[Lynch] Why I Lost My Temper

Wow, Adam...good job! I wish I had known about the forum.

golden eagle

Sep 9 2009

Thanks, Adam, for this expose'. I, too, have been very put out with some of my peers--I am 67 and on the bandwagon for health care reform. Though, to be fair, not all of us quit living after 65 and we do maintain some idealism. Lots of us. I know lots of seniors who are more alive and open than some of the young tykes I run into, you excluded, of course. And, to be fair, we paid our money into the Social Security/Medicare System for MANY YEARS and have contributed our own monies that we are now collecting--these are insurance programs; we paid our premiums. Though as more of you join us in retirement, collecting and paying out may likely begin meeting in the road. Lots of seniors have been scared by the fear-mongering of the Republican Party's Stop Obama's Health Care Reform. They have an "if it's not broke don't fix it attitude": truthfully, Medicare pays claims and the fear of messing up Medicare with the health care change, I think, prompts some of the response. That said, I thought Obama's speech to Congress tonight was right on the mark. His unequivocal explanations re. Medicare should ease a senior's worries. And, his calling those who have hate and fear mongered about health care reform, liars, was clear. Be assured, the tea parties aren't for me. They appear to me to be gatherings pre-programmed to assure those on the side of the fear mongers show up. Lots of us that are old and worn out aren't in that bunch. Lots and lots and lots of us. Don't dismay, Adam, there is actually life after you cross those big 50's and 60's and 70's. Really, really, there is. And there really are lots of us who have already crossed those divides who do believe in helping Amandas. And, actually help Amandas. I'll brew a pot of tea and have you over to my house and you will get a different perspective and will not run you off my front lawn, unless, of course, you step on my vegetable garden.

J.T.

Sep 9 2009

Unfortunately, seniors are so susceptible to believing anything they hear. That's why they're often the targets of scams. If they can believe what a scammer tells them, they'll definitely believe something that might cost them their lives if they don't believe the message, even though it's not true.

golden eagle

Sep 9 2009

Golden, some seniors and some juniors are susceptible to believing anything they hear. Some aren't. Yes, if I become senile from age, I will be more likely to be scammed. Plus, I may not have ever met the new scam in my life. But, I am a senior, if we use age for that categorization. And, I am not much susceptible to believing anything I hear. Lots of other seniors aren't either. Please don't generalize about us. That is as unfair as me generalizing about any group. Like it or not, seniors as a group have clout. One of the best things Obama did tonight was try to clear up their concerns about Medicare. It would be real good for the attempt to pass health care reform if more seniors were on board, wholeheartedly.

J.T.

Sep 9 2009

It was not my intention to generalize you or any other seniors. I apologize for that. I do hope and pray that you won't fall for any scams, even when you become 100.

golden eagle

Sep 9 2009

Statement just in from Sen. Thad Cochran: SENATOR COCHRAN REACTION TO PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE REFORM WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) on Wednesday evening offered the following statement regarding President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress to discuss health care reform: "The first step to improving our health care is to quit playing politics with it. I am convinced that we need to set aside the finger pointing and end the blame game. The President proposed a number of bipartisan ideas that have been developed on both sides of the aisle. In order to reach a workable reform plan, we need to take his advice and start working together."

DonnaLadd

Sep 9 2009

Golden, your apology accepted. I've grown to respect you from this blogging and I knew you didn't mean what you said the way you wrote it. I, too, hope and pray I don't fall for any scams even when I become 100. Donna, Cochran's statement sounds positive.

J.T.

Sep 9 2009

great post. and you're right, the senior citizens who already receive government benefits and assistance need to think twice about what they are fighting. some of us younger folk also need assistance from time to time.

jasonmorgan

Sep 10 2009

Good points, but the "teabagger" references is extremely juvenile and makes many much less likely to take your article seriously.

kudzuking

Sep 10 2009

Kudzuking, that crowd calls itself "teabaggers." Why is using the phrase they like "juvenile"?

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

Re seniors; check this out. The AARP is everywhere today busting the myths and scare tactics spread by Big Insurance and Republican opponents of heath-insurance reform. Go check it out, and call your grandparents. The schmucks out there need to stop trying to scare our elderly. They deserve more respect than that.

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

"I could not fathom how people who are happy to take a percentage of my paycheck every two weeks to fund their retirement could wail so much about socialism." Social Security checks are not welfare payments. The gray haired and balding people there have paid into the system for their entire life and are receiving the benefits due to them under the law. It is not a free ride. I don't have a public comment on any of the other issues raised except that I think recipients of social security benefits needed to be defended. On second thought, that is a rather nasty comment about a group of people based on their age just because they disagrees with your view. They are entitled to one just like you and free to express it as well. Mean spirited comments/observations are counterproductive from either side.

jacksonmissmom

Sep 10 2009

Adam, of the volumes of fine work you've written, this may be the best yet. David

