Medicare because he turns 65.

The "public option" in President Obama's healthcare reform package would allow working age Americans (18-64) buy into a Medicare-like program that would provide medical coverage (as does Medicare) with affordable premiums.

This is the plan that the health insurance companies (you know, the ones who deny coverage and have overhead costs that consume about 30 percent of health insurance premiums) are opposing.

There are tens of thousands — if not millions — of stories like Mr. Yurdin in America today. There are tens of thousands — if not millions — of stories involving people who cannot even afford health insurance premiums.

Recent polls show something on the order of 70% support for the public option in the country, fueled in no small part by the direct experiences individuals, families and businesses have had dealing with private, for-profit health insurance providers.

Senator Mary Landrieu has not heard from enough Louisiana residents who want this public option as a path to affordable access to care. Call her office and tell her you support the public option!

Here's a list of her in-state offices:

New Orleans: Hale Boggs Federal Building
500 Poydras Street
Room 1005
New Orleans, LA 70130
Voice: (504) 589-2427
Fax:(504) 589-4023

Baton Rouge: Room 326, Federal Building
707 Florida Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
Voice: (225) 389-0395
Fax:(225) 389-0660

Shreveport: U.S. Courthouse
300 Fannin Street
Room 2240
Shreveport, LA 71101
Voice: (318) 676-3085
Fax:(318) 676-3100

Lake Charles: Hibernia Tower
One Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1260
Lake Charles, LA 70629
Voice: (337) 436-6650
Fax:(337) 439-3762

She needs to hear from you!

Healthcare Costs Bankrupt Even Those With Health Insurance

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Stagg) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:50:00 -0700

Last week, a former Cigna executive warned at a Senate hearing on health insurance that lawmakers should be careful about the role they gave private insurers in any new system, saying the companies were too prone to “confuse their customers and dump the sick.”

“The number of uninsured people has increased as more have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance,” Wendell Potter, the former Cigna executive, testified.

But as of Wednesday, his future insurance problems are largely solved: he qualifies for Medicare because he turns 65.

New Orleans Hale Boggs Federal Building
500 Poydras Street
Room 1005
New Orleans, LA 70130
Voice: (504) 589-2427
Fax:(504) 589-4023

Baton Rouge Room 326, Federal Building
707 Florida Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
Voice: (225) 389-0395
Fax:(225) 389-0660

Shreveport U.S. Courthouse
300 Fannin Street
Room 2240
Shreveport, LA 71101
Voice: (318) 676-3085
Fax:(318) 676-3100

Lake Charles
Hibernia Tower
One Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1260
Lake Charles, LA 70629
Voice: (337) 436-6650
Fax:(337) 439-3762

She needs to hear from you!

Happy 4th

oyster — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:52:00 -0700

Driving to Florida, I noticed that Air Supply is coming to the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi.

But Air Supply at the Hard Rock only seems inappropriate until you learn that the duo has a new thrash version of "All Out of Love", and it rocks the haus. (Kind of like that Seether cover of "Careless Whisper" which happens to be the answer to several hundred questions no one ever asked.)

Several years ago, Lovely and I drove to Gulfport on Independence day to see Quintron play. It went something like this. Outside, in the parking, lot there was a drunk punk who was trying to burn an American flag. He lit the end with a lighter and then blew on it to spread the flames, but the alcohol in his breath made it flare up beyond expectation and he burnt his face and beard, and screamed in pain.

Speaking of pain, I'd been worried that the 2000's wouldn't have a widespread pop song-induced dance-craze like the Macarena. Luckily, a band called 3Oh!3 has apparently prepared the way, musically, for the ... Helen Keller.

3Oh!3 - New Music - More Music Videos

Another Reason The Town Talk Should Reconsider Its “Blog”

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:22:07 -0700

Blatantly false “Associated Press report” posted as a comment on both stories about local Teabag Parties:

Uncontested for hours.

You would think they would pay more attention to deliberately misleading and completely false reports attributed to the Associated Press. One has to also wonder if the AP has safeguards against this in their agreement with Gannett.

Either way, this also proves the extent to which the intellectually dishonest Birthers will lie and manipulate the facts in order to continually undermine President Obama’s legitimacy.

Happy 4th ...

ryan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:17:06 -0700

Happy 4th of July.

Back tomorrow with a post. Until then, enjoy the holiday ...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA!!!

