Post 9 - Health Care
Instead of doing a response to post 8 I have been inspired to ask you one more question. Sorry but it's a good tie into our coursework for this week.
In March of last year Congress passed and President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. The Republicans have stated that one of their first legislative priorities for this session is to repeal the health care legislation passed by the last Congress.
Your first task is to research the piece of legislation and figure out what is doing and will do to healthcare in the US. Then answer the following questions:
1. Do you support the legislation that was passed? Why or why not?
2. Should the Republicans try to repeal the whole thing or just portions of it? To what degree should this be a legislative priority for them? How could focusing on this help or hurt them in 2012?
Post is due by Tuesday, January 18th
(new date so you'll have more time to research and write your post)
Labels: healthcare
posted by maby-keirstead @ 9:04 AM
29 Comments:
Dear Diary,
Today, while procrastinating work on the mock Congress for APUSGOPO, I read the new blog assignment that Ms. Aby posted after school. I was excited to find that, once again, I had an opportunity to use my precious blogging time to craft a baseless diatribe of my own design, rather than distorting another person’s point to allow me to rant on some unrelated topic. That’s much better than “Respond[ing] to someone in [my] Congressional committee on their foreign policy post” (1)! The new topic also excites me because I’ll get to cite Jacob Sandry (2); he is pretty much the godly authority on everything. I simply don’t understand some of my fellow students, who seem like they might be a bit disappointed at this intriguing new blog development (3). In addition, although I should probably be using Martin Luther King day to compose myself for my duties as Speaker of the Student House, the extra weekend will give me an opportunity to make Blog Post 9, when I post it, extra super-tastic!
I do wonder, Diary, how this extra super-tastic Blog Post 9 will factor in to my holistic final blog evaluation. I was really getting hyped up about rebuking the 37% of my classmates who said North Korea will be the most important foreign policy issue of 2011 (4). Now that that isn’t happening, do I only have three response posts to choose from for turning in at the end of the term? And how am I ever going to pick between so many original posts; they’re all so good (5)!
Well, Diary, I’m off to watch the much-anticipated premier of NOVA: Deadliest Earthquakes. Maybe, in my next blog post, I’ll stick in some shameless plug for my classmates to watch it too!
~AnthoNOVA
(1) http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2011/01/response-to-post-8.html
(2) http://jacobsandry.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/why-i-still-support-obama-healthcare/
(3) http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=32031623&l=fe533dc926&id=1432016783
(4) This is an actual fact, as of 11 Jan. 2011. I counted. 7/19=36.842105263157894736842105263158%
(5) This time I was really just trying to psych you out with the citation. There’s no evidence for this claim at all.
Ok I technically still posted before Anthony because his post was not a response to the prompt. Therefore his post is null and void and I win.
I am personally on the fence about the healthcare law. My soft, liberal heart likes the idea of universal healthcare; yet my rational, conservative brain doesn't like the idea of universal healthcare. Since "Obamacare" really isn't universal healthcare at all--just forcing people into buying insurance--the bill does not appeal to my soft, liberal heart.
Luckily, I am not a crazy hippie, and I came to my senses, slapped my soft, liberal heart across the face and told it kindly to Eff Off. According to "experts," this bill will supposedly reduce costs for families and businesses while reducing the budget deficit by over $100 billion the next ten years (1). For this reason I find it ironic and hypocritical for the Republicans to seek an immediate repeal of this bill given the urgency they have been attaching to the budget deficit ever since President Obama took office. Since socialized medicine does not work, I like that it is an essentially Americanized version of universal healthcare, which appeals to both the Conservative and Liberal inside me. It may not put everyone on a government insurance program (thank the deity of your choice), but it does at least require everyone to buy insurance so that there will be more money in the pool so insurance companies can cover the sick and those with pre-existing conditions (1).
I don't personally think the Republicans should focus on repealing the bill right away. It may not be perfect by any means, but could it possibly make our healthcare system more screwed up than it already is? The way it is, doctors are rewarded for prescribing drugs like candy; pharmaceutical companies funnel money into Congressional coffers to keep real reform from attempting to fix the system; tens of millions of people either can't or choose not to pay for insurance, driving up costs for all those who are insured; and there is no emphasis whatsoever on preventative care (2).
Government-run programs may be notoriously inefficient, but that's one of the things I like about the new healthcare law, it leaves the private insurance companies in place and lets consumers have their choice. However, it puts more emphasis on preventative care, making services like mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations, and baby care without any out-of-pocket costs (1). If you can get a deal like this that, according to the CBO, will actually help lower the deficit (1), you'd be a fool not to take it.
Obviously, there is a large block of conservative voters who strongly disagree with me, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is actually surprising data out there in a Gallup poll from March, in which 49% responded that they were in favor of the bill with only 40% opposed (3). Still, there is obvious political motivation for the Republicans to get rid of this bill, because it will be a cold day in hell when either the Democrats or Republicans put the good of the nation ahead of the good of their respective parties.
Finally, I think a platform against the "Obamacare" law could go either way for the Republicans in 2012. Depending on the popularity of the parts of the bill being phased in between now and 2012--such as requiring insurers to pay all costs of preventative services, grants to states to keep insurance premiums from getting out of control, and allowing adults to stay on their parents' health insurance program up to the age of 26 (1)--an aggressive pursuit for the repeal of this law could go either way for Republicans. If the law is deemed to be a colossal failure in 2012, Obama's @ss is grass. If its early measures work and gain popularity, then it's over for the Republicans. At least until 2016.
(1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview#healthcare-menu
(2) http://www.zdnet.com/news/top-5-reasons-healthcare-in-america-is-broken/321175
(3) http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/gallup-poll-americans-actually-like-health-care-reform
The healthcare issue has been beaten to death by liberals and conservatives claiming the bill did not do enough or that it is more evidence that America is heading down the path to socialism. I am going to look at the facts supplied by the government about Obamacare. First off insurers are now forced to pay 100% of the costs for recommended preventive care (1). My thought is this sounds great free healthcare, and increased attention to preventive care sounds great, and we all know Americans love free things just look at the things people will do for a pencil at the Minnesota State Fair. Then you remember that nothing is free, and begin to wonder who is actually paying for the care, is it the government, or are insurance companies going to charge more to make up the lost profits from this? In the end this sound like a great idea, but there are some serious questions about how this provision will be funded.