David McCarty

Sep 10 2009

jasonmorgan, I agree that young and old need assistance sometimes. Morally responsible people and govts try to appropriately assist others when they need it. However, my understanding and experience is that different from Medicaid--which is Assistance--Medicare is a government administered health care plan, part of the premium for which is deducted from a worker's paycheck during their working years. Then at 65, the age at which he/she is eligible for Medicare, the individual continues to pay a premium each month for that health care. One of the things that has come out of this health care debate is that some of us don't know the difference between govt run insurance programs and private--an elderly friend of mine the other day bemoaned govt getting involved in running a health care program. She is on Medicare and quite content with her coverage. I love her and rather than try to discuss it with her, simply blinked. Also, some of us confuse assistance with what a citizen has bought and paid for. Like Social Security, which is a retirement income some may be eligible for if they have worked long enough and paid in enough money into the program. That is NOT assistance. It is a benefit, bought and paid for. Though it surely does aid the worker at retirement to have paid into the Social Security System and be able to receive that Social Security check, be assured, the elderly that are on Social Security are not on assistance. In fact, depending upon when a person opts to begin receiving Social Security and when they die, he/she may never recoup what they have paid into the system or they may recoup more than they have paid into the system, similarly to the way a defined benefit retirement system with a company works at payout. Correct me jason if I am off course here. I just resist any characterization that hardworking citizens who are now elderly and on Medicare and Social Security are on "assistance." That is not my understanding and/or experience.

J.T.

Sep 10 2009

Ladd, if you read the AARP's pages they say they haven't endorsed anything yet. Kinda hard not to be confused when you have some people saying they do and then AARP saying they haven't yet.

Ironghost

Sep 10 2009

Iron, AARP has sent several petitions over the last several months asking for health care reform from Congress. The member can sign them and return them to AARP for their forwarding on to our folks in both the Senate and the House. Somewhere, recently, I saw or read a report of some seniors who were dropping AARP because of their support of health care reform, per se. Might have been like some of those folks at the gathering Adam attended or one like it!! Good riddance; AARP has, in the past, spoken for sanity. I would like to see that continue.

J.T.

Sep 10 2009

It's interesting. We've known about the "rich/poor" divide and how it affects our thinking and prejudices and the "Demo/Repub" divide which does the same. Adam, knowing your excellence in journalism and personhood and reading your article helps me understand both how frustrated you were at the meeting and the enormity of the "senior/junior" divide. Or maybe we should call it an "old/young" divide--gosh how I resist that! But reality is reality. I agree with Jacksonmissmom: meanspiritedness comments aren't in. They exacerbate the divides. Widen the chasms. Shift us very very very far apart during a time when we very much need to straddle the divides. Now, please, I am not agreeing that we should all become Stepford folks and march to the loudest drum, which is part of the problem with trying to get health care reform passed. Some folks have done that, and the drummer isn't necessarily drumming for anyone's best interest. The drummer is drumming to widen the divide.

J.T.

Sep 10 2009

Iron, I didn't say AARP had endorsed any plan, yet. They are, however, busting the myths about the main plan on the table. And David, I agree. Adam should not have lost his cool (and I had several e-mail from event organizers whining about his lack of ethics for doing so). But when he told me what happened (and I listened to his MP3 of it), I cried. Thus, I asked him to make it public (including his mistake in yelling) and write a column, which Adam rarely does. Adam is a wonderful reporter because he is a human being who cares about other human beings. He had spent time up close and personal with Amanda, and has seen the effects of the disastrous medical system on his own family. I'm very proud of him for being so compassionate. Him and the whole staff. They really came together to do this package well and fast because they care so damn much. It hurts all of us to see lies all around about something so vitally and morally important to American citizens.

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

Great job, Adam. I don't think you "lost" your temper, I think you found it: You are a caring human being. Your description of the crowd is very typical. Old or older people who are aready a part of "government benefits." Why don't they just simply turn in those cards and checks at the end of the month? A lot of the older folks just don't understand and they will give anything for the attention of those who promoted the event and are in charge. We must begin to hold places (Lumeria) and people such as Angela McGlowin, Dr. Phill Ley, Pat aBarrett, Les Riley and others, accountable for their providing a venue and for those who are promoting these lies and garbage.

justjess

Sep 10 2009

Whining about *Adam*, baquan, not David.

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

The need for health care reform is unquestioned and it needs to be addressed in a fair way that considers the best interest for all Americans. There isn't a reader out there that doesn't have a personal story or know of someone who has a horror story when it comes to dealing with health care or insurance issues. There are also many, like myself, who are grateful for the coverage and care that they and their families have received. That insurance coverage has not ever been free. The more experience you have with insurance coverage the better you understand the need for dealing with the issue of portabilty, continued coverage and pre-existing conditions, not to mention personal choice for that health care. It is certainly not an all good/all bad issue. I commend Mr. Lynch for his compassion and do not fault him for his feelings or beliefs. If he lost his temper, I am sure he can better understand how and why this issue inspires passion in everyone! He is free to share his opinion and comments in the editorial process. Information on the issues and understanding the other person's experience and views only makes us better prepared to come to our own conclusions.

