Response Post: Healthcare
Great job getting your first post up and starting our online discussion. Now read through your classmates' responses. Pick one classmate to respond to. Explain why you agree or disagree with their view of the health care debate. I encourage you to read their sources before you post your response. When you refer to information you have read please cite your work.
Please post your response here so we can keep the original posts and the response posts separate and more manageable.
Due December 3rd!
Take care and good luck! M. Aby
posted by M. Aby @ 5:54 PM
41 Comments:
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
For my response blog, I would like to comment on Carissa V's Blog. I cannot agree with her more in that compromise need to be reached for an effective healthcare reform bill to pass. Compromise seems to be almost to much to ask for.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am going to respond to Derek's blog. He discussed whether or not illegal immigrants should be covered under the new bill. It seemed to be pretty straight forward, and not biased, so I won't talk about whether or not I agree with him but more so how I feel about the specific piece of the bill.
I agree with Nancy Pelosi's position that illegal immigrants should not be covered under this bill. There is a way to become a citizen of this country legally, and I think once a person does that they should be automatically qualified for health insurance. Although illegal immigrants are human and should be able to get health care, they should definitely be a citizen first. Once they do so, I don't see any reason for denying them coverage. There are reasons as to why I think illegal immigrants don't qualify. First off, although many illegal immigrants do pay taxes, not all pay their fair share.(1) Also, it's very hard to identify which illegal immigrants are paying their taxes, which are not, and so on because it is simply hard to identify them in the first place. I am not okay with somebody cheating the system and then "mooching" off of others'. If each person is contributing to the system equally, or proportional to how much they earn would be the better way to say it, then they should have access to health care. I think Americans should start warming up to the idea of helping other Americans. However, if we are going to help illegal immigrants then before we know it we will have people flooding into the country looking for coverage and it could very well drain our resources. And I know illegal immigrants do work hard in this country, I do not deny that. But that still doesn't mean they are citizens of this country. I admire their work ethic and drive to make more of their lives but then I think they should officially become legal citizens of the U.S. so they can reap the benefits of services such as health care.
One thing that we should consider, is if we offer services to those who are not citizens of this country in the same way that we do citizens of this country, why even have citizenship? Why should we have set rules if we are just going to break them? Once we allow illegal immigrants access to services, health care specifically, there will be no incentive for people to actually become citizens. I know it is inhumane to deny people coverage but in this system citizens should come before illegal immigrants, and right now we have many legal citizens of the United States who aren’t covered (around 47 million). So, before we extend our coverage no illegal immigrants we should focus on our problem of covering Americans first.(2)
1. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html
2. http://immigration.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000811
In response to SMARTI......
I think everyone can agree that there is a health care problem in this country and the cost of fixing it is going to be astronomical. However, I don't think raising taxes for Americans with the highest percentage of income is necessarily the solution. Why should we penalize these high income individuals with higher taxes just because they worked hard and became successful? To me, that doesn't make any sense at all. It would be like in a class if one or a few student worked really hard and received extra credit points. Should the teacher take away some of their points and distribute them to the rest of the students in the class so they can boost their grade as well? The answer is no, that would be ridiculous. So why should the government do essentially the same thing? An argument that is typically linked to taxing the wealthy is that people say the wealthy has more money than they need and the poor need that money more than they do (2). My question is how does one make that judgment? How do you tell someone they don't actually need all the money they have? Do you really know what that wealthy person does with their money? No, chances are you don't, so why make assumptions? The closing line of smarti's blog post talks about the deficit and how lowering it is extremely important. I agree with this statement but I don't think taxing the wealthy is a solution. Both Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were successful in lowering the deficit and Bill Clinton, along with Congress, got rid of the deficit (1). This is all proof that it can be accomplished without raising taxes for wealthy Americans.
If the government were to take money away from the wealthiest Americans, there would be less money being put back into the economy through the decrease in consumption of goods by those people (2). Wouldn't that turn around and hurt the economy more? As said in the original blog, "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." If this is already the case, why tax them more? It just doesn't make sense to me. As previously stated, the healthcare reform will come with a huge price tag and we need to find a way to deal with this. However, I don't think it makes any sense at all to increase taxes for the wealthy.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/health/policy/25leonhardt.html?_r=1
2.http://www.progress.org/2008/fold545.htm
I disagree with Jackie’s response to the healthcare debate. While I agree on certain issues such as the waste defensive medicine creates, I disagree with her views on the costs and lack of benefits a universal health care plan would create.
First, the healthcare companies. HMOs are companies. That is all they are, and all they will ever be. The goal of a company is to make money, and these companies are no exception. It is important to acknowledge this, as many conservatives and critics of health care reform imply that they are willing to put their lives in the care of a company. While no HMO is intending to kill off its patients, these companies are more concerned with making money than keeping people alive. Lowering insurance company’s powers of bargaining is a positive side-effect of such an insurance plan, since the company should not be controlling what they think is best for the public. A corporation should not be controlling the health of a nation, since it is intended to only make money.
Second, there is an important point I want to raise: it costs money to have health care! Yes, taxes would be raised a bit to compensate for government provided health care, but you can’t avoid this cost forever. Americans love to support reforms and insist on services provided for them personally, but as a whole, we hate to pay for anything that doesn’t directly show up in our everyday lives. However, by paying for this health care, Americans are subject to what could possibly be the best and most well managed health care system in the world. At the present, the US is ranked 23rd in infant mortality in industrialized nations, as well as 20th in life expectancy (2). These numbers could be drastically changed with a universal plan. The plan would also not put power in the hands of provider groups as Jackie mentioned, and wouldn’t drive costs up, since everyone would have the same health care. I agree with other contributors such as Ali and Jacob who insist that a method of socialized medicine is what is best for the country. With a plan such as that, you would be only paying for the governmental service, which would be the highest quality healthcare available, rather than a complicated system of companies and providers. It would also increase the accessibility of health care for everyone. This aspect of the healthcare debate is crucial. Does the Declaration of Independence not say that all men are created equal? Then why would some Americans be able to access health care while others are barred from it? While there should be exceptions, such as with illegal immigrants, a system of socialized healthcare would then be accessible for all, rather than those who can simply afford it. After I am off my parent’s healthcare plan, I don’t want to find myself in a situation where I simply can’t get help when I’m sick.
The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care (1). Despite this, our system performs poorly and leaves millions without coverage. Organizations such as Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) support a more radical change approach to health care, insisting that doctors will not be shunted from view and quality of care will only be improved (1). While there is always disagreement over the way health care is paid for, I believe that a near overhaul on our health care system will only be for the best in the long run, allowing millions to have access to quality care and improving our worldwide standings in health care and quality of life.
Sources:
1)pnhp.org
2)http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
In Response to Jacob Sandry,
Jacob, I must commend you on your post. Quite interesting and I loved the quotes and lyrics. However, I disagree with some of your views on healthcare. You stated that you supported the public option along with a single-payer system as well as socialized medicine. Helping the poor afford healthcare was your biggest cause. I agree with you on helping the poor afford medicine. In fact, even the most cynical politicians in Washington agree with you. Where I disagree is when I look at reality. The public option has gained ground in congress lately. However, the senate’s version right now would serve just 3 to 4 million of the 46 uninsured and would have to charge slightly higher premiums than private plans (1). To me, it seems like that plan does not help the lower class whatsoever. Another issue I have with it is that can take a great toll on the government’s purse. Obama plans to fund the plan with revenues made from pollution permits over the next ten years (2). Although this is expected to raise $318 million, this is really only an estimate. Regardless of whether a public option is fully paid for, the government is liable for any deficit the plan runs (3). With the national debt reaching over $21 Trillion in ten years, I don’t think an expensive government program is the best solution. At this point in America, I don’t think there are many options out there that will actually benefit all who need it. I think we need to take health care and reform it slowly, one step at a time. Eventually centralized healthcare will be the norm, just not yet.