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:00:08 -0700

Jindal makes progress with item vetoes, but more remains

Jeff Sadow — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:45:00 -0700

Another year, another set of line item vetoes for Gov. Bobby Jindal to cast, and those that he did indicate he’s still selectively serious about priorities in state spending. Last year, Jindal got rid of over 250 items. This year’s (not including all the contingency items in HB 1) number were only a little more than a fifth of that total, in part no doubt because Jindal showed he meant business last year.

HB 881 served as the main vehicle for what are now called “member amendments” (those placed in on request of a legislator for a nongovernmental or local government agency), for which Jindal has stated certain criteria will serve. While a few of the vetoes were technical funding matters from the previous year, on the remainder and those for local governments, Jindal stressed several themes, beginning with they had to be submitted formally which a few were not:

Regional or statewide impact by an NGO. For example, money for Scouts organizations and Veterans of Foreign Wars posts which are centered around small areas of the state were jettisoned. Requests from urban areas, in number of requests and their sizes, particularly were at risk, despite some organizations having affiliations with politically well-connected individuals. Several of these appeared to have multiple grant opportunities from other governments to access.

Attempts to go outside department budgets. If it seemed like it should have been budgeted within funds already appropriated for program operations within a state government agency, Jindal rebuffed it such as in higher education and Treasury.

Persistence didn’t count. Four separate appropriates in very disparate places for the District 2 Community Enhancement Corporation were spiked.

Other local government resources. For example, while monies were allowed to go to a passel of economic development districts and other small local governments for their general activities, a direct appropriation to the Calcasieu Police Jury to run a mayhaw festival was denied as was one for the city of Monroe to deal with Black Bayou, along with one for land for a boat launch ramp in Luling, and one for a film projector and screen for the Beauregard Parish Police Jury to show children some movies. When specified, infrastructure-related projects fared much better than those requesting money to operate recurring programs.

Some were interesting. A roughly $884,000 appropriation Jindal vetoed from the Public Service Commission, ostensibly to fund inspections, because it duplicated something in HB 1, may have been a backdoor attempt for the PSC to gain funding to pay railroad crossing inspectors, a bill to do so having been defeated in the Legislature. Two attempts totaling of $150,000 on behalf of the Louisiana Museum of Arts and Sciences, Inc. were blighted, while the same amount went through for the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame and Museum and a lesser amount to Shreveport's Sci-Port. The Louisiana Association of Nonprofit Organizations, headed by a former Jindal cabinet secretary forced to resign after her handling of last year’s hurricane evacuations, found $100,000 chopped from its request. A local economic development nonprofit having as officers state Rep. Walter Leger and his father who sits on the Louisiana Recovery Administration board got denied $120,000. Even Jindal ally Speaker Jim Tucker got a $200,000 line for blight remediation and $300,000 for the Algiers Development District sliced in order to “ensure a balanced budget.”

Outside of these, the most substantial veto was that for the New Orleans Adolescent Hospital. Jindal had opposed the continuation of this, desiring to move operations across Lake Pontchartrain for efficiency’s sake, but intense lobbying by the New Orleans legislative delegation convinced the Legislature to buck that request. But Jindal will appear to get his way on this. (He did not, however, have a chance to veto money for another state-run institution that the state wished to sell off, the John J. Hainkel Home and Rehabilitation Center as that was folded into larger expenses of the Department of Health and Hospitals; the Legislature also blocked this but it was warned the governor might authorize its closing to save money.)

To sum, as he did last year Jindal proved he said what he meant when it came to the kinds of spending he would tolerate regarding local governments (beyond other revenue-sharing procedures) and that going to nongovernmental agencies. A small does of politics may have emerged into the process as well, given disproportionately the NGO deletions hit areas represented by Democrat political opponents of his, but in large part they also disproportionately made requests that seemed to invite Jindal to veto them by his standards. So to some degree, Jindal’s success here can be measured by the number of amendments that never got attempted, discouraged by his previous fortitude.

Still, given the nature of some things that were vetoed, more could have been. If a renewed seriously is conveyed by his actions, perhaps even fewer will be attempted next year. The next logical steps are in two directions, a reconceptualization of revenue-sharing policy to make moot the necessity of any amendments dealing with local government requests, and a restatement of policy regarding the activities of NGOs. Presumably, they get funded because they perform an important task. Why should not formal policy be articulated that either transfers similar, mainly social service, functions being done by government presently to NGOs, or the reverse? Transparency and accountability would be best served this way instead of this hybrid system.