jacksonmissmom

Sep 10 2009

Justjess, "Old or older people who are already a part of 'government benefits.' Why don't they just simply turn in those cards and checks at the end of the month." Social Security and Medicare are not welfare, Justjess. [Welfare, per se, is a whole other subject. Wanna go there?] The reason I don't turn in my Medicare Card and return my Social Security check at the end of the month is because I have bought and paid for the latter and bought and paid premiums for and am monthly continuing to pay premiums on the former. What? You think the govt just lined all us old folks up and said, here now, come on in and take a check each month; you need it. Or just handed us free insurance. Baloney. Bad Baloney!!! Maybe you should turn in your ID card from where you work and give back your paycheck on payday. Oh, or go ahead and ask for a refund of the Social Security and Medicare deductions you've paid in. See how easily you get that back. By the way, though I understand that someone at that meeting may have been there for attention, rest assured that most of my buds tend to get attention, Justjess, differently than you indicate "a lot of the older folks" do, who you say "just don't understand and . . .will give anything for the attention." Let's see, some of us sit on boards in the community; volunteer in schools, hospitals; work in community gardens; sit on committees in churches and synagogues and mosques; teach children to read; read to the more elderly; cook for a sick or older neighbor; babysit with grands so the youngers can work or rest; you get the picture. Oh, and some of us open businesses and run thriving older businesses; run for public office; preach to congregations; advise decision makers; invent things; collaborate to solve problems; conduct scientific research; write books, go to college, make music, write songs, make art, lobby for important causes, become neighborhood leaders, serve in law enforcement, work in state and federal government, risk our lives in war, but not limited thereto. I'd say you are off base judging the entire population of seniors in the United States of America by a handful of folks at Lemuria or anywhere else who have come for an emotionally charged meeting.

J.T.

Sep 10 2009

I don't know who you are J.T. but I like how you think!

jacksonmissmom

Sep 10 2009

Great article Adam. I understand your angst at a momentary loss of self control. As the cliche goes, been there, done that. I understand the need to take the high road and not stoop to the tactics of the fear mongers and haters, but at times it is very difficult. My parents are seniors facing mounting insurance premiums to cover their exposure to healthcare expense not covered by Medicare. Based on their experiences, I can assure you that the insurance industry is fanning the flames of fear as much as the "news" entertainers of the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs and Beck. The term "tea bag" is a bit of a misnomer. The group you describe is operating at the end of a string but the analogy of puppet and puppeteer more closely reflects what is happening.

Jeffery R

Sep 10 2009

One of the saddest parts of that night is that, chances are most of that crowd did not go home and read the Coburn bill, as Adam did, and see that it does not contain what the organizers were promising. The saddest part about the teabagger/birther/bathtubber, etc., movement is that they treat Americans as if we're stupid.

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

Thanks, jacksonmissmom. Your last post articulated the health care dilemma succinctly and, in my opinion, accurately.

J.T.

Sep 10 2009

I didn't say "all" J.T. If you will kindly re-read my post, I was referring to the event held at Lumeria and to the speakers and to those older folks who continue to call the President a "socialist" and other names that represent the color of racism. Don't try to play games about this issue. I'm not judging the entire population of seniors in the United States of America: I,too, am a senior. The requirement to receive a Social Security check is approx. 40 quarters of work history. This is a Gov. run program. This money is matched by the government and many people receive much more than they put in. Welfare means much more than black folks, poor white folks, food stamps and support for babies born out of wedlock with no support from fathers. Welfare is the land owned by rich farmers here in our state who are paid not to farm certain land. So, don't get me started on who receives gov. handouts. Since you take such pride in what you have contributed and what your friends, family and others have done, my hat goes off to you. GREAT! Now, for those who are less fortunate and for those whose life events have not yeiled such financially sound and productive resources, I speak for you. This is the testimony of the young woman, Amanda with Type I diabetes who the group of older, red-white-blue card carrying Americans had so much negative commentary for, i.e., "get a job."

justjess

Sep 10 2009

Excellent column, Adam. I wish I could have been there to see it. Republicans have become the party of sociopaths. Confronted with such depraved indifference to the suffering of others, I might have lost my temper too. I think the frustration many young people have with their elders is legitimate. My grandfather is among those who go on tirades about socialism, even as he cashes his Social Security check every month and uses his Medicare coverage. Like many seniors, he has drawn far more in Social Security than he paid in. But now that he has his benefits, I guess the rest of us can go to hell. Note that public insurance would not be "welfare" either. It would be funded by premiums.

Brian C Johnson

Sep 10 2009

another case of 'why build a house when i can just huck bricks at other people'. climb up the ladder and kick it away when you get up there. jerks.

jp!

Sep 10 2009

Thanks, Justjess. Rest assured, I am not playing games. My life is way too full and my years left are too few to waste time with games. Yes, you are right. The govt runs social security. It adminsters it. Employees and employers contribute to social security. That is the "match" you are talking about. Private match. I never spoke to who receives welfare, Justjess. You are the one who mis-characterized SS and Medicare in welfare terms. And, I suspect you aren't the only person in the USA who could make the statement "don't get me started on who receives gov. handouts." If you will look at my posts here, you will see that I have said that morally responsible people and governments appropriately assist people in need. Notice the word "appropriately." I don't take pride, Justjess, in what I have contributed. Ironically, the older I get the more struck and saddened I am that I haven't contributed a great deal more and that I haven't used all my talents as fully as I should have. But, rest assured, too, Justjess, that each of us, you, me, and all of us in America are, as Donna spoke in another blog, at a defining moment in history. It is a time for compassion and sanity, not a shift from either.