50 states now offer options for people with pre-existing conditions (1). This is great; people’s biggest issue with healthcare was how insurance companies did not cover pre-existing conditions. My question is, do these people with pre-existing conditions have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for their insurance like COBRA or is it more like Medicare? Overall this policy looks like a good thing.
The bill is to save 8 billion dollars in the next two years and 418 billion by 2019 (1). This is a great policy that will help reduce the deficit while increasing the amount of people who can receive care. Politicians can find a way to spend 418 billion in 5 minutes so it remains to be seen if the bill will actually reduce the size of government. I think in the end I support the legislation because it reduces costs, increases services, and gives more people the ability to go to the doctor.
Republicans should not touch the healthcare bill for two reasons. One reason is that Americans have yet to see any real effects of the bill yet, so by voicing opposition to the bill we don’t know exactly what we are saying no to. Secondly Republicans have no alternative to the legislation, I would be more willing to consider a repeal if there were alternatives. Finding a legislative alternative should be the Republican priority on the issue, not repealing it. Creating a plan in 2011 and trying to implement it next year would be a better idea in my opinion. Republicans have to do something about healthcare before 2012 because they ran on the promise that they were going to repeal Obamacare. Failing to do so could potentially swing the independent voting block back in the Democrats favor in 2012.
(1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform
Post #9: All about Health Care
So, the Health Care Bill, this huge bill that is supposed to do a whole lot of good for health care as a whole has been a huge topic of debate in the last year or so. The bill mandates that starting in 2014, all citizens of America will be required to have health care or pay a fine (1). Now, I’m not opposed to the idea of universal health care. I think the health care system in America is pretty messed up as it is- people can only be guaranteed coverage through their place of employment and if they lose their job out goes the health benefits with it. The only people who are guaranteed coverage without having to worry about it being tacked onto a job are those who are eligible for Medicare, a program that at this rate will not last forever. The fact that the system needs to be changed is pretty prominent.
Despite this, I think it is wrong that the government is forcing every citizen to pay a tax for health insurance. Recently, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that that very aspect of the health care bill is unconstitutional (1) and I couldn’t agree more with him. Access to health care should be a right and everyone should have access to it if they want it. Some people aren’t going to want to have health care for a variety of different reasons, and I don’t think it’s fair that people will have to pay a fine if they don’t feel it is in their best interest to get health care. The government shouldn’t be in control of how people treat their bodies and their overall health. That’s just wrong in my opinion.
Although I have not made a complete opinion of the other direct effects of the bill, I can’t help but get the feeling that this bill costs a lot of money, and if it really a good idea to institute much of these measures during a recession. Granted, the effects take place over a period of a few years, it still makes me wonder. Also, after doing the blog post on the deficit earlier this term, I have my concerns. For instance, one of the goals of this bill is to have the ‘donut hole’- the coverage cap for prescription drug coverage (3)- in Medicare be completely closed by 2020 (2). Okay, that’s great, but where is that money going to come from? Although many of the proposed plans will be helpful, I question if this is the right time to implement them.
As for whether the Republicans should work to repeal the bill, I’m honestly not sure. Some of the aspects of the bill- such as the fact that health insurance companies are banned from excluding coverage for pre existing conditions for children (2)- are beneficial. Regardless, other factors as well as the timing for this bill are not high in my approval. Despite this, a recent poll showed that 40% of the population supported the bill, while 41% opposed it (4). Although the opposition triumphed by 1%, the poll was far too close. If the Republicans want to appeal to the people, I think they should refrain from taking action against the health care bill at this time. Although there are parts of it that I strongly dislike, and part of me thinks they should work to repeal it, the other part of me reasons that there are way too many aspects to this bill, some parts that will be beneficial, and I don’t think all of that should be taken away. Regardless of my internal struggle over this bill, if the Republicans want any chance of success in 2012, they should refrain from trying to repeal the Health Care Bill.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html?hpid=topnews
(2) http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Christian-Personal-Finance/2010/0325/What-Obama-s-new-health-care-bill-means-for-us
(3) http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/48882/
(4) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/16/2011-01-16_americans_opposition_to_new_health_care_laws_decreasing_survey.html?r=news
1. In theory, many of the parts in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seem beneficial. Preventing insurance companies from barring applicants because of pre-existing conditions seems like an effective way to insure many Americans (1). The current system leaves many Americans without coverage, and allowing people with pre-existing conditions to receive benefits will hopefully allow more people access to medical aid and preventative care. I also support the idea of preventative care as an effective way to save money and improve well-being in the long run by trying to keep people informed and examined by medical professionals. I also believe that senior citizens should have access to the proper medications, so I also support the benefit that some seniors will be eligible for, where they can get a 50% discount on prescription drugs under healthcare act. While I support some parts of the bill, I believe that it has also created a more complicated system with more bureaucracies that will cause more mazes for recipients and companies to jump through (2). The large cost and complicated system that have been created by this act seem like they will create even more problems in the healthcare system.
2. The Republicans could try to repeal parts of the healthcare act, but Obamacare should not be their main focus. Both the Republicans and the Democrats saw that there was a large group of Americans that did not have health insurance, and so far, the act has taken steps to greatly lower the number of uninsured Americans. There are a few problems that the Republicans have found in the healthcare act, and they mainly center around the taxes that would be used to pay for the changes, the high level of government interference, but there are other parts of the bill that they could try to repeal so that the overall benefit of insurance coverage can continue to help the Americans who have recently gained coverage. Repealing the entire act should not be the Republican’s top priority. Congress should focus in limiting the US’s military and nuclear tensions with other countries and with President Obama to try and make stronger diplomatic ties with countries like Russia, North Korea, Japan, and reduce its military presence in the Middle East. Overall, the Republicans should focus on America’s military and diplomatic tensions and reducing the deficit and unemployment to help aid Americans. If the Republican’s manage to establish concrete party unity about the healthcare act and if they can manage to follow through on a plan to repeal parts or the entire act as a whole, it could help them in 2011. Showing that the party can achieve its goal move things in Congress to create changes could help the Republicans, but if they cannot follow through with their goals, it could portray them as inefficient and harm their image.
