Questions on Obamacare & Entitlement Reform

[Orasi]

Hello, everyone.

I am posting this question in this section of the forum largely because my situation greatly affects my immediate family.

Throughout the past year, I have heard rhetoric regarding Obamacare and entitlement reform from both sides of the political aisle. Since many of you, as Catholics and as concerned citizens, have a good amount of knowledge regarding such topics, I figured I’d ask your opinions.

My situation: Since birth, I have been very medically expensive. I was born severely premature and needed much medical attention as an infant. As I grew older, I needed continued physical therapy and speech therapy. During my teenage years, I needed a few operations (one of which required a fair amount of physical rehabilitation) and a number of hospitalized stays. While I have a number of medical issues, the most pressing issue – and by far the most debilitating issue – is a rare spinal degeneration disease. This syndrome has caused me to miss months of school (requiring my parents to hire tutors during particularly trying times and to take extensive time off work) and has now driven me to take a medical leave from college, much to my regret. At the present time, I am in an intensive physical therapy program in the hopes that it will enable me to acquire the stamina and strength to return to school in 1-2 semesters. If not, I am looking at a minimum of two operations over the next 5 or so years. Needless to say, my condition raises future questions about my realistic earning potential. While I have a very high GPA from a top-tier college, I fear that my time as a professional could be cut quite short due to my uncertain physical state if PT and/or surgery prove ineffective.

I would like to state upfront that my parents have pledged their emotional and financial support indefinitely (for which I am very fortunate and grateful). However, I am still cognizant of people who are physically vulnerable and are not as fortunate as I am, and have a number of questions regarding Mr. Romney’s plans on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Replace with what, exactly? At present, there are a number of good things about Obamacare (I am NOT saying that it is holistically good, I am simply remarking that there are components of it that are necessary), including: a) No denial of coverage based on a pre-existing condition; b) No discrimination of coverage based on gender; c) People under the age of 26 can stay on their parents’ health insurance (this is a huge relief for me, since I do not have the physical capacity to work anytime soon); d) Insurance companies are prohibited from preventing someone from renewing their insurance based on a pre-existing condition; e) No annual or lifetime dollar limits on needed care.

As for “entitlements,” will the entitlement cuts threaten people who are handicapped? As an example, I have a friend who is mentally retarded and on welfare; I believe she receives approximately $1,000 per month. Combined with her part-time minimum wage job, she is making about $13,000 per year. That is barely enough for her to afford rent, food, gas, and car payments. She truly has little extra money to afford health-related services. Meanwhile, I require thousands of dollars in medical services annually. The massage therapy I receive to relieve chronic muscle spasms (a product of my spine condition) – which is one of the most important therapies I need in order to function in school – is not covered by insurance. Hypothetically, if I were to go on welfare (and I am nowhere close to doing that, this is simply hypothetical), my income would not be enough for me to function at any capacity. While I am aware that insurance failing to cover massage therapy is indeed a “separate” issue, my overall concern is that massive entitlement cuts could potentially prevent vulnerable people (the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped) from living a frugal, but acceptable, lifestyle. (By “acceptable lifestyle,” I mean the ability to afford basic, healthy food, rent/utilities for a modest apartment, basic health services, etc.)

I readily admit that I am no expert on health insurance, nor am I fully knowledgeable on the intricacies of Obamacare or Mr. Romney’s proposed replacement. However, I am looking for people more informed than I to explain whether Mr. Romney’s alternative to Obamacare, in addition to the GOP’s suggested entitlement cuts, will adversely affect (in terms of the new, positive rights that Obamacare has established, or monetary cuts from entitlement reform) people who are physically and/or mentally handicapped? If no, why will there be no negative impact? If yes, what is/are the negative impact(s)?

Thanks for your time.

P.S. While I am agnostic, I would nonetheless appreciate your prayers/positive thoughts, as I am going through a stressful time. As I stated before, I am in the process of navigating through a medical ordeal, the outcome of which will influence my life’s arch – and my family’s welfare - over the next decade.

 

[AnneElliott]

I am afraid I am absolutely no help on your healthcare questions. I am struggling to understand the intricacies myself! However, I will certainly keep you in my prayers.
Peace.

 

[april32010]

i can not speak for others ,but situations such as yours and your friends are the reason we do need some type of help for.and the help there is available isn’t sufficient .i will pray for you and your friend.

 

[skigirl1689]

Hello, everyone.

I am posting this question in this section of the forum largely because my situation greatly affects my immediate family.

