Post #1
The most important public policy topic in the nation currently is healthcare reform. President Obama has invested a lot of political capital in trying to get a healthcare reform bill passed. The House just passed a healthcare bill and now the Senate is considering their version. However it remains to be seen whether healthcare reform will pass this year and if it does what it would look like after going through both houses of Congress.
*Discuss and explain one of the features of healthcare reform being discussed. (Try not to repeat a reform that one of your classmates has addressed already on the blog. There are many features being debated/considered and I’d like us to put together a fairly comprehensive list.)
*Highlight the views of one opinion leader on this issue (national or state politician or interest group leader). Summarize their support or criticism of healthcare reform. Then explain why you agree or disagree with their view.
For background on the healthcare debate I recommend two places to get started:
Washington Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/
New York Times
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=healthcare&st=cse
Be sure to cite your information in your post. I look forward to reading your insight into this significant topic. Good luck.
posted by M. Aby @ 6:55 PM
52 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Although everyone agrees that health-care is essential to the needs of every American, there is much disagreement on the public option (1). Is it likely that this division will hinder the ability to pass any such reform? Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer thinks not. Sen. Schumer believes that the proposed bill, which may give states the freedom to design their own plans including a public plan, is more “modest” than what others may have thought (2). This proposal, although it sounds like a good option, I believe it would never work out. There are too many loopholes in this proposal because it is not a well defined or clear option at this point. Not everyone, once again, is in agreement with this option. Just this past Saturday, November 20th, Democrats voted to overcome the Republican filibuster in the Senate (3).Democratic Senators Robert C Byrd and Mary Landrieu had to be “persuaded” to vote with their party on this issue. In order to ensure Landrieu’s vote, Reid (the Senate majority leader) added a Medicaid clause of $300 million to Landrieu’s home state (3). Landrieu too, claims that she voted to open debate on the issue, but would not support the final bill with the public option provision (3). Moderate and conservative Democrats like Byrd and Landrieu are not in favor of the public option and all Republicans are in opposition (4). This being said, the bill will likely die, unless a change in the public opposition is made in which all democrats are content with. Republicans and Democrats, however, are not the only ones opposed and divided. Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman called the public option a “radical departure” from the way the government has traditionally dealt with economic crisis in the past (4). In my opinion, Sen. Lieberman is correct in that the use of such a public option would give the government too much power than it traditionally is supposed to have, thus making the government less democratic because the people, although they would be getting health coverage, they would be more reliant on the government than ever before. A government-run public health insurance option would also drive up private insurance company’s premiums, causing less affordability leading to a loss of privately insured Americans and ultimately more job loss within such insurance companies. The loss of these jobs leads to less people paying taxes that we would need to pay for this public option program. No matter what form of the bill, if passed, the public option would most definitely not be available to everyone. It would create an uneven playing field between the uninsured and the insured. The uninsured would be receiving free health-care coverage, whereas those working and paying for available coverage would be treated unfairly as they would not be benefiting from this program (1). I do believe that all Americans should have access to healthcare, but I do not agree with the public option provision. The healthcare debate is exactly that, based on its importance, but no matter who gets their way someone will win and someone will lose. They don’t have a perfect solution at this point.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/health-care-8-questions/index.html
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112200704.html
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112101380.html?nav%3Dhcmodule
(4) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/22/health.care/
There is one thing that I think most people agree on; health care reform is most definitely needed. It is, however, how we go upon doing so that is up for debate. I am in favor of health care coverage for all Americans; I do believe that would be ideal. However, and although I’m not an expert on this bill, I don’t think this bill will succeed. My first reasoning is the insane amount that it costs. Supposedly it will cost $1.2 trillion dollars, compared to the $900 billion that Obama presented in his reform plan.(1) It may be because I’m not an economist, but I cannot conceive how we will be able to come up with another $1.2 trillion dollars stacked upon the already ridiculous amount of spending our government is doing. President Obama has promised repeatedly that all those making under $250,000 would not receive a tax hike under his presidency, but with an amount of $1.2 trillion dollars can we honestly believe that the upper class can take care of that themselves? And let’s say for a second they can, which I highly doubt. Hauser’s Law, based off of the Laffer Curve theory, states that no matter how high federal income taxes are raised, or how low they are dropped for that matter, the percent revenue of the GDP that is created from these taxes is only 19.5%. It simply stays flat.(4) How about raising state or local taxes, instead of federal? Not only income, but sales taxes as well. Well, let’s look at New York for a great example. Between 2000 and 2008, The Empire State has lost 1.5 million people, or about 8% of the original population at the beginning of the decade –most of these people were from New York City itself. What has happened in New York in those years? Taxes have been raised dramatically.(5) What is ironic about taxing the rich is that they are also the people who can afford to move away from those taxes. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t tax them, but as it is being shown right now in New York, they will move when pushed to the point of ludicrous tax burdens. The next option would be to raise corporate taxes. However, raising corporate taxes would only further burden businesses because they are now forced to give health care to all employees (which I believe everyone should have access to) which is not free to provide. In fact, the only businesses that will receive any sort of relief from this bill are ones with fewer than 25 employees. However, this exemption from the bill only lasts for two years. There is still a question of what will happen after those two years.(2) So, with the additional amount of money being spent on health care and the current economic situation, raising corporate taxes would only bring a greater hindrance upon business in America. So, with all that being said, I think the progressivism of this bill is admirable but it’s also not a reality. Raising taxes right now of any sort is not the answer in my eyes.
Another quick thing that I found and I’d like to point out. According to Senator Grassley from Iowa, who has actually read the text of the bill, the House bill brings about the greatest expansion of Medicaid in history – an already broken system.(3) I don’t know if expanding a system of broken government run health care is reform, but if it is then this bill has plenty of it. Grassley takes a position that reform is necessary in America but this bill is not it. He exploits the hidden taxes and burdens that will be placed on the middle class through this bill and those are the things I am concerned about as well.(3) He is also concerned with the new amount of government programs that will be added through this bill. I agree that there is too much government involvement being added with this bill. However, I do believe more regulation is needed. From his floor statement in the Senate, I think he also believes this as well.(3)
1. Timesonline.com
2. factcheck.org
3. United States Senate Committee on Finance
4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html
5. http://www.empirecenter.org/pb/2009/10/empirestateexodus102709.cfm
One of the aspects of the health care bill being hotly debated in the House of Representatives is the issue of abortion and the amount of federal money that should be used to pay for the procedure under the new health care legislation. So far, a compromise has not been reached that satisfies both opponents in the debate. The current bill stipulates that the secretary of health and human services would have the ability to make decisions regarding whether public insurance options would cover abortions. In addition, a requirement of at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that does not must be fulfilled (1). Although President Obama claimed no abortions would be funded by federal money, others speculate the bill clearly authorizes federally financed abortion as a facet of the public healthcare option (3). As many as 40 House Democrats have threatened to oppose the bill if it does not tighten restrictions on abortion, putting pressure on the necessity of a deal to win those votes in favor of the bill (1). On Saturday, November 7th, the House passed legislation with the approval of an amendment that places restrictions on the availability of coverage for abortions with the support of 64 Democrats (roughly a fourth of the party caucus) (2). However, this amendment and other attempts similar to it have created tremendous dismay among abortion-rights supporters for the bill’s anti-abortion provisions. The debate continues and mainly centers around how to put the health care bill in compliance with the ban on taxpayer funding for abortions (2).
Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana is one of the forerunners of the Democratic abortion opposition and explicitly states, “The bill should prohibit the use of federal money to provide abortions in the public insurance plan” (1). This includes having no American contribute their tax dollars, insurance premiums, or federal subsidies to aid in any way the payment of an abortion procedure (4). Ellsworth and Representative Bobby Bright expressed these concerns and opinions in a letter to the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in mid-September. Both representatives are part of a diligent team of anti-abortion Democrats working to maintain legislation and amendments restricting federal coverage of abortion, facing serious opposition by abortion-rights supporters (2). Though we are of different political ideologies, I completely agree with Representative Ellsworth. It would be insulting and upsetting for thousands of Americans if their hard earned money went towards funding a procedure they believe to be devoid of moral standards. I am personally against abortion and would feel sickened by the thought of my money or my parents money going towards the murder of an innocent baby. By adding abortion coverage to the public option of the health care bill Congress would be forcing a number of Americans to violate their beliefs, therefore taking away rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. I also agree with Representative Ellsworth due to his support of abortion coverage by private companies, and in such cases as rape, incest, or personal health of the mother. It is my hope that members of Congress such as Ellsworth can continue to lobby for anti-abortion legislation in the health care bill in the face of abortion-rights advocates, in addition to the speculated “underlying clauses” of the current bill that authorize federally financed abortion (3).
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/health/policy/05health.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902194_pf.html
3. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/08/04/does-house-healthcare-bill-fund-abortion-depends-on-whom-you-ask.html
4.