1) http://www.salina.com/news/story/health-care2011-01-16T03-31-14
2) http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/01/whether_you_call_it_obamacare.html
In the past year, the Democratic Congress and Obama’s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” has been the cause of a great deal of controversy. Every politician out there seems to have an incredibly strong view on the issue. The Republicans have vowed to fight this act with all of their might, and that is actually a great deal of might now that the new session of Congress has begun. This act is a broad and powerful one, it makes many changes to the current healthcare system in America. While I do not think that every single part of the act is great, there are parts that I definitely like. For instance, I really like the taxes that the bill added to indoor tanning and elective cosmetic surgery (1). When there are people who don’t have health insurance, the least that people who are paying for these kinds of services can do is give a little to helping improve health care that is actually necessary. However, I do not think that the bill was necessarily a good idea on a whole. While there are parts of it that are very good, and in fact much of it would be good at some point in the future, I feel that it changes the current healthcare system too rapidly. The date for the last changes to take place is in 2018, and that is only seven years away (1). Seven years seems like kind of a lot to us now, after all, it’s pretty close to half of our lifetime, but seven years is not very long at all. And with so many people so opposed to the act, that provides even more reason for the implementation to be slow.
I do not think that it would be very beneficial for the Republicans to try to repeal the health care act this session. Of course they will give it a shot, but they should not pursue it too much if it fails on the first try. Obama has vowed to veto the repeal act, titled “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” (not biased at all, right?) (2). If Obama does veto the act, it might be able to be overridden in the House, but there is almost no way the Senate, which still contains a Democratic majority, will override the veto. In fact, it is doubtful that this repeal act will even pass the Senate the first time through (2). If the Republicans continue to focus on repealing this act above anything else, they will actually get NOTHING done this session. This will not help them come reelection season. The voters who made the House a Republican-controlled body expects them to actually make some progress with this power, so if nothing happens the voters will not be happy. On the other hand, because of the divided government this session of Congress it is possible that nothing will happen anyway. It will be impossible to say for sure, obviously, whether this will help or hurt them in 2012 until the actual elections arrive and we see how it all shakes out. However, I think that it is safe to guess that focusing single-mindedly on this one piece of legislation would be a somewhat foolish move on the part of the Republicans.
1. http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf
2. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/06/132721175/president-obama-threatens-to-veto-gop-health-care-repeal
1. I do not support this piece of legislation, because in such things as the Minimum Essential Coverage provision, it expands congressional power unchecked [1]. Also these reforms will contribute to an already suffering economy [2]. With Medicare already using 25% of GDP revenue to cover its expenses, according to the CBO. Medicare is also has begun to go cash flow negative [3]. This means the U.S is going into its reserves to try and pay for those programs already in place added more weight to this already sinking ship will just make it go under faster.
2. I think that the Republicans should try and repeal the whole legislation. Because otherwise it will take longer to try and pick through everything, taking too long, but instead try and repeal the whole thing. Then use the parts that were popular to try and form a new piece of healthcare legislation. Also the repeal will be difficult if not impossible to get past the Senate and the President’s Veto [4], however this would be a symbolic step that would help strengthen the support from GOP followers. Furthermore, I think the most important thing the Republicans need to focus on is the economy [5]; however I think healthcare reform is a part of the economy that Republicans should put some focus. So this repeal should be a lower priority for the Republican congress. Over focusing on this would hurt them because it would distract them from the economic issues that are a more pressing issue. But completely ignoring it will also hurt them considering it is a contributing part of the problem of the economy.
[1] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/734110
[2] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/67666
[3] http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/111761/is-2011-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-medicare?mod=fidelity-livingretirement&cat=fidelity_2010_living_in_retirement
[4] http://www.morganlewis.com/index.cfm/publicationID/039be0b6-6874-4073-8906-eb83ca1ffe7d/fuseaction/publication.detail
[5] http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/13/as-congress-returns-gop-to-focus-on-economic-issues/
The legislation that they are trying to pass is very unique in a sense that they are trying to cover every single American with health insurance. This plan is made mostly to penalize the insurance companies and male them accountable for what they have been doing. Under the new law there will be bans on lifetime limits, bans dropping your coverage when you need it most, helps cover young adults on their parent’s plan, it would prohibit discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions, and it would restrict the use of annual limits. The benefits will tally a total of 88 million people by 2013. (1)
This is a very expensive plan, 940 million, but according to CBS, it will decrease the deficit by 143 billion dollars over ten year. (2). I personally don’t see how this would happen because they are expanding coverage to over 32 million people. I don’t understand as to where they are getting the money from, it just doesn’t make sense. I agree, that there needs to be some type of health care system, but I believe that providing it to everyone wouldn’t lower all of the costs.
A better way to look at this issue is through the eyes of money. (THIS IS MY IDEA). In order to lower prices on items, people need to have liquid money. Well, after a person goes to the doctor, their insurance pays for most of the coverage. The out of pocket for the average adult is very minimal. The out of pocket money goes directly into the hands of the practitioner, which is used to help pay for the medical supplies, etc. The insurance company on the other hand has 90 days to complete their transaction. Most insurance companies are waiting until the very last of the 90 days to pay the practitioners. This drives the prices through the roof on all sides of the medical spectrum. If the practitioners received their money earlier, will then quite frankly, they wouldn’t have to charge so much to keep up with their daily expenses. Basically, what I am trying to say is that we need to keep our current health care system, but enforce the insurance companies to pay their dues within the first 30 days, 1 month, rather than 3 months. This will allow for cheaper prices to go see any practitioner, and it would allow for every single price to go down in the health care system.