J.T.

Sep 10 2009

Thanks for the post, Adam -- very well said. When people like those at the forum become wed to an ideology, they tend to lose basic human compassion. Basic health care is a right, not a privilege, period. It is simply unjust to let our neighbors suffer because of fear for ourselves. I sympathize with older folks who depend on social security benefits, but there's no excuse for behaving in such a callous way. Everyone deserves the same basic care that they receive, and there's enough to go around.

melia.dicker

Sep 10 2009

Agreed, Brian. Our reporters are human beings first. That's why they're so good at what they do. Congrats on the baby boy!

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

I struggle with the issue of fair in this world. I want to see medical care available to all. I don't have a problem with the government helping those that can't help themselves. I would like to know how the government plans to deal with the issue of Americans who make the choice to not purchase health insurance for themselves and their families. This is not a "what if" situation it is a reality that has always existed. I have worked in corporations where very affordable health insurance was refused by employees. The had the right to do that and still do today. Being uninsured is not always the result of unavailable coverage, it is sometimes the result of wanting a bigger house, a newer car, a vacation, etc that drives that decision. Don't tell me that penalties will control this situation or we wouldn't have uninsured motorists on our roads if it did. A big hurdle that needs to be overcome is telling everyone what they have to do and then making them do it. The IRS isn't even completely successful at that task if you look at the uncollected income taxes out there.

jacksonmissmom

Sep 10 2009

melia.dicker can you define basic health care for me? If I knew what that was, I think I would feel much better about this whole issue.

jacksonmissmom

Sep 10 2009

Thanks Donna. He's a sweetie!

Brian C Johnson

Sep 10 2009

Mr. Lynch's article fails to include the actual sequence of events at Lemuria: I was one of the speakers, and all three of the physicians there (myself included) offered to help Mr. Lynch's friend. That was genuine. We do those kinds of things every single day. Dr. Barrett was especially kind to Mr. Lynch, even though he arrived sans press credentials and chose to angrily attack the podium without provocation. Dr. Barrett provided him with a copy of SB1099, an alternative plan, his card and offered to discuss it with him. Mr. Lynch was speechless. Mrs. McGlowan calmed the audience after Mr. Lynch's angry, disrespectful outburst and acknowledged his right to present his question and opinion as a citizen. He was treated with respect, yet gave little of his own. The sad thing is, folks, that even if you reach your (imagined) utopia and HR3200 passes, Mr. Lynch's friend won't see any help for three to four years. We will help her now, but the community minded-ness of conservvatives doesn't count does it? Failure to agree with your opinoions and agendas results in hateful attacks, as Mr. Lynch's comments about senior citizens evidences. And, no, it was Ms. Garafolo who labeled us "teabaggers", indicative of the same attitude.

CommittedConservative

Sep 10 2009

Good piece, Adam. I too am always surprised by the frequent lack of love-thy-neighbor sentiment when it comes to health care. Beyond love-thy-neighbor, there's also self interest, I'd think: how many steps removed can ANY American be from someone who has been negatively impacted by the current system? I have many friends and family members who are currently gambling in the No Health Insurance Game, because they simply can't afford coverage. I also have friends and family members who have lost that gamble, and are now in serious debt. I'm surrounded by living, breathing (and-hoping-nothing-makes-breathing-difficult) examples of why we need an overhaul ... and I have difficulty believing I'm in the minority.

BethIsadora

Sep 10 2009

I believe the issue is centered around 3 points. whether they have anything to do with "fair" or not, who knows. i DO know these are the basic things being dealt with in the proposed legislation, and anyone that offers a plan that doesn't DEAL with all 3 is not helping the situation: 1. If we are going to have a private insurance based system, then private insurance can't kick you OUT of our system because you have a pre-existing condition. 2. People that provide their own insurance should not be Rescinded (kicked off) their policy just because they got sick while covered. just like a car, these policies are renewed annually (usually) and if you get sick today, they can kick you off overage. 3. Costs need to be kept under control. This means not spending $500 Billion on subsidies to private insurance providing supplemental medicare insurance then turning around to tell me that we don't need the government involved. I agree. no more handouts. and no more acting as if doing nothing is somehow cost neutral. sure this whole thing is going to cost money, but putting our heads in the sand doesn't keep costs down. if it did, the last 15 years would have saved me some money.

jp!

