Friday, March 31, 2006

s. 1955 - TAKE ACTION NOW.

Sitting on my desk at home, right now, is a bill for $2,390.00, covering test strips, pump supplies, and three doctor’s visits. I am paying this bill responsibly. I work a full time job. While I may despise my current employment, I stick with it in order to retain medical insurance.

Let’s cut to the chase here: I wear an expensive insulin pump. I test my bloodsugar very often. I see the doctor at least every four months. I take blood pressure medication. I do these things to prolong and improve the quality of my life. I cost my medical insurance company a pretty penny, but I do these things in order to stay as healthy as possible for as long as possible. Preventative measures. Following this regimen will keep me from having serious complications in the future, thus keeping me from costing my insurance company more money for expensive surgeries and additional medication.

So explain to me why the government wants to make it more difficult for me to remain healthy? It will only cost them more money down the road if I become very ill and require federal assistance. Why would S. 1955 even be considered?

According to a press release from the American Diabetes Association, “Under the proposed legislation, all people with diabetes covered under state-regulated health insurance plans would be in jeopardy of losing their diabetes coverage protections. Insurers will be able to offer a low-cost health plan to employers or individuals that exclude one or more state health care requirements, such as coverage for diabetes supplies, education, and training.” Essentially, employers choosing insurance that covers my test strips and pump supplies would be left to whims. Such an act may render me unable to financially support my own disease.

To make such efforts to prevent alarming and expensive complications, only to have those efforts undermined by health care reforms? Why would a legislative body want to keep me from maintaining good health?

If it were their child with this disease, I’m sure this bill wouldn’t have made it so far.

But for some of you, it is your child. And for others, it’s you.

Invest in the health and well-being of yourself and those you know who are affected by diabetes.

16 Comments:

At March 31, 2006 11:15 AM, Blogger Kieran said...

It's rubbish that you have to have health insurance. I don't understand why there isn't a welfare system with a national health service.
It's a stupid proposal - I hope you can make them rethink it.

 
At March 31, 2006 3:17 PM, Blogger Results Matter said...

Thank you so much for posting on this important issue. I hope other bloggers will continue to help raise awareness of the issue and post the simple link that you provided to the American Diabetes Association - Take Action on S. 1955 page. There are 20.8 million diabetics in the US. The more folks that contact their Senator, the better chance the diabetes community has of defeating the legislation or at lease including specific language to protect the coverage under the current laws.

Thanks again for your support.

 
At March 31, 2006 6:16 PM, Anonymous inKansas said...

Hi, Kerri. I've been reading your blog for while, and I really enjoy your posts.

I'm the mother of a 16-year-old who was diagnosed Type I almost a year ago. I especially enjoy your blog because it gives me a chance to imagine, for a bit, what my daughter's life might be like in 8 years (or so).

This whole health insurance issue has worried me since the day she was diagnosed. I will definitely be contacting my senators.

Thanks for the heads up.

 
At April 01, 2006 2:35 PM, Anonymous Carol said...

Kerri - thanks for posting this. I personalized the letter and sent it to my senators last night. If we give big insurance an inch, they will definitely try to take a mile.

 
At April 03, 2006 2:15 PM, Anonymous Miz S said...

Oh my God. Thank you. As you know, my daughter was just diagnosed 2 weeks ago. I will definitely be getting involved in this battle.

 
At April 11, 2006 11:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think your point about prevention is very important. This bill would destroy all state mandated health insurance requirments that allow people to seek out preventative health care at an affordable cost (ex. chiropractic, physical therapy, accupuncture, massage, psychotherapy, and even dental.) Without access to health care choices we basically have all of our decisions made by an insurance company. This seems like a blatant conflict of interest since we would like to be health and the insurance company just wants to save money. please contact your senators immediately - this is very important!

 
At April 22, 2006 7:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This legislation is going to brought to the Senate floor in May. Right now, the votes are too close to call. I would really urge anyone in Colorado to call Senator Ken Salazar, anyone in Maine to call Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, anyone in Louisiana to call Senator Mary Landrieu, anyone in Minnesota to call Senator Norm Coleman, and anyone in Ohio to call Senator Mike DeWine. Theirs will be the key votes that decide whether the legislation passes or is rejected.

Each Senator's Washington office can be reached at 202-224-3121. Ask for their health staffer -- and make sure they know that you are from their state, and that you're watching how their boss votes.

