Let’s talk about the real debate on health care. While members of our executive branches of government debate over health care reform, and whether to include a public option with or without the right of states to opt out, millions of voting Americans are having a real debate. They are debating whether to pay the rent or pay for the insulin to control their diabetes. They are debating how they will afford food for the month since this month’s unemployment check had to be used for the nebulizer so the baby with asthma could breath. Here in America the real debate on health care includes making a decision on how many pain killers you can take and still be productive and not lose your job, because the knee replacement is not covered by the company insurance; it was a preexisting condition.
The public option for many American looks quite different than those being debated behind the walls of Congress today. The public option Congress is debating appears to be fueled by what is in the best interest of the insurance companies rather than what in the best for the general public. Learning brail should not be the only option for the man who is suffering with glaucoma. Leg braces and a walker should not be the only option for a child struck by the car of a drunk driver.
I believe that health care reform should include a public option and exclude any triggers or op-out provision. I believe that every American should have some equitable provision to quality health care. At what point will those elected by the public, to serve the public, stop debating and act in the best interest of the public?
The public option as described by Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University, appears to meet the needs of the majority. Hacker says it is a plan that would be modeled after the Medicare program that Americans are familiar with and like. It would be available to those Americans who don't have good coverage from their employer. It would also be available to workers who work in the smallest firms. And it would be made available through some kind of new insurance-purchasing exchange, through which people could get access to both private health insurance plans and this new public plan. He goes on the state that the benefit of the plan would be to give individuals a broader choice of doctors and over time it would bring down the cost of private insurers.
If this is the case what is Congress debating? Are they debating politic power and money for a few, in lieu of a health plan for all? Why does this have to be an Obama plan, or a Democratic plan, or a Republican plan? Shouldn’t it just be a plan to make health care more affordable for everyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Who Needs Health Care
ReplyDeleteI reviewed the blog by Steel Talking. My fellow student points out how many people need to choose if they have money for basic necessities or for needed health care. This is a very real situation that some American’s have to face on a daily basis. Another good point they make is that preexisting conditions should not be able to be ridered out of a health care plan for a person or that the allowed health care should not be so ridiculous to exclude glaucoma treatment or needed surgery after an automobile accident.
Again a good point is made to eliminate triggers and op-out options for the bill which the House Bill summary says that those who opt-out at this point pay a penalty of 2.5% of their gross annual salary. An easy solution to this would be to offer some sort of coverage at 2.5% so opting out would be a wash for the American public.
The last point of supporting Jacob Hacker’s statements of a health care plan modeled after Medicare is valid in many areas on the surface. Yes the public is familiar with Medicare. Yes health care for those who don’t have any coverage or lack good coverage should be covered. Yes, the option of private or a new public plan sounds reasonable and should give individuals a broader choice of doctors and bring down costs over time.
I do completely agree with my colleague that it is ridiculous to live in the United States of America and be an American citizen and not have access to reasonable health care. I know there is not an easy answer in which our fairy godmothers and godfathers in DC can wave their magic wands and create equalized health care for all.
However, if a solution was that simple, the insurance companies and medical professionals did not have enough lobbyists to fill Washington D.C., and the bill SAVED US MONEY it would have been done long ago.
After having worked for insurance companies, a state medical regulatory agency and accepted jobs only after having known their benefits package I know this is a very complicated web to negotiate through.
I had an experience in which a document accepted into rule by a regulatory commission that unjustly limited reimbursement to a medical community. A lawsuit was filed by a medical association, which caused the OAG (Office of the Attorney General) to become involved resulting in “clerical changes” to the document. This was a small document with a team of researchers and developers that had limited political fingers messing with the final document and still the urge to improperly regulate those that might abuse the system crept its way into the final document. This is just one small example of what WILL happen to this bill as it is now pushed through the Senate.
With so many agencies and people wanting a piece of this insurance, medical care, and regulatory agency pie many compromises will be made. In the end hopefully a document will be passed that will be life changing for those that are underinsured or uninsured at this time will be the end result.
So in the end I completely agree that something needs to be done, however many fingers are in this pie and many compromises will be made in which those in most need will probably not be take care of as well as they should if at all.
Response to Steel Talking
ReplyDeleteIn the article "The Real Debate" posted on the Steel Talking Blog, the author displays an emotional disgust with the current debate on the public option in healthcare reform. The author attempts to highlight the perceived differences on how the political system views the public auction and how every day Americans view the public option. The author claims that the politicians who are against the public option are in the pockets of the insurance companies instead of listening to their constituents. Although this may or may not be true the author fails to provide any empirical evidence or links to empirical evidence to support this claim. The author also fails to provide the counter-argument. Without both sides of the argument to evaluate the reader is left with nothing more than an one-sided argument that reads more like a rant than a well thought out argument. Overall the article is well written with some grammatical errors, however, it is missing supporting evidence and the other sides' argument.