Throughout the past year, I have heard rhetoric regarding Obamacare and entitlement reform from both sides of the political aisle. Since many of you, as Catholics and as concerned citizens, have a good amount of knowledge regarding such topics, I figured I’d ask your opinions.

My situation: Since birth, I have been very medically expensive. I was born severely premature and needed much medical attention as an infant. As I grew older, I needed continued physical therapy and speech therapy. During my teenage years, I needed a few operations (one of which required a fair amount of physical rehabilitation) and a number of hospitalized stays. While I have a number of medical issues, the most pressing issue – and by far the most debilitating issue – is a rare spinal degeneration disease. This syndrome has caused me to miss months of school (requiring my parents to hire tutors during particularly trying times and to take extensive time off work) and has now driven me to take a medical leave from college, much to my regret. At the present time, I am in an intensive physical therapy program in the hopes that it will enable me to acquire the stamina and strength to return to school in 1-2 semesters. If not, I am looking at a minimum of two operations over the next 5 or so years. Needless to say, my condition raises future questions about my realistic earning potential. While I have a very high GPA from a top-tier college, I fear that my time as a professional could be cut quite short due to my uncertain physical state if PT and/or surgery prove ineffective.

I would like to state upfront that my parents have pledged their emotional and financial support indefinitely (for which I am very fortunate and grateful). However, I am still cognizant of people who are physically vulnerable and are not as fortunate as I am, and have a number of questions regarding Mr. Romney’s plans on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Replace with what, exactly? At present, there are a number of good things about Obamacare (I am NOT saying that it is holistically good, I am simply remarking that there are components of it that are necessary), including: a) No denial of coverage based on a pre-existing condition; b) No discrimination of coverage based on gender; c) People under the age of 26 can stay on their parents’ health insurance (this is a huge relief for me, since I do not have the physical capacity to work anytime soon); d) Insurance companies are prohibited from preventing someone from renewing their insurance based on a pre-existing condition; e) No annual or lifetime dollar limits on needed care.

As for “entitlements,” will the entitlement cuts threaten people who are handicapped? As an example, I have a friend who is mentally retarded and on welfare; I believe she receives approximately $1,000 per month. Combined with her part-time minimum wage job, she is making about $13,000 per year. That is barely enough for her to afford rent, food, gas, and car payments. She truly has little extra money to afford health-related services. Meanwhile, I require thousands of dollars in medical services annually. The massage therapy I receive to relieve chronic muscle spasms (a product of my spine condition) – which is one of the most important therapies I need in order to function in school – is not covered by insurance. Hypothetically, if I were to go on welfare (and I am nowhere close to doing that, this is simply hypothetical), my income would not be enough for me to function at any capacity. While I am aware that insurance failing to cover massage therapy is indeed a “separate” issue, my overall concern is that massive entitlement cuts could potentially prevent vulnerable people (the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped) from living a frugal, but acceptable, lifestyle. (By “acceptable lifestyle,” I mean the ability to afford basic, healthy food, rent/utilities for a modest apartment, basic health services, etc.)

I readily admit that I am no expert on health insurance, nor am I fully knowledgeable on the intricacies of Obamacare or Mr. Romney’s proposed replacement. However, I am looking for people more informed than I to explain whether Mr. Romney’s alternative to Obamacare, in addition to the GOP’s suggested entitlement cuts, will adversely affect (in terms of the new, positive rights that Obamacare has established, or monetary cuts from entitlement reform) people who are physically and/or mentally handicapped? If no, why will there be no negative impact? If yes, what is/are the negative impact(s)?

Thanks for your time.

P.S. While I am agnostic, I would nonetheless appreciate your prayers/positive thoughts, as I am going through a stressful time. As I stated before, I am in the process of navigating through a medical ordeal, the outcome of which will influence my life’s arch – and my family’s welfare - over the next decade.

Your situation sounds a lot like mine: I have Cerebral Palsy, graduated at the top from college, and am reliant on others for care.

Honestly, I think the provisions in place for those of us who truly have a need are going to be pretty secure. I say this because it would be horrific to let us just go without and I don’t believe either side wants that.

However, Obamacare does cut funding to Medicare and puts more people into Medicaid, thus some are afraid this will overwhelm the system. We really can’t predict what is going to happen. All I know is Obama does not support the life of the unborn; how can I trust him to make policies to protect the vulnerable, those of us who are disabled or elderly?

I know you said you are agnostic but I put my trust in God and my loved ones to care for me, NOT the government!

