United Healthcare Disenrollment: Fill & Download for Free

I don’t know why he believes that.You can point to the World Health Organization and The Commonwealth Fund rankings, which found that the top-ranked countries in a new international comparison were the U.K., Australia, and the Netherlands.It also found that the U.S. health system spends far more than other high-income countries, but lags on performance.If he is like my father, he might dismiss it as liberal propaganda.To make a true case, I would need to know why he believes we have the best one.If you can afford it, perhaps we can claim to have the best healthcare system in the world; and these rankings do take issues like access into account.Clearly, more and more Americans cannot afford it.In addition, if we have the best healthcare system, why do we have the 43rd longest average lifespan in the world, below all other developed nations, according to the CIA’s World Factbook?If you review the list below, we are behind lower-income countries/jurisdictions like South Korea, Puerto Rico (for some reason), Ireland and the Cayman Islands.As a source, the CIA is hardly a bastion for masterminds of liberal spin.I especially do not understand how anyone can claim we have the best one, when we (apparently) gutted the CHIPS program yesterday,[1] leaving nine million children - knowing some will die - without healthcare insurance.It sickens me to justify healthcare for children in economic terms, but I have long accepted that humanitarian values are DEAD in this country. If we don’t care about children, what kind of cultural cancer do we suffer from?If you believe it’s okay to throw children under the healthcare bus, I do not want to share the same air as you. I do not want to inhale your polluted breath.In a previous response, I compared the economic and clinical outcomes of the healthcare systems in other large English-speaking countries with our own, and we come in last on all counts.Please feel free to read the 138-page report.I added an overview of constitutional principles and precedents supporting universal healthcare in addition to a quick and dirty economic glimpse at the potential net benefit. Below, I repeated them, with a few updates.You will find the comparison with other countries starting on point ten.Footnotes and citations provided in the original response.The Declaration of Independence not only guarantees the right to life, the Preamble to the Constitution establishes the federal government’s imperative to promote the general welfare.Opponents claim “promote” does not mean “provide.”They parse words. Historically, we have equated the two. It has established public education, law enforcement and infrastructure, essentials not provided for in the constitution.In truth, we fund amenities less important. Not that public libraries are not important, but how are they a greater priority than healthcare?We once recognized the need to provide healthcare to children.The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPS) covered uninsured children in families with modest incomes too high for Medicare.In 2007, Brigham Young and Arizona State Universities examined the economic impact if enrollment in this program decreased by 10% in the Phoenix area alone. It concluded as follows: “A 10% disenrollment INCREASED healthcare costs in the community by $3,460,398 annually, or $2,121 for each child disenrolled.”Why? When these children lost their health insurance, they shifted to emergency room care, provided under Ronald Reagan’s 1986 Emergency Room Care Act, a rather liberal position for this conservative icon.In this previous response, I explained in detail how this Republican legislation led to higher health insurance premiums, escalating healthcare costs, and compounding the deficit.While opponents argue universal healthcare would lead to higher taxes, and add to the national deficit, the current system - and I use the term loosely - has become a major driver of the deficit, contributing to inflation, and higher health insurance premiums.We can use the CHIPS benefits to glimpse the potential economic benefits of universal healthcare for adults. If we apply this $2,121 per child figure to to all nine (9) million children on CHIPS, it will cost the healthcare sector $19,000,000,000 when CHIPS recipients start to rely on emergency room care.That year, the program cost the taxpayer $5,000,000,000, yielding a net benefit of $14,000,000,000 to society. This quick analysis provides us with a compelling economic rationale for adult universal healthcare.Global studies of large diverse nations, with universal healthcare, demonstrate superior economic and clinical outcomes, including Canada, The United Kingdom and Australia.According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, Canada spends half as much per capita on health care as the United States.In 2013, the United Kingdom managed to provide health care to all citizens while spending 40% ($3,405) of what the United States ($8,508) spent per capita on healthcare. In Australia, the figure increases to 45% ($3,800) compared to the United States.The same cross-cultural study, published by the American economic research institute The Commonwealth Fund finds the United States, despite spending double the money on healthcare, fails on leading indicators in standards and clinical outcomes.In 2010, the number of Americans who believed our current healthcare