Human Rights – Page 2 – Jerry Sturgill

Senator Crapo Responds . . . to My Letter

Our federal delegation seems to be failing us on one of the most important issues of our time: health care. For what matters most, they are doing least.

In response to my recent personal letter to Senator Crapo about health care, I received a “form letter,” email response. (What was I expecting?)

The response completely ignores the issues I raised and reads like an apology for the heartless legislation now before the Senate. [Senator Crapo’s email is copied verbatim below.]

No mention of the CBO scoring that shows tens of millions will lose health coverage under any version of the Senate legislation.
No mention of the disproportionate impact on Idaho, because of our already shameful “coverage gap” and the likely losses to already-stretched medical services in our far-flung rural communities.
No mention of the disproportionate benefit of tax cuts for the wealthy at the cost of the poor.
No acknowledgement that the problems of the current law can be traced to conservative, compromise provisions inserted in the Act; the virulent Republican opposition since; and, the new administration’s squeezing off of legally-mandated support in an effort to force failure–which is like a “caregiver” pressing a pillow over the head of a struggling hospital patient.

Senator Crapo’s email response makes clear the opposition to the current law (the “PPACA”) is based on the right-wing imperatives of unfettered markets and lower taxes. Facts, logic and a concern for the health of society (and our state) do not seem to matter.

For Idaho and Idahoans, this may be the most impactful decision our Senators ever make. Unfortunately, like lemmings (and our Congressmen before them), they appear to be following the partisan crowd in their “rush to the sea.”

In a show of courage, Senators Crapo and Risch should pull back their support and advocate for collaboration with the rest of the Senate (the whole Senate) to find ways to improve the PPACA.

I hope they will muster the courage. Sadly, Senator Crapo’s apologia does not give me much hope.

Senator Crapo’s response to my letter:

July 21, 2017

Jerry Sturgill
Boise, ID

Dear Jerry:

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform. I value the constructive thoughts, opinions, and ideas shared by all Idahoans and welcome this opportunity to respond.

Prior to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), America’s health care system was in need of reform; however, PPACA favors a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach that has led to increased premiums, smaller provider networks and stifled competition between insurers. It is necessary to work toward implementing consumer-driven, state-based health reforms that ensure the American people have access to the health care coverage that is right for them. On May 4, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives took the first step toward comprehensive health reform by passing H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act.

The Senate is currently considering various proposals to repeal and replace PPACA. Any successful reform initiative must include provisions that stabilize the insurance market, repeal the individual and employer mandates and job-stifling PPACA taxes. With premiums rising and coverage options disappearing, the status quo of PPACA is no longer an option.

Congress remains actively engaged with governors, stakeholders and consumers to develop an effective system that works for all Americans. America deserves a better process and a better product, and I look forward to doing my part to make this happen.

In the meantime, please feel free to continue to contact me about health care reform or on other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Mike Crapo
United States Senator

My July 4th Letter to Senator Crapo. About Health Care, Of Course.

There is good reason for skepticism about our federal delegation. Even so, today I have mailed and emailed this urgent letter to Senator
Crapo.

Dear Senator Crapo,

On election night, when I called to congratulate you on your victory, you were gracious, told me of your working with and listening to both sides of the aisle and accepted my offer to be in touch for moments and matters of importance to Idahoans

This is one of those moments. The matter is health care.

H.R. 1628 “The Better Care Reconciliation Act” currently before the Senate will have a devastating impact on many Idahoans. I respectfully implore you to oppose it.

The predicted problems with this legislation are compounded for Idaho in the fact that 78,000 Idahoans already have suffered for years without health care coverage, in large part because the Idaho State Government refused Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Idaho’s Coverage Gap will grow and access to health care will become even more unattainable with the Medicaid contraction and rising premiums predicted by the CBO.

I recently received this note from someone already in the Idaho Coverage Gap:

“Jerry, it’s a sad state of affairs. I am one of the 78,000 here in Idaho. I don’t want something for nothing, but just can’t do the premiums. And it is obviously going to get worse.”

You and I have both served as Bishops in our church. My ward is unusual in that it takes in the downtown area of Boise and the largest concentration of emergency housing for the homeless in Idaho. Our ward also has a large swath of Section 8 housing.

Because of my experiences at Church and after the election, I joined the board of the Interfaith Sanctuary, one of the three large homeless shelters in Boise and the only one that accepts families.

ifs

In these roles, I have worked with (and conducted funerals for) the most vulnerable in our community and learned of the mental and physical problems that led to their homelessness and, like an iron boot, kept them there.

Access to health care through Medicaid is often the only thing that gives hope and the possibility of returning to productivity.

The coverage contractions and increasing premiums caused by the BCRA will only result in more homelessness, loss of hope and a growing social burden and responsibility.