Regardless, what efforts Jindal has made have altered the political landscape. With members less able to bring back projects and tout this ability for reelection purposes, policy becomes elevated in the minds of voters, meaning legislators become more likely to act in the people’s interest rather than self-interest.

Geaux Karen Gadbois

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:42:21 -0700

Senator, where are you on the public option?

ryan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:07:20 -0700

To LA liberals, divisiveness happens only when they lose

Jeff Sadow — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:35:00 -0700

At the conclusion of its 2009 regular session, several legislators complained about how conflict and disagreement, part of the governing process, seemed worse than ever this time out. Despite differences in levels of experience, race, and gender, with one exception, all claiming this for the record have one thing in common: they historically have voted for liberal and populist agendas that were largely swept aside in 2009, and the assertion was a defensive strategy to try to avoid more of the same in the future.

It’s a bit ironic that it should be these individuals would register these as complaints because those who share their political agenda on many occasions, given the slightest opening, blasted Gov. Bobby Jindal and his policies. To them, it seemed perfectly acceptable to hurl insults and insinuations at Jindal’s staff during committee testifying, yet not so if they perceived it to be aimed at them. At the same time, it isn’t so surprising neither because consistency means nothing when it conflicts with a standard ploy out of the playbook of liberal elected officials, nor because charges like this by them are a regularly used tactic.

Two attention-grabbing events tried to shape this impression. One occurred among House members, where leaders of three main factions – the caucuses representing Republicans, Democrats, and blacks – endorsed the statement that the House was “fractured” and “splintered.” The only non-liberal to articulate any of this, state Rep. Jane Smith, for whatever reason said it partially was the fault of communication skills of Speaker Jim Tucker. In the Senate, a farewell speech permitted for delivery by state Sen. Reggie Dupre, resigning to take a local government job, complained of “poisoned partisan” attitudes.

This is a typical liberal strategy when conservatives provide vigorous resistance to liberalism’s policy desires, and especially accessed when conservatism is as successful as it was on many issues in the 2009 regular session. At this level, especially when they are used to being in the majority, liberal politicians define “consensus” as “agreement with liberalism,” while being “divisive” is “too effectively opposing liberalism.” Thus, introducing “partisanship” is code for not kowtowing on the altar of liberalism because they try to define “nonpartisan” as “agreement with liberalism.” Thus, partisanship is “bad” and so is the “divisiveness” that can come with it.

Liberals unaware of the bankruptcy of their ideology as nothing more than an intellectually incoherent and factually unsubstantiated set of emotive statements see the tactic of terming opposition to them as “partisan” or “divisive” as a tool to combat what they see as sinister moves to obstruct the “truth.” More aware and thereby cynical liberals see it as a tool to prevent the thinking and informed from realizing that exact bankruptcy which allows them to continue to exercise power and to enjoy privilege. Regardless of motive, “partisan” and “divisive” they strive to attach negative connotations to in order to discourage the competition of ideas where, in a state such as Louisiana, they know they often will lose.

As mentioned elsewhere, “partisan” and other political conflict in fact are healthy and refreshing aspects of democracy. Of course, Smith and perhaps others probably meant conflict based on personal issues should be tamped down, but from the rhetoric from and actions of many leftist legislators throughout the session, one gets the sense they were objecting to the fact that their ideas, after a certain point, simply were losing out and this offended them, to the point they wanted to push legislation simply to try to embarrass their opponents. Indeed, of those crying out on this issue, many probably do so because they looked for and assumed offense because to them it is offensive that their opponents could win majorities on their issues, and that these victors disregarded their ideas totally – to these losers a sign of disrespect. Again, the irony is rich here for in years past when their agendas were ascendant (and slowing grinding the state into the dirt) they steamrolled over their opponents and ignored their wishes totally, and saw nothing wrong with that.

Tucker and Jindal will bear the majority of complaints because it was their agendas that largely muscled out of the way the inferior ideas of the liberal opposition. No doubt this will become an increasingly vocal theme of the minority as the conservative agenda consolidates and gains further ascendancy in state policy-making. Recognize it as an attempt to try to instill some illegitimacy onto the state’s new direction, a delaying tactic by those who, at the ballot box, in committee rooms, in house chambers, and in the realm of public opinion, are losing the debate and will try anything to forestall or prevent that.