There are many interesting ideas in this world. This blog is dedicated to pursuing them wherever they go. Politics, philosophy, religion, environment, and anything else that captures imaginations and leads to healthy discussions. Never take the world for what it is, there's always a better way to do something.
The House’s healthcare reform bill passed yesterday, 220-215.
It still needs to be passed by the Senate, but considering nothing like this has passed through the House in 40 years, it’s reason to be excited.
Among other things, the version of the healthcare reform bill that passed would:
-Expand Medicaid eligibility to anyone below 133% of the federal poverty line (FPL).
-Allow people between 133-400% of the FPL to purchase the “public option” government insurance plan.
-Require people to get insured (this was favored by Clinton and opposed by Obama in the primaries and seemed to be the main point of disagreement in their debates)
-Not allow insurance companies to reject people based on pre-existing conditions
-Kill your grandma (no not really)
CBO estimates it would reduce the number of uninsured by 36 million.
A yay vote came from 1 Republican, Joe Cao of Louisiana. Thanks, Joe. I’ll drink a cup of you in your honor. I hope you wont be offended that it’s instant.
The NY Times published an analysis of the 39 House Democrats who voted nay. They emphasize that a lot of them tend to be in districts where they either won narrowly in their last election or their district favored McCain in 2008. There are a few exceptions to these conditions, however, such as Dennis Kucinich (who only supports single payer healthcare), Brian Baird, John Barrow (Blue Dog) and Artur Davis.
After months of back and forth arguing, name calling, rumor spreading, political hell, the House Democrats have rolled out the new health care bill. The measure, which will probably be voted on sometime next week, will extend health care coverage to about 96% of American population (legal population that is). The part that I’m excited about is that it WILL include a government option to compete with private health insurance providers. Also, the bill will provide federal subsidies to families that are unable to afford health insurance without them. Large companies would be required to cover all workers, while individuals would also be required to get health insurance.
Now the focus will shift towards the Senate, where Senator Reid is putting up the final touches on his version of the bill. While the Senate bill will also contain a public option, it appears it will also have a clause that will let individual states drop out if they chose, something the House version lacks. This comes as a major boost to President Obama, for whom healthcare legislation has been the top domestic priority. Now if only he could get us out of Afghanistan..
Perhaps my conservative disposition biases my life motive, but through my personal experience I have always learned that no one is ever entitled to anything. Personal responsibility and accountability are two attitudes that any citizen in a free country must possess for that country to prosper. It is unfair and irresponsible to reward individuals who deny accountability – those who consciously choose ignorance over responsibility. The potential reality for universal health care for all citizens disregards justice and equality to those Americans who are making an effort to live a healthy life. Simply stated, if tax supported, universal health care were to pass, healthy people should not have to pay the same price as those who will undoubtedly require more attention and expense. Health care reform should subscribe to the car insurance approach – safe drivers pay less for car insurance due to the fact that they are less likely to use it.
Approximately seventy-five percent of U.S. health care costs are a result of personally preventable chronic illness (Center for American Progress, 2007). Two specific, voluntary, and absolutely preventable behaviors are responsible for over $220 billion of health care costs in the United States: obesity and smoking.
Reading some of Dean Baker’s work exposed me to an aspect of US health care coverage that I haven’t seen discussed much: protectionism for medical professionals and its impact on health care costs. According to this MNT article (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77635.php), physicians are in short supply. This raises some interesting questions. How does the supply of medical service effect the cost of care and the salaries of medical professionals? Why is the supply short in the first place? And on the cautious side, could there be negative consequences of having a more saturated job market?
In recent history, trade agreements such as NAFTA have expanded the ability of US countries to invest in cheap imports produced by foreign workers. This has typically been referred to as “globalization”. While it has an impact on the market for manufactured goods, it has not applied to skilled professional services including medicine, law, academics and journalism where we in the United States seem to retain protectionist policies.
The answer to that question should be obvious.. the mighty dollar. Or rather the person or people who have the most of the dollars. This goes beyond buying the fancy clothes and cars, the big houses, or anything else you might think you need to make you happy. That’s the things people who don’t have money dream about. The greatest things that those greenbacks can get you is power and influence. If you have that, you don’t need anything else.
Following that logic it shouldn’t be difficult to figure out who in this country has the real power and influence. Anyone who thinks its the President or the Congress is unfortunately very mistaken. They’re just players in a game they have no real control over. Our exalted politicians often talk a big and tough game.. but in the end they’re just as powerless as the rest of the population.
This article from the Guardian is a few weeks old, but it brings up a great, great point. The piece, written by Chris McGreal, discusses the role the American health insurance providers, along with the drug companies and hospitals, have in the continuing tar pit that is the health care overhaul. While there is slow progress being made, neither the liberals nor the conservatives are happy with the effort. The liberals feel that too much is being sacrificed, with the public option taken off the table, while conservatives do not want government controlling health care. The question that remains is what is our best course forward?
The answer to that question isn’t that easy, because here is where the views conflict. I am not referring to the clashes between the conservatives and liberals in the population, but rather the American public versus the American Corporations. According to the Guardian:
“The industry and interest groups have spent $380m (£238m) in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totaling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law.”
That is absolutely mind numbing amount of cash being spent to convince us that healthcare overhaul is bad! Yes this number is insignificant when compared to the recent passed stimulus. But think of the recent presidential election and the money the candidates spent to get elected. They really don’t want that healthcare overhaul do they? And unfortunately their money isn’t being wasted, per Guardian:
“Reform groups say vast spending, and the threat of a lot more being poured into advertisements against the administration, has helped drug companies ensure there will be no cap on the prices they charge for medicines ‑ one of the ways the White House had hoped to keep down surging healthcare costs.”
and:
“Insurance companies have done even better as the new legislation will prove a business bonanza. It is not only likely to kill off the threat of public health insurance, which threatened to siphon off customers by offering lower premiums and better coverage, but will force millions more people to take out private medical policies or face prosecution.”
Scared yet? I am. Because it only gets better. Our elected Senators, the men and women we entrust with fighting for us now and shaping the future of our country, are busy offering paid fishing trips to the lobbyists. Another little gem from the Guarding:
“Baucus holds dinners for health industry executives at which they pay thousands of dollars each to be at the table, and an annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in his home state of Montana that lobbyists pay handsomely to attend. They have included John Jonas, who represents healthcare firms for Patton Boggs, widely regarded as the top lobbying firm in Washington. Jonas, who formerly worked on the congressional staff, acknowledges that political contributions are intended to buy influence and says it works.”
And what about Barack Obama, our President, what can he do in all of this? Not much:
“Robert Reich, the labour secretary in the Clinton administration, says the Obama White House, mindful of how the health industry killed off Clinton’s attempts at reform, has grown so fearful of industry money that it has quietly reached agreement to pull back from price caps and public health insurance.”
In the end I think we will get what is realistic in our democracy. A healthcare bill that benefits only a portion of the population and all the wealthy players in the corporate world.