1. Health Public Option Fight-Symbol Over Substance
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AO3EW20091125
2. To Pay for Health Care, Obama Looks to Taxes on Affluent, NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26bu3.
3. Lieberman Digs In on Public Option
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
In Response to Jacob Sandry,
Jacob, I must commend you on your post. Quite interesting and I loved the quotes and lyrics. However, I disagree with some of your views on healthcare. You stated that you supported the public option along with a single-payer system as well as socialized medicine. Helping the poor afford healthcare was your biggest cause. I agree with you on helping the poor afford medicine. In fact, even the most cynical politicians in Washington agree with you. Where I disagree is when I look at reality. The public option has gained ground in congress lately. However, the senate’s version right now would serve just 3 to 4 million of the 46 uninsured and would have to charge slightly higher premiums than private plans (1). To me, it seems like that plan does not help the lower class whatsoever. Another issue I have with it is that can take a great toll on the government’s purse. Obama plans to fund the plan with revenues made from pollution permits over the next ten years (2). Although this is expected to raise $318 million, this is really only an estimate. Regardless of whether a public option is fully paid for, the government is liable for any deficit the plan runs (3). With the national debt reaching over $21 Trillion in ten years, I don’t think an expensive government program is the best solution. At this point in America, I don’t think there are many options out there that will actually benefit all who need it. I think we need to take health care and reform it slowly, one step at a time. Eventually centralized healthcare will be the norm, just not yet.
1. Health Public Option Fight-Symbol Over Substance
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AO3EW20091125
2. To Pay for Health Care, Obama Looks to Taxes on Affluent, NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26bu3.
3. Lieberman Digs In on Public Option
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
I agree with what Jackie is saying. I also don't believe it is possible to cover millions of more Americans without increasing the cost of insurance or increasing the national debt. I do believe something needs to be done although. I liked the idea of doctor incentives. It would be a great idea to try to fix things in the how medical treatment is being given before jumping into national health care. Helping to lower costs by not having to give multiple tests to avoid lawsuits would be a great answer to saving money right off the bat. It gives doctors incentive to do things more accurately and I feel as though it's natural as a human to try harder at what you do when you have more incentive to do so. Therefore I feel like it's a good idea so that doctors also aren't worried about getting sued every time they treat a patient and are running unnecessary tests. Also like Jackie suggested with trying insurance reform. I agree with what she's saying about opening up the system and letting people buy across state lines to keep costs low. When insurance companies have to compete with more supply of other options that people could turn to, it will naturally lower prices for consumers. It will also give people more option as to what kind of policy fits them correctly, rather than having to settle for something they don't find fits them. Medical lawsuit and insurance reform should be tried before trying to nationalize health care. If these things aren't fixed before health care becomes nationalized, I feel as though it will only lead to higher costs and a more unstable health care system. I also agree with giving low-income Americans credit when buying private coverage so they can afford health insurance. I believe that these new things need to be tried out before jumping the gun to nationalize health care.
“The White House budget director said Wednesday that it may take decades for America to have an efficient health care system even if Congress passes a major overhaul this year” (1). The national health care system is obviously going to take a long time to get functioning. Who even knows if it will actually work and how many tries it is going to take to keep fixing all the different aspects of what health care covers. Before stepping into something this big, other aspects should be looked at and fixed. I think the ideas Jackie presented in her post are great ideas for a market based reform and would lead to positive reform to save money and create a better health care system. If these do not work, then I completely support a national health care system.
Sources-
1- Babington, Charles. “Orzag: Health care efficiencies may take decades” The Washington Post.
In response to John,
John brings up a good point in that we must look out for what is in the best interest for ourselves (Minnesotans), but to me, that is wrong. We need not be selfish, and look out for the good of the nation as a whole. We need to remember that our state may be more advantaged than others. Only 25,000 more Minnesotans would be getting healthcare because of flaws in the Minnesota tax code (1), but this still 25,000 more people than before. As for the Minnesota tax code, that can not be changed through a national health-care reform anyways. Also realized that the Minnesota tax code is applied only to Minnesotans, therefore, although we (Minnesotans) may not be seeing substantial benefits from such a reform, other states may be because they vary with policy. California, for instance, would have 36.8 million people benefiting from such health reform in one way or another, including protection in the insurance market and free preventive services (2). This is the entire population of California which would be benefiting from reform.
It is also a good point that we need to fix the basic problems first before we throw a bunch of money into a program, but no matter what way we go about change, it is going to cost a sizeable amount of money. A problem can not be fixed unless you begin solving, so the most important thing to improving the healthcare system is simply to start trying, whether it be with “basic problems” or others. The government would not simply be throwing “monopoly money” around. As seen, legislatures are thoroughly thinking through this issue, they are not going to just spend money to spend money. They know that resources are scarce and valuable, and whatever they decide to do will be what they think is worth that amount of money.
(1) www.healthreform.gov/statehealthreform/pawlenty.html
(2) http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/california.html
In response to Peter E-
With all of the debate about different issues on the new health care bill I think that the need for all people with pre-existing conditions to be covered is an essential part of the solution. Currently, insurance companies are cutthroat businesses that are more worried about making money then making sure the people they cover are healthy. The stories about people being turned away when they are at their lowest points are just horrifying. What are insurance companies for if they aren’t there when you medically need them? I agree that it is nice to see politicians in Washington taking a hard stance on this issue but I believe President Obama could be more vocal about his position. This is an issue many Americans are concerned with, and if a healthcare bill is to pass, this should be an important part of it especially if it is a government run system. This may mean that in order to pay for a government run system it is a bit more expensive, but I personally would be willing to pay the extra price. People shouldn’t be penalized for conditions like diabetes or cancer, they like everyone else should have the opportunity to receive affordable healthcare.