Sep 10 2009

Ah, not surprised you didn't post my comments, Ms. Ladd. You really don't want free and open debate, do you? That, also, is right out of Allinsky's "Rules for Radicals": marginalize your opposition

CommittedConservative

Sep 10 2009

Actually CommittedConservative (Dr. Ley I assume?), I was in meetings until just now, and opened your comments as soon as I saw them. You keep trying to accuse us of things that just don't work because they're ridiculously untrue. I will allow your comments as long as you follow the user agreement by sticking to the topic, avoiding personal attacks and so on. A few things about your first post: I heard the entire MP3 of Adam's portion of that forum. He yelled, and he shouldn't have, which he says above. He also identified himself to the hostess as a reporter before he ever spoke. So the press credentials complaint is spurious. Besides, he is also an American citizen, and his being a reporter changed nothing about that particular exchange. Reporters have as many rights as you do to speak up about this issue, especially when he has researched it backward and forward and knows how many lies are being told by insurance-reform opponents. As for the bill you gave him (by Coburn, right?), he did go home and read it, and it didn't contain what y'all promised at the forum. McGlowan handled the thing very well, and after Adam's initial anger and after she told the audience that Adam was a reporter, several of you settled down and became nicer, which was good to hear (although the anger in the audience was palpable.) I admired that she kept him up there and kept the conversation going with calmer heads. As for your offers, it's not up to us whether or not Ms. Starnes takes you up on them. I will say that it was ironic to hear all of you scrambling to offer assistance, knowing full well that you are not going to go door to door to find all the people who are being turned away by insurance companies, nor are you likely to lower your rates from the inflated prices charged in order that the insurance companies stay fat and happy. I doubt you even have the power to (and I assume that's why the American Medical Association is supporting the president's vision, as well as AARP, etc.) Put simply, you can't help all of the people who need help out there until the insurance industry is reformed. But if you'd like to, perhaps you and friends would like to run an ad offering free services to all of the Mississippians who are uninsured and/or with limited health-care options? Otherwise, all this sounds rather empty to me. BTW, there was nothing hateful about Adam's comments that night or the column above. The sad thing is that many of you are turning the generations against each other by spreading myths and fear. It needs to end, and we'll do everything in our power to call you out on it, as the president put it so well last night. (Oh, and I should mention that I've never read Alinsky's rules, but I am a fan of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." [smile])

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

BTW, all, here are numbers released by the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program: Here is how our broken health care system affects people in Mississippi: * 130 residents of Mississippi are losing health insurance every day, and 14,000 Americans nationwidelose insurance daily. * The average family premium in Mississippi costs $800 more because our system fails to cover everyone-and $1,100 more nationally. * Our broken health insurance system will cost the Mississippi economy as much as $2.6 billion this year in productivity losses due to the uninsured-and up to $248 billion nationally. * In Mississippi there has been a 10 percent increase in the uninsured rate since 2007. * 550,000 are uninsured today in Mississippi. * The average family premium will rise from $11,288 to $19,261 by 2019 in Mississippi without health care reform. * In Mississippi, without health care reform, 85,180 will have lost coverage from January 2008 to December 2010. * In Mississippi, 284,000 people would gain coverage as a result of the House health care reform bill by 2013, and 457,000 would gain coverage by 2019.

DonnaLadd

Sep 10 2009

Donna, these stats are staggering! Surely MS Health Advocacy has forwarded these to our Senators and all our Representatives. If not, they should send them asap. Wish we could get a highway board filled with these along the interstate. In light of these stats, anyone who cares about MS, let alone the entire nation, could hardly say that reform of health care insurance is unnecessary. And, I think you have hit the nail on the head with the use of the language "until the health care industry is reformed" in the post to Conservative. It is very much about cutting costs inside the industry as well as health insurance companies not being able to rob us blind, as well as their not being able to drop us, etc., for starters.

J.T.

Sep 10 2009

Adam, sorry you lost your cool there, but you've been a class act apologizing. Now a meta question: Why is it that so many arguments against government sponsored healthcare boil down to "I've got mine jack. F*** everybody else?"

Pilgrim

Sep 11 2009

Pilgrim, I heard a learned author on the health care dilemma being interviewed recently and he made an important point. He says that we Americans are focusing on process and how to change the health care process as we approcah health care reform, but we have failed to ask the important question which we must ask and agree on before we even get to process: Should all Americans have health care coverage and are we each willing to pay the price for them to have it? [My paraphrase of my best recollection of his point.] I heard it as profundity. I think the more stories of those without coverage and the more stats like Donna's, the point is driven home that, no, this isn't right and yes, we all need health care coverage. Then, once that need for all to have health care is a given, setting up the workability of it--which should be easy, really--and cutting costs on the provider side and the insurance company side--and God knows there's plenty of waste there to cut--it can happen. With the caveat that those of us with good coverage can keep it. Once we all, regardless of age buy in to the importance of everybody having health care coverage, it can happen. In Donna's writing classes she has a saying, "Don't tell 'em, show'em (or vice versa). Anyway, her point is don't tell what happened. Show it in narrative, in story, in action. E.g., don't say we have lots of uninsured. Let us hear the details of each uninsured person's story. That has somewhat happened in the health care issue, i.e., some true horror stories have circulated, but not enough to drown out the shouts of the right wing nuts.

J.T.

Sep 11 2009

Right, J.T. Good journalism=real human stories/real facts and numbers/minimal rhetoric and empty sound bites.