 

[louisak]

I am afraid that regardless of who wins the election, there are going to be significant changes to Medicare and Medicaid (as well as Social Security although that is off-topic). The reason is simply that these programs are by far the fastest-growing components of the federal budget and they are going to drag the government into bankruptcy within the next 10-20 years if their cost increases are not contained somehow. Already the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (the government agency which oversees these programs) has an annual budget twice as large as that of the entire Department of Defence. In other words, the government spends more money on Medicare and Medicaid payments than it does on the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines put together. (Medicaid is a joint program between the federal government and the states, so if you were to factor in how much the money the states spend on Medicaid payments, the situation is even worse).

Regarding the various medical insurance requirements of “Obamacare” such the requirement of coverage for pre-existing conditions and so forth, it is true that you personally would probably benefit from these aspects of the law. On the other hand, consider that the law does not force employers to offer insurance to their employees - they will be fined if they don’t, but many companies have already announced that they are going to drop insurance coverage and pay the fine instead. Why? Because the many requirements of the law, such as the ones which you mentioned, are going to make insurance far more expensive, to the point where these employers feel they have no choice but to stop offering insurance and just pay the fine.

As a result many people will be forced to get their insurance from the new “exchanges” which will be created according to the terms of the law. I don’t know much about these exchanges or how they will work. However, speaking as a software contractor who works for the federal government, I can tell you that of those federal agencies which I have seen up close, I have been surprised and disturbed by how poorly organized and mis-managed they are. I would not trust any government agency to do a good job, or even an adequate job, of managing anybody’s health care or insurance.

 

[skigirl1689]

I am afraid that regardless of who wins the election, there are going to be significant changes to Medicare and Medicaid (as well as Social Security although that is off-topic). The reason is simply that these programs are by far the fastest-growing components of the federal budget and they are going to drag the government into bankruptcy within the next 10-20 years if their cost increases are not contained somehow. Already the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (the government agency which oversees these programs) has an annual budget twice as large as that of the entire Department of Defence. In other words, the government spends more money on Medicare and Medicaid payments than it does on the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines put together. (Medicaid is a joint program between the federal government and the states, so if you were to factor in how much the money the states spend on Medicaid payments, the situation is even worse).

Regarding the various medical insurance requirements of “Obamacare” such the requirement of coverage for pre-existing conditions and so forth, it is true that you personally would probably benefit from these aspects of the law. On the other hand, consider that the law does not force employers to offer insurance to their employees - they will be fined if they don’t, but many companies have already announced that they are going to drop insurance coverage and pay the fine instead. Why? Because the many requirements of the law, such as the ones which you mentioned, are going to make insurance far more expensive, to the point where these employers feel they have no choice but to stop offering insurance and just pay the fine.

As a result many people will be forced to get their insurance from the new “exchanges” which will be created according to the terms of the law. I don’t know much about these exchanges or how they will work. However, speaking as a software contractor who works for the federal government, I can tell you that of those federal agencies which I have seen up close, I have been surprised and disturbed by how poorly organized and mis-managed they are. I would not trust any government agency to do a good job, or even an adequate job, of managing anybody’s health care or insurance.

Thank you for this! You said a lot I wanted to convey but did not know how last night. It is very complicated and can be scary for those of us who cannot help ourselves. Reform definitely needs to take place, but I know any reform is going to be resisted.

 

[louisak]

Reform definitely needs to take place, but I know any reform is going to be resisted.

I think reform needs to be incremental. For example, some of the ideas which have been often floated that might help reduce the cost of health care and/or insurance:

• meaningful tort reform (liability reform) so that aggressive lawyers can’t so easily squeeze a good doctor or hospital for millions of dollars
• changes in the law so that people could buy health insurance from any insurance company in the country, not just those authorized for the state they live in

Just to name two ideas. The best thing is to try one idea, if it helps, great; if not, roll it back and try something else. Instead we got a big health-care bill which was 2,000 or so pages in its original form, and has now mushroomed into many thousands of pages of rules that have been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services; since the health care bill itself left a lot of “blank spaces” which HHS was directed to fill in. Nobody can even begin to rationally evaluate all of these new rules and determine what their overall impact is.

 

[Bill_7154]

Something about Obamacare that everyone may not know is that it is, at least in part, modelled after the medical care we have in Massachusetts. I could be wrong, as I often am, but believe that then Gov. Mitt Romney had a hand in creating the healthcare in MA. Our costs have risen 20% a year for the past several years.

