Edie Sundby has cancer. She has the kind of cancer where the five year survival rate is only 2%. She’s among those 2%. Her health insurance company has spent over a million dollars to keep her alive. She likes her insurance company. Too bad. Here’s how Edie described her situation in an op-ed she wrote for the Wall Street Journal,
“Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.”
To LaVonne Neff at Sojourners this is just normal practice for insurance companies. In her defense of President Obama’s repeated declaration, “If you like your insurance you can keep it,” Mrs. Neff claims that the president “just chose his words poorly.” Edie Sundby will likely not be consoled by the dismissiveness of “he chose his words poorly.” For her this is a matter of life and death.
While Sojourners claims to be for the common good, it’s representative does not seem to care that millions of people who have seen their payments double and their healthcare choices reduced. In the last several years Sojourners has lead the way in supposedly bi-partisan, “prophetic” campaigns to force the government to alleviate pain and suffering.
A few years ago, Sojourners helped form a coalition of Religious Left activists, old-line church bureaucrats, and more normally thoughtful evangelical groups to build a Circle of Protection around big government. The Circle of Protection was meant to force Congress to reject any reductions to the increase on entitlement programs intended to alleviate, but often exacerbate poverty. Members of the coalition repeatedly demanded Christians look to the government to solve issues of poverty and hunger. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, said before a groups of emergent Christians, “I would like to get churches get out of the business of distributing groceries–put that in the hands of grocery stores. And get churches involved in working with people to get their lives under control.” In spite of the noted failure of many government programs, these groups remain committed to an ideology that the main responsibility of government is to care for the poor.
Even more recently, this ideology manifested itself in the Faithful Filibuster. Another Sojourner’s led initiative provided yet another opportunity for Statists in collars and vestments to demand the Republicans get out of the way on government growth. Jim Wallis, Sojourner’s president, noted in his fundraiser, “I believe in a God of justice who looks out for the poor and vulnerable in our society, and I am eager to stand with fellow faith leaders to share this conviction. Our “Faithful Filibuster” will remind members of Congress that its dysfunction hurts people and that it is biblically imperative that they function to serve the most vulnerable.” [Wallis’ emphasis] Every Christian would affirm that God looks out for the poor and vulnerable and clearly commands Christians to do likewise, but differ on the Government’s role in that regard.
Which gets us back to the devastating effect of Obamacare and the Religious Left’s tireless defense of it. Even before the botched role out of the Healthcare.gov website, there was the clear attack on Christian organizations and small businesses who were being forced to fund abortifacient drugs to their employees. Also, the millions of dollars being funneled into Planned Parenthood through various Obamacare exchanges. Those two issues alone should have signaled the fundamental problems with the law. Now we are learning that an estimated 16 million people have or will be receiving notices from their insurance companies that their previous policies do not comply with Obamacare standards and will be cancelled. Plans for people like Edie have been cancelled.
The reason the Religious Left loves Obamacare is because they are committed to the ideology that the Government knows best. The patronizing way in which the Left speaks of their fellow Americans is stunning. Look further how LaVonne Neff defends Obama supposed naiveté,
“So President Obama should not have made a promise he couldn’t keep.
However, I don’t think the president intentionally lied. I don’t think he was naïve about insurance companies. I think he was naïve about Americans. I suspect he had no idea that so many Americans would actually like and want to keep those individual policies that:
- cost significantly more than work-based policies
- hire people for the express purpose of finding trivial reasons to deny payment on claims
- respond to claims by shutting down people’s policies or raising their prices way beyond affordability
- refuse to insure people with any pre-existing conditions (e.g., people who have been kicked off their previous policies because they actually had to use them)
- set limits on how much they will pay that are way lower than the cost of treating most serious illnesses
And that pretty much describes most of the policies that have shut down as a result of the Affordable Care Act.”
In summary, Sojourners and their Religious Left partners seem to believe the American people are too ignorant and unaware that their insurance was substandard and don’t understand that the benevolent President simply wants what is best for them. Therefore, any suffering that results from government benevolence is unfortunate, but necessary for the common good. Or as another leader once put it, “If you want to make an omelet, you must be willing to break a few eggs.
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 10, 2013 at 10:53 am
I have several objections to the article.
First, the 16 million figure is inflated. Most analysts put this figure at 12 million or fewer.
Second, your prime example is not one of those who got letters for having policies cancelled because they were deemed subpar under the ACA. To use this example to criticize Obama’s statements and the reality regarding those policies is fallacious.
Finally, your headline is blatantly inflammatory and unfounded. To say that Sojourner’s does not care about examples like Edie Sundby is nothing more than an assumption on your part. Secondly, you have not documented that “millions are suffering” nor that Sojourner’s doesn’t care if they are.
I’ll agree that the President’s rhetoric regarding those in the individual market was inaccurate, and I think it is fair to say the Administration and others did not consider the extent to which people might want to keep the so-called subpar policies. Still, that does not justify this rather over the top criticism.
You are also ignoring those being helped by the ACA. It would arguably be more accurate to say “Luke Moon cares nothing for the millions who were suffering and thousands who were dying without the ACA.”