DonnaLadd

Sep 11 2009

I happened to get a call at work from a client in Winnipeg, Canada yesterday. A retired minister, he set me straight on the misinformation we are getting about the Canadian system. There are no death panels there. The service the system provides, while not perfect, has been very satisfactory to him and to his wife, who was diagnosed with cancer the week before he was to change jobs to a new parish. The system worked perfectly to protect him during the transition and her care was not interrupted. Thanks all who strive for a better system. Our system is sick and getting worse.

Izzy

Sep 11 2009

CommittedConservative: With all due respect, when i read: "We will help her now, but the community minded-ness of conservvatives doesn't count does it? Failure to agree with your opinoions and agendas results in hateful attacks, as Mr. Lynch's comments about senior citizens evidences." I can't help but think, "wow, that is a generous offer...and it acknowledges a systemic problem, only to offer the solution of anecdotal cases of charity. you can help this woman, but the problem is bigger than just her. You're efforts can help her but when this happens hundreds of thousands of times, we need ideas that go beyond singular, individual acts of charity. I'm tired of people telling me this idea or that idea won't work...then offering not so much of a solution. I'm also wondering where the magic switch is that turns off this sharp scrutiny for price and rationale when we need to buy weapons or go to war for a man-child's daddy issues...but god, when you have identifiable health policy concerns...let's put our head in the sand.

jp!

Sep 11 2009

In addition, Doc, I know Adam Lynch well enough to k now that had it been a roomful of young people attacking the rights of old people, he would have found a funny way to characterize them. There nothing "hateful" there. I watched the way Adam cared for his aging, sick mother in her final months. Everyone can see where the hatefulness is in all this, and it's not from Adam Lynch. He's one of the most compassionate people I know, toward *all* people regardless of age, race or economic status. If you want to talk specifics, fine, then do that (like about what the specific teeth are in that Coburn bill you were making promises about). Otherwise, don't come here and heckle my staff or make generalizations about people that you can't support.

DonnaLadd

Sep 11 2009

Amanda needs to keep applying for SSI/Medicaid until she is found disabled. Anyone with a chronic illness that keeps them from working needs to call the local Social Security Office (not the Medicaid office--a common mistake) and apply for benefits. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. Even if you are denied, you have rights of appeal. Even if she is young, the effects of type I diabetes are serious and can qualify her for disability/Medicaid if they are serious enough for her to meet the criteria.

JDLW

Sep 11 2009

I do hope that CommittedConservative will return to engage in the substantive debate he claims to champion, because the Coburn bill is a joke. Here is one analysis of the bill. The bill would end the employer tax incentive to provide health insurance. The $5,000 credit the bill proposes would not even come close to replacing the value of such plans, which means that millions of Americans would likely lose their insurance. The bill would end Medicaid coverage for many low-income Americans, worsening an already dire situation. In short, this bill would be a disaster. I think it's important to note that this proposal mirrors the plan put forward by Sen. John McCain during the presidential election. Voters made their choice then. The people have spoken, and they have rejected the Coburn / McCain proposals. Please return to explain to us why we should reconsider proposals the voters have already rejected. Or did you just want to attack Adam and then slink away?

Brian C Johnson

Sep 11 2009

But if she had benefits, she wouldn't be disabled, and she could work.

Izzy

Sep 11 2009

At the forum, Brian, this doctor kept assuring the audience that this Coburn bill was the right alternative to ensure that people like Amanda had health insurance. Laughable, eh? Wonder if he's read it himself. And JDLW, I hope Amanda lives long enough to get through that appeals process. Not everyone does.

DonnaLadd

Sep 11 2009

Here's the first section of that Coburn bill analysis Brian just linked to; be sure to go rest the rest, too. Summary The Patients' Choice Act, introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), would likely fail to make major progress in reducing the number of uninsured Americans. It also would make affordable, comprehensive coverage less available for many who currently have coverage. Plan Would Significantly Erode Employer-Based Coverage The bill (S. 1099 and H.R. 2520) would eliminate the main federal tax subsidy for employer-sponsored insurance — the income-tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance — and replace it with a refundable tax credit ($2,290 for individuals and $5,710 for families) that people could use to purchase coverage.[1] Many employers would almost certainly drop coverage as a result: since individuals could get the tax credit regardless of whether they obtained their coverage through their employer or on their own, many employers likely would conclude they no longer needed to provide coverage. (In contrast, capping rather than eliminating the tax exclusion, as the Senate Finance Committee has considered, can maintain substantial incentives for employers to continue to offer coverage.) Even employers who wished to continue offering coverage might be unable to do so. As explained below, the new tax credit would encourage younger, healthier employees to opt out of employer-based plans, leaving older and sicker workers in the employer insurance pools and thereby driving up the cost per beneficiary of employer coverage. Many employers might ultimately conclude they could not afford to continue offering subsidized coverage.

