rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 27, 2009 5:36:37 GMT -7
Planned Parenthood is shuttering its services in El Paso County, leaving an estimated 12 to 14 thousand people without access to more timely, low cost health care options.
Whatever people may think of this organization and its referral services for women seeking more controversial birth control and/or abortion services, we must remember that this organization provided low cost health care and referrals to thousands of people who needed follow-up care for HIV/AIDS, health screenings, treatment for STDs and many other basic medical services that were/are difficult for people to access.
What this means, in simple terms, is that, even as the local chapter of the United Way promised contributers for years that no monies they received would be extended to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood filled in a critical gap in health care delivery for thousands of people who couldn't get help from Tx Tech, Thomason or its clinics, La Fe, Las Palmas, Sierra/Providence, or private practicioners
There is no such thing as a "perfect" health care delivery agency anywhere. But, Planned Parenthood allowed many people to overcome stumbling blocks to care, from accepting initial referrals, scheduling more timely appointments for screenings or evaluations, providing direct care and follow-up treatments at more affordable rates, to providing ongoing referral services all along the continuum of care. They provided these services to people who fell through the cracks, they did so without judgment, and they did so without predicating their service delivery on politics. They did so without dumping or turning patients away due to their financial and/or political status in El Paso County.
If they couldn't treat a patient in a timely manner, they provided referrals or they worked to get them booked. They didn't put patients on interminably long waiting lists so that they could "demonstrate their concern" or "prove" that they were "making every effort" to provide care....Most often, they worked hard to reach out to patients so that they could continue to be treated or seen. They didn't refuse access to care based upon a patient's ability to cover costs--if someone showed up in crisis, they were seen and treated and treatment plans were based upon that patient's ability to follow-up, either at Planned Parenthood or in a setting that was more appropriate and could ensure continued care.
In many cases, too many to count, the staff at Planned Parenthood just somehow got people in, seen and treated. There is no way for me to adequately express my growing concern for people who relied on these services.
At a time when other forms of health care delivery in our area are (finally) publicly acknowledged as being endangered, it becomes a necessity for us as taxpayers, voters, citizens to pay even more attention to what our elected officials are doing to address the needs of everyone in our community.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jun 27, 2009 15:43:21 GMT -7
Yeah, I read last night about this. While I do appreciate that they did do good for some folks, okay, lots of folks, the side I take issue with Planned Parenthood is their political side, which, I'm sorry, is a big part of who they are with their main focus seeming to be abortion. Not AIDS, not cancer screening, not "reproductive health". That's the side that keeps me from mourning their demise in El Paso. Besides, it seems as if other health care agencies will be there to pick up the slack anyway.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 28, 2009 11:26:39 GMT -7
I think that different people see this organization in different ways, Web...yes, here in El Paso, way back when, they provided those services, and in more recent years, they provided those referrals
but in my experience, going on over 25 years to date, this was not a major component of their service delivery at all. Reproductive health care was not and isn't synonymous with "abortion", and this was particularly so for people couldn't, and still won't be able to access help elsewhere
take out a twenty dollar bill from your wallet. put it on the table and look at it. just the twenty. look at it
that twenty is lunch to you or I, should we ever be lucky enough to meet...we'll dicker over who pays, I'm sure....with a twenty or maybe even two of them
there's a list of service providers in the El Paso Times article which talks about PP closing in EL Paso.....the providers listed all haggle and dicker over insurance, scheduling; most have waiting lists and some claim to have sliding fee scales that allow patients to pay based upon income. But what often happens is that those who are of very limited means? They are put on waiting lists or at the back of the priority, so to speak. Most of the facilities claiming they can or will pick up the slack? That's all just talk
Planned Parenthood picked up the slack here
there is one provider mentioned in the article itself, just one, who doesn't charge an up-front fee for health care services for those who are uninsured, don't qualify for welfare but can't afford to go anywhere else...(and now they can't go to PP). The other providers will immediately ask how you intend to cover your expenses, if you don't have medicare/medicaid, they will schedule you AFTER you qualify; if you have no insurance and no job, they still want to know how you will pay....you end up on a waiting list, and/or you won't be scheduled for certain procedures (cancer screenings, pap smears and the like) until you can show how you will pay.
You know that twenty? Even San Vicente charges that twenty dollar bill up front, even if you don't have $20 and want to make arrangements to (or cannot) pay...they want it up front before they will see you and you have to really dicker with them for help
not for lunch but just for help, because that's their fee.
