Dill to FutureCare Critics: Stop Making Stuff Up to Scare People
Senator and junior Minister of Health Thaao Dill made an apt comparison on the floor of the Senate today: American Republicans' fearmongering about health care 'death panels' is about as true as the the combined opposition's fearmongering on FutureCare. Dill:
The confusion and the resulting fear and frustration that is being shamelessly and unjustifiably generated about Government’s Futurecare products, both phase 1 and 2, come attached with a distinct set of contemporary precedents. Our neighbours directly to the west have been in and are still clambering through a strange, loud, angry and in many ways utterly ridiculous debate about much needed health care reform. In my view, in the interest of better understanding Bermuda’s political debate on the subject of health insurance; of having a more firm grasp of the dialogue’s nature, nuance and sadly unavoidable nonsense, one particular thread of the current American narrative is especially instructive. That is, the often referred to death panels. As generally and intentionally aware individuals, I’m sure that my colleagues around the table are aware of what I’m referring to. This imaginary group of government bureaucrats waving retired pensioners and special needs children off into state sponsored euthanasia clinics is a figment of the imagination of tens of millions of Americans, who genuinely believe that their Government wants to pass laws that allow people to be killed in order to save money and preserve some sort of ideological purity. Now, in reality, the creation of these death panels are in fact nothing more than executing a legislative instrument making it possible that your insurance package will pay for end of life planning.
That is, the conversations between yourself, your loved ones and your chosen medical professionals to develop a careful, sensible, and intentional plan to be followed after medical disaster arrives, natural or otherwise. Having your insurance plan cover the cost of your learning how to look after your family and yourself during potentially the most emotionally trying time of your life while making sure it’s less likely it becomes the most financially trying time of your life; that’s the death panels. The obvious question raised is how does the one necessary, thoughtful, empathetic truth become such a vicious, shameless, evil misdirection? It happened because political opponents of the reform generally couldn’t find any other way to win the argument. So they lied about the plan to frighten folks about its contents and cause them to distrust those proposing said plan. They made stuff up to scare people into supporting them. They are actively, purposely scaring people and, more importantly, they’re impeding the process that would deliver these same people necessary support and care. This is, essentially, the dynamic that we are faced with here on the Futurecare debate. Folks making stuff up to scare people so they can win the political argument.
He's right. FutureCare is being phased in to ensure that those who need it most, get it first. We're moving forward with the implementation of the landmark programme because we believe that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors deserve to have access to affordable, quality health care. Dill explains the facts:
These are the facts. Futurecare phase 2 is the planned for, budgeted for, successfully designed followup to Futurecare phase 1, which met it’s expected budget constraints and looked after the predicted thousands of seniors...
Madame President, Futurecare 2.0 is available as an insurance option for our older folks who, as was explained in full detail in the years leading up to this moment, fit a certain set of qualifying criteria. As of April 1st, seniors over 70 or those turning 65 between the 1st of April this year and the 31st of March 2011 are eligible to join Futurecare. As has also been explained many, many times in the past two years, the overall goal is to offer an option for all our seniors to receive affordable health insurance. At this stage, we’ve successfully hit the two thirds mark in the process on budget and on time, and will continue to deliver on the promise. Again, any suggestion that Futurecare hasn’t operated as according to the plans expressed by the Minister Nelson Bascome and his successor Minister Walter Roban and the Ministry’s technical officers is an intentional lie and must be treated accordingly.
Madame President, there are two particular narrative threads being presented that are at best misguided and ill informed, and at worst intentionally misleading. The first being the suggestion that the Futurecare phase 2 premium cost is unacceptably high at 600 dollars per month for eligible seniors. It’s obvious that the optimum, utopian desire would be to guarantee restriction free health care for all, senior or otherwise. However, as adults, we are all aware that’s simply not how the world works. This is why Futurecare is such a special and especially effective program, it balances the obligation to provide options to our seniors while sensibly and sustainably managing the budgetary resources available. That said, the idea that Futurecare is too expensive is problematic on one principal level. That is, one of bench marks, reference points. Too expensive compared to what, exactly?. The range of services and options Futurecare makes available for 600 dollars is too expensive compared to what exactly? No-one would ever suggest that kind of monthly expenditure is anything insubstantial, especially for folks on fixed incomes.