http://www.ellsworth.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/ellsworth-bright%20pro-life%20health%20reform%20--%209-16-09.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
When it comes to immigrants receiving healthcare in the United States, there seems to be a major consensus between the Republicans and the Democrats. They both think that illegal immigrants should not receive new healthcare under the new bill that may or may not be passed. Although this answer seems like a given, because illegal immigrants are not protected by American Government, it is still a poignant issue today because there is a large amount of immigrants who are receiving their citizenship. The two parties differ in the area of legal immigrants’ rights to healthcare. Some Republicans, are in favor of any immigrant who has gained citizenship within the past five years to be denied healthcare under the new bill, or five years prior to the passage of the bill. A broad group of Democrats believe that any immigrant who goes through naturalization should be eligible for healthcare, even within the five years prior to the passage of the bill. The Latino leaders in the United States took action on this issue because they are worried about their constituents, who are illegal or legal immigrants in the United States. They took action against Congress after a discussion about cutting immigrant benefits in America, this would remove their use Medicare and Medicaid. (1)
Another issue involving immigrant healthcare is that diseases affect both legal and illegal immigrants, and even natural citizens of America. The problem lies in the fact that illegal immigrants need help with they get sick just like any other person, only they do not have insurance to cover their bills like a typical medically insured citizen. Dr. Firlik of Connecticut dealt with this issue directly when a 25 year old landscaper came to her hospital complaining of excruciating headaches. These headaches turned out to be something much worse, it was tuberculosis. The symptoms were slowly killing the man, if he did not receive help from the doctors at the clinic, he would have died. Dr. Firlik treated him, knowing that the man would not be able to pay off his bills. Jim Foy, president of St. John’s Riverside Hospital backs up the doctors actions in Greenwich, Conn. He says, “We take care of a lot of immigrants here and we’re proud of it because these people are going to be the future of our country…” (2) On the other hand, these immigrants are getting free health coverage for severe problems that cost hospitals a large bill after the surgeries. There needs to be some kind of payment given for such an expensive procedure because if there are free surgeries given out to them, American citizens should expect the same thing. Another example of this is Luis Alberto Ramirez of Guatemala. The issue at hand in his situation was whether or not he should be deported because he was an illegal immigrant, however there is a circumstance. Luis has severe brain damage and needs medical attention, he has needed it for the past several years of his life. He was treated in a Miami hospital, but after all this time, the courts had ruled in for deporting Luis to Guatemala. This decision was tough because, once again, the hospital was spending money on someone who could not pay them back, but he has a very serious problem that needs constant attending to. (3)
Nancy Pelosi, who in the Democratic Party and Speaker of the House, does not want illegal immigrant coverage under the new SCHIP bill (State Children’s Health Program) (4) On her website, it discusses the laws that will enforce mandatory citizenship in order for children to receive healthcare. Her website offers states to electronically verify identifications by means of the Social Security Administration. As of now, there are no requirements for SCHIP payments, so illegal immigrants can make those payments to insure their children. Nancy Pelosi wants there to be some kind of liability to only allowing citizens healthcare.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/policy/04immig.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/nyregion/long-island/12Rhospital.html?fta=y
3 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us/28deport.html?fta=y
4. http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0270
One issue that is hot in the health care debate today is the availability of coverage if a person has a per-existing condition. Some Americans are typically unable to obtain coverage that will pay for medical care as it relates to a pre-existing condition. While this may not be a huge problem for young people because they typically don't have as many illnesses as an older generation, it still affects a huge portion of the American public. For many people with pre-existing conditions, the only was for them to receive medical insurance coverage is through employers because they typically don't have pre-existing conditions clauses (2). This poses a problem to young people who cannot find a job that have health care benefits right out of college or people that have health issues that prevent them from working. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 21 percent of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, charged a higher price or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition (3). At a town hall meeting in Wisconsin Obama said no insurance plan "would be able to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions." (1) While this plan is ideal, it comes with an opportunity cost of eliminating the free market system that current health insurance companies exist in. It is important that the health care reform bill includes a clause that will accept a person no matter their pre-existing health condition but it must affect all insurance companies equally (2). I believe it gives hope that the issue of pre-existing conditions can be worked out with the passage of the
Affordable Health Care for America Act which covers 96% of Americans and guarantees stability, lower costs, higher quality, and a greater choice of plans for all Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions (4). Republican mike Honda is very much encouraged by the passage of this act in November. He believes this brings "a stronger sense of unity and purpose in our fight to bring access, affordability, and high quality health care to every person in America." (4) I agree with him. While there still are a lot of kinks to be worked out in the health care debate, I think it is vital that more Americans receive the health care coverage that is essential and it is my hope that people can get the coverage they need without having to pay enormous costs because their premiums are so high due to pre-existing conditions. These people need coverage more than the average America, yet they are being turned down by insurance companies at an alarming rate. It is also very encouraging that insurance companies are starting to say they would stop charging higher premiums for the sickest Americans if Congress developed a plan that would provide coverage to all Americans (5). If more people are buying into health care coverage, it would cost insurance companies less to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. In, my opinion it isn't completely necessary to create a government run health insurance plan as this would be costly and difficult to start, so seeing that insurance companies are able to work with the government and come up with solutions to our nation's health care problem is great.
1. CNNhealth.com :http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/18/ep.health.reform.basics/index.html
2. Politics Unlocked :http://www.politicsunlocked.com/index.php/article/pre_existing_conditions_and_health_care_reform/28034
3. CNNhealth.com :http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/preexisting.condition.insurance/index.html
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-mike-honda/health-care-reform-histor_b_350060.html
5. New York Times :http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/washington/25health.html
One of the questions coming to the forefront of the healthcare debate is who should pay for it. The principle of progressive taxation argues that those who earn more in income should pay more in taxes. This principle agrees with President John F. Kennedy’s view that “For of those to whom much is given, much is required” (2). The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the richest 1% of U.S. households reaped two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 (2). The inflation-adjusted income of this richest 1% grew ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90% (2). A new Associated Press poll from Standford University asked Americans what they thought of this controversial question on who should pay for healthcare. The only approach that drew support from the polls was a tax on upper-income Americans (3). The poll asked about the taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, where the tax would have been on those earning more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed 57% in favor and 36% opposed (3). As a part of the House health care reform bill, the tax surcharge would be on families with more than $350,000. The tax on families with that income would be 1%, increasing up to 5.4% with families making over $1 million (2). The latest Senate bill would raise the payroll tax for Medicare paid by the wealthiest Americans from 1.45% to 1.95% (1). The bill would also have a 5% charge on non-essential cosmetic surgery and put a tax on the most expensive insurance plans (1). Opponents of taxing the rich say that the wealthy are already paying almost all of the estate tax and most of the individual and corporate tax (4). This is a perfect time to solve this ongoing problem. I believe that the American people would like to see a change from past years in who bears the burden of taxes for healthcare. It should be a universal right for everyone, and those who cannot afford healthcare should not be punished.
The Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag delivered the Obama administration’s health care pitch this past week and did so by focusing on the economic issues of the debate, rather than the question of who should pay for it. Orszag claimed that “if we do nothing to slow the skyrocketing cost of health care, the federal government will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than all the other government programs combined” (5). His pitch argued that it is time to move towards a higher-quality and lower-cost health system, and said that the reforms under discussion are putting us on that path. The Congressional Budget Office, Orszag noted, has determined that the House bill will reduce the deficit by $109 billion in the first decade, and the Senate version will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade (5). Orszag worries that the greatest risk the U.S. runs is not completing health care reform and letting this chance pass us by. I fully agree with Orszag. Despite all of the controversy over different aspects of the latest bills, I think health care reform is going to be extremely important for our economy. The budget deficit is the highest it has been in years, and any efforts to improve will be important to the future of the U.S.
(1) http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14949864&source=features_box_main
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/who-should-pay-for-health_b_323377.html
(3) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/11/18/us_wealthy_should_pay_for_health_care_overhaul_poll_finds/
(4) http://www.progress.org/2008/fold545.htm
(5) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/11/orszag_on_health_care_refom.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
President “Kennedy once said, “Let us not be afraid of debate and discussion, let us encourage it”” [5].
This past Saturday (November 21, 2009), the Senate voted to open the floor to a health care debate by a vote of 60-39. This was an essential win for Democrats, who recognized that for the Saturday decision, “[f]ailure [was] not an option on health care” [1].
The proposed bills (one from the House and one from the Senate) would require all Americans to carry health insurance and require that the government helps to make premiums more affordable [1]. Insurance companies would also no longer be allowed to ban certain people from having health care or to charge more for people with larger health issues [1]. The differences between the two proposed bills from the two houses are their specific stances “…on abortion, taxes and the public plan” [1].
President Obama and his previous little-known campaign group, Unity ’09, are helping to gather support from the public for the health care reform: the White House website even promised to “…Bring you and your family peace of mind” [2]. To the members of AARP, President Obama stated that he would “reform the insurance companies so they cannot take advantage of you” [2]. According to Newsweek, virtually every industrial company, including Britain and Japan, meets its citizens’ health care needs with a national coverage plan [4]. This is roughly the type of plan the health care reform calls for.
Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said that although insurance companies did not cooperate last time there was a proposed health care reform with President Clinton, insurance companies are now willing to negotiate [2]. Some insurance companies actually endorse some reform ideas, such as no longer being allowed to refuse coverage due to pre-existing conditions [2].
Republicans who oppose the health care reform argue that although the government will require insurance companies to cover even those with pre-existing conditions, the government will not require a “generosity level” that the basic coverage has to meet [3].
Some Democrats agree with Republicans and recognize that even if the proposed reform bill passes, it would be predicted that many middle-class families would find the premiums a stretch to meet, even with government assistance [1].
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York said, “We are not going to not pass a [health care reform] bill” [1]. Schumer said the Democrats will get it done because the system is “…clearly broken”: there are nearly 50 million uninsured Americans under a system that costs billions to maintain [1]. I agree with Senator Schumer that there are many ridiculous parts to the current health care system, such as the outrageous cost and only moderate return (for some). However, I am not entirely sure of my position about the health care reform in its entirety – there seems to be too many specific tangents. In relation to the insurance companies, yes: I agree that charging more for pre-existing conditions needs to be outlawed and I agree that health care should at least be more affordable and available to all. If the United States is going to operate under the idea of “Equal opportunities for all” because “All men are created equal,” it is the government’s responsibility to make common opportunities available to all citizens. It will be interesting to see how Congress decides to move forward after Thanksgiving.
1: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
2: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/health/policy/03healthcare.html
3: http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254
4: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942350,00.html
5: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/15763
Everyone can agree that the health care system needs to be changed, with supposed excess medical expenditures and the cost of keeping America healthy continuing to sky rocket, but the question comes down to how do we do it right? One topic being debated is the affect this reform will have on Medicare. With about 78 million people dependent on Medicare and Medicaid, there was bound to be controversy about whether the new reforms would have any affect on the them (2). Closely tied to the Medicare debate was the idea of end-of-life consultations, also commonly referred to as “death panels” (5). Circulating articles claim that the government would set up these “death panels” to cut down on medical cuts by cutting out the medical care of elderly citizens who have terminal circumstances, but this is entirely untrue. The government’s so call public option would not in affect Medicare at all (2). The public option that everyone seemed to be so worried about will be an alternative that those that do not qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, or employer-provided insurance (2). The public option would function much like Medicare in that it would be offered to people of a certain group. The public option would be offered to those whose income was more that 300% over the poverty line (2). The public option would give those Americans who may have previously had employer-provided insurance, and lost their job, or did not qualify for Medicaid a safety net for if they should get sick or receive an injury, because the public option is only offered to those without employer-provided insurance (3). With the rising rate of health insurance more and more hard working Americans can’t afford their health insurance, having another alternative would be of great help to these hardworking Americans (1). And since the public option would be a choice that individuals could choose to make, would mean that those on Medicare and other insurance plans would have to help pay for it like those who live in nations with socialized medicine (3). To reiterate the public option would have very little affect on Medicare and those with Medicare benefits (5).
One person highlighted in the healthcare debate is Nancy Pelosi. Our Speaker of the House has unveiled what is in part her healthcare reform bill, and it shows that part of the way that the new policy is going to be funded is by cuts to Medicare (6). Making cuts in Medicare sounds we’re abandoning seniors in their time of need, while I on the other hand see this differently. For health care to happen some sacrifices are going to have to be made, cutting out the excess spending in Medicare would greatly help the lives of people who are currently living without healthcare. The expansions that Pelosi wants to make would make 15 million new people eligible for Medicaid (6), and if that means that we have to cut some of the funding for Medicare I think that it will be worth it in the long run. Statistically people with health insurance are more likely discover treatable conditions that would have escalated and become more expense medical costs later (1). I believe that if we foster a healthier younger generation it will eventually equal a healthier elderly generation which would mean that the costs in long run would decrease.
1. http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=763
2. http://laist.com/2009/08/21/the_healthcare_reform_public_option.php
3. http://nyulocal.com/national/2009/09/09/the-public-option-explained/
4. http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/06/public-option-vs-single-payer-explained.html
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/8-questions/index.html
6. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
There are 36 countries in the world that have some sort of universal health care, whether it is Sri Lanka where prescription drugs are provided by a government owned drug manufacturer or France who has a true working health care system [1]. The US, however, has no type of universal coverage whatsoever, and now more than ever, it is clear that the US is in need creating a universal health care program as well.