In this divisive and individualistic political and cultural environment, I hope you will apply our shared values to encourage care for our poorer brothers and sisters.

The ACA was meant to do that, by spreading the risks and costs of health care to as many as possible. (We all share the costs and risks of driving with car insurance! Why not health care?)

After strenuous and constant opposition, the ACA mandate is reportedly “hated,” but the fact is that without it (or increased taxes) more people will suffer the effects of poverty and the crushing unavailability of health care—at a cost to all of us.

Consider, for example, the statistics that show where Medicaid was expanded, the costs of emergency care went down. Otherwise, the costs of emergency care must be spread with increased taxes and higher health care prices.

For these and other reasons, the AHCA and BCRA have been characterized as “Rich Care” for some Americans rather than “Better Care” for all Americans. No surprise that recent polls show most Americans are against it.

This is not an area where deficit reduction or reducing taxes on the rich should be a consideration. A healthier society will be a happier, more productive society. Deficits and rich people will take of themselves.

Please vote against the BCRA and collaborate with both sides of the aisle to fix the ACA or otherwise spread risks and costs to make health care fair and affordable for all Idahoans and all Americans.

Thank you for your kind consideration and your continued service.

Sincerely,

JERRYSIG200

Jerry Sturgill

P.S. Please feel free to share this message with Senator Risch. I look forward to being in touch again on future topics, like tax reform, immigration, climate change and public lands.

About Health Care: I Am Not a Communist, I Just Care About People

There is solid logical and factual basis for opposition to the “repeal and replace” legislation passed by the House and now before the Senate.

Logic first.

Barring accident, taking preventative measures leads to better health and reduces the risk of future catastrophic illness. Such measures include annual checkups, better diet, exercise and seeing the doctor when symptoms first appear.

Putting off prevention can lead to escalating problems and higher costs, like putting off repairing a few shingles in your leaky roof until the whole roof collapses. The logical result is wider damage and higher costs.

Most people, including me, tend to wait because of cost.

In my case, I could have avoided years of discomfort and permanent damage if I had not had a high deductible plan and put off seeing the doctor. Rather than spend the money, I lived with the symptoms, with the self-deception that they might go away.

Logically, these tendencies are especially acute among poor working families, who tend to serve more immediate needs — like food and shelter — instead of spending time and money seeking medical advice.

If you cannot identify with this, you must be really lucky. You should consider volunteering at a homeless shelter.

Now the math.

The data referred to in my last post simply confirms the above logic and puts numbers to the effects of health insurance contraction under the American Health Care Act (AHCA or “Trumpcare”).

If you want to dig into the numbers, look at the data from Idaho that describe the 78,000 uninsured who do not qualify for coverage — because they make too much to fit the narrow qualifications in Idaho for Medicaid and not enough to qualify to participate on the “Your Health Idaho” individual insurance exchange. This is the estimated number of Idahoans in the “Idaho Coverage Gap”.

Then plow through the reports from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which “scored” both versions of the the American Health Care Act (AHCA), H.R. 1628 passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate version of the bill ironically named the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BHRA).

CBO has quantified what is obvious in the legislation: the Senate bill would eliminate coverage for 15 million Americans next year and for 22 million by 2026; cut Medicaid by $772 billion over the same period; next year increase individual market premiums by 20 percent; and, make comprehensive coverage “extremely expensive” in individual markets.

To try to understand the potential impact of the AHCA on poor Idaho working families spend time with analysis published by the Kaiser Family Foundation and at least one of several studies of the impact of coverage expansion (including Medicaid expansion) on general health and mortality rates.

map

50states

According to the KFF analysis, an estimated 4.5 million uninsured adults live in the states that did not accept the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). Of that number, an estimated 52,000 live in Idaho. These are Idahoans who would have been covered under the ACA, but missed the opportunity because of the Idaho government decisions to not accept Medicaid expansion dollars and to sponsor its own individual exchange. (Whatever the exact number, it includes some or all of the 78,000 in the Idaho Coverage Gap.)

What are the health impacts? The study sponsored by the Harvard School of Public Health concludes that the availability of coverage in Massachusetts (the model for the ACA), has had the effect of improving public health reducing mortality rates. While demographics and health care resources in Massachusetts may differ from those of Idaho, it is significant that a well-constructed, scientific study has concluded that 830 human adults obtaining previously unavailable health insurance coverage could prevent at least one death per year.

The next step is my own analysis of this data and required mathematical extrapolation. It is indicative only (meaning that it is simply an illustration) of the logic at the beginning of this post and my last post.

My analysis assumes that if the AHCA is passed by the Senate after the July 4th recess, its impacts would apply equally across the Idaho population, which represents around one-half of one percent of the total U.S. population. It assumes that Idaho on its own does not find a way to close the Idaho Coverage Gap. (Efforts so far have failed.) And, it assumes the Harvard Study results could apply to Idaho across the board to all who lose coverage. With those assumptions:

Between 125,000 and 150,000 people will lose coverage in Idaho within the next decade.