What most people who would use that twenty to feed the kids for the week (who the hell can buy stuff with twenty dollars?!) will use it to feed the kids. That means no health care at all for some poor mothers I know of, because they'd already been bounced from facilities who are claiming they can pick up the slack....for credit issues or outstanding bills (and of course these facilities claim they won't deny care to anyone)
Planned Parenthood picked up the slack very often, and these people received treatment and screenings that were critical to their health
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 28, 2009 11:50:39 GMT -7
one of the obvious questions here: why should we worry about somebody else's medical expenses? the argument being: why should everyone be "entitled" to health care when some can't pay for it?
when it comes to preventaive treatment and basic health care, it costs less to help the poor at the outset than it does for the taxpayers to cover the costs of their care once they show up at the emergency room at Thomason-or anywhere else, for that matter
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jun 28, 2009 14:50:14 GMT -7
one of the obvious questions here: why should we worry about somebody else's medical expenses? the argument being: why should everyone be "entitled" to health care when some can't pay for it? when it comes to preventive treatment and basic health care, it costs less to help the poor at the outset than it does for the taxpayers to cover the costs of their care once they show up at the emergency room at Thomason-or anywhere else, for that matter Good question - one we hear a lot of these days. I am working on a follow up to my last piece about the Health Care crisis and in doing some research on my own expenses here is what I found to be my true annual cost of health care and Health Insurance (before over the counter stuff) Employee Paid Private Health Insurance: $8,892.02 Employer Paid Private Health Insurance: $4,800.00 (estimate) Annual Payment to Medicare in Taxes: $ 930.90 Annual Payment to Medicaid (%Fed Tax): $ 487.44 Out of Pocket Payments: $1,974.38 (Tax Return) Thomason Hospital Taxes $ 275.43 (CAD) Total: $17,360.17 Looking at the above, basically my payments to Thomason, Medicare and Medicaid are really to provide or help to provide for the cost of medical care for others. A total of $1,693.77 (16% of my direct payments, or 9.76% if you exclude what my company pays for me). So, why should we pay for medical care for the elderly and poor? Because it is the right thing to do. What makes me angry is what I pay for my own care. I am still crunching the numbers, but if I dropped the health insurance on my dependents I could pocket about $741.00 a month more in take home pay before taxes. If I banked that and still paid full price for the medications we purchase and the doctor visits, I calculate I could probably net $1,500 a year in savings. Of course in the event of a catastrophic health emergency I'd be stuck with the bills. The truth of the matter is I haven't seen a doctor in about two years. That visit cost me around $300.00 out of pocket for an x-ray that took a recent EPCC Grad all of 5 minutes, and took me all of an afternoon filling out forms and waiting. So what exactly am I paying for with Insurance? Peace of mind? What if I cut a deal with Thomason and said "I'll pay you $500.00 per month directly as a retainer, in return you guarantee me one annual visit for a physical per year for each of my family members and provide me with discounted prescriptions." Boy could I pocket some change. What if everyone in El Paso dropped their private insurance and did the same? Do you think Thomason could survive? Personally I have never used Thomason, but I would.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 29, 2009 7:30:35 GMT -7
Here's my personal take on a couple of points you've raised, Snil I think Thomason could and would "survive" but I don't think they would be considered "competitive" On a personal note, if I had another option for trauma care outside of Thomason, I'd take it and it's based solely on personal experience, as such, biased. The joke between some of my friends is: once you get out of the ER there, you're pretty much in the hands of God. As unfair as that sounds, it's still said in recognition that anyone can have a positive or negative experience no matter where they end up. but, because of reimbursment issues, I believe staff there have opted not to schedule/order tests and/or treatments that could have helped people, and people close to me.....you're not the doctor, you assume they're doing what's necessary to help, but it's quite a shock to hear later that they could have/would have if there had been insurance, or if it had been "authorized". The problem with this is that they claim they don't do this....what is really upsetting is that other facilities have allegedly done it, but the county hospital is the non-profit one of the worst experiences I can remember involved a family member who was covered by insurance. He was very critically injured years ago, transported to Thomason and his surgery was performed by a top-notch doctor, a recognized trauma surgeon who clearly saved his life. After his surgery there, he was placed in a recovery room that was under construction and there was debris literally falling on top of he and other patients because they were working on the ceiling. This was shocking; there were empty rooms and beds nearby, but when we asked why these patients weren't moved, considering what we thought were obvious safety violations and risks, the staff blew us off. my guy had the type of injury that required the surgeons