Many people want this to happen as fast as possible, however, there are many different aspects the government needs to cover, whether it is small business, illegal immigrants, or abortion, making a proposal that will meet the wants of all is unlikely. However I believe if we are going to make a plan to create universal coverage, it should cover everyone [2]. According to the House of Representatives proposal, after 10 years and $1.1052 trillion spent, 18 million Americans will still be left uninsured [2]. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada made the Senate’s proposal, which would cost the US about $848 billion, which is under President Obama’s goal of $900 billion, and in 2019, 24 million people will still be uninsured [3]. I understand that it is nearly impossible to cover everyone immediately, however after 10 years and $848 billion spent to reform health care, 24 million Americans will still be uninsured. Senator Reid says that approximately 1/3 of the 24 million Americans still uninsured in 2019 will be illegal immigrants [3]. Both the Senate’s and the House’s proposals state that illegal immigrants will not be able to buy insurance from the exchanges [2]. However, if Senator Reid is correct and 1/3 of 24 million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants, this still leaves 16 million legal Americans uninsured in 10 years. With this information, I wonder how long it will take, how many more proposals will be made, and how much more money will have to be spent in order to grant coverage to all Americans.
Another problem with the current health care legislation is it is still highly unpopular with Republicans, and while satisfying everyone’s wants is not going to happen, it still should be approved by more than a mere majority. The House voted narrowly approved their proposal 220 to 215, with only one Republican voted for it and 39 Democrats voted against it [3]. The Senate passed legislation on health care recently 60-39, barely making the requirement to pass [4]. While it is clear that both parties have differing opinions on health care, any legislation passed concerning health care will affect the entire nation and should be equally represented and approved by everyone.
1. http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html?hp#tab=14
3. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=healthcare&st=cse
4. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
Among various debates included in healthcare reform is the issue of breast cancer coverage and prevention. The U.S Preventative Services Task Force suggested last week that they end routine mammogram tests for women in the U.S and allow the government to take control over who receives the tests and how often (2). The Health Choices Administration would be mostly responsible for deciding how to limit mammogram testing around the nation (1). The goal is to lessen overall healthcare costs, but many people oppose the suggestion and are afraid of the possible consequences of ending routine check-ups. For example, the American Cancer Society suggests that Women over age forty receive annual mammograms to help prevent the start of breast cancer; with this proposed system, these annual tests are not guaranteed (2). Democrats argue that individual insurance companies can make the decision of testing coverage on their own, while Republicans tend to argue that by allowing women to cross state lines in search of healthcare, it would build a strong enough market for the insurance companies to cover the mammogram tests (1).
One of the Democrats voting “no” for the healthcare reform bill was Ohio Congressman, Dennis Kucinich. One of the major reasons Kucinich is against the bill is because of for-profit insurances companies (3). He believes that they largely to blame for the huge number of uninsured Americans, since Americans end up paying twice for insurance: “first from their own pocket and…second through their taxes. That's the wrong business model” (4) For this reason, Kucinich does not support a bill that allows these health insurance companies to survive this way. Instead, the Congressman is a strong advocate of a European style, single-payer insurance program. Even though he is not confident in that this idea will be considered, Kucinich still believes that this type of single-payer system will help the nation (3). Obama and Kucinich tend to disagree on this issue slightly. Obama believes that even the slightest reform on the insurance industry is helpful and better than nothing, whereas Kucinich wants to destroy private health insurance companies for what they currently are and will settle for nothing less (3). My opinion on this subject is in support of Kucinich. I believe that the nation could benefit from single-payer health insurance. This system, also known as universal healthcare, consists of one large public fund for insurance and covers all citizens. I think that is exactly what America needs, seeing as thousands of people are currently uninsured. Long waiting lines and underpaid doctors are potential costs of using this system, but I believe that the benefits of coverage for all Americans and less out-of-pocket expenses outweigh the costs in this situation.
1. Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1124byrnenov24,0,7075780.column
2. Medpagetoday:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/17151
3. Emaxhealth:
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/72/34411/health-insurance-reform-not-good-enough-kucinich.html
4. Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573571,00.html
With the 47 million people currently not receiving health care, it is agreed that reform is needed (1). While cost is one of the largest concerns considering the current economic state, other smaller, but immensely important issues are getting under the radar. One of these is the idea for a national surgical device registry requirement (2). There have been numerous cases where patients have had surgical devices implanted, and later having manufacturing companies detect problems or decide a recall is needed, but patients are not informed of the new information (2). Additional surgeries have been a result of this inability to receive information, creating more issues in the case of health care reform. As part of the new health care reform, a surgical device registry would be created so patients would have an effective way of learning when there are recalls or other complications with their surgical devices by creating a database with the product’s type, model, and serial number (3). The manufactures of such devices, however, are against this idea. They say that there are already other kinds of databases like this and it would be redundant, but if there are databases like this already why are patients still not receiving their necessary information? The difference is the databases already in use are specified to particular items, not every kind of medical device (3). Manufacturing companies also complain of the cost it will take to put a registry like this into effect, however, many devices are already in registries, and Congress has already proposed separate bills to create similar kinds of registries for orthopedic devices, drugs and procedures (3). Wouldn’t it just be easier to get them done all at once? Representative John Dingell from Michigan seems to think so as the creator of the device registry requirement, and I agree. I think it would save time and money in the future if all devices were taken care of at once, rather than dispersed over years and years, and several different registries. It would provide a more efficient way for patients to receive information and updates concerning their devices, which could also prevent unnecessary pain and/or surgeries, saving them and insurance companies money.
Another issue concerning the health care reform is the dispute of whether illegal immigrants should receive hospital care. In his health care speech, President Obama stated that illegal immigrants would not receive hospital care under the reform, and would therefore help lower income individuals afford health insurance (4). However, right now the legislation proposed does not include sufficient enforcement mechanisms to keep illegal immigrants from receiving care and these problems would need to be fixed in order for the plan to be successful (4). I agree with the president and do not think that illegal immigrants should have the right to receive these services. They are not supposed to be here in the first place, and should not be entitled to health care that legal citizens must pay taxes on. Illegal immigration is a much larger issue than just referring to health care, and is one that needs to be fixed before it can be dealt with effectively in the health care reform.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/health/compare-health-plans-2009/?sid=ST2009112300819
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-moskowitz/health-care-reform-must-i_b_263460.html
3. http://www.medicaldevicestoday.com/2009/07/medical-devices-house-health-reform-bill-calls-for-sweeping-national-device-registry.html#more
4. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/illegal-immigrants-and-the-health-care-legislation/?scp=2&sq=should%20illegal%20immigrants%20receive%20health%20care&st=cse
Every American should be entitled to some sort of health care. Up for debate currently is the public option. Some people believe that with the public option on health care reform has too much government involvement like Sen. Ben Nelson, another centrist who supported the move to continue debate but has made it clear he has many objections to the legislation as currently written, restated his opposition to a public plan [1]. I’m not going in the direction of private insurance companies vs. public plan though, but it still has to do with government involvement. Well what if employers aren’t going to offer health care to their employees, who’s supposed to step in on behalf of these health care deprived employees that can’t afford those private insurance company rates for health care on their own? This brings forth the question, with the government stepping in to help those employed gain health care, what should the government do at that point? Well this is the issue of employer contribution. The government needs to require employers with annual payrolls of $500,000 or more to offer coverage to employees or pay a new federal tax [2]. If people want those private insurance companies to continue doing business, the reform is going to have to include some sort of obligation to employers as well as employees to both pay. Employers shouldn’t have to cover all the premiums, but to make employees all on their own should be out of the question too. By the end of March 2009, the chairmen of five Congressional committees had reached a consensus on the main ingredients of legislation, and insurance industry representatives had made some major concessions. The chairmen, all Democrats, agreed that everyone must carry insurance and that employers should be required to help pay for it. They also agreed that the government should offer a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance [3]. The public option isn’t something being forced on anyone, everyone still has the option to stick with private insurance companies if they choose so, but with government involvement in place, if employers don’t want to cover their employees with insurance, they must face a penalty: Up to 8 percent of wages in payroll taxes. Employers with payrolls of $500,000 to $750,000 would pay 2 percent to 6 percent of wages, and those with payrolls above $750,000 would pay the full 8 percent [2]. So it makes a little more sense to just help cover the employees’ premiums and to keep the insurance companies in business. And the mandate doesn’t apply to all businesses: Those with payrolls under $500,000 a year would be completely exempt and employers with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 would pay lower penalties than larger businesses. And small businesses would get other help, too [4].
This comment has been removed by the author.
Many senators have good and bad ideas for the public health care reform. Everyone knows that there’s much dispute over this but is it the right idea to get rid of the public option? I don’t believe so and neither does Sen. Sherrod Brown. Some liberals in the chamber were just as insistent that they will press to keep the bill largely intact [1]. "I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country -- when the public option has this much support -- that [a public option is] not going to be in it," Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said on CNN's "State of the Union" [1]. When the public option has as much support as it does, I feel that we should pursue it until we unravel any problems that might follow. While a majority is in agreement with the fact that the public option be included in the bill, I don’t feel like it’s necessary that a small amount of senators continue to argue that it won’t be. Besides, the public plan would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals. A state could refuse to participate in the public plan by adopting a law to opt out [2]. So if these few senators feel strongly about their ideas, the senators can let their states’ decide whether or not laws for the public plan be included in their legislature or not. I wouldn’t mind hearing a couple people disagreeing with me while a huge number are on my side, but to dictate profusely while a majority is on board in this situation is too naive and I feel that Sen. Sherrod Brown could agree with me on that.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202229.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html?hp#tab=1
[3] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=healthcare&st=cse
[4] http://factcheck.org/2009/11/health-care-and-the-economy/
So the real way we were supposed to do this was to comment on ms. Aby’s original post, but since it appears people changed the rules, I’m doing both. Also, you should comment on mine too.