Between 150 and 180 people are more likely to die as a result.

This analysis has been dismissed as “hysterical.” Our own Congressman, Mr. Labrador, attracted national and international news coverage when he said that lack of access to health insurance does not result in death.

Paul Ryan has also tried to spin the CBO data by saying that the “loss” of coverage under the AHCA is simply people opting away from buying health insurance in the absence of the “freedom robbing” mandate.

His argument ignores the fact that the largest negative impact on coverage under the AHCA is Medicaid contraction. His argument is also like someone in the Medicaid gap saying he or she would choose to buy a BMW but exercises the freedom not to do so.

While I am aware that we live in a world of “alternative facts,” please understand that I have done my best to discern and share sound logic and credible facts.

Please encourage others, including our Senators, to do likewise.

Call on Idaho Senators to Protect Idaho from Trumpcare

Our Senators must have courage, beginning this week, to resist partisanship and stand up against the devastating effects the Senate version of the American Health Care Act (“Trumpcare”) will have on Idahoans.

Why such a partisan divide on health care? Why did the House pass a bill that will put health insurance beyond the reach of 23 million people? Why have Republican Senators scurried off to work in secret on the Senate version of the bill?

Putting aside partisanship and callousness, one significant part of the answer is highlighted in yesterday’s New York Times article about GOP Senator Dean Heller and his opposition to the Senate bill. About a week ago he said he could not support a measure that would deprive millions of health care and do nothing to lower insurance premiums.

According to the Times, “Now Mr. Heller is facing an intense backlash in Nevada, his home state, where there is talk of a primary race challenge against him next year and a pair of the state’s wealthiest Republican donors are fuming.”

The leading edge of the “backlash” is from President Trump and his rich supporters, in this case, billionaire Nevada casino magnates, Sheldon G. Adelson and Steve Wynn.

Meaning, the health care fight is largely over the taxes imposed on the wealthy to make health insurance affordable for the poor.

Money versus health. Greed versus individual and societal well-being.

Notwithstanding attempts by Republicans, including Raul Labrador and Paul Ryan, to explain otherwise, if the Senate version of Trumpcare passes, 22 million Americans will become uninsured and people will die.

A Harvard medical study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that for the states that adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, mortality rates have declined. Many previous studies support the same, obvious conclusion that with access to health care, mortality rates decline — including for young people.

The Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature has already exposed tens of thousands of Idahoans to higher risk of mortality by refusing to adopt the Medicaid expansion. The further contraction of Medicaid with Trumpcare will make life even more difficult for tens of thousands of Idahoans.

Idahostats

Voting for Trumpcare is like voting to strip most of the Boise metro area of health insurance and allowing one whole neighborhood to die as a result.

Because of their disregard for the lives of their constituents, Raul Labrador and Mike Simpson should be ashamed for their votes in favor of the House version of the bill. Senators Crapo and Risch should be ashamed if they support the Senate version.

If you agree, please call or send emails to Senators Crapo and Risch. The Senate will come back to this terrible bill after their July 4th recess, so email as soon as you can. Encourage our Senators to follow Nevada Senator Heller’s example.

Mike Crapo, Phone: (202) 224-6142 Email: https://www.crapo.senate.gov/contact/email-me

James E. Risch, Phone: (202) 224-2752 Email: https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email

Obamacare vs. Trumpcare: My Boat or Yours?

There’s nothing wrong with healthcare providers and insurance companies making a profit. Right?

rettungsboot_07 You feel a sharp pain in your chest. A spouse or friend rushes you to the hospital. You are having a heart attack and need immediate attention.

“Wait!” you cry from the gurney as the IV is being placed. You blurt out last-minute instructions as the sedatives begin to take effect: “Make sure to get a bid from at least three doctors. Negotiate the operating room expenses and the room rate. If St. Luke’s is less expensive, pull me out of here. . . . and don’t . . . .”

When this moment occurs, if it hasn’t already, I’m sure you will demand this kind of price check. We want our healthcare providers and insurers to make a profit; however, we must keep them honest, with competition and tough negotiation.

“Free markets and profit incentive are essential to the American system, even with healthcare.”

Free markets and profit incentive are essential to the American system, even with healthcare. Government involvement, like Obamacare, hampers the markets and hinders the effects of profitability. Look at what’s happened to health insurance companies, for example.

Take Aetna and Humana. They are two of the largest health insurers and agreed to participate on the Obamacare individual exchanges. Last year they reported losing money and threatened to withdraw from the exchanges unless their proposed merger was approved by Obama’s Justice Department. Of course, It wasn’t.