I believe that the Republicans in office will need to look at this bill, and see how to attack it. It is a very large bill and there are many parts. I believe that they need to look and find out as to where we are getting the money from because that is a big issue. If they require that we have to raise taxes, well then quite frankly the republican better fight hard to shoot it down because even though we are technically out of a recession, we still need to enforce expansionary policies to help get us out of this deficit, and taxes won’t do that. (I do feel bad that everyone shouldn’t be covered, but I feel like I’m thinking rationally, why we should help the people that live on the street. They probably did something wrong to get themselves there, but I seriously feel that the insurance thing will drive down the costs. )
I believe that this is a big priority right now because it’s such a big bill, and it affects a large sum of the population. I also believe that trying to mess around with the bill, won’t help or hurt any of their chances. I feel like they were elected in office for a specific reason and I feel that they will debate it out and they will get the job done.
Sources:
1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview#healthcare-menu
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
Even the hit show Saturday Night Live knows that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be the on everyone’s mind this week. They decided to call the “repealing the job-killing health care law” the “repealing the giving our jobs a lethal injection of socialism that’s poisoning our economy and our freedom health care law act” poking fun at the obvious bias the Republicans added to the title (1). SNL is well-known for poking fun and creating political jokes. However, they weren’t far off when expressing the different opinions American’s have on this law that’s dividing our nation.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is complicated and followed by a list of pro’s and con’s. Nobody wants kids with pre-existing conditions denied health care or the donut hole to become any larger. I agree with aspects of the law. For example, the ten percent tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services is a great idea (3). However, the legislation is going to add to our deficit immensely, and not help our economy get out of recession (4). The CBO says the current plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years (2). A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hurt hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with the recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden (2). Some Republicans also agree that “Obamacare is a job killer for businesses small and large” (5).
The Republicans should try to repeal only portions of the law. Ideally, they want to repeal all of it, but it is way too hard to go back and start all over. They could change pieces of the legislation, but it is too late to repeal the whole thing and continue to get support (6). For example, they can’t tell the American people that they are going to re-open the donut hole and still expect their people to be content. Also, the Senate, who is mostly made up of Democrats, would never vote to repeal the whole law. "If House Republicans move forward with a repeal of the health care law…we will block it in the Senate," Sen. Harry Reid and other Democrats wrote in an open letter to incoming Speaker John Boehner. (5). It could significantly hurt them in the Presidential elections in 2012. They should touch on the healthcare issue, but solely focusing on it wouldn’t be the best because the issue is so controversial, and there are more crucial issues that should spend their time on.
1.Hulu.com
2.http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/obamacare-one-pill-two-pill-red-pill-blue-pill/
3.http://www2.aahsa.org/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act.aspx
4.St. Paul Pioneer Press: Extent of opposition to health care law eases
5.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/03/2011-01-03_house_republicans_schedule_vote_on_repeal_of_obamas_health_care_reform_before_cl.html
6.http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2040967,00.html
I'm not exactly sure about how I feel about "Obamacare," but for the sake of this post, let's say that I am in favor of it, as there are many parts of the law which I like. It makes sense to me for children to be on their parent's insurance plans until they're 26 so they can have time to get a job that provides health insurance [1]. I think this could greatly reduce the proportion of people in this age group that are without health insurance. Also, I like that the legislation gives tax credits to small businesses for providing their employees with health insurance [1]. I like this idea because it reduces costs for small businesses so they can be more competitive and afford more employees. The legislation is supposed to reduce the deficit, so if it really will, I can't complain about the cost [2].
I think that from a purely political standpoint, it's in the best interest of the Republicans to try to repeal Obama's healthcare legislation. There is a large proportion of Americans whose oppose it, and trying to repeal it will make the Republicans seem like heroes and will boost their outlooks for 2012 elections. Further, if the Republicans pass the repeal in the House, the Senate and Obama are sure to stop it from being repealed, and the Democrats will become even less popular. However, I don't think trying to repeal the legislation is a good idea for the overall interest of the country. There is a fairly strong consensus that the law will not be able to be repealed in the Senate, so the Republicans should focus on the things they can do that have a better chance of passing and affecting Americans. The number one thing I think they should be focusing on is the economy, which I personally think is a bigger problem right now than this health care law.
1) http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-what-does-healthcare-repeal-mean-f20110117,0,7227164.story
2)http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf
Let me first start off by saying that I think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legislation. Many people think that this act makes everyone switch to government health care and shuts out the private insurers. This is NOT TRUE. The act gives small businesses the opportunity to provide coverage to their employees by issuing tax credits and gives tax credits to those who are unable to buy insurance on their own in 2014 (1). Insurers can still deny people coverage on outrageous claims but there is an appeal process that is in order (1). I think it is clear that our old system had clear flaws. Not everyone is covered, approximately 30% of the $2 trillion Americans spend on health care goes towards treatments that are unnecessary and in some cases even harmful (2). While our hospitals have the equipment necessary for a successful system our life expectancy and overall health lags behind other industrialized nations (2).
That being said, I am for the legislation and think that it is about time that our system becomes more efficient and effective. I don’t think the act is perfect, in fact I would be more inclined to give more power to the individual states, but I think it is a step in the right direction for our country.
I don’t think the Republicans should try to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a couple of reasons. First off, the act really doesn’t go into complete effect until 2014 or later (3). I think it is really hard to judge if the program will be successful or not when it isn’t even in effect yet! Also, there is potential that the bill could actually SAVE us money, not cost us more (2). I also don’t think that this is the right time for the Republicans to be going after one of the more emotional and divided topics. The Republicans should first go after legislation that they can compromise on, showing that they are willing to change what has been going on in Washington for years. While the party did pick up lots of seats in this past election, tackling such a difficult issue could put those seats in jeopardy for 2012. There are also lots of other less painful cuts that can be made. The Republicans main arguments against health care reform are that the plan increases government regulation and will require Americans to buy health insurance (4). I don’t think fixing either of these items is a bad thing considering the current state of the system.