Paul Wellstone says in his book " the conscience of a liberal" that "Sometimes, the only realists are the dreamers." (1) Our system is in desperate need of health care reform. Not only do I support a public option but I support a single payer system and even socialized medicine. This means government run healthcare for all. I do understand the argument that some people want more treatment. I would support individuals paying for more expensive unnessecary surgery on top of the government healthcare. I think the debate gets confused when we are talking about "insurance" if you have insurance or not is really secondary to if you can actually get the coverage you need. Even if you have insurance, your premiums (amount you pay per month) can be huge and they can drop you if bad things happen.(2) Its easy to say insurers should be more caring about coverage, but in any for profit system this will inevitably not happen. The free market capitalist system necessitates the idea of efficiency which means a focus on profit and not empathy. Immortal Technique says in his song "The Poverty of Philosophy:" "We're given the idea that if we didn't have these people to exploit then America wouldn't be rich enough to let us have these little petty material things in our lives and basic standards of living. No, that's wrong. It's the business giants and the government officials who make all the real money. We have whatever they kick down to us. My enemy is not the average white man, it's not the kid down the block or the kids I see on the street; my enemy is the white man I don't see: the people in the white house, the corporate monopoly owners, fake liberal politicians those are my enemies. The generals of the armies that are mostly conservatives those are the real Mother-Fuckers that I need to bring it to.”(3) This also applies to the discussion about taxes. Its not about taxing the middle class people who work hard to provide a comfortable life for their families. Its about taxing the corporate criminals who make millions of dollars every year by preventing people from getting health care coverage and exploiting poor people all over the world. How is it that they have a right to profit off of the destruction of the lives of others while the people struggling through two or three minimum wage jobs don't have the right for their children to be healthy? Also, stop copping out and saying
"I'm not an expert on this issue" NONE OF US ARE. Say what you think based on what you know. At least if you say something incorrect, someone will correct you instead of you avoiding any education or discussion. We (our class but more importantly society) need to stop being scared to speak our minds because we may offend someone. An ignorance of real issues is what causes things like racism to be ignored and entrenched in our world. I'm also sick of hearing that we shouldn't help out our neighbors because they will just be lazy an leech of the system. First, I absolutely agree that there is in some cases a problem with people feeling entitled to entitlements (:, and I also agree that people should not be babied through life. But I think that being blind of people's environment and expecting people to be able to find good jobs and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" is just ignorant. Isn't it interesting that there isn't a very large faction of people who are uninsured against healthcare reform? Even if people work hard, systemic oppression can still prevent them from economic advancement. I think One Be Lo puts in well when he says "You gotta feel sorry for the children, how they gon' do they homework when they homes don't work, they can't read books cause the lights don't work, they can't take a bath cause the water don't work, The stove in the kitchen, plus the heat don't work.” (4) Furthermore, if we want to talk about be people becoming criminals because of the system lets talk about Bernie Madoff, the CEOs of Enron etc. For every 1 corporate criminal that we see in the media, there is 10 that are getting away with it right now. I think a lot of the arguments against a governmental run health care reform system is based on an ignorance of the realities of many people. Minorities are disproportionately affected by lack of healthcare coverage. It doesn’t make sense that we are the only westernized country that doesn’t have socialized medicine. In his song "comin from where I'm from Lupe Fiasco says" :"Ay it's real here Dope fiends steal here Turn around give us the money to buy wheels here Give you the chills yeah Developers don't build here , the property values low cause we're still here Better believe most of us want to leave Furthest we went was out of our minds but we still here Weapons concealed here Lil sisters on the pill here Cant pay our bills here but we like to chill here Gotta reap what you sow, grow what you till here Yo momma reaped what you sowed cause you was killed there Police put cameras on poles too many deals there Gotta go to the county cause you was filmed there How does it feel knowing innocence was killed here? Last night at the park beating heart was stilled there For the love of this chain I make appeals here Lets pray for our brains bust-downs Kneel here I try to make it
right (Comin from where I'm from, I'm from) Times has gotten hard (Comin from where I'm from, I'm from) Times you gotta walk to work yall (Comin from where I'm from, I'm from) Sometimes you gotta do a little dirt (Comin from where I'm from, I'm from) There was once a child in here cause all the tribulations and the trails in here And all the limitations of his housin, baby Became a teenage trafficker a thousandaire Captivated by what the drug dealers told Infatuated with what the drug dealers drove A life validated by what a drug dealer holds On the stand cause what another drug dealer told A drug dealer woes, time waits for no man No woman waits for a man with time on his hands (they don't) Didn't you know lord they fearing ye now, they hearin' ye now Especially when the conspiracies come down We come down get humble Its no longer fun now But who's gonna hustle to feed his son now? from the cradle to the cage we bring our sons up to get gunned down our daughters to have more its war " (5)
Peace and Love
(1)“Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Wellstone
(2)http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/index.html
(3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bURgTLHryrg
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn2i4uvmKkw
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7qqoNk-q_s
Addison -
Health care has increasingly become a hot debate topic on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. Within the health care reform, which weighs in at over 2,000 pages (1), there are many subtopics that are currently being disputed over. As Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma stated, “We’re treating symptoms, not the disease.”(1) The Public Option is a topic that many congress members have strong opinions, and are passionate about. The public option is a proposal that would provide a public health insurance plan, which would be available in health insurance agencies, and for uninsured Americans. The public option would provide another option to Americans instead of only having the option of private insurers. (2)
Democratic supporters of the public option believe that it is time for all Americans to have the ability to access affordable health insurance. (1) They argue that if the public option’s rates are closer to those of Medicare, there is a higher chance that hospitals will raise the prices for private insurance companies, forcing them to lower their premiums. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the public option would be around 10 percent cheaper on average than the private plans. (2)
Republican opponents of the public opinion state that a low-cost public plan creates an unfair advantage that will compel private insurers out of business, raising the unemployment rate. (2) In a recent poll, it was abundantly clear that Republican respondents felt strongly that the country should not be adding to the country’s already large budget deficit. Also, filling the gap within prescription drug coverage for citizens not already on Medicare should have higher priority. (3) However, in a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, in response to the question “If you were setting government priorities these days, would you place a higher priority on reducing the budget deficit or spending more to male heath care more accessible and affordable?” more respondents voted for creating health care more affordable. (4)
On ABC’s “Meet The Press”, Independent Senator from Connecticut, Joseph I. Lieberman said, “We have a health-care system that has real troubles, but we have an economic system that is in real crisis. And I don’t want to fix the problems in our health-care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis.” (1) I agree that the U.S. needs to find a way to reduce the massive deficit that we are in, however I believe that health care is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Providing affordable heath care to citizens holds a higher priority. With the life span of Americans growing longer, and obesity on the rise, the heath-care reform needs a resolution. Senate deliberations will begin on November 30, 2009 and amendments to the reform will be debated throughout December, with plans to complete negotiations with the House of Representatives by the end of January. (1)
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202229_pf.html
2. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/print_friendly.php?ID=no_20090804_3238
3. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/poll-public-option-not-publics-priority/?pagemode=print
4. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/opinion080309.html
Ali G. -
Socialized medicine often has a negative connotation in American politics. Many conservative politicians and interest groups use socialism or socialized medicine as a scare tactic to frighten constituents away from the public option as well as comprehensive healthcare reform in general (1). However, the current form of the bills in the house and senate are nothing close to socialized medicine (3).
Socialized medicine or publically administered single payer national healthcare has been used with great success in the United Kingdom with their National Health Service of NHS. Socialized medicine is when the government owns the majority of hospitals (3). The national government pays the salaries of all doctors. All tests, surgeries, and other processes are also footed by the government. All citizens receive free medical attention (3). People who choose to may have supplemental insurance for more risky or time consuming procedures.
Though the current legislation is nothing like socialized medicine, I believe that modeling the NHS would be better than the form the healthcare bill is taking. First, we should adopt it because of its efficiency. Though it may seem counterintuitive to think the government paying for everything would save money and be efficient, it is the current mixture of public and private insurance that dooms efficiency (2). Because there is so much overlap and useless paperwork in the current system we sacrifice tons of working hours as well as money to make sure we aren’t socialized. It would also increase the quality of care for everyone. A NHS-like system would automatically insure the millions of people that are uninsured. It would also increase the amount of services available for the majority of people. It would keep hospitalization prices in check as well as make sure everyone has good healthcare (2),
Contrary to popular belief the Canadian healthcare system is not socialized medicine. They do have a single payer system, but instead of the government taking the role of the insurance companies like Britain’s National Health Service, the government reimburses private insurance companies (3). Many of the arguments against socialized medicine are actually arguments against a single payer system. While the differences may seem minute and unimportant the way the government pays for healthcare plays a big role in how efficient and cost effective a government service is.
Politicians, doctors, and insurance companies have been trying to stop current healthcare legislation. One of the biggest scare tactics is labeling the legislation as socialized medicine. Voters will stop almost anything if they think it will bring us a step closer to socialism (1). I disagree with labeling the current reform socialized medicine. The public option will come nowhere close the coverage of the NHS and will be nowhere as efficient. Also, if we allow the states to opt out of the public option we are back to the same problems of the current healthcare system.
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/03/politics/main5206428.shtml
(2) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802
(3) http://healthfieldmedicare.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_canadian_british_health_care_systems
John -
Just about every American will agree that we need Healthcare reform. The system is fundamentally flawed and needs a radical overhaul to fix it. But is the healthcare reform that is being proposed in Washington the best thing for healthcare reform for your own good in Minnesota? Over 519,000 Minnesotan don’t have health insurance but with this plan only 25,000 more minnesotans would get healthcare due to fundamental flaws in the Minnesota tax code [1]. Is a 1.2 trillion dollar healthcare reform bill right for Minnesotans if we gain only 25,000 more coverage and have the same exact coverage as MinnesotaCare. There will still be paperwork, there will still be the same items that just about every Minnesotan has and there will still be the same long lines in the ER due to many people coming in because they have a cold. If they want to reduce the number of ER trips, then the premiums will take a major jump upwards [2]. If one of the main keypoints of this bill is to provide affordable healthcare to all, then why should we pay more on premiums for this bill, when premiums are already high today. We need healthcare reform but throwing 1.2 trillion at the problem like monoploy money without even fixing all the basic problems, seems like a waste and a burden on people and the future of Americans
Ted Nugent, the 70’s rockstar, Rock ‘N Roll hall of Famer and the avid hunter and political activist believes in Healthcare reform but the rockster believes in affordable healthcare and the commonsense approach to fixing the problem that doesnt involve reckless spending. Heathcare is a big problem but spending money doesnt always bail us out.
[1] www.healthreform.gov/statehealthreform/pawlenty.html [2] www.minnesotacare/healthreformqas.html
Peter E -
The United States Health Care scene is a hectic and often times confusing area of study. With opinions rattling around and new bills being discussed, it can at times seem like nothing is being accomplished. There are many aspects of this health care debate that are interesting to discuss, such as minorities, the inclusion of abortion, single payer, and others, but for this post I will focus on the problems and opinions associated with pre-existing conditions and their effect on American health care. Pre-existing conditions are described as any medical problem that exists before a patient transfers to a different health insurance plan (2). This can include anything from schizophrenia to pneumonia (1). Different HMOs have different policies about pre-existing conditions, although most regard them as a simple way to lose money. Since the point of an insurance company is for them to profit, these conditions require care that most health insurance agencies are unwilling to give. One particularly disturbing example lies in the story of a woman from Connecticut who lost her health insurance because of a pregnancy (1). Some people even lose coverage over being raped (4). These sorts of stories have not been uncommon in the United States, where almost a third of people do not have health insurance (2). Part of the health care debate over pre-existing conditions is about setting limits on companies, especially when it is possible to lose your health insurance just because of an expensive condition such as cancer. This lack of support and trust from health care corporations is distressing and must be addressed by our political leaders. Conflict in the health care debate over pre-existing conditions is commonplace as well. Many special interest groups dislike Obama’s policy of rejecting pre-existing conditions clauses and have been vocal about their opinion. HMOs disagree with his policies since they reduce their profit and require more care to be given out and more of their resources to be spent. However, many politicians, particularly Democrats, have been vocal about reporting the injustices of the current health care system. Many of these political leaders have already taken a stance on the issues related to health care. One of the most important, of course, is the President of the United States, Barack Obama. His view on pre-existing conditions is slightly vague, but definite in its original intentions. Obama says that he will create an independent commission of doctors and medical professionals to recognize abuse and fraud in the health care system, which is an important step in realizing when patients are being shunted from their health care over pre-existing conditions (3). Obama also hints at “doing away” with pre-existing condition clauses (3). I completely agree with these policy changes, since most Americans do not have the common knowledge of health care that the providers have. Not every citizen is a doctor or a lawyer and can’t always understand exactly what the policies have in mind for them. By rejecting health care to citizens in dire need, you are denying a principle of the United States Constitution: the right to life. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House, has also taken a rigid stance on the health care debate. Pelosi voices that there should be no more coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, similar to Obama (5). She also says that the HMOs would not be determining the decisions you and your doctors make, which plays into the pre-existing conditions issue (5). I think it’s fantastic that powerful members of our Congress and Executive branch are taking hard stances on the issue of health care, and I hope that in the near future, more compromise and genuine change accompany these opinions. Pre-existing conditions should not shape peoples’ lives any more than they already do. It’s unfair to let a company determine the well-being of an individual.