And my situation is such that even though I am a working poor person, since I work for a company with more than 50 employees I must buy into the health insurance offered by my company. The sick twist on this is that people who earn twice as much as me but happen to work for a company with less than 50 employees, or who earn twice as much as me and are self employed can buy into essentially the same policy for significantly less than I pay (like 30% of what I pay and they make twice as much with same family size).

That’s just a nice personal kick I get. But Obamacare is modelled after healthcare in MA, I’m sure there are differences. But I believe Romney played a role in its development, but I could be wrong as I often am.

 

[louisak]

Something about Obamacare that everyone may not know is that it is, at least in part, modelled after the medical care we have in Massachusetts. I could be wrong, as I often am, but believe that then Gov. Mitt Romney had a hand in creating the healthcare in MA. Our costs have risen 20% a year for the past several years.

I don’t know how much of a hand he had in the design of it, but he signed the legislation into law. And, he has frequently referred to it as his signal achievement as governor. When he was competing for the Republican presidential nomination he refused to disown the plan (sometimes called “Romneycare” although, as I said, I don’t know how much authorship he actually had in the writing of it) even though he took a lot of criticism for it. That was probably the single biggest reason that so many conservatives didn’t want him as the party’s candidate.

Well, that plus a lot of doubt about his sincerity in becoming pro-life (he was pro-choice when he ran for governor).

 

[dedo]

There is some merit to ideas presented by both sides. Obama has placed some constraints on insurance companies ability to “cost shift” by denying coverage to sick people. I am not sure what Romney’s plan is other than repeal Obama care. I don’t know if Romney supports the Ryan plan of insurance exchanges for Medicare. The Ryan plan basically extends Obama’s insurance exchanges to seniors and hands the seniors a “voucher” to buy insurance.

Obama has attempted to move toward universal coverage as a first step mainly because a complete overhaul that tried to address the cost issue as well (Clinton plan) generated so much opposition that it could not pass.

Ryan seems to focus on cost without addressing universal coverage with his “voucher” plan. However, the Ryan plan mainly tries to limit cost to government by shifting the cost to seniors.

Neither Romney, Ryan, nor Obama has a plan to limit health care costs that is based on sound theory and what has actually worked in other countries. For example, there are no examples, anywhere on the Earth, where healthcare costs have been controlled without government regulation. Competition alone does not work, and only leads to cost shifting. In most countries where costs have been controlled, universal coverage has been achieved at a higher quality than what we have in the U.S. This only happens with government involvement in a way that allows regulation with some measure of insulation from political lobbying.

If whoever wins this election does not address the cost issue then the chance that the U.S. will fall over the “fiscal cliff” is much higher. The current estimate of yearly waste in U.S. healthcare is ~ a trillion a year (or more). If we could save half of that, that would be a huge benefit to the United States.

 

[Cat]

Here is a link to the information you are requesting. This is from Gov. Romney’s Official Website: mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Basically, it seems to be the same plan as ObamaCare, but the power is vested in the states rather than in the federal government, a much more affordable and practical option.

We need to remember that many other nations who have “national health care” do NOT have a federation of states like we do.

There are several sentences from Gov. Romney’s website information that make it clear that Gov. Romney is just as interested in helping the “chronically-ill” and the “high-risk pool” (that would describe your situation) as Pres. Obama is.

Yes, it’s possible that Gov. Romney is lying and plans to ignore your situation and/or pull all your medical care away and leave you desolate with no care, but c’mon–do you honestly think that the citizens of the United States would allow any president to do this?! The President of the U.S. doesn’t have that kind of power–Congress and the Courts would stop him or her.

Here’s what I would look at if I were you–Pres. Obama was the SOLE Senator in Illinois to vote against the Born Alive law. He was willing, for the sake of preserving “reproductive choice,” to allow doctors to KILL babies that were aborted who were “born alive.” One of the first acts of his Presidency was to rescind the Mexico City Policy (instituted by Pred. Reagan and upheld by both Presidents Bush AND by President Clinton) which stopped the U.S. from dispensing aid that included abortion as an option.

President Obama has made it clear that he is pro-choice, which indicates that he believes that some people don’t have the right to live. My question to you is, “How do you know that YOU won’t be on his list someday as someone who doesn’t deserve the right to live?”

 

[skigirl1689]

Yes, it’s possible that Gov. Romney is lying and plans to ignore your situation and/or pull all your medical care away and leave you desolate with no care, but c’mon–do you honestly think that the citizens of the United States would allow any president to do this?! The President of the U.S. doesn’t have that kind of power–Congress and the Courts would stop him or her.