Now, I am not saying there is nothing to criticize regarding the ACA. But I don’t think this type of argument by anecdote and skewed analysis is very helpful.
Comment by Luke Moon on November 12, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Whether it is 16 million or 12 million, people are still having their plans cancelled. ACA forced Edie’s provider out of California. There certainly could have been a better way to take care of the millions of uninsured without destroying the entire system. The impact of ACA has not even begun to be made known. The cancellations that will come when the employer mandate begins will likely add million more to the list of those suffering like Edie. But to make things worse, the millions who now have to spend twice as much on healthcare means they are not going to spend that money elsewhere. They are not going to buy that car, take that vacation, go out to eat as much. This reality will not manifest itself immediately, but will hurt everyone. It is this type of thing that Sojo seems completely oblivious too.
You are right that my title was outrageous. It was meant to be. I am sure some people at Sojo care, they just don’t care enough to form a coalition to do anything about it. Like I said, when the government is the cause of suffering, Sojo is nowhere to be found.
Comment by Mike on November 12, 2013 at 6:50 pm
The president’s comments weren’t “unfortunate” or “inaccurate”–we now know for a fact that the Administration knew a significant number of people would be unable to keep their insurance back in 2010. Call it what it really is–a lie.
Comment by Fr. John W. Morris on November 12, 2013 at 11:07 pm
People like Jim Wallis are sincere, but misguided. Our government welfare programs have not reduced poverty. They have only created a permanent underclass dependent on welfare for survival and which can be counted on to vote Democratic. The problem is that those of us who work are being squeezed by paying taxes to support people who could but are to lazy to work. Walllis and his people completely misinterpret Christ’s command to care for the poor. Our Lord did not mean that we should allow ourselves to be exploited to support people who will not work but live off of “gaming” the system.
Comment by Forgiven Sinner on November 12, 2013 at 11:07 pm
Jesus shed his blood, died for our sins, and was raised from the dead. In Him we have forgiveness and eternal life. Period. That’s a promise we can believe in.
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 15, 2013 at 9:48 am
I appreciate the reply from Luke.
A couple of comments.
First, part of what we see happening now is that anything negative that happens in the insurance or health care market is now getting blamed on the ACA, even if those things were happening or would have happened anyway.
I grant that people are having their policies cancelled, and it is certainly likely, as you say, that more of this will happen when the employer mandate kicks in.
I will ask you this. Do you know how many people got their policies cancelled 2 years ago or 5 years ago? If not, what basis do you have for saying the ACA is making things worse? The fact is, people have been getting their policies cancelled or changed all the time, and that includes people with employer based coverage. It is also true that companies pull out of markets all the time. My employer 2 or 3 times over the past 20 years had to find a new provider for that very reason.
Secondly, ACA is not, as you say, “destroying the whole system.” If you think there is a better way to provide coverage to the uninsured that is less disruptive, let’s here it. My guess is Jim Wallis would suggest a single-payer plan. Would that be less disruptive in your view?
I will grant you that Obama soft-pedaled (or ignored) some of the negative impacts. We have, unfortunately, cowed our politicians into thinking they should enact policy changes and never have any losers. That is not realistic, but that is unfortunately what the public implicitly demands. They don’t want any cuts to Social Security or Medicare, but they also don’t want to pay more taxes or make deep cuts to other programs. That’s not realistic.
I think the ACA could be improved. I grant it has problems and the roll out has been horrible. However, I have yet to see a good argument that it is really worse than what we had that takes into account the entire system, including all the people who have already been helped by the ACA. I will point out that even the 12 to 16 million you complain about will not all be worse off in the long run. They are not all going to be Edie’s. Many of them will eventually find plans that are better and/or cheaper than what they would have gotten without the ACA.
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 15, 2013 at 11:34 am
I thought this article was interesting. It discusses some of the types of alternatives Republicans are fond of, and offers a critique of these. I am not saying it is entirely fair or complete or that I even agree with it. But it does make the point that myopically focusing on only those in the individual market is neither an accurate, nor is it likely to a politically expedient, way to look at the ACA or possible alternatives.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/right-ready-for-every-man-for-himself-care.html
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 15, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Here is another article which partially answers my own question to Luke.
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/clock-is-ticking.pdf
It includes the following figures from the period including 2008 to 2010.
“With each passing week that meaningful health care reform is not enacted, more families
in every state are losing health coverage (see table on page 2):
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 17, 2013 at 10:29 am
I see the table of figures did not come through. Their calculation indicated that 2.3 million people were losing coverage each year from 2008 to 2010. Now, this is not really an apples to apples comparison with the reported 5 million or so who are getting letters due to the ACA. Of those 5 million, not all of them will end up with no coverage. Some will have to decide if they will pay more for a similar policy, or (since they should be buying some kind of insurance) go to a lower level policy. And, it is likely some will be able to get a similar policy for less.
Secondly, I note that the same article I cited indicated that “the share of firms offering health
coverage declined by 6 percentage points, with small businesses being the most likely
to drop coverage.” Again, those who criticize the ACA because it may lead to firms dropping coverage or moving people to part time are ignoring the fact that this has already been happening.