 
At April 25, 2006 8:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you explain why the s 1955 would keep you from getting the care you are now getting? It sounds like someone at a state level who is trying to protect their job is throwing out a scare saying that "this service or that service might not be covered by the federal laws..." what facts are there to back up this claim? Does the proposed plan actually say it will not cover your type of treatments?

 
At April 26, 2006 10:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're assuming that the choice is between a more comprehensive plan and a less comprehensive plan. As a small business employer, I can tell you that the actual choice is between continuing coverage for employees or dropping it entirely. I've had double digit increases in employee health insurance costs for several years running. This bill will bring more competition to the employer-sponsored health insurance market and allow me to continue to offer at least some coverage to my employees, even if it does not provide 1st dollar coverage for every possible expense.

 
At May 11, 2006 1:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

S 1955 is bad medicine. It will insure more people, about 600,000 to be exact. It will also under-insure more than 83,000,000 million people who depend on the benefits guaranteed by state law. I am a small business employer and I can tell you that it is a lie when other small business owners tell you they are having to choose between a bad plan and nothing. I use and independent insurance broker and the number of plans that are out there are astounding. Most employers are two lazy or to ignorant to investigate the number of plans available to them that could lower their cost now. I am a small business owner and I am firmly against S 1955 because I know that damage it could do to an already troubled health care system. Over 200 organizations, almost all state attorney Generals and most state Governors have publicly denounced this bill. I urge anyone reading this to call their senator and tell them to vote against S 1955.

 
At June 03, 2006 11:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone taken the time to look into the amendments that were ready to go if the bill had come up for consideration?

It would have been a much different bill but some folks just didn't want to address the hard facts including the fact that there are 46 million folks out there with no insurance and more than half of them go to work every day.

What may seem like a black and white issue can often times look a whole lot different when you get into the details.

I just wish folks would take the time to really get educated before they form opinions.

 
At July 14, 2006 9:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it looks to me like you have jumped to conclusions that you will be left high and dry. Hey WAKE UP. A significant amount of Americans don't have any insurance. And for those that do, it's skyrocketing. Hey people, the system is far from broke, it's dangerous. This is sorely needed.

 
At September 02, 2006 2:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Refer to Diabetes for
useful information

 
At October 27, 2006 5:34 PM, Blogger mi_gwich said...

Everyone realy needs to READ THE BILL! It is not going to eliminate anyones coverage. What you are hearing is BS scare tactics. What the bill will do is allow employers and individuals a choice in what to take for coverage. For example, I am a healthy 32 year old that is a very unlikely victem for diabetes, yet the State of Minnesota mandates that ALL policies have that coverage. That is very important coverage to have, but not needed for everyone. Here is a Minnesota mandate that nobody needs. The State of Minnesota mandates coverage for the removal of "port wine" stains. Do you want to pay for that coverage? Again, READ THE BILL BEFORE POSTING!

 
At March 05, 2007 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that there are several mandates that need not be there. I believe there's even one that covers hair transplants somewhere. However, before you use the removal of portwine stains as an example you should perhaps do your homework.

Port wine stains are an entire health condition...not just a red mark. They are vascular malformations created by the nervous system that cause thickening of the tissue and growth of the underlying bone. A facial portwine stain can cause early tooth eruption in children leading to extensive dental work. They can cause excessive bleeding, and the extra pressure of the dilated vessels can cause glaucoma if the eyes are affected. They can also be markers for vascular syndromes that create such problems as seizures, strokes, hemiparesis, developmental delays, overgrowth of limbs....the list goes on.

The laser treatment for portwine stains is the only defense some have to try and shrink the vessels involved that create the red "mark", so that they may try and stop the complications of a capillary malformation (portwine stain). In reality..the fact that the laser treatment reduces the color is one of the last things to consider when trying to treat a port wine stain.

Please follow your own advice; read the bill, AND do your homework before you make uneducated statements.

The fact that treatments are covered in Minnesota are a blessing...as the extensive medical bills that surround the rest of the health complications are staggering. I know, I've spent $40,000 over and above a very good health insurance policy, treating my childs health problems in the past 3 years....all vascular, and yes, there is a port wine stain involved.

 
At June 28, 2007 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen to the last posting. My daughter has a port wine stain covering her entire right leg and thank God we live in Minnesota. Her leg and foot are already showing signs that they may be growing larger than the left side of her body. It is ignorance that hurts others. Thanks for the information and I encourage all to do research before putting down a mandate.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home