system functioned “well with minor changes needed” stood at an abysmal 29% of the population, compared to 62% in The United Kingdom and 38% in Canada.In addition, 33% of Americans experienced a cost-related barrier to adult care compared to 5% in The United Kingdom, 22% in Australia, 15% in Canada. Yet, the opposition objects to universal healthcare by claiming it would lead to long waiting lists and dissatisfaction?That is simply not true.In The United Kingdom, 70% reported same or next-day access to treatment, 65% in Australia and 45% in Canada. In the United States, 57% were able to access care in the same time period.The same comprehensive, global perspective found 71% of Americans believe our healthcare systems requires either fundamental changes or needs to be completely rebuilt, undercutting the notion the American people do not want healthcare reform.As of 2017, statistical trends reported by Gallup show 52% of Americans believe the federal government should accept responsibility for providing healthcare coverage to all Americans, while 45% disagree. Even the most conservative polls admit to an even split.According to the 2017 Commonwealth report:“The U.S. ranked last on performance overall, and ranked last or near last on the Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes domains. Based on a broad range of indicators, the U.S. health system is an outlier, spending far more but falling short of the performance achieved by other high-income countries.”These findings largely comport with the World Health Organization, which ranks the United States healthcare system 37th in the world, below The United Kingdom (18), Canada (30) and Australia (32).You can also point to - despite being the “richest” country in the world - we do not enjoy the longest lifespan. Countries with stronger healthcare systems do.According to the CIA’s World Factbook[2] , the United Sates has the 43rd longest average lifespan, the last among the three countries compared above.One general indicator - from our chief intelligence agency nonetheless - that we likely do not have the best healthcare system in the world.Edit 01/05/2018: I have received two comments, claiming average lifespan has no connection to the fitness and efficacy of our national healthcare system. Neither individual stated why it would not. I always thought of it as an minor indicator that, when placed in context, enhanced the overall case.I always knew that average lifespans are typically driven down by infant mortality rates. If you survive childhood disease, chances are good you will live beyond the average lifespan. A quick analysis showed a 91% correlation between average lifespan and infant mortality rates.I also infer that the American diet also plays a role, measured by obesity rates. It looks like both factors DO indicate a healthcare system much in need of reform. The United States has significantly HIGHER infant mortality rates (6 out of every 1,000 births) than the three other countries.The average number of infant deaths per one thousand in the U.K., Australia, and Canada is 3.5 - the highest being Canada with 4 deaths per 1,000 births.In addition, I cross-referenced obesity rates (the only indicator available).Comparison Obesity RatesUnited States: 36.5%Australia: 28.3%Canada: 25.40%United Kingdom: 24.8%The other three countries in this comparison have obesity rates less than eight-ten percentage points than the United States. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that Americans are not only fatter, but we kill more babies, the two most likely variables driving down average lifespans.What do these variables have to do with universal access to decent healthcare?Universal healthcare programs include PREVENTION initiatives.Profit-driven healthcare systems do not.These prevention initiatives would affect our average lifespan positively by providing better information about pre and post-natal care, and access to nutrition counseling. But prevention does not drive profits.Disease makes money - and the industries that profit from disease are aligned against universal healthcare and currently control the legislative process.2017 Estimated Average Lifespans by Nation in Descending Order1 Monaco 89.402 Japan 85.303 Singapore 85.204 Macau 84.605 San Marino 83.306 Iceland 83.107 Hong Kong 83.008 Andorra 82.909 Guernsey 82.6010 Switzerland 82.6011 Korea, South 82.5012 Israel 82.5013 Luxembourg 82.3014 Australia 82.3015 Italy 82.3016 Sweden 82.1017 France 81.9018 Norway 81.9019 Liechtenstein 81.9020 Jersey 81.9021 Canada 81.9022 Spain 81.8023 Austria 81.6024 Anguilla 81.5025 Netherlands 81.4026 Bermuda 81.4027 New Zealand 81.3028 Cayman Islands 81.3029 Isle of Man 81.3030 Belgium 81.1031 Finland 81.0032 Puerto Rico 80.9033 Ireland 80.9034 Germany 80.8035 United Kingdom 80.8036 Greece 80.7037 Saint Pierre 80.6038 Faroe Islands 80.5039 Malta 80.5040 Taiwan 80.2041 European Union 80.2042 Turks and Caicos Islands 80.0043 United States 80.00Related Responses:Robert Pfaff's answer to The U.S. is the only industrialized nation to hold out on universal health care for all. Why is this?Robert Pfaff's answer to How does the US healthcare system work?Robert Pfaff's answer to Have any American citizens ever been personally denied healthcare in the USA?Robert Pfaff's answer to On June 15, 2009, Obama said on national TV, "If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” why did Obama lie to the American people?Robert Pfaff's answer to Why does the American public not want universal healthcare if they clearly understand it?Robert Pfaff's answer to Do you believe healthcare is a human right?Citations for the stats above cited here.Footnotes[1] Congress Will Not Renew the Children’s Health Insurance Program This Year[2] Central Intelligence Agency