Comment by Luke Moon on November 15, 2013 at 6:33 pm
I am no healthcare expert. The systems involved in healthcare are very complicated. That being said, ACA does not make it less complicated it just adds fewer choices and will increase costs. Wallis and many Democrats would prefer a single-payer system. The problem with the single payer system is that while it might make administration easier it is a generation too late. For a single payer system to work you need a tax base of X to pay for the healthcare of Y. The taxes would either have to come through increased income tax or a VAT. The VAT would likely need to be 15-20 percent. This would mean 15-20 less money for people to spend on other stuff. The hit to the economy would be worse than the 2008 financial crisis. The income tax would not work because we, like every other industrial nation, will be seeing a declining workforce due to low fertility. In simpler terms, the baby boomers would break the system almost as soon as it starts.
I would be more inclined towards a Health Savings Account model that is accompanied with doctors and hospitals posting prices for all procedures and protection for catastrophic situations.
The ACA creates incentives for people to show how poor they are so they will pay less. That is the very same incentives that keeps families locked in poverty for generations. The incentives need to be directed towards pushing costs down. That is done in most industries by competition. The problem of people going to the ER for a common cold would change if my local CVS or clinic would charge $50 for a visit and the ER was $500 for a visit and people are incentivized to choose CVS over the ER. Also tort reform which was kept out of ACA by the trial lawyer lobby.
Comment by Robert C Whitten on November 15, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Apparently, Sojourners cares more about statistics than real people.
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 18, 2013 at 1:18 pm
First, one should not infer anything regarding the views of people at Sojourner’s from me.
Secondly, even your inference applied to me would be little more than a gratuitous smear.
If you think making policy by isolated anecdote is a good method, that is up to you. The problem with that method, however, is one can find an anecdote to support most any position, especially if one ignores all other anecdotes that don’t support your view.
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Here is a story about a real person.
http://www.texasobserver.org/a-galveston-med-student-describes-life-and-death-in-the-safety-net/?7
This person died. I am not saying I know he would have lived had he had insurance, but clearly, his situation is one that is very likely going to be avoided under the ACA, or if we implemented it, a single-payer plan.
Would anyone here say we should care less about this person than Edie Sundby?
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 16, 2013 at 12:14 pm
I’ll start with an area of agreement. One issue with the ACA, and this applies to the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs, is how to pay for it given the demographic changes you raise. That is an issue we will have to deal with in the not too distant future.
However, I am not sure your claims of a single-payer system, or a continued ACA, being impossible hold up. Let’s do some math.
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
In 2011, the U.S. spent $2.7 trillion on health care, $8680 per person. This is something like 50% more than any other country, close to twice what many OECD countries spend. Somewhat over a third of the total was paid for through Medicare and Medicaid. About 1 out of every 9 dollars was spent out of pocket, a total of $307 billion.
Total U.S. income in 2012 was $13.4 trillion.
http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm
Now, not all of health care spending is coming straight out of individual incomes, but it is true that health care spending represents 20% of all personal income. So, that is what we are doing NOW. I am not sure why switching to a single-payer system by itself would result in an increase in this total spending. It would simply change how we pay for health care. Yes, we would pay more in taxes, but we would pay correspondingly less in employer-based and private insurance. Even if your 15-20% VAT is accurate, you are not taking into account that the single-payer system would mean people and employers would no longer be spending hundreds of dollars a month on insurance.
What about the demographic changes? The percent of working age Americans is projected to decrease from 63% to 58% by 2050, with the over 65 population going from 13% to about 20%, a roughly 50% increase. Let’s say this increases Medicare spending (ignoring inflation) by 50%. This by itself would push health care spending from $2.7 trillion to about $3 trillion. Adding in the effect of the reduced work force, and assuming all the additional burden falls on working age Americans, this burden would increase the Medicare burden on working Americans by about 20%. That sounds like a lot, but the current Medicare tax rate is 1.45%, with an additional 0.9% on income over $200,000. A 20% increase on this rate would result in a rate of about 1.75%. People would kick in an additional $3 or so for each $1000 in income under the new tax rate. That does not seem like a huge problem to me.
A similar calculation for Social Security, now at 6.2%, would increase the rate to about 7.4%. The net effect on income-earners would another $12 to $13 of taxes per $1000 of income.
Now, maybe I am missing something, but it does seem to me like we can handle those issues without catastrophic economic side effects.
And, keep in mind we have to address these issues regardless of ACA, and regardless of going to a single-payer system.
It seems to me if we just look at the entire pie, we can pay for the ACA, or a single-payer system if that’s what we want. If such a change changes overall spending, evidence from other countries suggests it will reduce spending. The change would then mean we simply pay for health care in a different way, and we probably spend less overall. The demographic issue seems to me to be largely irrelevant, especially since we have to deal with that anyway.
I would agree tort reform is something we should look at. However, figures I have seen indicate this will only save at most a few percent on total costs. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but it does mean that change is not likely to ‘bend the health care cost curve’ down very much.
Comment by Mike Catalano on November 25, 2013 at 11:08 pm
An article with several anecdotes regarding people helped by the ACA.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-success-20131125,0,1801769.story#axzz2lifdNgOg