In response to Peter's blog
Pre-existing conditions in health care seems to be a very tricky subject for insurance companies to understand and put a policy on. There are many different examples that Peter mentions of horrible stories about people being denied health care for things such as cancer, rape, or pregnancy. For people with these conditions, there should be multiple ways to receive help and aid for their troubles, but as mentioned above, one-third of people are not even covered by a heath care plan. This is disturbing because treatments these days for cancer or other deadly diseases have rising costs while peoples salaries are not following the same path. Christina Turner is an example of this situation. Turner was raped by two men and wanted AIDS preventative medication to protect herself. After her decision, she found herself uninsured because she wanted to protect herself. The problem is if she would have taken the measures she did, she may have wound up with AIDS. The insurance company said after that they would consider coverage in three years if she proves to be AIDS free. I think that in three years, without any medications to fight the disease, she may be completely susceptible to the disease. (1) Also, the fact that providers drop people because of those conditions seems preposterous. Nobody should have to pay full payments on such expensive treatments while people with common colds are being covered by a health plan. To me, it just seems a little backwards. There is also a profit side to the issue as Peter comments about above. I think that it does make sense to insurance companies to drop clients that may not be able to make the payments or will end up costing them too much money; but I only see their motives in a financial matter. I think that morally their motives are completely astray because a cancer patient who needs treatment and is going through a very strenuous time in life does not need to deal with the stress of finding a new medical ensurer and having a hard time paying medical bills. I agree with President Obama on the issue of pre-existing conditions because people do not need the stress of worrying about being covered just because they wound up with a disease they cannot help. On the other hand, there are conditions that are brought on by person habits: obesity because of overeating, emphysema due to smoking or lung cancer from smoking. These people with these conditions should be put under a different circumstance because they brought the troubles on themselves. Other than those conditions or others like it, I think that people deserve special attention or aid for the troubles they are going through. The quote I think sums the argument up best is ,"By rejecting health care to citizens in dire need, you are denying a principle of the United States Constitution: the right to life." Life is granted to people in the Constitution. I cannot see why insurance agencies deny the people who are in such dire need of assistance. I am not in the shoes of an agent, but I could not help but wonder how they deal with denying the people they do.
1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html
In response to Jacob…
First and foremost, I firmly believe that the United States of America is a capitalist society. It has been for all of its existence and will continue to be into the future. This means that people have a right to make a profit; as long as money is earned legally, it is not a crime. You cannot assume or imply that all successful, capitalist, businessmen are money-laundering criminals.
However, I understand the difference between a socialist government and socialist health care. Based on my understanding of complete, socialist health care, it would be comprised o government-run health care for everyone living within America’s borders. This would be a very expensive plan. As currently proposed, the less drastic House and Senate health care overhaul bills cost $848 billion and $1.2 trillion respectively (1). These bills only include coverage for about 95% of legal United States citizens and completely disregard the approximately 20 million illegal immigrants (4), whom I assume are insured by a more expensive socialist model. The United States government is already over $12,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt, and this number is quickly rising (2); obviously, the treasury cannot afford to pay for the most expensive health care options. Are higher taxes part of your solution? The United States is in the midst of a severe economic downturn. Families, of all social and economic backgrounds, are struggling across the country to afford basic necessities, such as shelter and food. Right now is not the time to make them pay more than necessary in order to completely reconstruct our health care system. Do you want exclusively higher taxes for the wealthiest families? Is this fair to them? As I stated before, I believe that because America is a capitalist nation, meaning that people have a right to earn money. Your argument lacks a limit to how much more privileged people can be taxed. While they can afford to pay a little more, it is my personal belief that they should not be expected to provide health care for everyone simply because they have more money.
Furthermore, a plan for socialist health care lacks public support. While there appears to be a very large, general consensus in regards to the need to changing health care, many Americans are leery of the drastic nature of the government’s total overhaul. In November 2009, a CNN/Opinion Research poll showed that 72% of Americans thought that the Democrats’ House bill was too extreme and that they wanted “Congress either to make major changes, start over from scratch, or simply stop working on health care legislation” (3). While the idea of government health care plans lean toward pure socialist health care, proposed plans are not there yet; however, the general populace still believes that they are too strong. Furthermore, there are still very strong sentiments against socialism across the nation. While many governmental programs, such as the post office, resemble socialism, the public is always hesitant to move closer to an actual socialist government.
I am a person who wants to work for what I earn. Therefore, I concur with your ideas about people who feel that they are entitled to certain goods or services and feelings that people should not be “babied.” I also realize that everyone comes across hard times. If a person has previously, positively contributed to society and paid taxes toward a health care program, they do not deserve to lose their coverage. Public health care would be extremely beneficial for these people and help them to maintain their livelihood and health during periods of difficulty. Most Americans would agree that it is important to provide for the poor or those just going through difficult times. In the long run, this will positively contribute to society. However, I firmly believe that health care should not be something that the government provides to everyone within the United States’ borders. People should have to earn what they receive at some point or another. In the case of heath care, this should require being a law-abiding citizen.
Health care needs to change. However, a socialist health care system is too drastic for the country right now. Also, it lacks public support. Our national politicians must work together to create a more moderate and affordable plan that will satisfy the needs and desires of a majority of American citizens.
1: http://www.startribune.com/business/70700967.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
2: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
3: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Poll-Huge-majority-doesnt-want-Democrats-health-care-bill-69399612.html
4: http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/illegal_immigration_mexico.html
Courtney--
The public option is nothing to be feared. The fact that so many people are concerned about the public option means that through the healthcare debate many of the supposed wrinkles will be ironed out. One of the major concerns people seem to have is that the public option will mean that they will be forced to buy into it, losing their private insurance. This isn’t true, the public option will be just that, an option The public will not something that everyone is forced to use like socialized medicine (1,2). The public option will only be avaiible to those people who are not on Medicare and do not have employer based insurance, and even then the public option will only be one of many options availble on the Health Exchange (2). This also does not mean that your employer will be able to buy the public option for their employees, the public option will only be availible to individuals (2). The way you should think of the public option is like the post office, we have both the United States Postal service as well as private companies like FedEx and UPS. The fact that there is a government run mailing service doesn’t mean that private companies like FedEx and UPS go out of business or have to raise their premiums, they are just forced to make their businesses be more attractive to costumers with better service and benefits. This is the same way the public option will compete with private insurers. Since the public option will be run by the government they don’t need to make a profit, don’t have to pay a CEO's salary, and will have low administrative costs (for example Medicare’s administrative costs are about 3% of their budgets, while private insurance is about 15-30%), the government will be able to offer lower priced insurance that will compete with the private insurers (1). One of the benefits of public option is that since the government will eventually be paying for your Medicare they would probably want to increase the quality of your care so they won’t have to pay as much in the long run (1), meaning that to compete the other insurance companies will too. To sum up the public option will not increase premiums because, much like the post office, the private insurers will be forced to compete with government funded program through increased quality and price reduction.
(1) http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/what_is_the_public_option
(2) http://laist.com/2009/08/21/the_healthcare_reform_public_option.php
In response to Kelsey’s post, I would like to discuss abortion’s status in health care reform. Although I am personally torn in regards to whether abortions should be legal, I am inclined to say that their coverage in our health care system should reflect their legality, that is, abortions should be covered because they are currently legal. However, I am ignorant of what medical procedures the proposed health care bill would cover and which it would not cover, and as such I do not know where abortion would fit into such standards. The presence of the Stupak amendment implies that abortions would be covered in an amendment-less version of the bill. Since most abortions are not used to prevent or cure any sort of disease or injury, I somewhat doubt that including them is the best decision. Of course, cases where women face dangerous pregnancies are an exception, but not covering other abortions may help reduce the cost health care reform will present us. That cost may show up elsewhere, however, as unwanted children may be supported by welfare or grow up to be criminals, as unwanted children are more wont to do (1).
Something that struck me as odd in Kelsey’s post was her calling the Stupak amendment “unconstitutional.” Although the Supreme Court did rule abortions through the second trimester constitutionally legal in Roe v. Wade, I don’t believe they also meant that abortion was a necessary inclusion in a government funded and/or operated health care system.
(1) “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
Note: I am Jacob M.
