ArnieCare
[Andy Stern: “I think people are now looking at what Governor =
Schwarzenegger is doing and say hey, it’s a real deal.”]
page.jsp?itemID=3D29934101> For Immediate Release
March 15, 2007 = Schwarzenegger=92s Health Plan Unaffordable for California, Nurses = Charge - Healthcare Costs Could Hit $12,320 =97 or 25% of Income=97on = Premiums and Deductible Before Insurers Pay for Any Care - Total Out- = of-Pocket Costs Could Exceed 36% of Household Income Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger=92s health plan could cost the typical = California household from 25% to 36 percent of their family income, = according to data released today by the California Nurses Association. Schwarzenegger=92s health proposal, based on a new Massachusetts law, = would require all California residents to purchase health insurance. = But with no controls on rising premiums =96 which have risen 87 percent = this decade =96 most Californians are likely to opt for bare bones = plans that carry a heavy price tag and limited benefits. Under the Governor=92s minimum plan, the typical California resident = would likely be expected to pay $12,320 per year in medical expenses = and premiums=97before any medical care is paid for by their insurance = company. Schwarzenegger has proposed that the minimum, cheapest plans include = a $5,000 deductible prior to an insurance payment. The deductible is = on top of the insurance company=92s premium charges, which are likely = to cost up to $7,320 per household, the amount established in eastern = Massachusetts for those required to buy health insurance. For the typical California household, that means being forced to = spend 25 percent of their income on medical costs=97before any care is = paid for by the insurance they are forced to buy (based on the median = household income of $48,440 as of 2003 U.S. Census Bureau data). The real costs could be far more. Schwarzenegger=92s proposal further = says that out-of-pocket costs could rise to $10,000 per household if = more extensive care is needed =96 which would drive out of pocket costs = up to 35 percent of the median family income. (Any hospital stay = would expose a family to the $10,000 cost quickly; the average = hospital charge per discharge in California is nearly $33,000.) And since the Governor=92s projected costs are for the least expensive = coverage, it is likely that most families would have to spend extra = for dental, vision, mental health, long-term care, and other care. =93Many families may end up having to make the terrible choice of = assuming more medical debt which can lead to financial ruin, or = foregoing needed care,=94 said CNA President Deborah Burger, RN. = =93Schwarzenegger=92s healthcare plan could lead to financial ruin and = bankruptcy, instead of nursing them back to health.=94 Health care experts say health costs constitute a =93financial burden=94 = if they exceed 10 percent of a family=92s post-tax income. In testimony = to the House Ways and Means Committee in January, Diane Rowland, vice = president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, noted that one in six = adults who are privately insured =93report having substantial problems = paying their medical bills=94 and that two-thirds of the privately = insured who have medical debt have family incomes of up to $75,000. Additionally, a recent study by the American Academy of Pediatrics = found that high-cost, high-deductible insurance plans are a hazard to = patient health, because they provide parents and other patients with = an incentive to skip or delay preventive care, immunizations, = compliance with recommended treatment, and other needed care. SB 840 Would Provide Affordable Care to Californians: CNA has long advocated for a universal, single-payer healthcare plan = as the only affordable and fair way to ensure that every patient = receives a single standard of high-quality care. Governor = Schwarzenegger vetoed just such a plan, Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s SB 840, = last year.
Upon reintroducing her bill this year, Senator Kuehl remarked, =93SB = 840 works by pooling our health care resources so everyone =96 state = and federal government, income earners and employers - contributes = something and we all get coverage. This allows us to consolidate the = administrative functions of thousands of different insurance = companies and plans into one comprehensive insurance plan, saving = businesses and consumers, as well as the state, billions of dollars = in the first year alone.=94 CNA is the principal sponsor of SB 840 and is engaging in an active = campaign to ensure its passage, including direct mail to households, = a radio ad, and a new web site, www.SinglePayer.com. Representing 75,000 RNs from California to Maine, the California = Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee is the = fastest-growing association of direct-care RNs in the nation. Learn = more at www.CalNurses.org
March 29th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.
The proposed recent “Do not mail” is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?
I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!
The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today’s [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today’s merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman’s mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer’s right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”
We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel