90 Days Until I Can Get Insurance - A Personal Case For Medicare For All

In 2018 Americans spent $3.65 trillion on medical expenses. That’s an increase of 4.4 % over 2017 according to a report by Axios. Also, from the report under private health insurance, spending per person rose 4.5% between 2017 and 2018, even though the same number of people were enrolled. That’s for one year and it is expected to keep going up (In 2016 it was $3.4 trillion)

In contrast, conservative estimates put the cost of Medicare for all at $3.3 trillion per year… or as they like to exclaim $33 trillion over 10 years!

I don’t know, that looks like a savings of $3.5 trillion a year based on their numbers and it covers everyone. That seems like a deal to me, but it won’t to them… because uh’m socialism, and as we all know socialism is bad. Always bad. Even where it works.

You know what’s not working for me though? The current for-profit medical system we live under in the United States of America. It’s not working for me, or for you, or even for most of these blue-collar Trump-loving guys who think it’s working for them.

Some of the most common complaints I hear about socialized medicine are that the Government will decide what test can be done, what doctors you can go to and what treatments you can receive. All these things are already controlled by the big insurance companies. They outright decide when and what tests they pay for, they make you pay extra for a doctor out of network and god forbid you want a medication that isn’t on their approved list. Somehow this doesn’t occur to them. Somehow, they think they would be giving up their perceived freedoms by having a government take the place of big insurance.

I have always believed we would be better off with a system that covered everyone all the time. I believed this from a distance though. I had an employer who gave us the best insurance and healthcare possible. I could see a doctor free of charge for the littlest boo boo you could imagine and it was awesome. Unlike many of my colleagues, I felt like everyone should have treatment available like this. This is how you should take care of a society. This is what the greatest country on earth should do for its people. But, as they say, all good things must come to an end and right now my family and I are at the opposite end of the spectrum. No insurance and no options. 

Let me start with some background until the end of December in 2018 I worked for an employer with what has to be one of the most generous medical benefits packages anywhere in America. They paid 100% of the cost of not just the employee, but of the employee’s entire family. Pretty mind-boggling. It was basically a $21k raise for everyone from the lowest-paid to the highest. It didn’t stop there though; they had their own fully staffed free clinic in the parking lot of the downtown branch. Once again, 100% free to employees and family. Tell me that was not an amazing thing to have access to?

Unfortunately, at the end of 2018 the company decided to sell the division I worked for another company. They would still pay the employee portion of the insurance, but now we were responsible for our family (I have three kids and a wife, I need my insurance) which came out to about $800 a month. The free clinic, gone! It was a huge and unexpected pay cut even though my salary was technically the same, and it didn’t cover as much but hey, at least we still had some insurance. We adjusted.

My wife sees a doctor for chronic pain, I see one for an inherited condition. We both have maintenance prescriptions as do a couple of our kids. It was a hardship but, as you can imagine, we were glad to have any insurance at all.

Then the layoffs came. I was laid off.

Very suddenly we have no insurance.

I’m a CDL driver. I figure in this economy I’ll find a job really quick. For three months I can’t find anything that can even cover my mortgage payment. I have to borrow to make ends meet, so much so that when I get my severance from the old job (which was nice) it is eaten up pretty quickly. We pretty much all have to stop taking our medications. It feels like we are getting close to the end of our rope here and then suddenly I finally get a job.

I accept a freight delivery job that is only about 10k less a year then what I was making. I need a job and I need to keep a roof over my head. So, I accepted the position. I’ll be eligible for their insurance in three months, and this employer gives no sick days. If you miss a day you have to get a doctor note or be written up and forget being paid a cent for that day.

And this brings us to the entire point of this article. The real reason that Medicare for All (or single-payer system, or socialized medicine or whatever you call it) would really benefit everyone. Something is wrong with my left eye. It’s gotten very blurry recently and nothing I have found over the counter has helped. I get no sick days and I can’t afford a doctor even if I had them. I am a CDL driver out on the roads of this country daily. A CDL driver who can’t see out of his left eye. Think about that.

I'm driving one of these and I can't see in my left eye!

All over this country we let people go to work sick or in dangerous states. Many times they literally have zero options. Go to work sick or don’t get paid. Don’t see a doctor because you can’t afford it. These people are a danger to everyone, not just themselves. 90 days until I can get insurance, and only then if I can afford it.

People have no right to fire protection - Let's bring back Fire Gangs

A conservative friend just told me that in order to get better healthcare we have to be willing to give up something. We have to cut money from other so called "entitlements" to pay for it. It's a tired argument really. In long run access to healthcare benefits everyone. Healthy workers save money and even if that was the only benefit it would be enough.

But, I really don't get the point here.... it's 2 Trillion LESS over 10 years then what we paid as a country in 2016. By the Conservative estimate.... by the 2.8 trillion Liberal estimate it saves even more, and the reality is probably somewhere in between the two. 

So why would we give anything up for something that already costs less?

Do you know most fast food and restaurant workers in this country go to work sick? When I was a pizza delivery guy I worked sick all the time. Think that was a great idea? Had no choice. Had no money for Doctors and couldn't afford to stay home. Turned around and made other people sick. 

This was right after the oil field lay offs in 2010 with a pregnant wife at home. So I'm not talking as a young guy, or ancient history. This was to make ends meet quite recently. 

The temp employees here at my current job have the same issue. They can't afford a doctor, they work sick. That spreads sickness. That decreases efficiency at work. Healthcare doesn't just help the sick person, it makes society function better, much like police and fire departments.

In fact, that's what I'll give up. Fire Departments. Lets go back to the early 1600s or so when Fire Departments were all volunteer and expected payment to put out Fires. When roving fire gangs actually set as many fires as they put out. We can modernize this idea! They can roll up, check your fire insurance and if your covered only then will they put out the fire (just like health insurance). When it spreads to other buildings? Same thing, show you are insured or pull out the check book. Otherwise they will roast marshmallows on what used to be your home.

~After all - No one has a right to Fire Protection, that's an entitlement!~ 

Universal Healthcare so simplified even a conservative can understand it.

Let's try to understand where you draw the line a supposed socialism.  Are police departments socialist?  We pay them to take care of a basic societal need. Isn't that the actual definition of socialism? 

~Shouldn't we, as the ultimate free enterprise country, have to pay cops to investigate crimes? Under a true Capitalist system the more you pay the more likely it is your crime will be solved~

What about fire departments?  Was it better in the early 19th century when volunteer fire departments charged to put out fires? Fires they or rival fire gangs often started? 

~Or maybe we should have a new type of Fire Insurance? One that requires us to show proof of coverage before they put a drop of water on the flames?~

Both of these ideas are obviously, absolutely ridiculous. We all know and understand that police and fire departments, not to mention government agencies like the Military, FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, DOL, DOE, CDC, FAA etc are all necessary forms of socialism. Our taxes pay for them and they work for the common good of us all.

Why is healthcare somehow different?

As a country we spent 3.4 trillion in 2016 on healthcare and not everyone was covered, and the cost went up in 2017, and is expected to keep going up in 2018.

Republicans keep throwing out the number 3.2 trillion over 10 years as the cost to have a single payer system in this country.  Well using the 2016 numbers that looks like a two billion dollar savings to me everyone is covered.

There are tons of different estimates of the number of people who go bankrupt each year due to medical bills. It's easy to find numbers from 600 thousand to 1.4 million depending on where you look, but frankly no one should go bankrupt for medical conditions. No one should have to choose between their health and their income.

And frankly it amazes me how conservatives miss the benefits to society as a whole. When people default on medical bills, prices go up for the rest of us. Millions of people each year use the emergency room to treat conditions that they can't afford to get looked at. Even with insurance millions of dollars in deductibles never get paid. That is passed directly on to the rest of us.

Even worse, many people, knowing they can't afford a doctor won't go. Those in lower paying, more demanding jobs will still go to work spreading sickness and disease because they can't afford time off and they can't afford treatment. This includes the people making your food. 

Others will stay home sick decreasing productivity at their employers business, some will even die. To die of a treatable condition in a country such as this should be unimaginable.

I'm not saying that medicare for all, or single payer is the answer to all this but let's at least get rid of the boogeyman concerning so-called socialism.

No serious viable candidates have ever advocated for true socialism or communism. All anyone has pushed for is that we use the resources of this great country to make healthcare for everyone a reality and have our nations Doctors protect us like we are protected by the police and fire departments. 

Agree? Don't Agree? Tell me why in the comments!

Hey, lets give guns to teachers! That'll stop this shit....

Wow. Lots of people calling for arming teachers. Even the President Trumplestiltskin is pushing for it on twitter. He thinks that, "....If a potential “sicko shooter” knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school."

I guess some schools are even doing it..

Sounds like just a fantastic idea right?... or at least a great way to sell more guns...

A few things this plan doesn't take into account though:

• We don't even pay our teachers and schools enough to be able to afford supplies. In fact, the tax deduction that teachers who itemized used to be able to get fo buying supplies is gone thanks to the Republican's new tax scam overhaul. So where will the money for these guns and the tactical training for an active shooter situation come from?
• There are 100s of cases of physical abuse by teachers on students each year. In many cases, this is barely investigated or punished. (I'm talking about hitting, not the cases of inappropriate contact) What if one of these armed teachers snaps? How many students can he or she shoot before another armed teacher puts him or her down?
• What happens if the teacher misses and hits another innocent student? I don't think many districts could survive that kind of lawsuit. What happens to that teacher? Fired for doing what he was supposed to try and do? Can he live with that guilt? Would any parent want their child in his classroom ever again?
• You would have all the same possible problems with armed security. Even vets can miss firing into a crowd. Even if someone has active shooter and hostage training there is no guarantee they won't miss.
• Will a teacher even be able to fire at a child they once taught? Can a teacher coldly put one in the head and two in the chest of a child they were teaching just days before? Can they recover after they've done so? 

And what about Mr.Trumplesteins claim that a "sicko shooter" would never attack that school? 9 times out of 10 these shooters take their own lives. They are resigned to die before they ever start their rampage. They almost always go after their own school. They want to die and they want to see how many they can take with them, but they don't want strangers. They are after revenge on those they think have done them wrong. Warning them that teachers are armed won't deter many of them if any.

I have to notice the right never even suggests the less lethal alternatives. Stun Guns, Tasers, Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets. At least then you'd have less chance of collateral damage.

But a better approach is to find these kids and help them before these situations occur, and find a way to keep the damn guns out of their hands in the first place.

The real way to arm our teachers is with the tools and training to teach them right, not to take them out!

Did I just disprove that old 2nd Amendment NRA talking point?

"This is Merica!"

"You want to know what gives me the right to stockpile a ton of weapons, thousands of bullets, bump stocks, laser sights etc?"

"The Damn 2nd Amendment boy! That's what gives me the right. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Damn it! That right there means I can have any Damned weapon I want."

Do you have anything bigger?

That's not the actual entire second amendment though is it?

Amendment II - A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"Boy, when they are talking about militias they are saying we might have to rise up against the gubment! Damn it Boy, don't you know anything?"

Im'a here to protect you from tyranny.

It's a talking point we have had to hear literally thousands of times. The notion that one of the reasons the right wing of this country thinks it has the right to carry around any damn firearm they want. They think the constitution lets them and this view has been propagated by the NRA and weapon manufacturers until it has become literally ingrained in the heads of a majority of people in this country. Not just the right wing either. A lot of liberals accept this as truth even as they decry the results.

Let's first realize what the militia was. It wasn't a ragtag group of partisan volunteers and anti-government types. It wasn't there to protect the people from the government. In fact, membership was required by the government.  All able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 were considered to be in the militia. The articles of Confederation written in 1777 proclaim it the duty of each state to keep and arm a militia. (The Declaration of Independence wasn't ratified until 1787-1788)
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: Articles of Confederation, arts. 6, 9 Article VI. No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
This is a state-controlled and financed militia, and it included everyone.

The Militia act of 1772: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

Every able-bodied person was in this militia. So it makes perfect sense in that context that you couldn't infringe upon their right to bear arms. Doing so would weaken the militia.

So wait, how do we know that the Militia wasn't there to protect the people from the Government? These Founding Fathers were some pretty smart guys. Maybe they were envisioning a time when Billy Bob and his AR-15 would have to go toe to toe with a Huey attack helicopter. I bet that's it... I bet the right wing is at least correct about that part. Right?

Not so much...

Article 8 clearly states that the purpose of a militia is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

So... everyone was in the Militia, the states were individually responsible for keeping them armed and well regulated, and they were there to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasion.

Not exactly what the NRA wants you to believe. 

If you're smart you'd pee your pants and run when you see this coming.

No one is coming for your guns (unless you are an idiot or worse)

I'm not against guns. One of the biggest lies you the right believes is that all liberals want your guns. I'm sure some of us, the extreme ones, do indeed want to disarm you. That is not all of us though. It's not even most of us.

That's not exactly accurate either though. We do want to disarm some of you. If you can't even admit that some people should not have guns then yeah,  maybe you are one of them, maybe not. Why is it that you can't even admit that much though. Why the hell can't you say, "Some people who can get guns just should not have them!", until after the tragedy occurs?

Of course your biggest weapon in this little fight for gun rights has apparently become internet MEMEs. Ridiculously stupid internet MEMEs and if you took half a minute to think about the bullshit your posting you wouldn't do it. Sorry, that's a lie and I know it, you idiots will post anything that even remotely agrees with your ammosexual agendas.

Let's start with this one.  We don't blame the guns and we don't blame responsible gun owners. Let me repeat and reiterate that, liberals do not blame the guns! You dumb asses really need to stop saying that.  We blame easy accessibility to guns by deranged and violent people, many of whom seemed to be fine until they became deranged and violent.  We blame the fact that anyone can go to a gun show and get a gun without a back ground check (or could before a couple weeks ago).  That's what we blame. Not the gun. 

However if you dumb asses want to stick with that analogy.  We require people to have drivers licenses and insurance to operate a car.  We recognize that the car is inherently dangerous and we require certain conditions be met before it is used because we know it had the potential to be used incorrectly and kill people. If you drive a big commercial vehicle we require even more. Big truck drivers have to have specialized training and follow rules designed to prevent them from accidentally killing hordes of people. Big trucks equal big rules and guns should be the same way.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The words well regulated are the 2nd and 3rd word of the damn amendment. Regulation doesn't mean they are coming for your guns. It doesn't mean they are trying to disarm you. It means using common sense to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands. This was in the constitution that you right wing morons are supposed to think is sacred (It's not by the way, it's a living document and it was meant to be changed).

You will try to get around this by quoting (or misquoting, since you never seem to properly source your quotes) to one or more of the founding fathers.

Real quote by Jefferson

Fake quote by Washington.

Really? Someone really thinks this is how Washington talked? 

It sounds more like a Bushism.

Are these quotes true? Maybe. I don't know, but even if they were, so the fuck what? Thomas Jefferson didn't write the fucking constitution all by himself. Those amendments were contemplated, fought over, and voted on just like in congress today. Get that through your head, they fought about these things. There was no magical agreement between all parties. There was no psychic rapport that made them all agree with each other. Quotes you read from founding fathers represent one person's view. What matters is the wording that actually made it into the Constitution of the United States of America, and nothing else.

Now let's discuss this bit of stupidity right here...

It's true, criminals do not follow the gun laws. It's also true that thieves don't follow the burglary laws and rapists don't follow consent laws. So by this logic lets get rid of rape and theft laws. Why not, if the bad guys are not going to follow those laws anyway, why the fuck do we have them?

Oh, wait... maybe, just maybe, it is so that when they do break the laws we can arrest them, prosecute them and incarcerate them. You think... you think maybe laws exist on the books so they can be enforced? That seems like a novel idea. I'm going to say that yes we should have laws even though we know criminals will disobey them. I think that's a dandy idea.

The above quote from Jefferson may have been true at one time but seriously do you really think your little AR-15 could defend you from the government? You can go down fighting, but I think when you see the tanks and helicopters coming after you what you will actually do is shit your tea party patriot asses. They are not coming for you anyway but if they did you wouldn't stand a chance. Not a chance. 

Not even a little one.

I made this one just for you!