January 30, 2013 at 5:54 p.m.
FutureCare: Political scare tactics are blurring the facts
The first phase covered the most needy. In Phase 2 the premiums are higher because it’s for seniors who are better able to afford it
FutureCare: Political scare tactics are blurring the facts
The Shadow Health Minister has taken a year and change to steadily up the ante on imaginary issues - and this has made many of our elders frightened.
They are frightened about their access to medical insurance, their opportunity to seek comfort, their right to the kind of safe and healthy life that they've earned. This fear and discomfort is unacceptable.
With that in mind, I thought it important to explain why the shadow minister is wrong about FutureCare and incorrect suggesting I'd said she and Himmler were ideological best friends.
Bear in mind, I already did explain this, in great detail. Twice, in fact. You can find both statements in full in the links referenced at the foot of this column, exactly as they were delivered: What Mrs. Jackson specifically said about FutureCare - word for word - and specifically why she's wrong.
On both occasions the response from Mrs. Jackson has been that I was "attacking her" and that the claims of my "unfortunate sideshow diatribe" are "bottom of the barrel" and unworthy of any specific response. Also, in doing so, she maintains that I called her a Nazi who wanted to euthanize Jews. But she doesn't explain why I was wrong about FutureCare, or even why she's right. Apparently, Mrs. Jackson thinks her truth is self-evident for you, too. There's nothing wrong with that, exactly. It is definitely odd, though.
The shadow minister's most recent statement on FutureCare was released March 22 on the Opposition's website, saying that FutureCare's failures boil down to these three particular points:
"[Futurecare...] disenfranchised and excluded many seniors in its under-promoted 2009 launch. It created an unfair two-priced premium for the same coverage, and its $600 charge for the Phase 2 premium is unaffordable for many."
Mrs. Jackson's statement then goes on to express the Opposition's formal position on FutureCare as the following:
"We support the concept of affordable health care for seniors but believe the focus of FutureCare should be narrowed to all needy seniors 65 years and older using a means test to determine need."
What you just read is two inaccurate ideas bundled up in a central illogical contradiction.
Firstly, FutureCare has had means testing built into it from the start. Any senior who goes through the Financial Assistance programme's means testing process and is found to need support receives it - and Futurecare as well. That's a fact. Additionally, it's one Mrs. Jackson has been made aware of for nearly a year now.
So when she says that FutureCare needs means testing, she must be ignored. Also, the idea that FutureCare was under-promoted is equally false. FutureCare, with the support and assent of industry partners islandwide, was always designed to be a phased in programme to ensure its sustainability and success.
A national programme of this size and scope takes careful planning and real time to properly deliver the services required. So, the first phase was designed to cover those with the least resources - the seniors already on HIP and Financial Assistance.
Those seniors, based on their usage of those two plans of last resort, obviously had less means at their disposal than their peers with private insurance plans. Therefore, that group as it existed was the one designated to be covered first.
That's also why the Phase 2 group's premium costs are higher; they by definition have more resources than the phase 1 group of HIP customers and Financial Assistance clients.
No one would ever responsibly suggest that $600 per month is an insubstantial sum. However, considering that the members of the Phase 2 group were already paying at least that amount for significantly less coverage or more than double that for slightly more, it's definitely better than what existed before FutureCare.
If there's any argument as to why that's not reasonable, I've yet to hear it. In case there's any confusion, saying I'm a radio propagandist who accused the shadow minister of anti-Semitism isn't a reasonable argument.
The most distinctly odd component of Mrs. Jackson's perspective is how contradictory it is. She says she wants means testing - even though means testing already exists - while complaining that the current programme is discriminatory.
The results of means testing, if you're minded to frame things this way, are that one group will be discriminated against based on their resources. That is, one group has the means to require support while the other group has the means to not receive it.
Means based discrimination is the inherent conclusion of means testing. Mrs. Jackson wants the latter but will not tolerate the former, which makes it hard to understand her stance.
As far as the Nazi thing goes, take a read of my first statement from March 3 (see reference to web link below). The introduction notes the similarities between the inaccuracies being used to build consensus by the respective oppositions to health care policy here and in the U.S..
In doing so, I described the now infamous "death panels". From that, Mrs. Jackson felt moved to tell the House of Assembly that I called her a Nazi who wanted to euthanize Jewish folks. A cursory consideration of the record demonstrates that she reached that conclusion entirely on her own, without needing any support from the facts.
To be clear, when I explain how and why Mrs. Jackson is wrong about FutureCare, I'm not shooting the messenger. All it means is that I'm explaining how and why shadow minister is wrong about FutureCare. I hope this column provides clarification.
SENATOR THAAO L. DILL is Junior Minister of Health.
Ministerial Statement: Futurecare Phase 2
Ministerial Statement: Regarding Futurecare Phase 2
Comments:
You must login to comment.