Here’s what I would look at if I were you–Pres. Obama was the SOLE Senator in Illinois to vote against the Born Alive law. He was willing, for the sake of preserving “reproductive choice,” to allow doctors to KILL babies that were aborted who were “born alive.” One of the first acts of his Presidency was to rescind the Mexico City Policy (instituted by Pred. Reagan and upheld by both Presidents Bush AND by President Clinton) which stopped the U.S. from dispensing aid that included abortion as an option.

President Obama has made it clear that he is pro-choice, which indicates that he believes that some people don’t have the right to live. My question to you is, “How do you know that YOU won’t be on his list someday as someone who doesn’t deserve the right to live?”

I think this about sums it up on how I view the entire issue of people saying Romney would do the same as Obama. He may, but he does not have the reputation of being radically pro-abortion like Obama does. I think this should be a crucial distinction for Catholics and Christians alike.

 

[Orasi]

Here’s what I would look at if I were you–Pres. Obama was the SOLE Senator in Illinois to vote against the Born Alive law. He was willing, for the sake of preserving “reproductive choice,” to allow doctors to KILL babies that were aborted who were “born alive.” One of the first acts of his Presidency was to rescind the Mexico City Policy (instituted by Pred. Reagan and upheld by both Presidents Bush AND by President Clinton) which stopped the U.S. from dispensing aid that included abortion as an option.

President Obama has made it clear that he is pro-choice, which indicates that he believes that some people don’t have the right to live. My question to you is, “How do you know that YOU won’t be on his list someday as someone who doesn’t deserve the right to live?”

In terms of Mr. Romney’s “opposition” to abortion, he has stated numerous times in the past (prior to c. 2005) that he was supportive of Roe v. Wade and laws upholding a woman’s “right to choose.” As Wikipedia states: “In a 1994 debate with senator Ted Kennedy, Romney said: 'One of the great things about our nation … is that we’re entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.” Also from Wikipedia: “During the 2002 governor’s race, Romney’s platform stated, ‘As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change.’” In my opinion, while Mr. Romney has embraced Mr. Ryan in the most recent campaign, he is merely doing so to placate the concerns of religious conservatives.

Yes, it’s possible that Gov. Romney is lying and plans to ignore your situation and/or pull all your medical care away and leave you desolate with no care, but c’mon–do you honestly think that the citizens of the United States would allow any president to do this?! The President of the U.S. doesn’t have that kind of power–Congress and the Courts would stop him or her.

In all honesty, I believe that the majority of citizens are at best only mildly concerned about America’s disabled and at worst indifferent or hostile. Only a very select group of people has stood up for my best interests, expressed empathy, or offered any type of support. Throughout my life, authority figures and extended family members alike have demonstrated hostility and apathy. When I was first born, I was given 48 hours to live. During that time, a number of doctors met with my parents in a conference room and uniformly agreed that it would best if I were be taken off live support (to die), since the chances of my survival (approximately 10%) were very small. Needless to say, my parents strenuously objected to their suggestion. When I was in elementary school, I required a quiet learning environment due to dyspraxia (a product of being born during the 2nd trimester). Instead, I was merely grouped with children who had behavioral issues and were loud and disruptive. Effectively, I was left to fend for myself during the academic day. Even though one of my teachers strongly agreed that I be placed in the accelerated/gifted program, the administration felt that, since I had dyspraxia, it would be a waste, despite my excellent grades. After I returned to class on a part-time basis following an operation during middle school, students regularly taunted me about my condition in front of teachers. On a few occasions, students threw my books onto the ground, knowing full well that I could not bend down to retrieve them, less I risk injuring my incision. I would stand for long periods of time asking people to please help me retrieve my books. The teachers who witnessed this neither offered me assistance nor punished those students. Years later, after I had to take a medical leave from my private high school following another operation, the administration tried to force me to withdraw, claiming that they already had “too many students” despite a small class size and after my parents had already invested a good deal of money into my education. My extended family has either not offered any support or has been slow to accept my limitations, with few exceptions. Thankfully, the institution I am attending is very, very supportive of disabled students – which, in addition to their excellent academic program and commitment to social justice, is precisely why I accepted that university’s offer of admission. Bottom line - If individuals have not directly experienced a chronic, debilitating condition, or have not actively supported someone with that medical profile, then they disregard the needs of those people entirely.

 

[Orasi]

Already the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (the government agency which oversees these programs) has an annual budget twice as large as that of the entire Department of Defence. In other words, the government spends more money on Medicare and Medicaid payments than it does on the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines put together. (Medicaid is a joint program between the federal government and the states, so if you were to factor in how much the money the states spend on Medicaid payments, the situation is even worse).