(1)http://www.healthcare.gov/law/about/index.html
(2)http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975068_1975012,00.html
(3)http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975068_1975038_1975031,00.html
(4)http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/
The Health Care Reform Act that was passed in March 2010 called, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been an issue of much controversy especially with the threat that the Republicans are trying to repeal the Act, or at least take away much of it’s funding (1).
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is most famously known for forcing all residents of the United States to buy health insurance coverage, and its pricey insurance subsidies (1). As much as I like the idea of universal health care for the United States, I wouldn’t consider this universal health care. Since universal health care is suppose to cover everyone; however this would only cover 94 percent of the legal population, while 24 million Americans would still be without coverage (2). Another reason I am not very supportive of this Act is because it would also cause some local financial woes. The National Center of Policy Analysis (NCPA) estimates that the newly insured alone will result in as many as 901,000 more emergency room visits every year (3). Devon Herrick of the NCPA says that “Emergency medical technicians and ambulance services tend to be financed through property taxes, and state and local governments subsidize these heavily” (3). Ambulances normally cost around 400 dollars, and Medicare and Medicaid do not traditionally pay enough to cover that leaving the local governments and the taxpayers to pay off the rest of these costs (3). However, I do like how this healthcare reform Act gives insurers and healthcare providers more incentives to use the new high-tech products and remedies that will promote wellness in patients (1). I think that would make a more positive impact of the whole health of the nation.
I believe that the Republican Party shouldn’t try to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act yet, even though many of the Republican supporters and members of the Republican Party are against this bill. I think one of the main issues why they are against this bill is because of its extremely high costs. The Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee estimates that the total spending in the bill over 10 years of full implementation would exceed 2.5 trillion dollars (4). And also how this bill will reduce spending to Medicare, and would cut money from hospitals, Medicare Advantage, nursing homes, home health agencies, and hospices (4). But the main reason I don’t think that the Republican Party should try to repeal the Act yet is because the Act doesn’t actually take effect until 2014. So we do not actually know whether or not the Act will be successful. I think that the Republican should at least give it a chance since it may be able to prove to be something positive for the healthcare coverage in the United States.
1. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-medtech-20110117,0,1465994.story
2. http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L28HR3590HealthCare120209ac.pdf
3. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1273644
4. http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L28HR3590HealthCare120209ac.pdf
President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a very tedious document to pass, and now there is talk of it being repealed. The main points of the act are to provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans (1). Through capping insurance, increasing the available coverage, and Medicaid’s eligibility expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level; the act certainly addresses and tackles the problems that faced our health care system. Overall, people need to take a step back and read the fine print. Both parties are blowing up the pieces of the legislature that they think the public wants to hear or needs to know. Through this, confusion ensues. The bill will ultimately save over eight billion dollars in the next two years, a nice way to start tackling our nation’s deficit (2).
I do not think that the Republicans should waste their time trying to repeal the Act. With our national deficit at over fourteen trillion dollars, I think there are a lot of things that the House can work on in order to make progress, rather than wasting their time moving back just because they disagree with some points. I feel that both parties need to put their views and stances behind them and just move forward in legislation and progress in order for our country to advance as a whole in this period of divided Congress.
(1) http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf
(2) http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform
I support the Affordable Care Act wholeheartedly. Instead of implementing universal healthcare right away, as favored by many Democrats, Congress introduced a bill that would ensure a competitive insurance industry, as well as giving affordable health care a fighting chance in the USA. The Affordable Care Act provides tax cuts to small businesses and individuals who need assistance finding and paying for health coverage, AND it is expected to reduce the national deficit by bore that $1,000,000,000,000 in the next twenty years. It also holds insurance companies more accountable for their actions and members by “keeping premiums down and preventing many types of insurance industry abuses and denials of care, and ending discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.” I think that, with its present and future provisions, the Affordable Care Act can help America’s fight for affordable health care for everyone (1).
I don’t believe that Republicans should repeal ANY of the bill. I think that it is a sound piece of legislation that includes several Republican ideals. It provides TAX CUTS, which we all know Republican’s favor, and is expected to decrease the deficit. I think that if Republicans were to try to repeal the bill in its entirety, that it would not help them in their run for President in 2012.
(1) http://www.healthcare.gov/law/about/index.html
At first glance, this legislation sounds awesome! One website says that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says that this act will begin to bring some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry to an end, and that the act will help more children get health coverage, and give patients access to recommended preventive services without cost sharing (1). Biased website much? I took a look at what this legislation was really about. Looking further into this issue, I found that no Republicans voted for this bill, and democrats did. That was a key right there, because I’m definitely a Republican. I found out why Republicans did not vote for the bill: It expands healthcare unbelievably much. Under this act, insurers are required to offer the same premium to people regardless of pre-existing conditions and gender, sex, age etc. That means a huge expanse in the funding and the program. Where is this money coming from? It sounds to be a great idea from an idealists point of view, but lets face it: We just don’t have the money.It expands the healthcare bill, but supposedly, democrats claim that it reduces the deficit. Therefore, I do not support it. I suppose this legislation is just too liberal for me. As most Republicans claim, I will too: “It’s too expensive, and it doesn’t do what it says it does (2).”
But what I don’t believe is the answer is repealing completely. "Knocking down the building is a lot easier than building something to replace it (3)," said Republican Dean Frist. He’s right, The GOP does not have a solid plan. Republicans claim that we have a solid plan, but why haven’t we presented it yet? It’s because there is no solid plan that will make everyone happy. This is a very controversial bill not everyone will be happy with. Healthcare is a major issue, but I feel that it is such a large issue that they should try to deal with the issue of healthcare behind the scenes in a way. It shouldn’t be the first priority because I feel the outcomes will continue to infuriate people. I think focusing on it will only be good if they figure out how to make their bill moderate. I also feel like something that would help Republicans in 2012 is if they gave senior citizens more benefits, because that would increase the popularity of the bill since there is such a large growing amount of elderly people in our nation. This bill will hurt more than help though, because it is so complicated and we have gotten ourselves into a mess. Good luck, GOP, Good luck conservatives.