This is a response to Jacob Sandry’s post that he encouraged people to comment on. I fully agree with Jacob on the issues he talked about in his post. I think his main point about the current American health care system was that it exploits the poor and minorities and that the corporate criminals who receive the payoffs from this exploitation should pay. I would like to reinforce his point and expand on it.
According to Garth Graham, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Deputy Assistant Secretary of Minority Health, segments of rural, poor Americans have a life expectancy of 15-17 years less than the urban, wealthy Americans (1). While health disparities for the minorities are growing, the biggest gap right now is between the rich and the poor (1). Why should the rich be able to get health care when there are poor people in this country who are unable to get any health care at all?
David J. Kerr and Mairi Scott of Britain wrote an article in The New England Journal of Medicine pointing out what the U.S. can learn from the British health care system. One of the main points is that the highly trained physicians of the British system focus on the health of the whole person, emphasizing prevention and health screening (3). This is expected to reduce the life-expectancy gap between the rich and the poor in Britain, which is currently about 13 years (3). The U.S. should follow suit. While compromise is hard to reach, I think that the gap between the rich and the poor is alarming and needs to be addressed.
Another alarming statistic is that of poverty-stricken children. Today, 8.1 million children are uninsured (2). The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world, but children’s health as measured by selected indicators is among the worst in the industrialized world (2). 1 in 5, or14.1 million children in America, are poor and the majority live in working families (2). Of those poor children, minorities are worse off. 1 in 3 Black children and 3 in 10 Latino children are affected compared to 1 in 11 White children (2). Health care costs are continuing to rise, which makes it difficult to access timely care or to afford insurance for the families of these children. Many of them die because they can’t receive adequate care. Every year that a child is kept in poverty costs the nation half a trillion dollars in poorer health, lost productivity, and increased crime. We need to come up with a system that fixes this problem, and I, like Jacob, “support a single payer system and even socialized medicine.” I agree with the closing quote from the British article that “the best of socialized health care is not the evil being painted by some opponents of U.S. health care reform” (3).
(1) http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/health-technology-said-reduce-care-disparity-poor-and-minorities
(2) http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-advocacy-resources-center/priorities-for-americas-children.html
(3) http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1702
In response to Tom’s Blog:
I agree and disagree with a number of statements presented in the blog concerning healthcare coverage for legal and illegal immigrants. In response to legal immigrants possibly being denied healthcare altogether, I believe is unethical and as Tom says ludicrous, since our country was founded by a society of immigrants. However, I believe it is necessary to prevent masses of immigrants coming to America for a free ride to gain enormous benefits without contributing to society. I have no doubt there is a large number of hardworking legal immigrant families that deserve every bit of federal aid they are awarded, but it can not be overlooked that many abuse the system. If healthcare is easily and readily available for every single American, even those who just moved here, many citizens of other countries would take the opportunity for some free money from the government. This is a misuse of our governmental system that is designed to look after the health of the citizens of this country and not be an invitation to every man and their mother to come and take that money away from our own people. Therefore, I think that healthcare for legal immigrants should have a few restrictions to prevent the free-loaders from receiving aid and enable those in actual need of assistance to have their need met.
I disagree with Tom that it is only Republican leaders attempting to deny coverage to illegal immigrants, as an article from the New York Times stated that Democratic leaders were debating whether or not illegal immigrants should be allowed to purchase coverage in a national insurance exchange. A bill in the House would enable the illegal immigrants to buy insurance as part of the exchange without the help of federal funds, contrary to the bill in the Senate that would prevent the illegal immigrants from buying insurance altogether (1). It is my hope that the bill in the Senate will be passed because I am completely opposed to healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants. To come to our country and expect our government to pay for their health and well-being while they do not contribute to society by paying taxes or any other method is outrageous. Everyone in this country works and earns their coverage, and if illegal immigrants are allowed to just waltz in and buy coverage it gives them every incentive to remain illegal and to continue evading paying money they owe. By making it impossible for illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance it would discourage them from coming here illegally in the first place, hopefully motivating them to go through the legal process of becoming a US citizen.
(1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/health/policy/05health.html
In response to Sara O.,
I agree with your reasoning on currently not providing healthcare to illegal immigrants. But in a perfect world, I would prefer to have a healthcare system that could be available to all, including illegal immigrants. However, because of the gigantic costs currently accumulating I feel that it is better to start with covering American citizens first. This would be an enormous step for the United States if the legislation is passed. It might be more advantageous to take baby steps towards our goal first instead of beginning by racing up the hill.
In your post you spoke of President Obama and his views on the healthcare legislation. You quoted, “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.”” You stated that you were in accordance with the President’s ideas, and I am as well. Vaccinating children against diseases is incredibly important. In public areas where there are many children, like schools, diseases can be easily spread. It seems morally wrong to me to deny a child prevention from a life threatening disease because of the choices his parents made.
One thing I would like to point out is that this is only a stepping-stone. Granted, it is a large and scary one but it is not the absolute and final healthcare we will be forced to have forever. Additional legislation could be made at a time when the American economy has recovered and we can handle covering more people. Our primary goal should be to change healthcare as economically efficient as possible. So although now I also feel that it is best to withhold healthcare insurance from illegal immigrants, eventually I hope that this position will be changed.
In response to Mr. Pehlinger:
In response to Peter’s post, I can’t say I necessarily agree. With the economy the way it currently works, preexisting condition exclusion (pre-ex) clauses are a must for an HMO to stay afloat. Why would you take on a bad risk if you simply don’t have to? If the government passed a law banning pre-ex clauses, all insurance companies would have to offer healthcare to any citizen, regardless of risk, right?
Okay, so what’s the reason pre-ex clauses exist? Because these people are bad risks. So if you force companies to cover these risks, they will simply respond with exorbitant rates for those who would normally be denied coverage. Obviously, this is no better. Instead of denying coverage, you’re now “offering” wildly unaffordable coverage. So this can’t be the answer, or at least not all of it.
The government can, however, regulate the price that an HMO can charge for a client. This would solve the problem of exorbitant rates. But then again, if my company is required to insure someone at a virtually-guaranteed loss, what incentive have I to get their business? If this high risk knocks on your door instead of mine, I’m better off. So when this high risk potential client knocks on my door, I’m going to do everything in my power to get them to leave. This is obviously not good, either for the person or for the economy as a whole. So this doesn’t work either.
Minnesota has a program called MCHA (Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association) which basically collects Minnesota’s uninsurables. It can only charge up to 125% of the average Minnesotan policy and therefore operates at major losses. One qualifies for MCHA by producing a rejection letter from a normal HMO. Each year, every licensed HMO in the state pays money to MCHA to pay for avoiding this risk. This way, the high risks get reasonable insurance, and HMO’s are still held somewhat accountable. I agree that pre-ex’s are a problem, but it’s a very nuanced one that will require a rather complex national solution.
MCHA's homepage: http://www.mchamn.com/
note: to discover my true identity, read my name backwards.
In response to Carissa V.,
After reading your blog on the topic of abortion in healthcare reform, I have to say I disagree with you. You mention that that the bill may clearly authorize abortion to be paid for by the government through the public option, however I would like to point out that this does not seem to be the case. First of all, the article you received this information from is a blog, which may or may not be accurate. Also, it is obviously conservatively tilted judging by the fact that the author quotes a Democratic Rep. from California Lois Capps saying, "For the last 30 years, this is the consistent common ground: We don't use public funds to provide abortion service, Federal law—the Hyde amendment—prohibits it,” and then goes on to explain that he is only talking about private healthcare plans and not the public option. However I believe it can be implied he was referring to the public option as well considering the Hyde Amendment is federal law, like he states. (1)
Second of all, although I do not believe public healthcare should fund abortions either, you say that if they were to fund them it, “would be forcing a number of Americans to violate their beliefs, therefore taking away rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution.” I believe that you are incorrect and that because the Constitution grants the right to privacy through implied powers, abortions should be legalized. Women should have the right to choose, and when the government decides to control that, it is invading on women’s privacy. I do not believe that the Constitution guarantees that no beliefs be violated. There are many people who believe many different things, and it is not the governments job to enforce every groups certain take on situations. Take the topic of interracial marriages. There are still people today who believe that interracial marriage is a violation of their beliefs, however it is no longer illegal. Perhaps when you say “a number of Americans” you are referring to Christians or religious individuals who believe that abortion is morally wrong. If this is the case maybe you should take another look at the Declaration of Independence. Church and state are to be separated, and if this is the only support of banning abortions, it should be taken off the table as an argument immediately. Overall, I believe we are not in agreement on this case, and although I can see some of your points, I still believe that the government should leave abortion as an option for women although it may not be funded by public healthcare.
1.http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/08/04/does-house-healthcare-bill-fund-abortion-depends-on-whom-you-ask.html
The first thing that I need to say is that I love Dan Larson. His response post was the nicest and most effective way that anyone has ever disagreed with me and something that I think we should all learn from, because I don't think I have ever responded that well to anyone I've ever disagreed with. Furthermore, it made me much more responsive to what he had to say then I would have been had he been more abrasive. Thank you Dan. Now, I'm going to agree with Ali. Ali, I think your post was great, it's a hard one to agree with because I think you do the post really well. One problem that I had with a lot of the original posts was that even though they covered the issue incredibly, a lot of people focused on one specific issue of the bill. While I obviously think that the specifics of the bills are important and that it was part of the assignment I guess, I don't think they should cloud our larger understanding of the debate. That said, I want to comment on a few things that people said.
First, Carissa, I fundamentally disagree with your political ideology on abortion just because of our different beliefs, but you brought up one really good thing that I never really thought about before whenever I've thought of the public abortion debate. When you say that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for something you morally disagree with, I think that is really smart, and I've never thought about that before. Its the same way that I don't think I should have to pay part of my taxes to a war that is carrying out a genocide against people in the middle east (1).
Next, in response to Sara’s, Tom’s, Derek’s, and Georgia’s posts. After talking with notable intellectuals Devin Long and Chris Shirriff on this issue I think there is a fundamental problem with this issue. I think we should stop calling people who are living in this country without government papers that are in need of health care “illegal immigrants.” Even more, I think we should stop calling them “Illegal Aliens.” As Chris Shirriff says, this is an absolute perversion of the English language, probably the most grotesque pun I have ever heard.(2) We should instead call them “sick people.” Personally, the xenophobia in this country is absolutely revolting. I think that when we use otherizing fear language in regard to this large group of people we forget that they are people. So I would propose that from now on we just call them “sick people.” Don’t we want to help everyone who is sick?
Now on to the post I actually want to respond too. I agree that socialism has a hugely negative connotation in this country, and that is just wrong. According to a study done by the World Bank (itself one of largest upholders of worldwide capitalism) socialized countries have a higher quality of life than capitalist countries (3). I think that our fears of communism come from the Joseph Mccarthy era of fear mongering and fears that we will become a communist dictatorship like the USSR. But if you were paying attention at all in either world history or US history, you know that our country will not turn into that at all, and Joseph Mccarthy was full of lies (4). Furthermore if you have been paying attention in the beginning of AP Gov you know that since we don’t have a dictatorship we won’t have a unitary command economy anyways. Socialism and Democracy are inherently linked (5).
Anyways, back to socialized medicine. I think people fundamentally have the right to have medicine and well being. What is the purpose of government? To protect its citizens. While this idea often gets twisted to mean protect against some foreign invaders or communism, I think in reality it means protect their health and well being. Everyone has the right to life- as Sarah marti said “ segments of rural, poor Americans have a life expectancy of 15-17 years less than the urban, wealthy Americans .” I don’t think that is giving anyone the right to life, to liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I don’t think that you should only have the pursuit of happiness if you conquer the capitalist system (or more importantly are born to people who have done so) because I don’t think people who are always sick are very happy. So all people should be covered. And I don’t need evidence to show you that a free market system doesn’t cover anyone.
1 http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
2 Discussion on healthcare between Jacob Sandry and Chris Shiriff November 24
3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2430906
4 http://books.google.com/books?id=pVatMuvNTsoC&dq=joseph+mccarthy&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=aTDewFqLRW&sig=rEvmgfwnOCqlvETesERBDbuZrLg&hl=en&ei=yR0XS5ajI5XIsAPeqpCkDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=joseph%20mccarthy&f=false
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHtGIB2PbU4
In response to Georgia’s post.
Georgia,
I fully agree with your statement that creating a National Surgical Device Registry would be beneficial to patients. The registry would provide an easy and organized way to distribute information about recalls as well as other updates regarding their variety of devices. The information that the registry would provide would save countless numbers of patients from extended periods of pain as well as having to have multiple surgeries.
Your second source, The Huffington Post, provided an excellent example of where having the registry would have been very beneficial to the patient. Richard Stone, an attorney in West Palm Beach, Florida had a hip replacement surgery to correct the damage of childhood injuries. Unaware that the prosthetic device that had replaced his hip was recalled two weeks after his surgery, Richard continued to experience excruciating pain. It was only after the metal rods began to jut out of his scar, did Richard see a physician. He ended up having to have a very invasive surgery to correct the problem. If a registry were in place, Mr. Stone would have been notified immediately when his prosthetic hip was recalled, and would not have had to go through months of terrible pain. (1)
Having the registry would be an easy solution, and it would allow patients to be informed quickly if any problem were to occur with the devices they depend on in their daily lives. Automotive manufacturers recall information is mandatory to announce and be provided to the public in the name of public safety. Wouldn’t it also be beneficial to the public’s safety and well being to know when medical companies are recalling surgical devises?
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-moskowitz/health-care-reform-must-i_b_263460.html
For my response, I will be addressing Georgia's blog post. She covered specific issues on the health care plan such as not covering illegal immigrants. While this is the set plan, I disagree with Obama's position on this for few reasons.
First, health care should be a right given to everyone within America regardless of their status. Obama's plan is making sure that people with pre-existing medical conditions are covered and that private insurance companies have exploited in the past. It seems unreasonable to deny illegal immigrants coverage based on this because they wouldn't cost any more significant money to cover than the rest of American citizens. Additionally, Obama may not want to pass the illegal immigrant health care plan due to unpopularity, but the problem is that backlash is inevitable anyways, so passing health care as a moral right to all human beings should be prioritized first.
On the point of they shouldn't be here, there's a few points I'd like to make. First, the immigrants don't decide where they are born. This isn't their choice. All they want to do is make the best life they can, so the American citizens should allow them to do so as we would expect our government to do so for us. Additionally, I'd like to use the talk of banning affirmative action as an example. The argument on this is that what color you are born or any differences of birth should not affect your status of having different opportunities. My question is what makes health care different? To ban illegal immigrants health care simply because they weren't born here goes against the liberty and equal opportunity America idolizes.
The solution could easily just be a fixed system, such as a single payer health care system, where the citizens pay for the government to cover everyone to have coverage for insurance and hospitals. While some people may say that paying for immigrants isn't fair, they fail to realize that immigrants also work and pay taxes as well. Most of the time the American government catches an immigrant while working, so the argument is invalid once the system would go into effect. The plan is essentially extending health care to those who weren't born in America, but still deserve health care.
In response to Tom-
I agree with you in the sense that illegal immigrants should not be covered. However regarding the quote on Republicans maximizing restrictions on legal and illegal immigrants, the article also says that Republicans want to exclude immigrants who have been legal permanent residents for less than five years (1). To me this makes since, seeing as the current healthcare bill proposals that we hear about now say that in ten years, 18 million legal American citizens will still be uninsured (2). I think it makes more sense to insure someone who has lived and worked in the US there entire life before someone who recently moved to the US to get instant coverage. I think if the US were to give coverage to all permanent legal immigrants, there would be an increase in new migrants, which generally I would support it however, in this case I feel it would hurt many US citizens who have lived here for most or all of their life in that the government would be more focused on insuring new immigrants. I also think that by making legal immigrants live in the US for five years would lower the amount of people who would come to the US just because they get free healthcare. Also, by setting a five year waiting list, it allows the government to focus time and money to cover people who have been legal citizens for many years instead of days or months. I think at this point the government should be focusing more on getting the money for universal coverage and covering pre-existing conditions. Overall I think it is important the government says and enforces what they say and not allow illegal immigrants to be covered, but I also think at this point they should worry more about the 18 million legal Americans citizens who will not be covered in 10 years by the recent bills they have proposed.
1. Debate focuses on legal immigrants. NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/policy/04immig.html
2. 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
I'd like to respond to Derek L.
Derek, you did a great job showcasing the controversy over covering illegal immigrants with the new health care bill. One side condemns the practice, because it would be unfair for ordinary American citizens to have to pay for health care, but for illegal immigrants to receive care for free. On the other hand, some of these people are in desperate need of help. While you didn't exactly state your opinion outright, it semms like you lean towards the side that favors health care for illegal immigrants, even if they can't pay. I disagree. According to a report made by James R. Edwards, Jr., a CIS Fellow, the current health care proposal "contains serious loopholes to easily enroll illegal aliens in Medicaid," and that general verification processes "will encourage large-scale fraud and abuse" (1). Also, the tax penalty associated with not having health insurance is not valid for illegal immigrants, a perk for them but not for American citizens (1). Some of Obama's harshest critics are citing his promise to not craft a health care bill that includes large benefits to illegal aliens. They say the current bills stance on illegal immigrants health care are no better than an imposed illegal immigrant health tax (2). Personally, I feel that the cost of covering illegal immigrants is to high. We should be encouraging naturalization and citizenship, rather than adding to the benefits of coming into the country illegally. I am willing to pay for American citizens who are also paying for the program, but I'm not willing to foster a free-rider situation and pay for people who are not contributing. In severe emergencies, however, I believe we should extend care to illegal immigrants. An example of this would be a natural disaster or broken bone, but not for the bulk of medical care, such as viral diseases. So, I think politicans should revise the bill to exclude illegal immigrants from receiving unwarranted benefits, except in severe times of need.
1. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/health-care-provisions-still-soft-on-illegal-aliens-78323797.html
2.http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/69719-healthcare-proposal-provides-backdoor-amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants
Now I want to respond to Sara’s post on my post because I think she brought up some very interesting points. I think most of what you said makes sense, I just think the foundation for your arguments are off. I think we both disagree with the current healthcare bill that is going through congress. But I think it is just a too watered down form of what we actually need. I also agree with you that we are fundamentally a capitalist system, and our government always has been. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S A GOOD THING. On a philosophical level, free market capitalism is about having the most efficient economy possible based on a Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest. (1) That all sounds really good until you bring human beings into the mix. In reality, the most efficient way to run this country would be to kill off most off the poor people in the country, or cut services and just let them die (remember survival of the fittest). This would allow all the money that we are wasting on those people who are just not fit enough to survive in our current world to be put back into the system, making it more efficient. A free market justifies genocide. (2) No way. Right?
Story time. Lets think back to the days when we had a more free market system in this country (what is currently being advocated by a large faction of our government). Back in the days of great men like Dale Carnegie and J.P Morgan. Back in the Good Old Days when workers had to work 14 hour days in the most desolate conditions we could possibly imagine and got paid very little. This was a very good, efficient system. Because the workers got paid so little, and they worked so little, it allowed these fabulous large free companies to expand their operations. This helped the system by taking out the smaller, family owned businesses, which really have no place in a good capitalist system because there is no way they can be nearly as efficient as big companies with more money. It also allowed the great white man to kill off most of the annoying natives that were taking up vast swaths of profitable land. Unfortunately, the government stepped in and little by little began to restrict these businesses and steal their freedom and liberties. Soon, workers started having rights too, and business was not nearly as profitable. The natural darwinistic system was broken, as the poorer, weaker men started getting some of the wealth that the smarter richer men clearly deserved (the were also working very hard, building very large houses for themselves to live in). Eventually the government cut in so much that these stupid, weak idiots started owning their own businesses, and getting educated, which they really had no place doing in the first place. Ever since, the country has been ruined. And we keep inching closer and closer to the point of socialism and equality, when we will probably all die.
I think sarah and I agree on other things too. I am also a person who wants to, as sarah says, “work hard for what I earn.” I actually strongly look forward to working fourteen hours a day in a factory to make $1 a day. It’s what I’ve dreamed of since I was a young child. I want to be a self made man, and I’m sure I can fulfill my dream as long as I continue to work hard and the government starts to deregulate business.
Okay. Now I’m going to switch gears ( good practice for my future career), and talk about people earning what they do and benefiting to the system. Too me one of the most ignorant and offensive things that people can say is that people who don’t have as much as them clearly didn’t work as hard. This flawed, first on an ironic level: as students our social standing has little to nothing to do with anything we’ve done in our own lives. My parents are rich but I didn’t do anything to have a nice house and my own car. But it is mostly ignorant in that people who say such things just don’t understand the situation of many Americans. Again, I will begin with the qualifier that some people do leech off the system, but I would contend that there are just as many lazy welfare leeches are there are lazy rich capitalist leeches (paris Hilton, Jacob Sandry, Bernie MAdoff). Clearly I can’t well describe the situation that many people are living in so that is why I let other people do it for me. First, Sara, you clearly should refer to One Be Lo, and Lupe Fiasco that I cited in my first blog post again, and if you still have not had enough talk to expert Nasir Jones in his study Black Zombies “What do we own? Not enough land, not enough homes
Not enough banks, to give a brother a loan
What do we own? The skin on our backs, we run and we ask
for reperations, then they hit us with tax
And insurance if we live to be old, what about now?