It’s early days yet, and a great deal of information has not been released. However, at first look, there seem to be some unusual priorities.Nearly 10 percent of the 66 pages of the Republican proposal is devoted to letting states disenroll high-dollar lottery winners, to make sure that lottery winners on Medicaid can't cheat the system. As Slate put it: “After six years, the Republican Party just came to the American people with savings from kicking lottery winners off Medicaid?”There is a big tax break for insurance executives' pay. The bill would roll back a provision of the 2010 Obamacare law that placed a $500,000 limit on deductions for each executive's compensation.Five major insurers paid their CEO's $73 million in 2015, the most recent year for which pay has been reported. Only $2.5 million of that was deductible under Obamacare tax laws. But more than $70 million of that would be deductible under the proposed Republican legislation.Income separates the winners and losers. The ACA was paid for in significant part with a tax increase on the wealthy. The Republican plan repeals these tax increases; the richer you are, the more benefit you get. Those making over a million dollars a year are in line for a tax cut averaging almost $50,000. Those in the top 0.1 percent would get an average tax cut of more than $195,000.Otherwise:If you received subsidies for your coverage from the government exchanges, you’re probably screwed. Instead of current income-based subsidies to buy a plan, the new plan proposes fixed tax credits, from $2,000 to $4,000, and would be based on age, not income.If you became eligible for Medicaid under Obamacare, you’re probably screwed. Some 13-14 million more Americans below or just above the poverty line gained coverage with the ACA’s Medicaid expansion in states that participated. This provision would also lower government reimbursements to hospitals.If you have a pre-existing condition, you’re probably screwed. Yes, people with pre-existing conditions still cannot be denied coverage, but at what premium price?If you are over the age of 60, you’re probably screwed. You can be charged up to 5 times the premiums your insurer charges for younger people (but you only get twice as much in a tax credit).Congress’s nonpartisan tax analysis unit, the Joint Committee on Taxation, estimated that repealing Obamacare’s taxes alone will cost almost $700 billion through 2027. There are no figures yet available for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office review of the new G.O.P. plan. A previous draft of the House bill reportedly received a disastrous preliminary rating from the C.B.O. Republicans are reportedly moving for a vote on the bill before the C.B.O. completes its analysis.The G.O.P. plan eliminates the mandate that required people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Some experts think that eliminating the individual mandate could destabilize insurance markets by reducing incentives for healthy people to buy coverage. This is likely to mean that the remaining customers will be sicker than current Obamacare buyers, which will drive up the cost of insurance for everyone who buys it, and force more people out of the markets. Many insurers could stop offering policies.The new plan does not include Obamacare’s emphasis on pay-for-performance that measureably slowed increases in overall medical expenditures.No word on Trump’s promise to bring down prescription drug prices.Whether the new plan fulfills Trump’s promise to replace the ACA with something “terrific” that is “so much better, so much better, so much better … Americans will have great health care at a fraction of the cost” may be a matter of alternative facts.Read the GOP's new health care planThe Parts of Obamacare Republicans Will Keep, Change or DiscardEven conservatives are squawking, but maybe not for the reason you might think: Conservatives rebel against Trump-backed Republican healthcare planOpinion | The new Republican health-care plan is awe-inspiringly awful

It doesn’t really tell her very much or change her status. This is because although “Native American” is a real term, it is a term that refers to a large group of different peoples. It is a little like the terms European or Asian. If someone told you your genes said you were 19% Asian it would not change your status or give you citizenship in any particular country. You would need to know if she was Burmese or Khmer, for example. Then you would need to know what the laws were in each county. It is similar in Native American tribes.To “effect her status”, she would need to be eligible to enroll in a tribe. There are 567 tribes in the US. The federal government lets each one set it’s own rules as to who is eligible to be a tribal member or not. There is no general standard. The only place a general status of “Native American” is counted is on the US Census. And in your personal knowledge or your own genealogy.The federal government recognizes people who are enrolled members, not genetically in general being “Native American”. Each