Peter's sources:
1. politicsunlocked.com/index.php/article//_and_health_care_reform/28034
2. healthreform.gov/reports/denied/index.
3. barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
4.alternet.org/healthwellness/143426/rape_is_a_pre-existing_condition/
5. speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0327
McYakub - please identify yourself more clearly
One aspect of the proposed health care bill-the Affordable Health Care for America Act-prohibits health insurers from charging varying rates due to a patient’s medical history or gender (3). Currently, health insurers are allowed to base patient payments on pre-existing conditions. Since a pre-existing condition is known prior to the commencement of one’s health insurance coverage, companies currently tend to exclude or limit coverage on the afore-mentioned condition. However, due to the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act over ten years ago, companies currently cannot exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions for over twelve months (4). John David Dingell, Jr. is the current Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives and the primary sponsor of the Affordable Health Care for America Act. He believes the current health care system is failing patients, forcing doctors running small family practices to join large “mega-offices,” and driving firms to not provide their employees health care just to survive as a business (1). He also says health care reform will help stabilize our economy. Dingell refers to his experience with the attempted reform of the Clinton years as evidence that health reform must be passed in a timely manner, saying critics and special interests were able to derail reform because too much time passed between Clinton’s initial February 1993 speech and the time Congress began legislative work (1). He has included a “public option” government-run insurance plan in the bill (2). I find myself tentatively against Rep. Dingell, but in all honesty, health care reform is an issue complex enough to demand a carefully nuanced opinion, which I have not developed. 1. “Why Health Care Can’t Wait” By Rep. John D. Dingell http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-d-dingell/why-health-care-cant-wait_b_165823.html 2. “H.R. 3962 (EH) - AN ACT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS AND REDUCE THE GROWTH IN HEALTH CARE SPENDING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageId=BILLS-111hr3962EH 3. “Landmark Health Bill Passes House on Close Vote” by Erica Werner http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BR9S980 4. “HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996” http://www.legalarchiver.org/hipaa.htm
Chris S:
In President Obama’s first term in office, the first major issue that he has decided to tackle is health care reform. Many presidents have tried to reform our current system, the most recent attempt being Bill Clinton’s in the early nineties. In this swirling debate, there are many different areas that need to be looked at. One very important part of our current health care system is Medicare. Medicare is a government run program that provides health care to senior citizens. It was enacted in 1965 by President Lindon B. Johnson, and has been one of the most popular government run programs ever since (2). Though it has done a good job of providing health care to those who need it, Medicare has run into some serious financial troubles (1). The major trust fund that covers most of the costs is set to run out of money at some point in the next ten to fifteen years (1). With the baby boom generation entering retirement, more stress will be put on the Medicare system than ever before. The biggest problem with Medicare is that because it is relatively cheap for most recipients (most seniors pay nothing for Medicare), it puts a large amount of pressure on the private companies providing the care (1). The premiums the private companies charge therefore go up. Another problem with Medicare is that it has a very restricted choice among who provides the health care (1). This means that most recipients of Medicare (around 90%) choose to buy supplemental insurance, which is additional insurance that covers things Medicare won’t (1). Even with this extra insurance, seniors are still undercovered in areas such as long term chronic illnesses, as well as perscription drugs (1). Senior citizens are getting their health coverage, but it definitely isn’t free.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has taken the same stance on Medicare as many other republicans, that they don’t want it to be cut as the result of a federally funded system of health care pushed through congress by democrats (3). He believes that Medicare does need to be reformed, but not in the manner that the democrats are suggesting (3). I strongly disagree with this particular point of view. What the democrats are trying to do is create a system where the average American has easy access to healthcare if they so choose. If this kind of a system were to be implemented, there wouldn’t be a need for a program like Medicare because senior citizens could simply use the system being provided by the government. Senator McConnell is very critical of what the democrats are proposing for health care, but provides no ideas on what the republicans would do with health care. America has made it abundantly clear that they are not okay with the status quo, and all the republicans do is sit back and throw criticisms at the proposed health care bill without providing any substancial ideas on how they would reform it. I believe that health care is a basic human right that no one should be denied, especially not in the richest and most powerful nation on earth.
(1) http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/18/1/92.pdf
(2) http://www.emaxhealth.com/72/1272.html
(3) http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=318674&start=1
One of the most widely debated issues in politics today is healthcare. Many political leaders in Washington have very different opinions in all aspects of how the issue should be handled. One solution being discussed is a public option with the ability for states to ‘opt out’ of the nationwide government insurance plan [1]. The opt out provision has been brought up as a way to keep the public option on the bill but allows states the ability not to participate [2]. It would permit states to determine if the government option works well for them, and if it doesn’t they are able to opt out of the nationwide plan [2]. States would need to adopt a law to opt out, which would require an agreement from the state legislator and governor [2]. According to Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, states would have until 2014 to decide to opt out of the insurance plan, which would drive down rates and promote more competition [3]. A potential problem with this plan is that the insurance companies, which actively oppose the public option, may pressure states to opt out [1]. This could mean that in states that choose to opt out, people who need healthcare are unable to get it [4]. The public option itself however, has not gained unanimous support from all Democrats [3]. Many worry that the government run public option will take over the health insurance industry and force those happy with private insurance to switch over [3]. I personally believe that if the government is going to implement health care reform, it should be in a well thought out bipartisan bill, not something that is rushed to complete before the end of the year. As for the opt out option, I think that it presents more questions then answers. By giving states the ability to opt out, Congress is abandoning the purpose of healthcare reform: to insure the uninsured. States who opt out leave the uninsured with two options; go without insurance, or leave the state. Although the bill may gain more support with this opt out option, the conditions would have to be very specific. Congress and the President would also have to look at how ‘opting out’ might disadvantage or advantage one state over another. The opt out option leaves too much up to the states, which may not always act in the best interests of the people.
Moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine has suggested an alternative plan to the public option [5]. Less drastic action then what many Democrats have suggested, Snowe’s plan would involve a trigger mechanism. Under this health plan the government would provide its own insurance plan only if private insurers failed to provide affordable coverage [6]. Under her proposal, the government would step in with an insurance option if less then 95% of the state were insured [6]. Snowe has been a key republican in trying to find a middle ground in the healthcare debate but she has said she will not support a bill with an exclusive public option [6]. Snowe’s plan would promote competition among private insurers to drive down prices and to keep their current customers [5]. I think that at the current situation a trigger plan is the best solution. I believe that at the present time there is not enough support in Washington for a public option, and our healthcare reform is very disorganized. The extremely high costs of insurance are what make healthcare unaffordable for many Americans. Pressuring insurance companies to lower costs will make them hopefully more innovative and efficient. By going with a trigger plan similar to Senator Snowe’s, congress would be able to encourage private insurers to lower prices while refining a comprehensive public option.
Leah's sources:
1. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-public-option24-2009oct24,0,6370833.story
2. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/reid-to-announce-opt-out-public-plan-today/?scp=2&sq=health%20care%20opt%20out&st=cse
3. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-26-Health-care_N.htm
4. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/1028_public_option_west.aspx
5. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/02/health.care.compromise/index.html
6. http://www.nytimes.com/info/public-health-insurance-option/?inline=nyt-classifier
Hilary
The health care reform is trying to make it more affordable and accessible to people who don't have health insurance through their employer to get health coverage. Currently their is a huge number of Americans who have no health care coverage because of this problem. The Senate majority leader Harry Reid proposed an "escape hatch" that includes a state being able to refuse the public option by making a law to opt out of it (2). In strong opposition, many Republicans state that this feature would prompt employers to take away private coverage and push people to use the government's plan. As a response to this President Obama has said he is willing to drop this feature of the health care reform in order to get it passed (2). Many republicans are also speaking for their own states in Congress with the highest number of uninsured constituents (3). In fact, most people without health insurance are in those 'red states' (3). The proposal is essentially a compromise that gives Americans the option to get into a "Medicare-like Plan" that would compete with private insurers (1). About seventy percent of America agree with this plan and the fact that it would force private insurers to give better service at lower prices (1).
Senate majority leader Harry Reid is not willing to give up on getting some form of public option on health care reform passed. He wants to go into the 2010 election with the Democrats and see a country that is happy and proud of its health care system instead of the current thousands of people unhappy and uninsured. I think Harry Reid is willing to give up some features in order to get a starting bill passed. In the long run I think he really just wants a good health care bill for America so that the people will be happy and also so the democratic party will look good. The issue of health reform is a touchy subject between the two parties and it seems like the democrats are the only ones with the interest of its constituents in mind rather than the insurance companies. I agree with Harry Reid in that America needs new health care reform and I think that public option is a very good idea. Along with the rest of America, I like the idea of being able to opt out if a state is really that opposed. It should be the choice of a state's people/constituents rather than their direct government on whether they want health insurance or not through the government. Currently many people are unhappy and I think this bill should be passed as soon as possible for the majority of American to be happy, insured, and not have to worry all the time.
(1) http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/robert_reich/2009/11/harry-reid-and-what-happened-t.php?ref=fpblg
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/info/public-health-insurance-option/?inline=nyt-classifier
(3) http://open.salon.com/blog/christopher_di_spirito/2009/10/27/where_do_those_without_health_insurance_live
Devin
The debate over health care in America seems like it's coming to a close, but there are still many unresolved issues. Even though the House passed a version of the bill, the Senate is still divided between ideologies of Democratic, Blue Dog, Republican, and even divisions of those parties. There are a couple major issues that President Obama is pursuing on his health care reform plan. They include lowering health costs, making sure everybody is covered, and preventing insurance companies from profiting too much. Specifically, Obama's new plan promises health care coverage to people who were denied because of pre-existing medical conditions (1). This has been a serious problem regarding health care in America that has affected many different types of people. The window of "pre-existing" is generally manipulated by private insurance companies so that very insignificant conditions that are treatable are left without any sort of care or insurance. Also, most private insurance companies don't work in the interests of the people and act as businesses first, so they take the marginal cost into account of serving a person with a pre-existing medical condition. This means that they generally vote against helping them, so the people are stuck with bad alternatives such as short term medical care, non insurance based medical care, or limited access medical care. All of these aren't suitable alternatives because they majorly increase the everyday lifestyle of many American families (2). Having equal access may jack up prices a bit, but the number of people being completely covered would outweigh.
When looking at specific politicians, Al Franken, our Senator of Minnesota, has a few opinions on the health care bill. He advocates a single payer health care system, or a system where the government pays for all of the health care insurance, tools, and hospitals through taxes from citizens. Franken wants a true single payer system for Medicare, a single payer system in every state for children under 18, and safe staffing levels for nurses (3). He believes in the current system the insurance companies have too much option in who they decide to cover, leaving many million Americans left uninsured. Additionally, he cites seniors who can't afford current care because insurance companies have too high of prices and Medicare isn't sufficient enough to handle the costs. A single payer system would effectively cover every single American with the least administrative cost, so he looks to this as his best option (3). He has been active is discussing his views of health care and he has taken steps to relieve the hostile crowds of opposition to health care. He right now has given support for health care reform, the question is how (4).