1.) http://www.healthcare.gov/law/introduction/index.html
2.)http://www.wilx.com/nationalnews/headlines/Health_Care_Reform_Debate_Returns_113938839.html
3.)http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-repeal-20110118,0,1396980.story
Roughly a year after it was passed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has seen a lot of criticism. From those who believe it’s a substantial step towards Socialism, to those who believe it fails to really change anything, to those who believe it’s just what the country needs, opinions on this Act are widespread and often very strongly held. Where do I stand, though? Well, honestly, I’m 100% with the people who believe it didn’t do enough. Nearly enough, in my opinion. Conservatives are quick to argue that even more socialized medicine, or even this Act alone, betrays the spirit of capitalism upon which many see as the foundation of America. To them, I would say this: the U.S. ranks 37th on the World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems (1). We’re a first world country, arguably the most powerful one in the modern world, and we’re not even in the top 35 in terms of health care. Exacerbating that problem is that the U.S. spends, as recently as 2008, 16.2% of our GDP, being one of the highest cost health care systems in the world (2). Unbelievably, over 60% of bankruptcies in 2007 were due to medical bills (3). It’s often said in defense of the U.S.’s health care that if you can afford it, it’s the best there is. Well, clearly, there are too many people who can’t afford it, with the amount of uninsured people in the U.S. at 46.3 million in 2009 (4). With all these issues in mind, look back at the health care ranking from the WHO. Many, if not all, of the countries above the U.S. have government-run health care at, logically, a lower cost and a better ranking in terms of quality of care. There are things that nobody but the most extreme conservative would argue should be left up to capitalism; it’s convenient for the nation to have a national mail system, for example. Once a fully-governmentally-run system took effect in America, such as the ones in France, Germany, Canada, or Japan, this mindset would overtake the current one when the benefits became obvious. The problem with the Act as it is, as much of a step in the right direction as it is, is that it leaves a lot of holes and doesn’t really solve many problems. An example came around recently in California where, because of the fact that the Act is simply making insurance companies cover more people, Blue Shield of California is trying to charge up to 59% higher rates (6). Clearly, there’s an issue when the Act seeking to solve the problem of a largely uninsured population makes it harder for the population to become insured.
In reality though, that’s a pipedream. In reality, Republicans now control a majority of the House, and they’re raring to get some repealing done. As they should be; for reasons not totally clear, a large portion of the public is staunchly against the Act. Just look at Missouri, where 71% of voters voted to have part of the Act invalidated (5). The Act is of many parts though, and it would be foolish for the Republicans to try and repeal the entire thing. Some parts are, outside of the spinning of pundits and politicians, universally appealing. An example would be the provision where insurance companies aren’t allowed to turn people away for preexisting conditions anymore. That’s a problem that once struck people on both sides of the political spectrum. It would be smart, however, to go after the provision that fines people for not having insurance. As demonstrated in Missouri, that is quite unpopular in some places. In terms of priority, this shouldn’t be their first priority, but it should probably be a high priority. It shouldn’t be their first because they don’t actually have any chance of repealing it. If such a repeal passed in the House, it would be difficult to get through the Senate, and then IF it passed through the Senate, Obama would just veto it. Still, attacking it with force could be seen as a nice gesture to the people who voters it. In kind with the above, focusing on repealing this too much, i.e. making it the cornerstone of their next two years in Congress, would probably be ultimately detrimental for 2012; while a slightly more restrained, while still strong, effort for repeal would be seen as a show of faith, it would be a hard sell for Republicans come 2012 to say that what they focused the most of their time on was a “good effort.”
1. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
2. http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx
3. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
4. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/personal_finance/2009/09/10/2009-09-10_number_of_americans_without_health_insurance_rises_to_463m.html
5. http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/obamacare--nancy--pelosi--barack--obama--Michael--Needham/2010/08/09/id/366957
6. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/business/la-fi-insure-rates-20110106
I am for the bill mainly because it looks out for most people in america. It lowers the costs and makes it available for 94 percent of Americans[1]. I think that the the governments main job is to look out for its citizens needs and I feel it is doing so with the patient protection and affordable care act by both supplying healthcare and making it more affordable for everyone. Ultimatly it will also effectively put a dent in our defficit. It will save around 8 billion.
I do not think the republicans should try to repeal the bill. It is really big and perhaps there are parts that can be fixed but i deffinatly would not try to eliminate it. It is a possitive bill when considering the big things that matter like healthcare and the deficit. The republicans should probably not have this bill high on thier priority list because there are so many more issues that they could work on and it is pretty much fine the way it is. If the republicans eliminated this bill they would be losing votes from people who would recive benefits from the bill. Due to high turn out by the elderly I would want to add benefits for them so they would pay me back with votes.
The packers are the best team in the nfl and they will win the superbowl.
[1]http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf
I am unsure how to feel about the health care legislation. Part of me supports it because of course I want everyone to be healthy and have access to health care, but another part of me is skeptical of how and if it will even work. After researching it, I would say that I lean more towards opposing the legislation. On the white house website it sounds perfect and happy, but I found a lot of unanswered questions. For example, it says that this plan will reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion in 2 decades(1). This doesn’t make any sense to me. If everyone is required to get insurance, then the government will have to end up paying for a lot of low-income families. Also, many preventative treatments are available for free, so where is this money coming from? They talk multiple times of a substantial tax cut for the middle class to help pay for insurance along with multiple other costly programs like funding to create health jobs and build health centers(1). This sounds like a pretty expensive program to me.
I also think that this legislation would also end up making insurance more expensive rather then more affordable. It sounds great to say that the health care reform will “end discrimination” against people with pre-existing conditions(1). However, these people cost much more money to insure than a healthy person. If insurance companies are forced to insure them, then the rates for everyone will have to go up to compensate for the money they are losing.
The legislation also seems to be very biased towards the elderly. They already have medicare and but politicians are still catering to them. The section about improving quality and efficiency talked only about the elderly and even said that they would “make sure that the quality of care for seniors drives all of our decisions(1).” I am probably biased because I am young, but I think that they already have Medicare and that should be enough.