DonnaLadd

Sep 11 2009

One more section of Coburn analysis: Plan Fails to Create a Viable Alternative for People Losing Employer Coverage Of particular concern, many of the people who would lose employer-based coverage would likely be unable to find affordable, comprehensive coverage on their own. The bill fails to address the significant shortcomings of the existing individual health insurance market that make it difficult for individuals who are older or have various medical conditions to obtain coverage. Most states permit insurers to vary premiums based on a number of factors, including health status, age, and gender. For individuals with medical problems, insurers often charge very high amounts, refuse coverage for these individuals' pre-existing medical conditions, or refuse to sell them insurance altogether. The Patients' Choice Act, unlike the health reform bills crafted by the various Senate and House committees, would not modify these rules. The bill would allow states to establish health insurance exchanges through which individuals could purchase private health insurance. But such exchanges would be unlikely to make coverage more affordable for many individuals. The bill would not require states to establish exchanges (in sharp contrast to the health reform bills developed by the Senate and House committees, which would establish a national exchange or require states to establish exchanges subject to federal rules). Moreover, in states that did establish an exchange, insurers selling policies through the exchange would be allowed to charge higher premiums for sicker people and to exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions for up to one year (although they would not be allowed to refuse to sell insurance altogether to someone). In addition, the bill would prohibit exchanges from placing any limit on the premiums and cost-sharing amounts that insurers could charge. In short, the exchanges would suffer from most of the same problems that plague the individual insurance market. While the bill's tax credit and low-income subsidy would help some low-income people purchase health insurance, the lack of strong insurance market reforms means the tax credit and subsidy would almost certainly be insufficient to enable many people who are older, in poorer health, or have special health care needs to purchase affordable coverage. The tax credit and subsidy would be flat amounts that do not take into account the actual cost of health insurance, including the higher premiums many people would have to pay due to the unlimited leeway that insurance companies would retain in many states to vary premiums based on health status, age, and other factors. As a result, millions of Americans who currently receive coverage though their employer but would lose that coverage would find that they either could not afford to buy coverage on their own or had to pay exorbitant amounts to do so. Still another problem is that many of those who could afford health insurance premiums using the tax credit and subsidy would likely find that the coverage they purchased was inadequate. Unlike the health reform proposals that the House and Senate committees are developing, the Patients' Choice Act does not set meaningful minimum standards on what benefits insurers must cover. Nor does it limit deductibles or out-of-pocket costs. As a result, low-income people could exhaust their subsidy just to pay the premiums and be left unable to afford deductibles, co-payments, or health services that their plan does not cover. Plan Would Jeopardize Needed Care for Tens of Millions of Medicaid Beneficiaries The bill's failure to make coverage affordable for many low-income people is especially serious because the bill would also eliminate Medicaid coverage for low-income children, parents, and seniors, pushing tens of millions of vulnerable people into the private insurance market.

DonnaLadd

Sep 11 2009

MORE: Low-income Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be in poorer health and are more likely to have chronic illnesses than people enrolled in private insurance; if forced to purchase coverage on their own, many likely would find the premiums unaffordable. In addition, low-income seniors who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare would face substantially higher costs, because under the bill as drafted, Medicaid would no longer pay their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing. Seniors would have to start paying out of their own pockets the Medicare Part B premiums (which now total $1,157 a year), Medicare co-payments (which equal 20 percent of the cost of many outpatient services), and Medicare deductibles (which can run as high as $1,068 in the case of a hospitalization). For many low-income seniors, these charges would be unaffordable. (Summaries of the bill that its sponsors have circulated say that Medicare would assume these charges, but that clearly is not the case under the legislation they have introduced.[2]) The bill would also turn Medicaid coverage for long-term care services into a block grant, placing vulnerable groups at risk for significant benefit and eligibility cuts. Overall, the proposal is not likely to do much to reduce the ranks of the uninsured and would make matters worse for many people who currently have coverage. The remainder of the analysis examines these issues in more detail and is divided into three sections: the bill's effects on people who currently have employer-based coverage; the adequacy of the subsidies the bill would provide for lower-income families and individuals; and the effects on low-income children, parents, and elderly individuals who currently are insured through Medicaid.

DonnaLadd

Sep 11 2009

Donna, you think a governemt health insurance plan would process applications any quicker than the government processes applications for Medicaid, SSI, SSDI, etc. now? The main reason administrative costs for private insurance are higher than for Medicaid programs is that the people who process claims aren't federal employees, they're state employees making typically lower salaries than private insurance employees. Social Security did studies on this to try to justify convincing the states to raise salaries for those state employees and finally succeeded before I left the state to work for myself. But if you think the system is slow now, wait until you add 30-47 million people to the existing programs and see how long it takes.

JDLW

Sep 11 2009

Adam this was a great column. I regret I wasn't there to help call them nuts Nuts.