Since 2010, when Obamacare went into effect, these two companies have distributed to shareholders a total of $2.6 billion in dividends and $19.4 billion in stock buybacks. This represents a total of about $22.0 billion of distributions to shareholders between 2010 and 2016, an amount that could have been much higher if not for the effects of Obamacare and a blocked merger.

Under the new healthcare proposal from the Republicans, Aetna, Humana and the other health insurance providers will be freed of the anti-market, unprofitable restrictions of Obamacare and able to better serve their shareholders.

Better stock performance and removal of the Obamacare tax burden on the wealthy will be a big boost for those who really drive our economy.

Luxury Yacht.

Take super yachts, for example, those luxury boats longer than 79 feet. Super-yacht sales have been down under Obamacare.

In 2010, the year Obamacare was enacted, combined reported sales of super yachts were over $3.0 billion. In 2016, they had dropped to around $2.8 billion. In 2010, the average price of a super yacht was $15.0 million and by 2016 it was less than $8.0 million.

Once the Republican healthcare proposal is in place, fewer people may have health insurance, but yacht budgets should increase, creating good jobs for yacht builders, brokers, crew members and others.

Hang in there yacht people. Relief is on the way.

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”

Here was the fear described by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address, “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

From the other side of the coffee shop, close to the door, came shouted words of accusation.

A man was yelling at the shop’s young manager. He accused her of being responsible for the theft of his lap top computer. Apparently, hours before, he had left it unattended at one of the shop’s several tables and, he claimed, it had been stolen.

As he turned to shout at customers, I jumped from my seat and rushed to see if I could help.

The manager and I coaxed the man out the door, and I stood with him in the cold while the manager went to call the police. The poor guy was wild-eyed, disheveled and smelled of alcohol.

I tried to calm him down and help him understand his own responsibility for the loss of the computer. But he challenged my involvement.

“What makes you think you can tell ME what to do?” he spluttered. “Who are YOU?”

“I’m just a regular guy,” I said. “Standing up for what is right.”

Thankfully, the police arrived quickly and I stepped away, back into the shop.

The manager, in tears, came to thank me for my intervention and to fill out an incident report.

Later, at home, I told my wife about the episode.

“What if he had a gun?” she cried.

Had not thought of that.

The next day I read about another wild-eyed drunk who menaced two Indian men in a Kansas bar. The man had been ejected from the bar but came back with a gun, killed one of the Indian men, wounded the other and shot a young American who had tried to wrestle the gun away.

I marveled at the heroism of the young American, but trembled as I remembered the coffee shop incident of the day before and Idaho’s new “permitless” concealed carry law.

fdr inauguration

Fear is again doing its best to take hold, competing with our better instincts to help others by causing indecision, hesitation and moral uncertainty.

Because of fear, belligerence is on the rise. Immigrants are being rounded up and roughed up by those with new authority. Refugees, who desperately seek sanctuary, are being turned away by baseless travel bans. Senseless acts of vandalism and violence against innocent Jews, Muslims and people of color have multiplied.

Do we have the courage to resist? To confront verbal and physical violence? To oppose politicians and policies that fuel fear with falsehoods and conspiracy theories?

For my part, I certainly hope so. The costs of cowardice are too high.

“Get out there and fight for what you know is right!”

Our foundational values are now at risk of being overrun by a growing mob mentality of anger and fear.

As we left the house for school or to “hang” with friends, Mom would look piercingly into our eyes and say, “Remember who you are and what you represent!” She said it louder and more often during our stupid, hormone-soaked teenage years.

She always reminded us of being part of something bigger than ourselves—family, community, country—and she reinforced principles taught at home, school and church.

40211223 - giving a helping hand to another

Among them, the “Golden Rule”—to treat others as we would want to be treated—a universal moral compass to point us toward the values of acceptance, respect and compassion.

This ancient wisdom has nourished the roots of civilization and united communities. Sadly, it is now threatened by an angry and fearful mob mentality whipped to a frenzy by divisive and hateful political rhetoric.

Presidential palaver and policies, with the cowering silence of congressional leaders, have given official license to racism and xenophobia and consequent vandalism and violence.

The dark vision painted in the election and since has causal connection to the shocking desecrations of Jewish cemeteries; to multiplied vandalism and bomb threats at mosques, synagogues and community centers; and to the shooting of two innocent Indian men in Kansas by a drunken xenophobe, who believed they were Iranian and yelled “Get out of my country!” before he pulled the trigger.

This darkness will be hard to erase. Belated, scripted words delivered to a crowd of genuflecting congressional cowards will not by themselves call back the hounds of fear and anger already unleased. It will require much more—even from us.

Today, Mom would not just urgently whisper, “Remember who you are and what you represent.” She would push us out the door and shout: “Get out there and fight for what you know is right!”

“OK, Mom. We’re on it!”