So stop bein controlled, we black zombies” (3)
Peace and love
1 http://books.google.com/books?id=LfZYW5hI5rsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=adam+smith+wealth+of+nations&ei=aiMXS-zQKJuOkQTzlfyTDA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
2 http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-index.html
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zHMmvYrLNo
Tom
I had to read the first part of your post a couple times because it was so shocking to me. I had no idea that part of the healthcare debate was regarding whether or not to cover legal immigrants, which are, as you mentioned, permanent legal residents of the United States. Upon further reading on this issue, I saw that Republicans tended to be in favor of excluding immigrants that have been legal residents for less than five years from the healthcare benefits (2). This idea seems crazy to me. In the first place, what is the difference between a resident of the United States for six years as opposed to a resident of three years? In my opinion, nothing! The government would still be paying the same amount of money in healthcare costs for that resident in their third year of residency as it would in their sixth year (proportionally, anyway). Also, by not providing these legal immigrants with healthcare in their first few years, the government is simply allowing them to get sick and spread diseases more rapidly than if they were covered. This was supported by Professor Steven P. Wallace at U.C.L.A research center: “You can either keep those immigrants healthy now, or exclude them and wait until they get really sick, then pay for it down the line” (2).
After Representative Joe Wilson’s comment to Mr. Obama that implied that Mr. Obama’s healthcare plan would include illegal immigrants when he said it would not, the Senate Finance Committee took actions to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving healthcare (3). It was proposed that immigrants add a photo ID along with other requirements to prove their citizenship. However, the bill was turned down, as the Finance Committee believed it would not be sufficient and that immigrants could easily forge IDs (3).
In Mr. Obama’s plan, he made it clear that he would not include illegal immigrants in his healthcare proposals. He did say, however, that he would make an exception for children (1). He argued that children “may be here illegally but are still in playgrounds or at schools, and potentially are passing on illnesses and communicable diseases” (1) He therefore believes that they should still receive vaccinations. I agree on this proposal simply because children are much more apt to spreading diseases as well as catching viruses. If they are not vaccinated or treated, the communicable diseases would be spread at a much higher rate.
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5303572.shtml
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/policy/04immig.html
3. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/12/nation/na-health-immigrants12
In response to Chris S:
I agree with you that the average American should have easy access to healthcare and it should not be difficult for them to get it, but it our current economic state I do not think it should be a federally funded system. We are going through the worst recession in the last few decades and I don’t believe that adding more taxes to those that are already struggling is not the best answer. I am obviously not in the federal government and do not have an alternative option for paying for this reform, but I still don’t think taking more money away from the ones that need it most is right.
I chose to write in response to Devin.
Devin,
I cannot agree more that pre-existing conditions need to be insured.
When I was watching the news with my family one night a couple of years ago, the healthcare debates were still headlining. I remember rolling my eyes and begging my mom to change the channel. I told her this didn’t matter and besides, Friends was on.
This struck a nerve with my mom – she immediately stopped what she was doing, looked me straight in the eye and said, “This does matter, Katie, and especially to us. They’re talking about people like me.”
I will absolutely never forget that night. My mom is a diabetic. She was not born diabetic and that has turned into a mixed blessing. Mom already had healthcare when she was diagnosed. However, if we were ever to change our plan, Mom would be considered to be “Pre-Existing.”
I am very lucky to live under the conditions that I do but not everyone has the same privileges as me. Sometimes I’ll come home and I know that my mom has had a rough day of blood sugars or that she needs to get to a hospital, fast. I’m really glad that we have healthcare: it’s our everyday and emergency safety net.
To imagine that my mom could be lumped into the 86.7 million Americans without healthcare because she, by chance, is diabetic, is appalling to me [1]. Aren’t people like my mother the ones who need healthcare the most? For my mom, if she does not receive her medicine, she will die. I’ve seen the ridiculous costs of my mom’s essential medicine: people want to deny her the means to save her life because she somehow contracted an incurable disease?
Although “sick” people may “cost” more to maintain - which really means to keep alive - “sick” people are the ones who have the most vital importance in owning healthcare. Pre-Existing conditions go as far as to include “pregnancy” in its extensive list [3]. As an informative article about Pre-Existing conditions puts it, “…if you have to ask if your specific medical situation is covered, then you probably have a pre-existing medical condition” [3].
As far as I see it, telling a “sick” (or pregnant) person that he or she can’t have healthcare because he or she is “sick” is like telling a fish that it can’t have water because it’s a fish. In a more dramatic stance, denying healthcare to “sick” people is a modern form of discrimination: “…making a distinction in favor of or against, a person…based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit” [2]. The people who are “sick” with pre-existing conditions did not become sick because of failed individual merit. They should not be dealt with as if they were monsters.
1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/
2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination
3) http://www.medsave.com/health-insurance-articles/Finding-health-insurance-to-cover-pre-exising-medical-conditions.htm
In Response to Carissa V –
I believe Carissa makes some very strong arguments against abortion and I agree completely with what she is saying. I believe that abortion is completely wrong in cases where the mother and father have just been irresponsible to prevent pregnancy. Abortion should not be used as a means to cover up mistakes but rather for preventing physical harm to the mother during the birth or for preventing more psychological harm for rape and incest victims. Therefore, there should be no public funding used to take lives away when more money could be used to save the people who are living and struggling to survive especially in the case of homelessness and hunger.
There does need to be a separation between church and state in the sense that religious reasons should not be the only backing to take funding away from abortion. I believe that it is not just based on a religious issue but rather a moral issue. The killing of someone that has no justified backing should not be allowed and that is why I believe no public funding should go to abortion. While there are many laws and issues that I disagree with I do not believe that any of those are causing physical harm to anyone and therefore are not as big of an issue to me than when people are being hurt and killed unjustifiably.
In response to Georgia’s original post regarding illegal immigrants receiving health care, I think that you and I have a fundamental disagreement. And that disagreement is that I believe someone who is sick, regardless of where they come from, should be treated. The term “illegal immigrants” puts such an amazing stigma on Hispanics coming to America that I think our nation forgets at times that they are actual people. If you were staring a sick immigrant in the face, could you honestly tell them that they aren’t allowed to see a doctor? Could you in good conscious tell them to “go back to where they came from” as I’ve heard many people say? I for one could not. In all honestly, I do not mind at all if my tax dollars are going to help a sick person, and that’s what it really boils down to.
It’s my personal belief that I have done absolutely nothing to be in the position I’m in right now. And that position is a white male, born in America. It was pure luck that I was put in the position that I’m in. With this in mind, how could I possibly tell a sick immigrant that they are not allowed to use the amazing resources that America provides? Couldn’t it have just as easily been me?
It really amazes me how prideful Americans can be, and how ignorant they are when a new ethnic race begins immigrating into their country. Hispanics definitely are not the first group to come to America and face strong scrutiny. Eventually, America is just going to have to accept the fact that our country is becoming more and more diverse everyday, and if trends continue Caucasians will no longer be the majority. Maybe one day we will have to face the consequences for denying people what I believe are basic human rights.
I would like to respond to Smarti. Although I completely agree that everyone should have access to health care, I completely disagree with how you believe it should be paid for. As of now the top five percent of earners pay over 60% in income taxes.[1] Yes it is true that these earners do make a lot more. But that is still 60% of federal income taxes (which counts for about half of all government revenue). I don't believe it is fair to punish people who make more simply because they are successful. You say you want everyone to have health care. But if everyone is going to be covered, why is only 5% of the population paying for it? And I would also like to know how many of the people in the polls you cited were of the class the funding would be shouldered on. You agree with burdening them with more taxes for health care when they already pay such a large amount in income taxes (this does not include any corporate taxes they may also be paying). You don't believe in punishing those who can not pay for it, but you want to punish those who can. This bill would make health care a public good. If its for the public, shouldn't the whole public bear it's burden?