to open his limb and leave it open so that it could swell as much as was necessary so the tissue and muscle wouldn't die, so they wrapped the limb well after surgery, but the work on the room continued throughout the time he and other patients were there, in spite of our requests, protests, threats to sue, etc. We tried, unsuccessfully, as immediate family to get him moved. To this day, I don't understand why; he was there for days during which the debris continued to fall on and all around him. Everyone can produce a few horror stories, I know....but my direct and indirect experiences with Thomason contintue to be of this nature for whatever reason. And frankly, whenever I have run into people who have been held off on waiting lists and need timely care, I am never surprised. After all, it is the county hospital and they do serve an ever increasing indigent population Like you, I'm not thrilled to crunch numbers and learn what we are covering, juxtaposed to what we actually use, and our policy has its limits. But oddly enough, when it comes to catastrophic care, again because of personal experience, I no longer assume that insurance companies will abide by the terms they themselves set forth. So my concerns and experiences have fallen largely on the more negative side, but this aside when it comes to preventative care or emergent care that's needed, in principle, I agree that taking care of others is the "right thing to do". I don't have a problem with that moral at all, and I don't get into a lot of the "whys" and "wherefores" of why other people can't take care of their own health issues and responsibilities. One of the more comprehensive reasons that I don't get bogged down with this is quite simple: in the long term, it would STILL cost the taxpayer less to "pay" for preventative care/treatment for poor people. Where we ultimately end up having to put forth more money is when they present themselves with medical needs that are costlier than what it would have taken for taxpayers to cover preventative care which often results in reduced visits to the ER and/or critical and more expensive medical intervention I'd agree to do my part to help another regardless, but if I had a choice, I'd rather pay for someone's nasty bout with bronchitis than end up paying for the 5-day hospital stay they couldn't avoid because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor. And for me, the same principle applies for preventative and ongoing care for those who received help through Planned Parenthood..... prenatal care is critical and it is expensive....lots of girls/women got help from Planned Parenthood and they will opt to go without--many do not understand how important it is to the health of their unborn babies, and some will unwittingly endanger their health and that of their baby, because they can't afford to go anywhere else and because they don't yet qualify for government assistance as much as health officials want to insist these things don't happen, I keep seeing them happen.
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Jun 29, 2009 9:47:35 GMT -7
Preventative care, emergent care, and prenatal care should be the top 3 that are covered by any "health plan".
Though I am 70% disabled, (VA disability), I hardly ever use the facilities (my VA outpatient clinic) there. Not because the doctors suck, but because I don't need to.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 30, 2009 9:26:43 GMT -7
yes they should
speaking again from a personal perspective, because I've had surgery several times, there are so many riders on our policy when it comes to me.....that in terms of "prevention"---they undercut it with conditional terminology regarding "pre-existing" conditions...which in actual terms, no longer exist because they've been surgically removed
funny thing-even though the "condition" isn't there anymore, this allows the insurance company the flexibility of opting to cover pretty much what they want to, in spite of what the policy originally dictated
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jun 30, 2009 21:23:46 GMT -7
Here's something I find a bit funny (funny in a way that makes me wince a little). Nationally, churches and places of worship provide, without fan-fare or recognition, many types of services. Soup kitchens and food pantrys for food, rescue missions and Christian homes for shelter and yes, crisis pregnancy centers that gather formula and diapers as well as seek to help with medical and legal issues. Now, all these things exist because of private donations and here Obama wants to cut out tax deductions for money given to charity. This will hurt charities and some will have to scale back on whatever services they provide yet nobody laments for them nor their "clientele."
PP, on the other hand, closes it's doors for reasons unknown to anyone and, for some reason, PP is some sort of ill-fated yet noble "victim" of circumstances?
Why the disparity?
Another thing, if one bad actor is discovered in a church, that's all we hear about and any good that church has ever done goes right out the window. In some cases that church is even accused of systemic abuses which are repeatedly hammered on with not one person recognizing the over-whelming, global good that very church has done. Now PP has as policy a very pro-abortion rights agenda yet even us pro-lifers are supposed to overlook that because of the good that it does and has done (which I'm not denying, btw)?
And you guys, I'm addressing this here, but don't think that I believe this is how anyone here sees things. I know I'm speaking in terms of huge generalizations, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in what I've written.
|
|