(1) http://change.gov/agenda/health_care_agenda/
(2) http://www.medsave.com/health-insurance-articles/Finding-health-insurance-to-cover-pre-exising-medical-conditions.htm
(3) http://www.alfranken.com/pages/health_care/(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/franken-calms-down-health_n_277687.html
Lauren
The majority of Americans agree that American healthcare needs reform. Although many- from both sides of the political spectrum- would like to see a comprehensive bill passed, there is the looming question of how the government can afford to pay the cost of sweeping reform (3). Each time that new legislation is imposed, the estimated expenses seem to rise, and it will be very difficult to raise all the money needed by just hiking tax rates for the upper class (2). One option for cutting the cost of providing health insurance to every citizen is to enact major tort reform. Tort is basically legal action (suing) for civil wrongs, including negligence (4). Each year, doctors face many tort lawsuits, resulting from accusations of malpractice. By not performing some obscure or inconclusive test, which are often very expensive, doctors face the risk of paying out millions of dollars to an unsatisfied or still-sick patient. To protect themselves, doctors buy insanely expensive malpractice insurance, raising costs for patients. This doesn’t mean that many doctors are faulty, but rather that even completely ludicrous and frivolous lawsuits by former patients often result in jury-order payments of millions of dollars (1). Doctors are also forced to practice defensive medicine, meaning that they often order unnecessary tests for patients- raising the medical bills of patients beyond already astronomic amounts (1). If we protected doctors from the meritless lawsuits and therefore reduced the number of extra procedures, expenses would be reduced on many levels. The recent recommendations by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force dismiss the necessity of mammograms, on the basis that they are often ineffective (2). However, some politicians are questioning whether the recommendations are motivated purely in benefitting the patient (2). Regardless of how you feel politically about healthcare reform, I believe that everyone wants healthcare to work efficiency, and to have the end resulting in what is best for Americans, as patients and employees.
U.S. Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, has spoken openly on the subject of including tort reform in healthcare legislation. He believes that it is an absolutely necessary component in passing a bill that pleases both constituents and politicians (1). According to Smith, the enactment of tort reform in Texas led to 14,000 new doctors in the state, which created lower costs for patients, while providing more options in care (1). The truth of this statement has been somewhat debated, but Smith remains firm that tort reform is a proven recipe for success in improving healthcare (3). Although it is strange to hear myself agreeing with a staunch Republican, I do agree that congress should increase their focus on reducing the cost of complete healthcare reform, and in doing so, they should place serious consideration on tort reform. While I believe that a tax hike on the upper class will still be necessary, I also think that we should reduce the cost of the bill as much as possible, without cutting necessary coverage to patients (3). Sure, doctors make a lot of money, but this is no reason to allow the continuance of countless lawsuits that are frankly a bunch of bologna. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, about 40% of tort medical lawsuits are meritless, which is an astounding statistic (1). While citizens should retain their right to file lawsuit when they have actually suffered malpractice and negligence, we must find a way to cut out those frivolous lawsuits and thereby reduce the cost of healthcare.
1. http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/59517672.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091122/pl_politico/29798
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112201236.html
4. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm
Dan L
Healthcare debate has been the heat of discussion in America since early summer. The House of Representatives passed their version of a reform bill. It is now up to the Senate to decide what is to come in terms of healthcare in America. A big issue being debated is the public option, which would provide all citizens not covered by an employer an option for health insurance. Many in the legislature agree with the fundamentals of the bill, but are concerned with the cost it would have on the government. Obama has stated that he plans to pay for the public option by increasing taxes on the wealthy (3). He also plans on collecting revenues from pollution permits, part of his ten-year budget. The White House predicts revenues will reach $318 billion in ten years (3). This would take care of half of the proposed budget for healthcare. While this plan may raise revenues needed for healthcare, an increase in taxes will draw many conservative voters away from the reform. Some Democrats argue that the cost of the reform will be outweighed by the consumer benefit of lower healthcare costs (4). The Democrats need all 60 of their votes in the Senate to open discussion on the bill. One of the votes they are counting on is Senator Joseph Lieberman. However, Lieberman is standing strong against the bill because of its cost (1). He says that he is all for health legislation, but is very against health “reform” because of economic reasons. Lieberman envisions that an insurance plan will make the government liable for any deficit the plan runs. He states, “With our debt heading over $21 trillion within the next ten years, we’ve got to start saying no to some things like this (1).” With Lieberman and a few conservative democrats holding out on the bill, it will be hard for Majority Leader Harry Reid to push the public option through the Senate. Reid is expected to try and convince Lieberman to vote for the bill to keep it in tact. Personally, I agree with Mr. Lieberman. I am not against the public option because I fear a government takeover of healthcare. Ideally it would be the most adequate solution. However, I feel that it would hurt our economy and national deficit. The economy is already not in the greatest shape, and the government doesn’t need added costs. Also, I think there are more important areas where the government could be spending money, such as environmental and energy legislation. I really hope the Senate can pass some lesser form of a public option that will help the millions in the country who are uninsured, but do it a reasonable cost. 1. Lieberman Digs In on Public Option, Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular 2. Groups Redirect Health-Care Ads To Cheer and Jeer Democrats, Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110903452.html 3. To Pay for Health Care, Obama Looks to Taxes on Affluent, NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26budget.html 4. How We May Pay For Healthcare Reform, CNN Money http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/28/news/economy/health_reform_payfor_options/index.htm
Solveig
Currently, I am under my parents’ healthcare plan as a minor. I have health care coverage until I turn 18 years old, and will continue to have it if I choose to pursue a college degree. As I will be continuing on to college, I will be covered until the age of 22. However, once I graduate I will be no longer eligible under their plan. This means I will have to start paying for my own medical insurance costs. During this time in my life, I may or may not have a job, I will be paying off student loans, and I will be paying for all of my own living costs. How will I be able to pay for medical insurance? And if something happens to me, how will I be able to pay for that?
If I’m like many other young Americans, chances are I will probably go without healthcare insurance. One in every three young adults is without health insurance under the current healthcare system (1). Millions of Americans are unable to have access to basic healthcare. Yet as Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama puts it, President Obama’s plans to reform healthcare amount to “the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.” (2).
Really? The best health care system in the world? The United States ranks 31st in overall life expectancy (we’re tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. An American child is two-and-a-half times more likely to die before the age of 5 than a child from Singapore or Sweden. Americans also take 10 percent fewer drugs than citizens in other countries, but we pay 118 percent more per each pill that they do (2). Though we do have some of the best medical resources and highly trained healthcare professionals, we lack in public service. We fail to provide these services to the majority of the American public.
Richard Shelby’s position is that if we allow the government to be more involved in how we manage our health care, we will receive a decrease in flexibility and fewer options for both patients and doctors (3). I disagree with this because I believe that by creating a public option for health insurance we will be giving another option and more flexibility for citizens who currently don’t have insurance. Some people have advocated for a single-payer system that would replace the private insurance market. A single-payer system would be similar to a Medicare system that would cover all American citizens instead of seniors over the age of 65 (4). However, Richard Shelby and many other people are opposed to this because it would completely dismantle the current system (4). This could lead to an initial but likely temporary rise in healthcare costs, and would put private insurance companies out of business (4).
I believe that there needs to be a compromise struck between the two. Isn’t it is possible for public option and private insurers to work together? The public option could provide a minimum set of basic benefits to Americans, turning down no one on the basis of pre-existing conditions (5). As a student, that would be a reasonable option for me, as I would need basic medical insurance. Governmentally run, it could provide for myself and other Americans with a guaranteed renewal of policies and no differentiation cost-wise because of gender, health status, or type of employment (5). If people wanted additional insurance for specific policies, etc., they could go to private insurers who could provide them with more specific policies (5).
I am not an expert on healthcare. I wouldn’t consider myself an expert on political issues such as this one either. But the public policy makes sense to me. If it will provide millions of currently uninsured Americans with basic health insurance, it would raise our health standards as a country. Allowing private insurers to remain available for people would be reasonable for Americans who need more specific healthcare policies. We pay the most money for B-average health benefits than any other country (2). I think it’s time we catch up with the rest of the world.
Solveig's sources:
(1) [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32049818/ns/health-health_care/#storyContinued ]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32049818/ns/health-health_care/#storyContinued
(2) [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html ]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html
(3) [ http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueStatements.View&Issue_id=61c6ad2c-802a-23ad-4c88-d0bd43c006fc&CFID=24218803&CFTOKEN=92309465 ]http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueStatements.View&issue_id=61c6ad2c-802a-23ad-4c88-d0bd43c006fc&cfid=24218803&cftoken=92309465
(4) [ http://www.webmd.com/news/20090717/faq-making-sense-of-health-care-reform ]http://www.webmd.com/news/20090717/faq-making-sense-of-health-care-reform
(5) [ http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/what_is_the_public_option ]http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/what_is_the_public_option
One of the larger issues that's going on in the healthcare debate is over whether or not immigrants should be covered. There's a consensus between both parties that illegal immigrants shouldn't be covered however there's much more talk about whether or not legal immigrants should be covered. (1) I was really surprised when i read this because I didn't think there was a question that they were going to be covered since they're permanent residents of the US. Under some of the proposed plans there's talk that over one million legal immigrants residents could be excluded from the bills. "Republicans argue that maximizing restrictions on legal and illegal immigrants will save money and prevent health care benefits from becoming a magnet that draws new migrants to the United States. " (1). What?!? I mean come on now, this is ridiculous. The idea that we want to prevent an increase in migration because it might cost a little too much at the expense of several million PERMANENT LEGAL immigrants, I feel in ridiculous. This country was one founded on migrants coming to this country and to try and to discourage them from coming by denying them healthcare is quite unfortunate, and I feel has a racist backdrop to it. This goes back to Senator Joe Wilson's comment, and he has a large roll in the limits on immigrants. (2) When he spoke out and made the comment during Obama's speech, "You lie!" created a outcry by people to not cover illegal immigrants. However, in this process it has furthered the limitation of legal immigrants to get healthcare with this option.
Senator Joe Wilson, what a Guy.... that is awful for immigrants. His comment as stated by above has really hampered support for immigration, and it become more partisan recently. Support from republicans from has dropped 6% in the past two years while the nation as a whole has increased by 5%. (3) His stance is obviously against illegal and legal immigrants obtaining access because he feels the US will be a magnet for migrants to come and attempt to gain healthcare. He's unfortunately had a giant influence on immigration which is rather unfortunate for the country since, that's the backbone and what this country was founded on.
(1) Debate focuses on legal immigrants. NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/policy/04immig.html
(2) Senate Bill Limits Health-Care Options for Immigrants
http://www.as-coa.org/article.php?id=2039
(3) Where public stands on immigration
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1421/where-the-public-stands-on-immigration-reform
Health care reform is one of the most intense debates our nation has seen over many excluding war. A major facet to this debate is the large amounts of money that are going to be needed to have this bill go into effect. The Congressional Budget Office has announced that the bill will total to $1 trillion and will cover about 97 percent of Americans (1). One suggested way to pay off this reform was to decrease tax cuts for the wealthy however with an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans opposed to the issue, it was dropped (2). There have been other propositions as well that increasing taxes for those who already receive health care taxes from their work should cover the cost. However, again the main amount of taxation is then heaved upon the middle class (2). The fact of the matter is there is an unimaginable amount of money that a country already going through economic downturns and has a budget with a major debt needs to pay off. Obviously the money has to come from somewhere and while it is possible some of it will be taxed to large organizations in the health industry, it is almost guaranteed from a tax payer perspective that money will have to come out of their own pocket due to this bill as well. As a Minnesota resident, the layout of payment for a single person that makes $26,500 per year would have a premium of about $1,900 and combined with cost sharing would pay about $2,800, over ten percent of their income. A family of four that makes $102,500 annually would pay a total of $20,500 including both the premium as well as cost sharing. That is about 20% of their yearly salary (3). This seems like an extremely high percentage of a person’s salary to pay for healthcare coverage. However, as of recent planning their will be corporations charged as well through taxes. Total fees for drug makers will amount to $22.2 billion. The tax on cosmetic surgery will draw $5.8 billion. The medical device makers will have to pay $19.3 billion. There are multiple others that will be taxed or will need to pay a fee because of their involvement in the healthcare industry (4). One politician who will not stand for the extra taxes for the American people is independent Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut who typically sides with the democrats. He has made it publicly known that there is no reason to continue this bill economically if you even look slightly at what it will do to taxes and the financial situation the United States is in already. He wants to go slowly with healthcare reform and first just get cost down for healthcare over the next few years (5). I believe that Lieberman is a man with sense in Washington these days. I feel as though at times in Congress all of the leaders feel as though an appropriate solution to budget concerns is simply to raise or make new taxes and to middle class Americans it is not fair at all. They often feel these new taxes the highest and looking at some other statistics discussed previously, not only will the middle class have more taxes on them, they will already be paying a relatively large portion of their salary to cover the healthcare costs under the currently proposed plan.
1. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/cbo-house-health-care-bill-will-cost-1-trillion-cover-97-percent.php
2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13973
3. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/11/how_much_will_health_care_cost.shtml
4. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/11/19/listing-the-new-taxes-in-the-senate-health-care-bill/
5. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/10/healthcare_reform_counting_vot.html
The new administration has proposed a bill that is making it's way through both the House and Senate. It is said that the bill being proposed will allow you to keep your current coverage while still keeping costs down. I don't believe it is possible to cover millions of more Americans without increasing the cost of insurance or increasing the national debt. The publicized number of uninsured is 46 million people, but of those 46 only about 10-15 million actually need the help of legislative change [1]. Now while I believe everyone should be able to get insurance and be covered regardless of previous conditions, this bill could hurt more than it would help. "A study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that the House bill would cause 12 million people to lose their employer-sponsored insurance" [1]. I believe there are ways to improve cost and coverage without having to have the government enter the market. In an interview Mark McClellan, the physician and economist who served as head of Medicare for both Clinton and Bush, suggests giving doctors incentives. He believes it would be beneficial to give physicians additional payments for better outcomes [2]. This would incentivize giving good treatment the first time instead of using multiply tests to avoid lawsuits. Insurance reform would also help the climbing costs of health care. While some may feel a public option would create more competition in the market it may not have that effect. Insurance companies have the ability to bargain with large health care providers, but a public option would actually lower insurance companies power to bargain. This would put more power into the hands of the provider groups, driving up costs up [1].If the government were to enter the market and create their own plan, they would control the ability to bargain and would be able to keep costs low. While this is great for the people on the public plan, it would leave insurance companies having to charge high prices because they can no longer bargain as low as the government can. I believe that by opening up the system so that people can buy insurance across state lines it would help keep costs low. Because every insurance company now has to compete nationally, they will have to keep prices low in order to keep customers. This also allows people to shop around for the policy that would fit them. We certainly need to repair our health care system, but we must do it without increasing costs or causing people to lose their insurance.
Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana, has given his opinion on health care many times. "Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won't feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes." [4]. He does offer reforms that he believes will help our current system. He believes consumers should have transparency so they can make the best decision to fit their means. Governor Jindal also believes we need both insurance and medical lawsuit reform. According to the American Academy for Orthopedic Surgeons, defensive medicine cost an estimated 1oo billion dollars a year. This is money we could save every year just by allowing doctors to do what they were trained to do instead of worrying about getting sued. He also suggests allowing small businesses, the self employed, and others to pool their money together. I agree with this because it allows small businesses and individuals to have the same purchasing power as a large corporation. Finally he believes low-income Americans should receive a credit to help them buy private coverage. I agree with this because it allows people with low income the ability to afford health insurance without creating a government run program that could cause some to lose their insurance.
Sources:
[1] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009
/28962.html
[2] http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/
dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-pointperson_26edi.State.Edition1.217f526.html
[3] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDlhOWMxMWM0NjI0Y2RmYTUwNzQ4YmJjMTIyYTA5MWE=
[4] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300482236378974.html#printMode
Most agree that health care is a given right of human beings. That doesn't mean it isn't expensive. In fact, Democratic majority leader Hary Reid recently proposed a bill with a price tag totaling 848 billion dollars (1). Other plans have have equally astounding figures attached, which leads to the question: where is the money coming from? Or, better yet, how can we can make health care reform the most cost effective? The ramifications of the budget of health care reform obviously affects the public. It also weighs in on the actions of many centrist legislators, like Blanche Lincoln, Olympia Snowe, and Ben Nelson, along with many other Senators who may tip the vote one way or another(2). So what is the best way to do so? Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford University has identified four economically efficient ways to reform health care. He first mandates a tax on high-end "Cadillac" plans. Next, the plan must incorporate payment reforms that entice hospitals and medical staff to focus on quality care that is better coordinated. Third, create an independent Medicare to develop new ways to contain costs and maintain quality. Finally, Garber says the Congressional Budget Office must project the bill to be deficit neutral over the next ten years and deficit reducing from there on out (3). Of course, there are other ways to reduce spending, such as medical malpractice reform. Here in Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic has cut spending by putting Doctors on a fixed salary, instead of paying them based on their procedures. While most Doctors choose only to perform what is necessary, some have felt pressure to do the unnecessary either for personal reasons or because they fear medical malpractice suits (4). The salary makes this obsolete. But it's unclear whether any of these initiatives will be of any help. Former CBO director Robert Reischauer says, "maybe half of them, or a third of them, will prove to be successful. But that would be very important" (3). In economics class, I see a common theme: politicians relying more on normative economics (what should or ought to be), rather than positive economics (what will be, if...). I understand that this is the nature of politics, but I think that health care reform should be subjected to evaluation from more rational thinkers. One problem I've come across while researching is that most of the projected facts and figures about spending come from the Congressional Budget Office. Why not create an independent agency, run neutrally, as a kind of third-party observer to fact-check or confirm the CBO. This would lend credence to the facts and provide alternate logic. In terms of Garber's plan, I most definitely agree with what he has to say. However, his plan may be too simplistic (not that Garber's intention was to outline all of the potential cost-cutting strategies in the first place). We're talking massive government extension into the private sector. If goverment is going to regulate healthcare, why not the entire healthcare industry--including local hospitals and clinics. This could be placing a salary cap on the value of performing more procedures, or overhauling medical malpractice torts ad legal workings. Perhaps my proposed third-party agency could be in charge of seeking out more efficient ways for healthcare to operate. In any case, it's probably not much of a surprise that I agree with all of the cost-cutting methods Garber proffered as well as those I uncovered while researching.
Sources:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/11/25
/AR2009112503474.html
2.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/
25/health/policy/25leonhardt.html?
_r=1
3.
http://politics.theatlantic.com
/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health
_care_journey.php
4.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/
08/business/economy/08view.html
One of the divisive issues in the proposed health care bill surrounds the role of illegal immigrants (1). Should they be covered? If so, how much coverage do they deserve? As of November 21, neither the House nor Senate bill included provisions to cover illegal immigrants. According to the Star Tribune, this means that over 18 million people under age 65 would be intentionally left uninsured (2). Most politicians are willing to admit that this fact, when considered from a moral standpoint, is unfortunate and unfair. However, given the current economic state of the nation and the increased taxation on citizens necessary to pay for the health care changes, it is understandable why Congress is choosing to leave illegal immigrants out. The proposed House and Senate plans will cost $460 billion and $848 billion respectably. This money will come primarily from government subsidies and taxes (2). Therefore, if illegal immigrants are covered, they will be given “free” coverage that is paid for by the hardworking citizens of the country. While the process to become a citizen is rather difficult, illegal immigrants have the opportunity to work for it or apply for temporary permission to remain in the country. As a solution, perhaps we could simplify the process to become an American citizen. Once an immigrant is a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, they will then pay taxes and, thus, earn the right to government health insurance.
From a political standpoint, most Americans are against funding health care for illegal immigrants. According to a Rasmussen poll collected on November 7 and 8, 2009, 83% of the 1000 people surveyed agreed that, “applicants for government health coverage should be required to prove they are U.S. citizens” (3). Furthermore, insuring illegal immigrants brings up questions about the future of American immigration. Will more people try to illegally come to the United States with the incentive of free health care? What are the future political and economic implications of increased illegal immigration? President Barack Obama has made his view of this issue very clear. In an interview with Katie Couric, he was asked if illegal immigrants should be covered in a public health care plan and sharply responded, “No.” However, he further elaborated that the children of illegal immigrants may, in certain cases, be an exception. He said, “The one exception that I think has to be discussed is how are we treating children… If you’ve got children who may be here illegally but are still in playgrounds or at schools, and potentially are passing on illnesses and communicable diseases, that aren’t getting vaccinated, that I think is a situation where you have to make an exception” (4). I am in accordance with the president’s general ideas. Vaccinations are extremely important for all people. If certain children get a communicable disease and spread it around a school or other facility, it will be more expensive to cure them and others who were vulnerable than it would be to vaccinate all in the first place. Also, from a moral standpoint, it is important to care for the children. In most cases, their plight is in no way their fault, but, rather, a result of their parents’ dismal economic situation or personal misbehavior and irresponsibility. However, President Obama should have further discussed a limit to this plan. While it is morally sensible to care for children, there has to be a limit when the children are expected to be responsible for their own medical care. Perhaps this could be age 18 or 19 when the child would have finished high school and, therefore, able to competently and responsibly enter the workforce.
Because of the complicated moral and economic implications of health insurance for illegal immigrants, I am positive that this will continue to consume a significant part of the health care debate. However, our national politicians should decide in the best interests of their constituency at large and remember that health care is a privilege, not a right. Thus, we should decide to not provide complete health insurance to illegal, adult immigrants.
1: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66649-immigration-threatens-vote
2: http://www.startribune.com/business/70700967.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
3: http://www.alipac.us/article4676.html
4: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5178652.shtml
The debate on healthcare in the United States has been very prominent within Congress recently. The topic of abortion, and whether or not it should be funded by government healthcare programs, has become one of the most talked about topics. A 2008 Zogby poll found that 69% of Americans oppose “taxpayer funding of abortion” (4). This is currently governed by the Hyde Amendment which, “prohibits funding of abortions through Medicaid and federal employee health bans, except in the case of rape, incest or to save a woman’s life” (4). The original reform bill from the House made no mention of abortion which was assumed by both sides to allow abortions on the public option healthcare plan (4). This caused many disputes, especially among groups like Catholic League, and other pro-life supporters (1). In Mid-June a group of pro-life Democrats, including Bart Stupak, a MIchigan Congressman, wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi explaining how they would not vote for a bill unless is would provide no taxpayer spending on abortions (4). As of November 6th, two different amendments were being considered to add to the bill within the House (3). First there is the amendment proposed by Eighth District U.S. Rep Brad Ellsworth, a pro-life Democrat from Indiana. He would like to stop abortions from being funded by federal tax dollars, however his bill has caused backlash from both sides. Planned Parenthood disagrees in Ellsworth’s statements. In addition, many members of the pro-life side disagree with the amendment as well. Doug Johnson, a legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee claims that the proposed amendment is, “a bayonet in the back from someone who said he was on our side” (3). He claims that because Ellsworth does not use “trump-all language” when referring to prohibiting any government money from being spent, that the amendment is not what the pro-life government officials would like. The second option of amendment was written by Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, offers a much stricter use of wording. It uses language that is nearly impossible to get around, in terms of the government spending any money on abortions.