However, the alternative equivalent packages to Futurecare available on the open market from private insurers are between 36 percent higher or double the 600 dollars a month cost. For example, one private insurer plan doesn’t go quite as far and cover quite as much as Futurecare will and does cost seniors over 900 dollars per month. Or, another private insurer plan has an additional charge for dental and vision care that Futurecare builds into it’s existing fee structure is up to between 1300 and 1500 dollars a month for seniors. Another private insurer’s plan is only 8 dollars less per month that Futurecare phase 2 and it doesn’t include doctor’s visits and isn’t available to people over 70. All the other plans available to seniors are basic emergency coverage packages that offer significantly less than even HIP at about a third higher cost. Considering those facts, all the other options exist for our seniors in terms of health insurance versus what Futurecare phase 2 provides at the 600 dollars per month cost, it’s either accidentally foolish or intentionally disingenuous to suggest that this plan’s inappropriately expensive. Accordingly, any one taking a position along those lines is not telling you the truth, and their point of view should be kept in the appropriate context.
This is an important point. FutureCare provides comprehensive coverage at an affordable rate. While the previous government had three long decades to act, it's the PLP Government that committed itself to this landmark programme to help our seniors after a lifetime of hard work. Dill continues by pointing out the high percentage of seniors now receiving quality care resultant from this landmark programme:
Madame President, The second half of the narrative criticising Futurecare phase 2 has to do with seniors being unable to afford health insurance plans, period. Futurecare phase 1, 2 or even HIP are all being classified as either inappropriately costly or indefensibly narrow in what they cover. The contradiction there is, of course, obvious: if it’s too expensive, then it should be reduced in scope. But, then if it’s reduced in scope, it doesn’t accomplish enough for those who need it. This argument is illogical and anyone presenting it in this context should be dismissed accordingly.
That said, Madame President, I believe it’s important to clarify this issue of uninsured seniors further to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to understand the mechanics of all this and the hard data that’s been used to frame the policy and form the product.
According to Age Concern’s Ageing Trends 2008 study and the Census, we have about 8000 seniors in the country. 94 percent of them have health insurance. 7 in 10 have prescription drug coverage, 6 in 10 have major medical. HIP covered one quarter of all seniors, one quarter covered by BF&M, one fifth by Argus with the remainder being split between Freisenbruch Meyer and British American. Again, this is all according to Age Concern’s study from ‘08 which I don‘t believe anyone would responsibly call unreliable information. Now, if 6 in 10 have major medical, this would equal about 4880 of the total seniors with 2618 using Futurecare and another 200 on HIP. This leaves about 240 unaccounted for.
Lets be clear, Madame President, one is too many. However, 240 out of the 8000 is only 3 percent and this 3 percent has not and will not be turned away or discriminated against by this Government, in the area of Futurecare or anywhere else. The Department continues to advertise and communicate nationally that any and all seniors requiring support need only reach out to receive it and, equally, we urge that any one who knows of any senior needing health insurance or support in that arena actually contact the agencies specifically designated to care for our elders before talking about them and their plight in places like this. The country must be informed of challenges that our seniors are facing, that is just, responsible and necessary. However, if your stated priority is to actively care for these folks the first stop would be the Health Insurance Department or the National Office for Seniors and Physically Challenged rather than a podium being your only destination. Incidentally, the phone numbers for those spaces are 295-9210 and 292-7802 respectively.
Dill concludes with an important note: the politics of fear is powerful indeed. The combined opposition is embracing the politics of fear and deception to try to deceive and scare Bermuda's seniors. As Senator Dill notes, the peddlers of fear must be rejected and their deceptions exposed by the sunlight of truth. Dill concludes:
Madame President, fear is a very effective tool. That’s why people desirous of power, political or otherwise, generate it so often with sadly great effect.
It’s the part of democracy’s natural mechanisms that I despise most, the inclination and choice to build a consensus by constructing imaginary windmills for members of the electorate to tilt at or, more to the point, be terrified will fall on top of them. However, when it comes to our elders, frightening them into thinking their basic health care options are either non-existent or insufficient is simply intolerable.
FutureCare is a landmark programme that is providing for our seniors after a lifetime of hard work. Embrace truth and reject fear.
