TO BE SICK AND NOT RICH

 

Editor: This is one viewpoint. Is Medicare for all the panacea for all our health care system ills? Do we know how much it will cost? Will it work? Will people who have employer sponsored insurance be ready to give it up and go on Medicare? Who will control fraud and abuse? Do you have another smart solution?

Article below submitted by Dr. Ehtisham      Original author  Beverly Gologorsky.

 

On this extremely hot summer day, the ear-splitting siren screaming through New York’s streets is coming from the ambulance I’m in — on a gurney on my way to the ER. That only makes the siren, loud as it is, all the more alarming.

I fell. The pain, its location and intensity, suggests I’ve probably broken my hip.

The kind face of the emergency medical technician hovering above me asks questions softly and I confess that I’m in terrible pain. Other gentle hands are busy taking blood pressure and doing oxygen counts. These EMT workers, employees of the Fire Department, are good at what they do.

At the ER entrance, the gurney’s lifted out of the vehicle, wheels are dropped, and it’s rolled inside. Under a ceiling of bright white lights, it passes — and so I pass — one cubicle after another. I catch bits of voices, speaking in several languages.

My friend, who’s come with me to the ER, roots around in my purse for my insurance and then heads for the admissions office. Alone, I close my eyes to shut out the glare of the ceiling lights. I want one thing: relief from the pain. Oblivion would even be more appreciated.

My friend returns to my cubicle and asks, “Is this the only insurance you have?” I panic. Will they not accept me? But they have to! It’s the ER! That’s the reassurance I offer myself and then I tell her, “Yes, it’s all I have.”

She looks doubtful.

“What?” I ask desperately. “What?”

“Don’t you have some kind of supplemental?” And she begins to try to explain, but I can’t deal with this right now. All I want is relief from the pain. Any other moment, I’d worry about the money, but not now. I can’t! Instead, simply to remain half-calm, I remind myself that I have insurance, that I have a Health Maintenance Organization, or HMO, a plan that offers a wide range of healthcare services through a network of providers who agree to work with members.

After vital signs are taken, I’m moved to a hospital room and given pain meds that don’t offer oblivion, but do help. There, I learn what the X-rays show: a hip fracture. Surgery necessary. Operating rooms all taken. It may be two days before they can operate, the orthopedic surgeon tells me. My friend whispers that every extra day in the hospital will cost a mint. She then appeals to the staff to expedite the surgery. They can’t.

At that moment, I don’t care if the hospital costs a million dollars a day, I just want to get better. However, I, too, want the surgery to happen, within the hour if possible, since my leg is now frozen in a distinctly awkward position, thanks to the way I fell, and I realize that it won’t be straight until the operation’s over.

Two days later, after successful surgery, I develop an infection, pneumonia, and the days in the hospital begin multiplying into weeks. My doctors are so busy they can only visit once a day, if that, but the nurses, well… they’re the healers, the angels, though they themselves are desperately overworked.

Everyone’s so busy here. Hospitals have grown larger than ever in recent years as they’ve swallowed smaller hospitals and medical treatment centers. Given the overworked nature of the staff, I hire a healthcare aide to be with me several hours a day. My friend tells me that insurance won’t pick up this expense either, but I can’t worry about that now. I simply need to heal.

Finally, I’m discharged to months of physical therapy, three times a week. Fortunately, the therapy practice takes my insurance (not always a given). But on that first visit (as on every visit thereafter), they run my Visa card through their machine and I get charged a $40 co-pay. There’s nothing I can do about it. After all, my goal is to get back on my feet, literally as well as metaphorically. Still, that’s $120 a week for 16 weeks and so my out-of-pocket patient expenses begin to add up.

Back at home to recuperate, I find a stack of unopened mail, including notices from my insurance company alerting me to the bills that are to follow. Soon enough, they begin to arrive. They include out-of-pocket patient costs for the ambulance, the hospital, doctors, tests of all sorts, drugs of all sorts, and sundry other services. Those bills list both what insurance has paid for each service and the amount of money that I still owe.

And here I experience what must be common to so many Americans. I’m surprised and distressed to learn how much of the cost my insurance doesn’t pick up. The surgery, for instance, was $72,000, but my insurance only covers $67,000 of it. The other $5,000 is my co-pay. Add in the co-pays for everything from that ambulance to other medical services and my costs come to almost $13,000.

An Insurance System of Out-of-Pocket Disasters

I’m sharing my recent journey as a cautionary tale. And, yet, what am I warning against? That we are all somewhat powerless when sickness strikes, but that those of us who aren’t wealthy suffer so much more. The thought of being without insurance is frightening indeed, yet in our present system we pay in so many ways for the existence of those insurance companies. We pay in co-pay; we pay in not getting treatment we need if insurance deems it unnecessary (no matter what your doctor says); we pay yearly out-of-pocket fees whether we’re 20 or 80 years old. (For Medicare patients, a monthly payment comes out of Social Security.) For most American families with insurance, whether workplace-based or individually purchased, premiums go up regularly, if not annually. At present, we have no alternative to the existing health insurance system, yet it is actually failing us all in so many ways.

What do you do when sickness occurs, if you aren’t rich? Suffer the illness, for sure, and then suffer the out-of-pocket costs afterward. And keep in mind that tens of millions of Americans under age 65 don’t have any health insurance at all. (In the age of Trump, in fact, those numbers are on the rise.) Moreover, the persistent growth of income inequality to Gilded Age levels has had a decided effect on the health of many Americans. For low-paid wageworkers, the unemployed, and/or undocumented immigrants, getting sick or having any kind of medical mishap is a disaster of the first order. For them, paying out-of-pocket costs of any sort may simply be impossible, which means that they will often do without medical treatment or even medicine. To put this in perspective, 40% of Americans can’t afford an extra $400 even in a medical emergency. Imagine what $5,000 or $10,000 in expenses means!

After an illness, accident, or chronic disease hits, a startling number of those of us with health insurance find that we have to choose between paying for daily needs and paying our medical bills. Such expenses leave people even more impoverished and often in debt, which is tantamount to remaining unhealthy.

For the poor, Medicaid, the government program that helps those with limited or no incomes, can make a major difference, but many people don’t have Medicaid because their states don’t readily offer it. Even where it’s more easily available, many with incomes not much above the poverty line don’t qualify for it. And as Elizabeth Yuko pointed out in the New York Times recently, “Even if you are fortunate enough to have health insurance, that doesn’t mean that all of the members of your medical team — which may include out-of-network specialists — are covered by your plan.”

As I learned with my fractured hip, someone who is in great pain or out of it for any number of physical reasons can’t be expected to focus on that future bill. And even if you could, who would want to cancel any of the services needed to heal?

Though Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, helped significantly, there are still far too many people who will have to agonize over how to manage both an illness and the co-pays that go with it. Meanwhile, of course, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are working overtime to undermine Obamacare and deprive ever more Americans of any sense of a medical safety net.

What Medicare for All Would Mean

All the talk about making insurance affordable, under the present medical circumstances in this country, adds up to just so many wasted words. Unless something changes big time, insurance companies will continue to sell us their services at ever-higher prices because we can’t do without them. Since we lack alternatives, they remain indispensable. The result: out-of-pocket costs will continue to rise, no matter what any politician promises. And if the Republicans in Congress were ever to succeed in doing away even with Obamacare, the services that insurance companies now provide would no longer be guaranteed. What then?

With a single payer system, whether called Medicare for All or universal health care, everyone would be able to access health care; health would, that is, become a right. Most likely, such programs would be covered by a tax increase, yet they would cost each person so much less than what is now being paid out to insurance companies. With single payer or Medicare for All, there would be no more co-pays, no more premiums, no more refusals of non-doctors to pay for services recommended by medical specialists, no more bills arriving at a patient’s house.

Understandably, some might be reluctant to part with a familiar healthcare system, however flawed, in exchange for a new but untested universal program. Yet once implemented, any version of Medicare for All would be likely to cost less, be so much simpler to access, and ultimately save lives.

The present Medicare system is a good indicator of not only what’s possible, but of the ways in which health care can serve people’s needs. However, Medicare is offered only to those who are over 65. Nevertheless, Medicare and Medicaid prove the positive. Those programs work well for the elderly and the poor. Even with Medicare, however, insurance companies continue to handle many aspects of your services, should you opt for a Medicare Advantage plan (an all-in-one alternative to original Medicare), in which co-pays and other costs are still the patient’s responsibility.

According to Open Secrets, insurance companies, Big Pharma, and hospitals spent a staggering $143 million in 2018 alone in their lobbying efforts against any future Medicare for All plan. Nonetheless, as the National Nurses United Association has pointed out: “There has never been this much public support and momentum for Medicare for All. Eighty-five percent of democratic voters and 70% of all voters support it.” With significant administrative setups already in place, thanks to Medicare and Medicaid, the expansion of those health systems to include everyone seems doable; nor is it hard to imagine that many of the workers now employed by insurance companies would be able to shift to working for an expanding single-payer or Medicare for All program.

Truly decent health care is a necessity for a society in which people do more than just survive. Health is not a negotiable matter. You can decide not to buy a new coat and so shiver through another winter, but you really can’t decide to ignore sickness, disease, broken bones, or chronic illness, all of which can put lives on the line. How can any society function properly without health care available to all? How can any society survive in a reasonably decent way when so many millions of people are left with the choice of either being impoverished by illness or living with an otherwise treatable one?

Health care should be as much of a right as public education — the right to educate all children, that is — which was only won after its own set of lengthy struggles. After all, who can now imagine making all Americans pay for the first 12 years of schooling? Yes, we know that there are people wealthy enough to pay for whatever kind of education and health care they want, but they are hardly the majority of Americans.

Good health care must not only be affordable, but also provide easy access to medical services — to better nutrition, a healthier environment, and greater longevity. In this context, Medicare For All would be a literal lifesaver.

Finally, good health care is peace of mind, which, at present, our system does not deliver. In my case, the cost of recovery was far too high.

 

Muhammad: an anticlerical hero of the European Enlightenment-By Prof. John Tolan

Worth reading article, by Prof. John Tolan, about  prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.M) and Western perceptions about him which have changed  over decades most likely due to rise of fundamentalism both in the West and Muslim countries. Article referenced  by Mirza Ashraf sahib (f.sheikh)

Publishing the Quran and making it available in translation was a dangerous enterprise in the 16th century, apt to confuse or seduce the faithful Christian. This, at least, was the opinion of the Protestant city councillors of Basel in 1542, when they briefly jailed a local printer for planning to publish a Latin translation of the Muslim holy book. The Protestant reformer Martin Luther intervened to salvage the project: there was no better way to combat the Turk, he wrote, than to expose the ‘lies of Muhammad’ for all to see.

The resulting publication in 1543 made the Quran available to European intellectuals, most of whom studied it in order to better understand and combat Islam. There were others, however, who used their reading of the Quran to question Christian doctrine. The Catalonian polymath and theologian Michael Servetus found numerous Quranic arguments to employ in his anti-Trinitarian tract, Christianismi Restitutio (1553), in which he called Muhammad a true reformer who preached a return to the pure monotheism that Christian theologians had corrupted by inventing the perverse and irrational doctrine of the Trinity. After publishing these heretical ideas, Servetus was condemned by the Catholic Inquisition in Vienne, and finally burned with his own books in Calvin’s Geneva.

During the European Enlightenment, a number of authors presented Muhammad in a similar vein, as an anticlerical hero; some saw Islam as a pure form of monotheism close to philosophic Deism and the Quran as a rational paean to the Creator. In 1734, George Sale published a new English translation. In his introduction, he traced the early history of Islam and idealised the Prophet as an iconoclastic, anticlerical reformer who had banished the ‘superstitious’ beliefs and practices of early Christians – the cult of the saints, holy relics – and quashed the power of a corrupt and avaricious clergy.

In France, Voltaire also cited Sale’s translation with admiration: in his world history Essai sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations (1756), he portrayed Muhammad as an inspired reformer who abolished superstitious practices and eradicated the power of corrupt clergy. By the end of the century, the English Whig Edward Gibbon (an avid reader of both Sale and Voltaire) presented the Prophet in glowing terms in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-89):

Full story

Some interesting info about Pakistan?

NOTE:  If you disagree with any part of this post, please enter your comments.
Dear Yemeen Zuberi Sahib,
Jinnah never wanted Pakistan. He had accepted the three wing con-federation offered by the British after the Congress had accepted it. The Center would have Defense, Foreign Affairs and Communications. The rest would be in the hands of the Confederees.
Nehru and others in the Congress felt that with Jinnah in the government, they would not have their way, as in the Interim government, Liaquat as the Finance Minister had imposed heavy taxes on business and industry, the essential financiers of the Congress.
Nehru addressing a press conference in Bombay said that the Constituent Assembly of India will not be bound by these agreements.
Jinnah, fell into the trap, took the bait or whatever, withdrew from the agreement saying that the Congress when it does not have real power, acts in such a way, how could it be trusted after it had actual power.
Only Bengal had a Muslim League government in 1945-46; The Punjab had a coalition of Congress and Muslim opponents of Jinnah, the Frontier had a Congress government, Sind had a coalition and Baluchistan was governed by the Governor General.
Civil services, business, education and industry in all the provinces which became Pakistan were controlled by non-Muslims. They, nearly all, left for India and incoming Muslim immigrants took over. In 1947, there were 83 Muslim I.C.S officers, one from Bengal, 51 immigrants and 31 from the Punjab-none from Sind, NWFP or Baluchistan.
These I.C.S officers looked down upon all others.
Every one in Pakistan bowed down to Jinnah, but he made a critical mistake of declaring Urdu the national-official language of the country, a language spoken by less than 5% of the population.
After his death Liaquat had to make deals with everyone, he had only Karachi as his constituency in the country.
Liaquat was empowered by the ‘Pindi’ conspiracy. He planned elections etc, so they killed him.
Nazimuddin took over but was soon overthrown by the bureaucrats.
When the bureaucrats felt that in the Jan 1959 elections, Bengalis would take over, they handed the government to the army.
After Ayub-Yahya Martial Law, the elections gave a majority to Sheikh Mujib who could, with the help of NAP and other such West Pakistan parties, get a Constitution passed with full provincial autonomy. The army would lose the loot.
Bhutto came to their rescue.  He refused to attend the scheduled meeting of the Assembly and supported a military takeover.
The military perpetrated a reign of terror. Millions were killed, ran away to India, hundreds of thousands of women raped-Lt Gen Tikka Khan boasted on arrival at the Dacca airport that ‘we will change your race’. India intervened. The Pakistan army surrendered.
Bangladesh was formed.
Bhutto took over in the West and spurred by self-aggrandizement, did not curb the army.
When the army had ‘recovered’ from the humiliation, they supported by the civil service, the Mullahs and landowners (I call them The Evil Quad) overthrew Bhutto and eventually hung him to death.
Zia introduced Wahhabism, a culture of intolerance and cruelty.
He was obsessed by the Afghan ‘Jihad’ but when the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R made a deal, he rejected it and the U.S. sent him in a fiery plane to his Jannat Houris.
After Zia, there was the BB-Sharif musical chairs-they danced to the military tune, (A Lt General publicly snubbed BB, the PM).
N.S won big in 1998, and tried to get the army under control. He even appointed Pervez Musharraf as the army chief thinking that as a Mohajir, he would remain obedient (did not know that in the army there are no Mohajirs, Punjabis; they  are all one ethnicity-Army).
In any case he fired the Navy Chief, forced the army chief to retire.
He planned to retire Musharraf who heard of the plan and confronted him. N.S told him he would not do that and added the office of the Joint chief of armed forces to Musharraf portfolio.
Musharraf was due to make an official visit to Sri Lanka. N.S decided to depose him while he was out of the country.
Musharraf heard of the plan and placed his loyal Lt Generals in key places.
Announcement of Musharraf’s replacement was made while he in an airplane on the way back. It was announced on the TV again and again.
When his replacement went to G.H.Q to take charge, the deputy told him that only the Chief (Musharraf) could hand over charge of the office.
The replacement returned to the Prime Minister House.
The deputy Chief of the staff had the TV station shut down, sent soldiers to the Prime Minister House; N.S was slapped around and arrested.
The government had asked Musharraf to land his plane at a small airport in Sind (not in Karachi) or go to India. Musharraf said, “Over my dead body”
The Corp Commander of Karachi went to Karachi airport, had the trucks parked on the runways removed and Musharraf’s plane landed.
Musharraf made the usual speech that it was his duty to save the country.
Musharraf became the international pariah. 9/11 rescued him; he agreed to help the U.S.A in every way he could.
Musharraf was toppled because BB had made a deal with U.S.A.
B.B was shot dead; since then the old Musical Chairs have been played, the latest dancer is Imran aka Taliban Khan.
So you can see that Pakistan’s very genesis was defective.
It ceased to exist in 1971 and what is left is an army colony.
Dr. S. Akhtar Ehtisham

Jinnah, Mountbatten and Congress dealing with partition of India

Lengthy negotiations ensued again. Mountbatten had to concede the demand for partition of India, but he told Jinnah that if the country could be divided, provinces could be too and if Jinnah would not agree with the idea, he would simply hand over power to the congress and be done with it. Conscious of his fast deteriorating health, and certain that his assistants would not be to able to withstand the combined onslaught of the British and the congress, he agreed to a “moth eaten Pakistan”2 . Now, the small man that he was, having been thwarted in his designs to inaugurate a united independent India, Mountbatten decided to leave a veritable mess. Transfer of power was planned for June 1948. In March 1947 he advised the British government to bring the date forward to August 1947, otherwise, he claimed, the situation would get out of control. Civil war might break out. The loyalties of Indian soldiers would be sorely tried. British soldiers, too few and too tired, would not be able to cope with the situation. The cabinet had no choice but to accept his plan. He chose August 15, 1947, the date he had accepted surrender of the Japanese army two years earlier, as the date of transfer of power into Indian and Pakistani hands. Mountbatten, willful, unmindful, unaware, and not caring much for the consequences, delayed announcement of the boundary commission awards till two days after Independence.3 On Independence Day hundreds of thousands did not know which country their home was in. Officials had no information either. Such intricate business as dividing a country which had been one political entity for centuries would tax the skill of an experienced and seasoned administrator. Mountbatten, devoid of any such attributes, set unrealistic deadlines and proceeded with haphazard, disjointed and disorganized partition of the country, government and assets. He charged a boundary commission, the leader of which was unfamiliar with topography, with demarcating a line of control between 1Ibid. 2 Jinnah, on being shown a map of the future Pakistan, with Hindu majority areas, hived off the Punjab and Bengal, so described the country. 3Please see Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity byAkbar S. Ahmad and The Sole Spokesman byAyesha Jalal. A Medical Doctor Examines Life on Three Continents – A Pakistani View 34 India and Pakistan. The man had at best a rough outline of districts, few maps, and no statistics of the majority–minority areas. And he had only a few weeks. It was truly a scuttle. Mountbatten still harbored ambitions of staying on as the governor general of both countries. Nehru, cognizant of the advantages of keeping on the right side of the British government which still controlled all the levers of authority, readily offered the job to him. Jinnah rejected the feelers, claiming that his people wanted him to be the first Governor General of Pakistan. Mountbatten threatened Jinnah that it would have an adverse effect on Pakistan, but Jinnah would not budge. He sought advice from the British prime minister, who urged him to stay on as Governor General of India alone. Whether Jinnah had spurned the advances of Mountbatten because of vanity and arrogance or, as he told his confidants, because he wanted, right at the beginning, to claim an unquestioned independent status for Pakistan, one will never know for certain. The fact that he was terminally ill may have been the determining factor in his decision. Whatever the reason, it was to have a far reaching and grievous effect on Pakistan’s fortunes. Patel and Nehru (and, I suspect, Gandhi) were confident that Pakistan would collapse soon. There would be no other rational reason for Gandhi to change his stance abruptly and acquiesce to the idea of partition which previously he had vowed would happen only over his dead body. Patel is on record making a public speech that it would be only a matter of days, weeks, or at the most months, before Pakistan would collapse; they would go down on their knees to be taken back into the Indian Union. Only Azad, among the top Congress leaders, remained steadfast in opposing partition. Azad and Nehru were very close. Nehru probably did not take Azad into his confidence. Being acutely conscious of the latter’s sensibilities and lack of guile, he also may have wanted to spare his friend the Machiavellian designs of Patel. Azad had been the president of the Congress from 1940 to 1946. He would have been the automatic choice for the office of the first Prime Minister of India. But that was, under the circumstances, untenable. Muslims had got Pakistan. One of them could not be the PM of India too; such was the overwhelming sentiment. The party machine wanted Patel to succeed to the office. Azad offered to resign, but told Gandhi that he would not, till he was given solemn assurance that Nehru would follow him. To hasten the collapse, Nehru and Patel withheld Pakistan’s share of the joint assets. Mountbatten aided and abetted them. The patently lame excuse they gave was that Pakistan would use the funds to wage more effective aggression in Kashmir. And collapse it would — it did not even have funds to pay salary to government servants — if the Nizam of Hyderabad had not come to the rescue. Reputedly the Bill Gates of his time, he gave Pakistan two hundred million ru- Chapter 3. Negotiations for Transfer of Power and Partition 35 pees (equivalent to about $150 million at today’s value). Once Pakistan became a going concern, Gandhi went on a hunger strike to force India to hand over Pakistan’s share of assets to the country.
Dr. S. Akhtar Ehtisham