I am well aware that Mr. Obama has deprioritized funding for the Department of Defense, and I believe that America needs a strong military to adequately defend itself and its interests.

However, speaking as a software contractor who works for the federal government, I can tell you that of those federal agencies which I have seen up close, I have been surprised and disturbed by how poorly organized and mis-managed they are. I would not trust any government agency to do a good job, or even an adequate job, of managing anybody’s health care or insurance.

I am also aware that, whenever government is entrusted to extensively regulate the affairs of citizens, it is grossly inefficient, cripplingly bureaucratic, and prone to corruption. However, government should enact and uphold laws that reflect equality and concern for vulnerable classes of people (ex: the disabled). Thus, I still firmly believe that the positive laws that Obamacare established (mentioned above) should remain intact.

I agree with you that meaningful tort reform and granting citizens the ability to purchase health insurance anywhere in the country - or, indeed, anywhere in the world - would go a long way in managing America’s health-related expenses. After all, if I can purchase a car from Germany and fruit from Brazil, why can’t I purchase health insurance from other countries, as well? The current system allows for monopolies to occur (note: NOT natural monopolies), resulting in higher costs and lower product quality and variety. I wonder how this type of restriction is even constitutional? Also, my parents have stated that the government grossly mismanaged Medicare, despite the looming population of baby boomers that would inevitably be tapping into the system.

Lastly, here is something to consider (I haven’t thought this all the way through yet, but I will in the following months) – There should be a meaningful differentiation between people who are clearly born with or, through no fault of their own, develop illness, and people who clearly make poor choices about their health that then result in illness (such as smoking, consumption of illegal drugs, obesity that is not a product of one’s medication or the result of an existing illness, etc.). If people are actively sabotaging their own health, and their decision to do so results in an illness, then they should assume financial responsibility. Perhaps this idea is too difficult to implement at present; however, I believe that, as medical knowledge continues to improve, culpability could potentially be determined more accurately. This sentiment is coming from my witnessing countless individuals who actively abuse their good health (such as smoking or consuming dangerous illegal substances). Honestly, I find it insulting that they do so, and extend little empathy to them when they then complain of an ensuing illness.

 

[Orasi]

i can not speak for others ,but situations such as yours and your friends are the reason we do need some type of help for.and the help there is available isn’t sufficient .i will pray for you and your friend.

Thank you for your prayers.

 

[Cat]

In terms of Mr. Romney’s “opposition” to abortion, he has stated numerous times in the past (prior to c. 2005) that he was supportive of Roe v. Wade and laws upholding a woman’s “right to choose.” As Wikipedia states: “In a 1994 debate with senator Ted Kennedy, Romney said: 'One of the great things about our nation … is that we’re entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.” Also from Wikipedia: “During the 2002 governor’s race, Romney’s platform stated, ‘As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change.’” In my opinion, while Mr. Romney has embraced Mr. Ryan in the most recent campaign, he is merely doing so to placate the concerns of religious conservatives.

In all honesty, I believe that the majority of citizens are at best only mildly concerned about America’s disabled and at worst indifferent or hostile. Only a very select group of people has stood up for my best interests, expressed empathy, or offered any type of support. Throughout my life, authority figures and extended family members alike have demonstrated hostility and apathy. When I was first born, I was given 48 hours to live. During that time, a number of doctors met with my parents in a conference room and uniformly agreed that it would best if I were be taken off live support (to die), since the chances of my survival (approximately 10%) were very small. Needless to say, my parents strenuously objected to their suggestion. When I was in elementary school, I required a quiet learning environment due to dyspraxia (a product of being born during the 2nd trimester). Instead, I was merely grouped with children who had behavioral issues and were loud and disruptive. Effectively, I was left to fend for myself during the academic day. Even though one of my teachers strongly agreed that I be placed in the accelerated/gifted program, the administration felt that, since I had dyspraxia, it would be a waste, despite my excellent grades. After I returned to class on a part-time basis following an operation during middle school, students regularly taunted me about my condition in front of teachers. On a few occasions, students threw my books onto the ground, knowing full well that I could not bend down to retrieve them, less I risk injuring my incision. I would stand for long periods of time asking people to please help me retrieve my books. The teachers who witnessed this neither offered me assistance nor punished those students. Years later, after I had to take a medical leave from my private high school following another operation, the administration tried to force me to withdraw, claiming that they already had “too many students” despite a small class size and after my parents had already invested a good deal of money into my education. My extended family has either not offered any support or has been slow to accept my limitations, with few exceptions. Thankfully, the institution I am attending is very, very supportive of disabled students – which, in addition to their excellent academic program and commitment to social justice, is precisely why I accepted that university’s offer of admission. Bottom line - If individuals have not directly experienced a chronic, debilitating condition, or have not actively supported someone with that medical profile, then they disregard the needs of those people entirely.