[1] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWEzNjBhM2ZhZDRjNzI3ZjM2M2MzMjUyMTI3Njc4ZDk=
This is in response to Sara’s post.
Her main point about the economy does not take into account that illegal immigrants, like anyone that shows up at an emergency room, will automatically receive medical attention. Much of the debate on immigration healthcare reform is not about emergency room visits but preventative medicine. Emergency healthcare is insanely expensive. Surgeries cost way more than yearly check ups or strep throat medicine. If we are truly concerned about our economy and preserving the money of “hardworking citizens of the country” preventative medicine is the way to go. According to Adrianne Ortega, the federal government requires hospitals to treat illegal immigrants, yet does not supply and funds for the procedures. Also, healthcare is at its most expensive at the emergency room. If the national government can cut down on emergency room visits and instead fund preventative medicine we would save money in the long run. She also claims that illegal immigrants take money away from tax paying citizens. However, immigrants also pay taxes. It is functionally impossible to not pay any tax. They are still responsible for sales tax, corporate taxation and some income tax.
Her second argument is that universal healthcare will become an immigration magnet. This is continually proven false. Though there maybe some correlation between health benefits and immigration, the main reason for migration is the available work and family ties. Not for supposed health benefits. Also, as stated above, immigrants have access to healthcare, it is just very expensive. According to a survey of illegal immigrants in California less than 1% cited social services as a motive for migrating to the US.
I also believe we have a moral responsibility to extend healthcare to everyone. Healthcare is a right. We criticize other countries when they can’t provide AIDS treatment to people within their borders. Yet, we are willing to deny immigrants healthcare here. By depriving immigrants of medical attention you are allowing the government justification to sit back and let them die. Even if they are here illegally they are still human and should b supplied with the basic human right to health. She makes the argument that we are morally responsible for children. But why aren’t we responsible for their parents? They made a decision in order to better their situation and if they are sick we have the responsibility as humans to help them.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=ucla_healthpolicy)
Derek L.
Immigrants, whether legal or illegal should be entitled to some form of medical attention/treatment, however I agree that with you strongly on the fact that they should have to pay for it. You gave the example where “Dr. Firlik of Connecticut dealt with this issue directly when a 25 year old landscaper came to her hospital complaining of excruciating headaches, which turned out to be tuberculosis. The symptoms were slowly killing the man, if he did not receive help from the doctors at the clinic, he would have died” [1]. That right there is information enough that by fulfilling his requirement of being a doctor, unlike insurance companies, Dr. Firlik was in the right to save this man’s life. As a Doctor, that is his duty. I am in no mindset to deny legal and illegal immigrants’ medical attention/treatment, but there needs to be some way to pay for it. I totally agree with you when you said “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.” The bill for that landscaper alone totaled 200,000. Who is expected to pick up the bill? The American people. As you said above, American’s should expect the same thing but that’s why insurance was created, to offer a net to catch Americans before they fall into the endless pit of debt. That’s why this issues needs to be taken care of because there needs to be some kind of solution to this problem built in to the public option. I don’t know how to resolve this issue but I do agree with you in the fact that if this country’s very own citizens can’t expect completely free health care because we were born here, no immigrant, legal or illegal should receive that benefit either without some form of payment.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/nyregion/long-island/12Rhospital.html?fta=y
In response to Laura-
It is definitely a problem for people who have been diagnosed with a chronic medical problem to receive insurance with the current policies. I think that it would be nearly impossible to get current insurance companies to change their policies now. If a government regulated health-care plan was to be put into effect, I think that one of the needed premises that would need to be offered would be the insurance that anyone could buy into it, without looking into past medical issues. I think that this would be the only way to secure the rights of people who have a preexisting medical condition and the insure their health as much as any other individual. It is, however, quite a large thing to get started and costs are substantial, but wouldn't such a goal be worth moving toward?
This is a response to Carissa V’s post. Her post was about the issue of whether a new health care plan should cover the costs of abortion. She supported the views of Representative Brad Ellsworth, who believes that abortions should not be covered under government health insurance, except in the case of rape, incest, or worries about the safety of the mother. Although I understand her feelings that she would not want her taxpayer dollars paying for an abortion, something she strongly disagrees with, I don’t agree with her or Ellsworth’s plan. Through the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, the federal government has made it clear that abortions are perfectly legal, so we can’t ban the inclusion of abortion in health insurance on those grounds. Secondly, they offer that private health insurance companies can still cover abortions, but the majority of women seeking abortions fall into the same category of the women who would benefit from a public-option health insurance plan. I would like to make it clear that I personally am against abortion, but that doesn’t give government the right to make laws against it, or coverage of a currently legal procedure. Finally, allowing women who have been raped, or whose bodies cannot survive a full term pregnancy, to have abortions covered is not a feasible solution. In that case, the number of reported rapes would skyrocket, as women who need/want an abortion could claim they were assaulted- and this would obviously be a dangerous situation. Government should protect the rights and freedoms of all, and not propound personal views and beliefs.
In response to Alyssa Brown.
"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."
"Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added. [1]
She talked about the guidelines on breast cancer. Now, I first heard about these recommendations several weeks ago, as I understood it. Mammograms are often times ineffective at the prevention of breast cancer. There are often times false positives that require additional testing to diagnose and treat the patient. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any reliable source to back that up. There is only one more thing I really have to say about the effectiveness, the sheer number of mammograms that find cancer are relatively small compared to the total number scheduled in the United States each year. I saw it on NBC nightly news. However, with no source to really quote, I could be found to be quite wrong and I will concede that possibility (I searched but I just found and uproar about why people are pissed and not about the justifications behind the proposal)… still think my points are valid. Buuuuuuuuuut, they’re not really valid in that the debate about this is virtually over because (LOOK HERE for the real important part of this post)congress has decided to block the guidelines. The New York times writes “Without a vote, the Senate agreed to accept an amendment to the big health care legislation proposed by Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, effectively requiring the federal government to ignore the new recommendations by the expert panel, the United States Preventive Services Task Force.” [2] So, whether or not this is a good idea, it sounds like the Senate will not embrace this because the public doesn’t support changing the guidelines, even the standards were changed by a panel of qualified evidence. But perhaps it’s necessary in order to prevent even one case of cancer in the nation, even if it costs a little more, I’m not sure. However, currently the Senate won’t cover the new guidelines. I’m not sure however what role that plays in the coverage itself and if people would be covered regardless or if they would be denied based on these guidelines. I guess we won’t have to see though,
[1] The Onion Congress “Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care” http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congress_deadlocked_over_how_to
[2] NYT “Senate Blocks Use of New Mammogram Guidelines” http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/gop-amendments-aim-at-new-cancer-guidelines/
I would like to comment on Courtney's blog post for my response blog. I disagree that public option would not work out. It is true that america needs new health-care. I think that people would push enough to get the things that they want on this bill passed-including public option. I do agree, however, that there is a lot of confusion over it, but i still believe people are willing to go through loopholes to get their rights and needs met.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home