tribe can and does sets its own standard. There 567 federally recognized tribes. The standards they set range from 1/2 to 1/32nd and many have no genetic standard but require direct descent from a member who was on a roll in the 1890s. The most common standards are 1/4 and and 1/8th and lineal descent. The are absolutely no benefits or change in “status for just being genetically Native. Indian Affairs | GenealogyOn the many tribal nations in the US this is an ongoing and contested issue. Even for people who are clearly Native in both culture, upbringing, identity and genetics. Here is a real life example about Scott Davis, the Executive director of North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission. :Scott is 44% Lakota Sioux from the Standing Rock Tribe. The Standing Rock tribe requires 25% blood quantum. His wife, Lorraine, is 36% Dakota Sioux. She comes from the Sisseton-Wahpeton tribe which also requires 25% blood quantum. When their daughters were born, the girls had 39.8% blood quantum. However, Standing Rock would not recognize his wife's blood, but the Sisseton-Wahpeton accept Scott's. So the girls are enrolled with the Sisseton-Wahpeton tribe.As you can see, his kids can’t be in Standing Rock but can be in Sisseton. Even though the Lakota and Dakota Sioux are related and the languages are close enough to be mutually intelligible. There is not one standard. Being a certain percentage generally Native American is irrelevant. Many tribes prohibit dual enrollment. And large numbers of Native people are part of several tribes in an ethnic sense but not in a legal sense. Tribal Disenrollment: The New Wave of GenocideThese issues are a huge source of contention in some Native communities. Here in the NW there is a fairly large number of people who have been dis-enrolled because they are all descended from a Native man who was not on their rolls. He was not on the rolls because he was killed by the US government a few years before the rolls were created. They were the descendants of Chief Tumulth, who actually signed the treaty that created the Grand Ronde Reservation in 1855. But ironically, Tumulth never actually lived on the reservation. He was killed by the U.S. Army before he had a chance. And back in his day, to be a member of the tribe, you had to live on the tribal lands. In Washington, the Nooksack 306 fight to stay in their tribe Tribal Court Reverses Grand Ronde Disenrollment Decision“Therefore, they are deemed ineligible to receive the benefits and privileges that are granted to enrolled tribal members, such as access to healthcare; housing, tribal schools, various social and educational programs; land allotments; per capita payments; as well as tribal and federal educational stipends and grants. However, the greatest loss that comes from this theft of their identity is that the connection that we all have as native people to our community, to our traditions and to each other is severed.”Lastly, it sounds like your wife was unaware of her native heritage. If so, it is probably more likely that she has this genetic heritage in other ways than coming from an American tribe. Two of the very likely possibilities are that your wife has Latino American or French Canadian ancestry. Many Latinos who moved to the US in the 30s, 40s and 50s, and if they married Anglo Americans, chose to ignore their hertitage. Most people from Mexico or Central of South America are at least 50% Native. On a genetics test they would show up as “Native American”. Many people chose to ignore or “forget” their background in the 1950s. If your wife had native heritage from these sources she does not count for legal purposes. Some French Canadians who came to America were First Nations people. Between 1840 and 1930 roughly 900,000 French Canadians left Canada to emigrate to the United States. A percentage of French Canadian immigrants who moved tho the NE of the US to work in mills and timber were in part First Nations (the name for Native Americans in Canada). There once were “Little Canadas” in may places in the northern US. In those days it was easier for many people to pass as only “French Canadian” rather than part or all Indian. Other Canadians who moved here from the center of Canada were Metis but in those days preferred to no longer identify as such when they moved to the US. Metis are a mixed race people and culture from Canada. There are about 500,000 in Canada today.This is true even if her heritage was one of the tribes are ethnically on both sides of the border. People who were kidnapped and sold from SW tribes to Northern Mexico in the 1800s don’t have rights in today’s tribal organizations. People who are Cree in Canada don’t have rights on American Cree reservations like Rocky Boy in Montana. The only two exceptions to this are some members of the Tohono O’Odham Tribes Are Caught on the Border. A few tribes (about 40) have members on both sides of borders, and few have worked out special memorandums of understanding to visits but this doesn’t give them any Federal government status.http://www.udallcenter.arizona.edu/booksandmore/pdfs/Native.Nations&U.S.Borders_sample.pdfSo, it seems to me the main change for her is it would be very interesting to research her family heritage. With more and more records online that is much easier than it was 20 years ago. Something that might have been hard for her mother or father might be easy for her today.