As of this week, the Stupak amendment is being considered in the House. Stupak himself has played a large role in the debate over abortion. He is extremely pro-life and wants to make sure that this new amendment goes beyond current law to stop all taxpayer money to be spent on abortions (5). The amendment, “stipulated that the bill’s publicly run health-insurance plan couldn't cover abortions. It also forbids anyone who receives a federal health subsidy under the bill from buying an insurance policy -- even mostly with their own money -- that covers abortion. People would be allowed to purchase a rider covering abortion with their own money, however. Abortion riders are available in only a handful of states” (5). In other words, it basically makes abortions nearly impossible. Groups like The Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood have agreed to oppose the Bill if it gets passed with this amendment attached (5).
Personally, I completely disagree with what Stupak is trying to. I would consider myself to be pro-choice, and although I agree that abortions should not necessarily be covered in public healthcare, I think the passing of this Bill with the amendment attached would be somewhat unconstitutional. It is virtually making abortions impossible, and I believe this is wrong. A woman should have a right to choose, and although I do not believe that abortion is always the best option, I think it should be an option. Women have a right to be informed and have all options open to them. I think any woman in the situation of choosing whether or not to terminate her birth shouldn’t have to be worried about finding a way to get a rider, or getting to another state in order to receive a rider. She should be worried about getting informed, and making her decisions. I believe that if a bill like this were to be passed, it could lead many women to have their births terminated in unsafe conditions. Overall, I think Stupak is trying to promote his ideal of making abortions illegal, when I think in reality this bill should be focused on improving the healthcare system. It seems to me as though he is trying to sneak his pro-life ideals into a bill that shouldn’t have much to do with it anyway in order to get them passed easier. To me, it seems as though if his ideas were actually something that would improve the life of the American people that he wouldn’t feel the need to tack it onto a healthcare bill, and it would’ve been passed already.
One question that is looming over the healthcare debate is how it should be paid for. One argument is that the rich should be taxed more heavily to help pay for it. According to the Huntington Post, the top .01% makes 6% of the income of Americans, and between 2002 and 2007, the top 1% gained two-thirds of the total income gains in the nation (1). According to a poll done by the University of Stanford, Americans strongly favor taxing the rich more heavily, and almost no support for any other means of paying for healthcare reform. The tax system that is currently being proposed by the House of Representatives would tax people with a yearly income of more then $350,000, starting with a 1% increase for people making between $350,00 a year and $500,000 a year. Then, those making more then $1,000,000 would pay an additional 5.4% in income tax per year. These changes to the income tax would only affect the top 1.2% of Americans. This taxation system would also raise over 500 billion dollars over the next ten years (1). Those who oppose these reforms on taxation say that these taxes would affect small businesses and cost Americans millions of jobs (1). Another argument of those who oppose universal healthcare is that it would cause more bankruptcies due to medical bills. However, 62% of all bankruptcy claims filed in 2007 were due to medical bills. In Switzerland, France, and Germany, all of which have universal healthcare, there were no bankruptcies caused by medical bills (2). Al Franken is a major supporter of universal healthcare. He believes that healthcare reform will reduce the number of bankruptcies due to medical expenses, help over 40 million people who don't have health insurance, and increase the quality of the healthcare for people.
Works Cited
(1)- http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-14-healthcare_N.htm
(2)- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html
(3) - http://www.alfranken.com/pages/health_care
Health-care reform has been been a serious debate that has brought many controversial ideas to come forward in the past few months. It becomes increasingly more debated about as we get closer and closer to deciding on how exactly this new health-care will work. With a 60-39 procedural vote that was backed by all 58 Democrats and two independents and overcame a Republican filibuster to block consideration of the bill (1). Obama administration officicals and their Congressional allies are stepping up overtures to select Senate Republicans in hopes of winning their support to make it pass in the end (2). This will lead to a long fight in the next few weeks that will impact significantly how the bill will look in the end. The 2,074 page bill will be undergoing many changes as amendments will be offered to challenge controversial elements of the legislation (1). One of the most controversial elements that will be discussed is abortion. The health-care plan has reignited debate over abortion rights. With 150 million that has already been spent on television advertising related to the health-care debate (3). The issue of whether abortion should be funded as part of the health-care plan is only stirring the pot more. It is being said that this could be the largest expansion of abortion since Roe vs. Wade. Two weeks ago the House of Representatives adopted an amendment sponsored by Representative Bart Stupak (Democrat of Michigan), to block the use of federal subsidies for insurance policies that cover abortion (4). This event and House Democrats laying out their health care proposals a few months ago have lead abortion-right groups to get involved in the debate. Multiple petitions have already been made against Stupak. One “Stop Stupak” campaign, by a group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, has raised more than 23,000 dollars since it started November 11th (4). The Catholic church in response to abortion possibly being funded by the new health-care plan has been speaking out. The Catholic church is afraid of health-care reform that would include tax-subsidized abortion coverage. Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island was told that he should refrain from taking communion because of his stance on abortion (5). This has angered many on Capital Hill, who are saying that Catholic bishops have stepped out of line, and prompted calls for more transparency and better oversight of lobbying by religious organizations (6).
Julia continued...
Kennedy is a vocal advocate for the health-care reform and believer in pro-choice. He believes in the federally funded abortions under the new Obamacare. Kennedy opposed strengthening of anti-abortion language in the House health care bill. He ultimately although ended up supporting the final bill (5). I do agree with Kennedy in the aspect that it should be a women's choice whether to have an abortion or not. I do not agree with this being federally funded under the new health-care reform system. I don't think it is a good idea to add this to the bill with already so much controversy over whether national health-care should even happen. 46% in a poll conducted November 12th to the 15th by nonpartisan Pew Research Center agreed with abortion opponents that coverage of the procedure should not be included in government benefits. 35% thought the plan should cover it (4). I think this 46% is a big enough number to make a significant difference in the national health-care actually getting passed as more people begin to take a stance on the issue. If abortion becomes part of the health-care reform package, I feel as though it is only encouraging irresponsibility to new generations. It would lead to too much controversy regarding what should and shouldn't be paid for under the new health-care program. I don't believe that this health-care program should cover every expense for everybody's health-care wants. With 94% of legal residents that should be insured under this new health-care compared with 83% that actually have health insurance now, with costs estimated 848 billion in the next 10 years (1), I don't think it is necessary for every aspect of this new health-care program to cover expense for everybody's health-care wants. It just isn't practical to put all health expenses under it when we don't even know if national health-care will be efficient or not. We need to be focusing on the basics of health-care and trying to get that done, then working up to issues like federally funded abortions that will take more time to discuss and only hold people back from passing national health-care.
1: Star Tribune. 22 Nov 2009. “Dems get 60 to Start Debate”
2: New York Times. “Democrats Step Up Push for Votes on Health Care” 23 Nov 2009.
3: Campaign Media Analysis Group
4: New York Times. “Health Bill Revives Abortion Groups” 24 Nov 2009.
5: New York Times. “Kennedy Discouraged From Communion by Bishop” 23 Nov 2009.
6: New York Times. The Caucus. “BlogTalk: Grading Obama, Abortion Flares” 23 Nov 2009.
In September of this year, Senate Finance Commitee member, Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana introduced a moderate alternative to changing and over hauling our nations health care system. His proposal calls for a change to insurance regulations but no government run program. Under his proposal, all Americans would be required to have health care coverage or pay a penalty if they do not. (1) In addition, insurance companies would not be able to deny people with prexisting medical problems. (1) His bill also states that the federal government would provide billions of dollars to cover lower income people allowing them the affordabilty to get coverage. (1) As most of us know, most Democrats support Senator Baucus's ideas, however, most Democrats want to pay for the changes by relying on higher income tax payers. Senator Baucus's idea for payment is to propose a series of excise taxes on medical supply manufactures and pharmaceutical companies. (i.e. the companies that provide the very expensive hospital equipment.)
Other proposals to the Baucus bill supports the idea of "non-profit cooperatives." This concept has been around for decades. According to the article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on September 17, 2009 points out many flaws in Baucus's proposal. The LA Times artice provoked me to do some further investigation. The main reason for my curosity is because Senator Baucus is considered a person that reaches to both political parties. I admire his efforts and willingness to bring the parties together on such an important issue. However, I do agree with the LA Times that his bill has many flaws. First and foremost, I believe a non-profit cooperative plan is no different than our current plan of employer based insurance. This is nothing new. Secondly, having large medical and pharmaceutical companies endure extra excise taxes to cover the uninsured only adds more complication to the process while taking away more of the companies profits. On a postive note, the bill would substantially expand eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare. (1) On the Montana website, Senator Baucus states that his proposed bill "will increase benefits, with key provisions that provide seniors with free preventive care and wellness check-ups with their doctor." (2) I give Senator Baucus credit for proposing changes but at the same time, his ideas need much consideration and fine tuning. In addition, his bill would leave 25 million people uninsured compared to 17 million under the house version. (1) The LA Times states that Senator Baucus's bill is very expensive ... costing nearly $856 billion. (1) Although it has numerous flaws, Senator Baucus took a strong step in the right direction.
1. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/17/nation/na-health-baucus17?pg=2
2. http://baucus.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=51
For my response blog post, I am inclined to comment on Julia's last blog. Julia talk about how abortion is covered under Obama's health-care reform. She mentioned, "The health-care plan has reignited debate over abortion rights." In additon, "The issue of whether abortion should be funded as part of the health-care plan is only stirring the pot more." The question becomes , can we add abortion rights to the new health-care bill, or will this cause more chaos and controversy? Is abortion a part of health care and without a doubt should be attached to whatever healthcare bill? Currently, most insurance plans -- even using pro-life numbers -- already do not cover abortion. (1) Although most agree that the democratic party is for abortion included in health care, political elites are having a hard time finding the exact defintion. (2) The new democratic bill would establish a new government insurance plan, which would compete with private insurers around the country. (3) This brought me to the question, if we had public option, would the government cover abortion, or insurances, or neither? (If abortion wasn't included in the healthcare bill)
As we all know the healthcare issue is very complex and complicated. The inclusion of abortion in whatever healthcare bill that comes to be is even more complicated. To contradict Julia's opinion, I feel that abortion included in healthcare is suitable. I do think that abortion is a part of healthcare and should be covered. Women go to the hospital to get an abortion just like they would go for any other procedure, surgery, or complication. Although I stand by my opinion, I do not feel 100% confident in it because I am very confused how abortion would fit into the new healthcare bill. (Like most of us, we do not know what is exactly in the healthcare bill because it is more than 1000 pages long!)
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/compromise-reached-on-hea_n_349309.html
2. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/is-abortion-health-care-or-is-it-not/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/health/policy/05health.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home