I am also fairly concerned with the idea of reducing costs for prescription drugs(1). Yes, it would be nice to have cheaper medicine, but I think that the government is getting too involved in the economy. A competitive free market should lower the cost and subsidies and regulations generally mess things up.
While I would like for everyone to have health care, I believe that this particular program would probably be unsustainable and ineffective.
I would have to be more familiar with the legislation before I could say for sure if Republicans should repeal the whole thing or parts of it. For the purposes of this blog post, I will say that they should repeal the whole thing. I guess they could wait and see if it works, but I think that it will end up being very expensive for the government to run and wouldn’t be good for the deficit. I also don’t believe that it would do a very good job of lowering health care costs. If they can find a way to fix these things, then I think they should support it.
I think that they should focus on repealing the health care legislation. 46% of Americans want their representative to repeal the legislation, so it will probably help more than hurt them(2). Almost all Republicans want it repealed and independent voters are split about 50/50. Interestingly, almost a quarter of Democrats want the health care legislation to be repealed(2). This shows that it is probably in Republican’s best interest to repeal the bill.
I think that if Republicans succeed in repealing the bill, it will benefit them in 2012 because they succeeded in stopping what they think would hurt America. However, if they try to repeal it and fail, I think it will make them look weak and whiny, which would hurt them.
1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/summary
2. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/07/poll-do-americans-want-new-health-care-law-repealed/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am mostly for the legislation because it takes big steps toward universalized health care, which I support. I am strongly behind the most popular part of the bill, which forces all insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions (1). If the bill is repealed, people who are already sick could be denied health care. Republicans argue that the recent figure of 129 million people with pre-existing conditions is exaggerated and was released only for public relations (3). I don't think it matters why it was released or what number it is, the fact is that there are many people that would be without health care if the bill is repealed. The one thing I'm wary about is the "individual mandate" in the bill. This will force all Americans to get health care by 2014. The intention is to bring in new customers to off set the expense of covering people with pre-existing conditions (1). While I don't see any other way to cover these costs, I am distinctly aware that this mandate is causing most of the opposition to the bill. People see that the government is MAKING them buy something, they take it out of context, and they freak out. Republicans have been using this scare tactic to build opposition to the bill. Don't get me wrong, I think the mandate is a good thing. People don't realize that when we make everyone get coverage, we also make insurance companies provide everyone with affordable care (4). It also decreases the government's role and allows the private system to function under the new laws (4). Despite these benefits, Republican opposition might make it impossible for the bill to stay intact enough to help people if the mandate doesn't change. Luckily, there's room for compromise. Some people have argued that the bill could survive cutting the individual mandate if it was replaced with another measure that does the same thing, but sounds less scary (2). These changes would actually increase the government's role (4), but hey, if it makes people less nervous and more likely to support the bill, so be it.
It is impossible for the Republican Congress to completely repeal the entire bill, despite its current unpopularity. Unfortunately, this means that the Republicans will most likely try to take out pieces of it and change it so that it's completely dysfunctional, rather than compromising with Democrats and actually improving it. Thus, we won't get the Affordable Care Act OR a repeal of the act, but a "hobbled version" of it that doesn't help anybody (2). I think this will make a lot of people angry and actually make Republicans lose support. Since complete repeal is impossible, the GOP should focus on compromising with Democrats to make the bill more geared toward their goals by changing small parts of it. This should be a huge legislative priority since it is dominating the public's attention as of late. Republicans need to focus on making the bill better, not mangling it.
1. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-what-the-bill-means-to-you
2. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/the_biggest_threat_to_health-c.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011704481.html
4. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/01/13/1500342/health-insurance-mandate-would.html
1. Do you support the legislation that was passed? Why or why not?
The Atmosphere line is “Healthcare costs more than a small plane / good thing Paul had the brain to use a false name {Chorus while we all groan at the false rhyme}.” The problem with healthcare as it exists is that those who cannot get health insurance, or even those who have it but are undercovered, do not seek healthcare until something really bad happens, at which point the costs are astronomically high and they either go untreated or pass the costs onto the government. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act changes this by mandating that every person get health insurance from their employer or through a private insurer, while at the same time forcing insurance companies to cover risky or unhealthy people up to the full cost of their care (4). This moves the country closer to health care as a right rather than a product, a motive which I heartily support.
2. Should the Republicans try to repeal the whole thing or just portions of it? To what degree should this be a legislative priority for them? How could focusing on this help or hurt them in 2012?
As much as I hate to admit it, the Republican attempt to repeal the healthcare law is (politically) exactly what they should be doing. The Republican base will accept nothing less than a symbolic repeal to solidly define the Republicans as opposed to things like “socialism,” “big government,” and “Obamacare” (2). When the mainstream election arrives, they can drop this rhetoric and expect voters to ignore the repeal of two years ago in case the healthcare law gains popularity. It’s a lot more difficult for the Democrats to gain votes with “Ha! They tried to repeal the healthcare law. And then nothing happened!” than it is for the Republicans to capitalize on anti-healthcare sentiment.
By 2012, when the election rolls around, many benefits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will still not have taken effect. These include an increase in Medicaid coverage, the prohibition on price discrimination due to preexisting conditions, exchanges for health insurance plans, electronic medical records, and the individual mandate to have health insurance (1). These are the most significant reforms established by the law (3). I personally believe that once the health care bill is fully in effect there will not be enough opposition to it to make repealing it a viable plank of the Republican Party’s platform. But for now, without reforms that go into effect after the election, many people will see that their rates have not gone down despite the bill passed three years ago and oppose the reforms.
I think the best thing the Republicans could be doing from their perspective of preventing damage to the country is proposing bills amending healthcare reform and
(1) http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-23/politics/health.care.timeline_1_prescription-drug-plan-health-care-doughnut-hole/2?_s=PM:POLITICS
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03repubs.html?_r=1
http://hubpages.com/hub/why-health-care-reforms-efffect-2014
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.html
I like the idea of universal healthcare, but there’s a part of me that hates the idea of government controlling everything., but i want the benefits of government control. I don’t know if that made any sense I;m really indecisive. The good thing about this healthcare program is that it’s just giving people a choice while leaving private insurance companies in place, therefore, there’s less government control. I don’t think should repeal it right a way I really believe there are parts of it that would better the country, it could help lower the deficit. However i think they probably will repeal it because healthcare just isn’t a Republican concept that is excepted.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview#healthcare-menu.