Walt

Sep 14 2009

...but JDLW, isn't a "SLOW" system better than a "NO" system? Don't be so quick to assume that all presently uninsured citizens are Medicaid, SSI and other programs set up for people who qualify under poverty guidelines.

justjess

Sep 15 2009

In this entire debate, people are forgetting some very simple truths. Healthcare is too expensive for the majority of Americans. The number one reason for bankruptcy are medical bills. People are confusing the fact that a lot of people can afford to pay insurance premiums each month, but that does not speak to the cost of actual healthcare. Tons of people who thought they had insurance because they had been paying soon learned that they were denied payment for one reason or another. Insurance companies do just about everything they can to deny payment whenever they can. A good portion of the people that are happy with their healthcare have never been sick and needed it. They are simply saying they have not had any problems with their healthcare. But I know very few people that have not been hospitalized that quickly realized that healthcare is far to expensive for the average person. Not being able to afford healthcare is nearly not having it.

Goldenae

Sep 15 2009

Goldenae- My experience with a major illness and my insurance company has been great. They have never denied anything,never question MRI,CT scans, or the outrageous cost of cancer medicine, The insurance does cost lot each month, but me paying a couple of thousand a year out of pocket for insurance and copays vs the insurance company pay over hundred fifty thousand a year is a bargin to me. Guess I have been very lucky.

BubbaT

Sep 15 2009

Bubba T: Consider yourself to be fortunate. Take some time to look up the automatic denial rates that insurance companies often initiate. Without health insurance made available through a job, most people could not afford insurance and surely not treatment without insurance.

Goldenae

Sep 15 2009

I know this is off topic but I want to put in a plug for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, they have various co-pay assistance programs for insurance for people with blood cancers they are great. Don't know how I would have made it this long without their help. If anybody has a blood related cancer they really need to call them.

BubbaT

Sep 15 2009

There was never any intent to attack Mr. Lynch, just to set the record straight. The Coburn bill was never presented as perfect at the meeting, nor was the Price bill. They were presented as alternatives to HR3200, just like the Baucus bill is. They all have their flaws. I believe Committed Conservative's point (he has had two really busy weeks, by the way and has not been online) was that they are alternatives being ignored, that they are starting points for negotiation, which is not desired. None of the bills are perfect, and the process is a work in progress. No bipartisanship is seemingly desired by the majority, so it's really a moot point....we seem to have in this country two diametrically opposed world-views on a collision course. Hope the Republic survives it. It's bigger than health care, and cuts to the very core of who we are and what we will become, and what the Constitution really means.

Armadillo

Sep 18 2009

Armadillo, I heard the tape of the night. CommittedConservative's summary above is just not what I heard. Adam was never "speechless," and after getting upset on behalf of his friend because no one was answering questions with facts, he was very respectful, as were the opponents. And Dr. Ley did present the Coburn plan as if it were some sort of panacea. But Adam went home and read it and felt misled: a sad ending to the whole thing, considering he was challenging the doctors not giving all the facts in the first place.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2009

This is truly a perfect example of how two different people can hear the same words and come to two different conclusions, especially when your minds are made up. So, with Mr. Lynch showing up without press identification, does this make you supportive of the way the reporters busted ACORN?

Armadillo

Sep 19 2009

Nothing like a leap, there, Armadillo. Did you miss the part where the first thing Adam did was identify himself as a reporter? What James O'Keefe did was a setup, which he admits in this Los Angeles Times story. In most stories I've seen he's identified as an "amateur filmmaker." Regardless of what you think of ACORN, James O'Keefe—who is not a reporter for any news organization—set out to secretly entrap and discredit the organization. There's absolutely no correlation between the two events.

Ronni_Mott

Sep 19 2009

To add to that, Ronni, this was a public event. Adam is a citizen and a voter; he didn't need to identify himself as a reporter to stand up and ask a question at a public event. He did tell the organizer when he got there that he was, though. That's a red herring, and has very little to do with the Coburn bill not containing what was promised at the event. That's what real and matters here: health insurance reform.

DonnaLadd

Sep 19 2009

As an individual who will be getting off disability soon and may have to go without health insurance for a little while, I wish that the people on both sides of the debate would come to an agreement and do something to help the uninsured instead of just trying to scare people. I'm sick of the fighting and want to see some action. Something else came to mind after reading Adam's article and Melia's comment about basic human compassion: For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you brought Me together with yourselves and welcomed and entertained and lodged Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me with help and ministering care, I was in prison and you came to see Me. Then the just and upright will answer Him, Lord, when did we see You hungry and gave You food, or thirsty and gave You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger and welcomed and entertained You, or naked and clothed You? And when did we see You sick or in prison and came to visit You? And the King will reply to them, Truly I tell you, in so far as you did it for one of the least [in the estimation of men] of these My brethren, you did it for Me. Then He will say to those at His left hand, Begone from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome Me and entertain Me, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me with help and ministering care. Then they also [in their turn] will answer, Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You? And He will reply to them, Solemnly I declare to you, in so far as you failed to do it for the least [in the estimation of men] of these, you failed to do it for Me. Then they will go away into eternal punishment, but those who are just and upright and in right standing with God into eternal life. - Matthew 25:35-46, Amplified Bible

LatashaWillis

Sep 21 2009

Jackson Free Press

[Lynch] Why I Lost My Temper

Previous Commentsshow

More like this story

More stories by this author

Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.

Comments

JFP Tweets

Top Stories

Recent Comments