This is a rather gloomy and unfair portrayal of people. There are many people who care for the disabled and the disenfranchised. Unfortunately, these people don’t receive a lot of attention, so it’s easy for us to believe that they don’t exist. But they do exist. I am very sorry that you have been the victim of so many bad people over the years.

My dad cared for my invalid mother for over twenty years (she had severe rheumatoid arthritis), and when she was unable to remain at home, he made sure that she was in a good nursing home–because he had the foresight as a young man to purchase nursing home insurance (it was financial sacrifice back when he was young), her expenses were met.

I know many families that have disabled children of all ages, including adult children, and they are given good care by their families.

I know of children who are disabled who are treated well by their peers. Again, I’m sorry that your situation was so miserable. It happens. There are perfectly normal children who become the daily victims of bullies in school and suffer constant harassment. It’s a tragedy.

So can bullying and being mean be outlawed? If you think that you can legislate kindness and compassion, you are mistaken. And if you think that kindness and compassion can be outlawed, you are als mistaken.

Certainly laws should be made to protect the innocent from being victimized. But no matter what the laws say, mean people will continue to be mean. And no matter what the laws say, Christians will always find a way to care for the sick, poor, hungry, prisoners, etc.

I think we have to be careful here. You are talking about attitudes that people have towards those with disabilities. That’s something different than a federally-administered program of comprehensive health care for all people. These are two different issues.

 

[april32010]

I think we have to be careful here. You are talking about attitudes that people have towards those with disabilities. That’s something different than a federally-administered program of comprehensive health care for all people. These are two different issues.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[dedo]

Here is a link to the information you are requesting. This is from Gov. Romney’s Official Website: mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Basically, it seems to be the same plan as ObamaCare, but the power is vested in the states rather than in the federal government, a much more affordable and practical option.

We need to remember that many other nations who have “national health care” do NOT have a federation of states like we do.

There are several sentences from Gov. Romney’s website information that make it clear that Gov. Romney is just as interested in helping the “chronically-ill” and the “high-risk pool” (that would describe your situation) as Pres. Obama is.

Yes, it’s possible that Gov. Romney is lying and plans to ignore your situation and/or pull all your medical care away and leave you desolate with no care, but c’mon–do you honestly think that the citizens of the United States would allow any president to do this?! The President of the U.S. doesn’t have that kind of power–Congress and the Courts would stop him or her.

Here’s what I would look at if I were you–Pres. Obama was the SOLE Senator in Illinois to vote against the Born Alive law. He was willing, for the sake of preserving “reproductive choice,” to allow doctors to KILL babies that were aborted who were “born alive.” One of the first acts of his Presidency was to rescind the Mexico City Policy (instituted by Pred. Reagan and upheld by both Presidents Bush AND by President Clinton) which stopped the U.S. from dispensing aid that included abortion as an option.

President Obama has made it clear that he is pro-choice, which indicates that he believes that some people don’t have the right to live. My question to you is, “How do you know that YOU won’t be on his list someday as someone who doesn’t deserve the right to live?”

Thanks for the link.

Actually, almost every other country that has controlled healthcare costs and improved quality there is some sort of regional government (like U.S. states) that negotiates with providers to control costs.

Even in Canada, with a single payer system, the regional governments negotiate with Federal money to determine price. In Switzerland, they call the regional entity a “Canton”. Thus, there is always a role for federal govt. and regional govt. You cannot leave the Feds out of it or the regional govt. will cost shift to the Feds.

So Romney’s plan does have some merit. However, the idea that “government is bad” is just wrong. In high hazard industry, unsafe companies like to assert a common theme of “we are different”. The U.S. is not different, and there is no reason other than political self interest of numerous parties that keeps us from using methods that have actually worked instead of relying on wishful thinking. In every example where healthcare costs are controlled, it came from government action. Even in the “managed competition” ideology that Republicans embrace, government sets strict parameters on the insurance companies as well as providers. A good example of managed competition would be Switzerland.