Well, the Healthcare Reform Act will add 16 million people to the Medicaid program, regulate private insurance companies much closer, and is estimated to reduce the federal deficit by 138 billion dollars over the next ten years (1). This sounds good to me, but I also think that it wasn’t enough of a leap forward into the modern world. I dislike the act because it is too weak (which is expected in America I guess), but I also really like it because it is moving forward toward better healthcare (by better I suppose I mean universal, like the European model). The reform will also give health insurance to over 30 million people in America who currently lack it. This is undoubtedly a great thing, even if it’s going to cost the government 938 billion dollars over the next decade, because some things are more important than money (1). This measure could save millions of lives by ensuring proper and sufficient health care to people who may not have been able to afford it previously. Sure, it isn’t flawless but what legislation is? The important thing is that the president did SOMETHING, something that was not extremely popular, but it was a step in the right direction. That is why I ultimately support Obama’s healthcare reform.
I hope that the GOP will try to repeal the legislation in its entirety, since doing so would be next to impossible and ultimately result in their failure and with any luck, a loss of faith in them(1). Realistically I think that they should only repeal parts of it that they find overtly disagreeable. This would increase their chances of success. Speaker Boehner has said “I don’t think anybody in this town believes that repealing Obamacare is going to increase the deficit,(2)” but I don’t think that’s what most proponents of the legislation are truly concerned about. Since the Democrats have the majority of votes of citizens who make around 50,000 dollars per year and less, those people are likely to favor the reform act even more because it gives many of them the healthcare that they couldn’t afford before. I think Republicans should be more focused on other things now that they have more control. Repealing the entire piece of legislation would result in much bad press for them. They wouldn’t want to fit right in to their own stereotype of not helping the lower income groups; which is exactly what they would be doing if they took away the decent healthcare that people can’t afford on their own. That certainly would be detrimental to their party’s presidential candidate in 2012. If that doesn’t strike a chord with them maybe they will pay attention to a group of budget experts. These experts have found evidence that repealing the bill would increase the federal deficit by 230 billion dollars by 2021 (2). Increasing the deficit would be even worse for their 2012 candidate than taking away healthcare from millions of people who could not afford it. The smart thing to do would definitely be to only take away parts of the bill instead of all of it.
1.http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=1&sq=healthcare%20bill&st=cse
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/health/policy/08cong.html?ref=healthcarereform
Yay, last blog post!
I would have to say that I am not in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I found a good amount of information pointing out many of its flaws. First, it does not really address the problem of making health care affordable. Its random benefits and universality of health care would limit competition between insurance companies, doctors, etc., which is needed to keep prices lower and care better and more efficient. One example of this is that the bill limits co-pays for routine diagnostic check-ups, so this discourages people from going to the doctor(1). Anther prominent problem I saw was that it expanded Medicare, which is already too big as it is(1). Another big concern is that the health care reform will increase the “third party player” in health insurance and get people more disconnected with the knowledge of how their health care actually works(2).
I think that the Republicans should repeal portions of the bill, and modify and add things. The United States does need to reform their health care system to make it more affordable, but they just need to do it in a different way. The Republicans should make this a big part of their agenda, because the health care bill that is out now should not be kept how it is. If the Republicans find a successful and popular alternative to the health care bill it will greatly help them in 2012.
Sources:
http://www.redstate.com/johnminehan/2010/04/04/problems-i-note-with-the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act%E2%80%8F/
http://blog.american.com/?p=12823
Health care is one of the most debated issue in American today. I think the health care system today is not that good as it isn't effective at covering all Americans. Millions of Americans are still uninsured and the health care system needs to be reformed to step up the system. United States spends billions of dollars in health care and it doesn't cover the entire population obviously states that the current heath care system has flaws. The Protection and Affordable Care Act gives tax credits to small business employers to provide health insurance for workers. I do support the act as it makes a progress in the health care system to step up coverage for people. Its a good thing that something is getting done to improve the healthcare
I think the Republicans should not repeal the bill now they should wait till we see the effect of this bill in the health care system. If it is making good progress we should keep it and if it produces flaws then they should repeal the bill.
1. http://www.healthcare.gov
2.http://www.whitehouse.go/healthreform
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
1) At least on paper, yes I do support the legislation that was passed. As one of the more developed nations in the world, it is despicable that we don't have a more efficient and affordable system. We are known nationally as a symbol for prosperity yet we can't even take care of our own people. Essentially, the Healthcare bill will reign in profiteering and power mongering healthcare companies and protect consumer interests. I have one thing to say: about time. Under the new plan, 95% of Americans will have access to healthcare [1]. It also aims to prevent discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions and also covers preventative care which will cost less in the long run [1]. I am glad Obama made it such a priority to address the issue so quickly in his presidency, but the bill may have benefited from some refinement. The bill is also purported to reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over 10 years. Much of the money for the plan will come through “cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse,” according to the White House Healthcare Reform page [1]. On paper it will help, but it remains to be seen whether or not in practice much of the bill will be effective.
2) As a symbol of compromise and civility, I think the Republicans should repeal just portions of it. The liberal in me thinks it is ridiculous that finally we have some progress made through government, and then just one year later Republicans are already trying to undo everything. In the Republican's eyes though, this probably should be on of the biggest priorities for them. Many of the new Republican's in office this term campaigned under the assumption that if they were elected, their first order of business would be to repeal the entire bill. In order to remain faithful to the constituency that elected them into office, they feel it is important to repeal the bill. Focusing on healthcare repeal will probably help them in terms of giving their constituencies what they want, but it will hurt even more Americans through not even having a full chance at the new system. It also has been said that with the attempted repeal, Republicans are overreaching and will be unsuccessful in their attempt which is promising for healthcare advocates [2}.
[1]http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/summary
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySCc-hRCnXs
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home