I will almost certainly vote for Romney (or a third party candidate) because of the abortion issue although I reject the single issue ideology. Unfortunately, Romney is not doing well right now, the reasons for this were recently reviewed in the WSJ.

I hope Romney does not roll back insurance company reforms in the ACA that prevent denial of coverage etc. That would be a major step backwards.

 

[Orasi]

This is a rather gloomy and unfair portrayal of people. There are many people who care for the disabled and the disenfranchised. Unfortunately, these people don’t receive a lot of attention, so it’s easy for us to believe that they don’t exist. But they do exist. I am very sorry that you have been the victim of so many bad people over the years.

My dad cared for my invalid mother for over twenty years (she had severe rheumatoid arthritis), and when she was unable to remain at home, he made sure that she was in a good nursing home–because he had the foresight as a young man to purchase nursing home insurance (it was financial sacrifice back when he was young), her expenses were met.

I know many families that have disabled children of all ages, including adult children, and they are given good care by their families.

I know of children who are disabled who are treated well by their peers. Again, I’m sorry that your situation was so miserable. It happens. There are perfectly normal children who become the daily victims of bullies in school and suffer constant harassment. It’s a tragedy.

So can bullying and being mean be outlawed? If you think that you can legislate kindness and compassion, you are mistaken. And if you think that kindness and compassion can be outlawed, you are als mistaken.

Certainly laws should be made to protect the innocent from being victimized. But no matter what the laws say, mean people will continue to be mean. And no matter what the laws say, Christians will always find a way to care for the sick, poor, hungry, prisoners, etc.

I think we have to be careful here. You are talking about attitudes that people have towards those with disabilities. That’s something different than a federally-administered program of comprehensive health care for all people. These are two different issues.

First of all, I am well aware that compassionate people do exist. When I was applying to college, I researched schools with good disability programs. One of the schools I was accepted to was Villanova, a Catholic university in Philadelphia that has a world renowned disabilities program. The disabilities director there was very understanding, empathetic, eager to meet my accommodations, and an overall gem of an individual. I was also accepted to a Seven Sisters college, and the admissions officer wrote me a personal note praising me for my resilience and dedication to academic excellence (also in that letter was a very generous merit scholarship – which made me tear up with joy upon receiving it). While I ultimately had to decline both offers, as both institutions were not geographically feasible given my medical conditions and need to be close to my doctors, I often speak warmly of them to this day. Additionally, my family and I cared for two family members with Alzheimer’s and an ailing aunt over a course of years. Lastly, I spent two years as an assistant teacher helping young students with learning disabilities. So, I am aware that kindness exists; however, I still believe that most people are either unaware/indifferent to those with limitations or view them as a burden. Of course, I am simply speaking from my own experiences here, and I would love to be proven incorrect in this case.

I do not think that kindness and compassion can be legislated. America should not be in the business of policing thought, unless an individual expresses a desire or intent to commit an act of violence. However, I do think that laws must be in place to protect those who lack the physical and/or mental capacity to care for themselves, and the laws that I mentioned in the first post do just that. Do I believe that everyone should be entitled to healthcare? No, not necessarily. Certainly, children - regardless of their parents’ employment situation - should have access to healthcare, as should individuals who suffer from a physical and/or mental condition that substantially hinders their ability to acquire and maintain a job. Should indolent individuals who depend on the government - and who have the ability to work but opt not to - be granted healthcare? No, that eliminates the incentive for able-bodied people to assume financial and medical responsibility over themselves.

 

[Orasi]

As a side note, perhaps part of my concern and sensivity regarding healthcare and entitlement reform is derived from the fact that it has only been within the past few decades that America has succeeded in passing meaningful legislation on disability rights. I would hate for the rights of the disabled to regress.

This is a link to Temple University’s timeline of disability rights: isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/disabilityrightstimeline.htm

For example, it was only in 1975 that The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (later renamed The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) was passed, mandating free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive setting.

More recently, The Americans with Disabilities Act, signed by George W. Bush, “provided comprehensive civil rights protection for people with disabilities. Closely modeled after the Civil Rights Act and Section 504, the law was the most sweeping disability rights legislation in history. It mandated that local, state and federal governments and programs be accessible, that businesses with more than 15 employees make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled workers and that public accommodations such as restaurants and stores make “reasonable modifications” to ensure access for disabled members of the public. The act also mandated access in public transportation, communication, and in other areas of public life.”

And it was only in 2001 that the “Commonwealth of Virginia House of Delegates approved a resolution expressing regret for its eugenics practices between 1924 and 1979.”