Health_Care_Debate

“All good things are very hard to achieve; all bad things are easy to get” ~ Rene Descartes, Mathematician IT’S SOCIALISM! REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH! IT’S COMMUNISM! IT’S EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT! YOU’LL GO TO JAIL IF YOU DON’T HAVE A HEALTH PLAN! HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE! HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE A GUARANTEED RIGHT! THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR FREEDOMS! These are just some of the posters, lies (depending on whether national health insurance is supported or not), criticism and obstacles that the Obama Administration is currently facing. The healthcare debate is heating up, and has seen its fair share of publicity since the late 1960’s (Sicko). Now an ambitious Obama Administration is trying to finally implement a means whereby everyone can finally get affordable healthcare. The Obama Administration is trying to create a solution where people don’t have to worry about whether they are working or not in order to have insurance, so that they can see a doctor wherever, whenever for whatever. For those currently employed, they don’t have to worry much if they are already covered(United States Dept.). The ones that should worry are those in volatile companies, insecure job industries, contract workers, part time workers. Life is good when a person has a job, but what will happen when their unit is put on notice or they are notified that their business is shutting down' Will they continue to buy insurance while sacrificing their essential goods and amenities' Can they still afford to buy their own insurance after the devastating news' I can answer that question from my current experience. Back when my husband was working, we were living a wonderful life. He was insured by the company, we had money left over every month to enjoy our life. We would go out for dinner, movies or just go for a drive. Then, as the proverb says, “All good things, must come to an end”. First his pay was reduced, then his insurance was discontinued without notification, but we were able to buy our own. Ultimately my husband lost his job. He applied for unemployment benefits, but between our financial obligations and school, the benefits are barely enough to cover our financial obligations and had to forego our health and life insurance. Currently, we are living paycheck to paycheck. At least until another job offer appears somewhere. We were not eligible to enroll in the university health insurance plan as my husband lost his job in the middle of 2009. Soon after, I had gone to see a doctor in sometime in June for severe stomach cramps. All my paperwork went through without any snags. I paid my deductible assuming all was well as the hospital didn’t tell me anything before or after my treatment. I got the treatments done and came home. Two weeks later, I got a bill for $1900. My husband and I now are looking for ways to pay off the bill as even the hospital has declined to reduce or forgive a portion of my bill. I am on an installment plan of $75 a month until it is paid off. That is $75 less for essentials, $75 less for being able to enjoy at least some time with my husband just because I wanted to get better. This experience alone is enough for me to support a national health insurance plan. It’s not a case of the have’s versus the have not’s. It’s a case of unwilling unemployment and the misery of just trying to survive on a meager income but wanting to live a decent and healthy life. President Obama envisions implementing a national health plan where nearly every American will be covered by insurance. If the plan is successfully implemented that means there is a probability that 45,000 more Americans will live longer and better. That is, researchers from a joint research conducted by Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance say that approximately 45,000 people die each year simply because they don’t have money to purchase access to medical care via insurance (Cecere). If people are insured there is a good chance for increased job productivity due to good health, less people dying due to preventative care and programs, less financial burdens on those that are suffering from chronic or terminal illnesses, less stress on the insurance sector due to reduced healthcare costs & healthier people and lower premium costs because one doesn’t have to worry about raising premiums simply because they could not afford insurance. Furthermore, it means that nearly 47 million Americans will not be uninsured. It means people can get medical care without worrying about whether they will be a burden on their children, able to eat or pay rent. This plan is estimated to cost 849 billion dollars over 10 years by the Congressional Budget Office (Axvig). It sounds like a lot, but it isn’t really especially if the time frame and the U.S. population are considered. As of Monday, November 23, 2009 at 9:45 pm (GMT -5:00), the U.S. population is estimated to be 308,004,183 by the U.S. Census Bureau. Before we get into the numbers game, the assumption of the following equation is that a one dollar raise in taxes is collected for every American citizen per day without any taxes being collected from corporations and that 100% of all citizens are paying their taxes. Now comes the boring or interesting part (depending on whether one appreciates or dislikes math): $849,000,000,000 Dollars ÷ 308,004,183 citizens = $2756.46 per citizen $4,220.72 per citizen ÷ over 10 years = $275.65 per citizen, per year $422.07 ÷ 365 days per year = $0.76 per day It would cost a meager $0.76 per day if the entire population paid taxes. If only half of all citizens paid taxes the cost would be $1.51 per day. If a quarter of all citizens paid taxes it would $3.02 per day. What does it mean' Per day, it would mean one less candy bar in case everyone pays taxes, a couple of packs of gum if half of us pay taxes or one premium burger or salad if only a quarter of all citizens pay taxes. These are normal everyday vices we have, that I am sure we would be willing to sacrifice all in the name of being able to live a healthy and prolonged life. If corporate taxes are factored in, then the price is driven down even more. Of course, it doesn’t have to be a tax. It could also be a federal deduction like Medicare or Social Security. If we are willing to take that raise in taxes or deductions this healthcare plan seems more attainable. Back to our argument, we value all life be it of our pets, our family & friends, or whatever makes up our social unit. We go to far lengths to protect them, shield them, feed them, shelter them...we will do whatever it takes to keep them in our company, because we enjoy having them around. They are priceless to us. Why do we turn a blind eye to the family of another with a loved one who is terminally ill but eaten out of their home in order to try to get better' We don’t even consider that perhaps they can’t be treated because they can’t afford their healthcare. Why is it that we value our life or those directly involved in our lives more so than the life of another' Is it our fault' Partially because people have over the previous generations become more exclusive and selfish, but I also consider this a failure of government. One definition of government is that the act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. So then why is it that when the constitution was constructed we guaranteed all these individual rights, yet we failed to insert a stipulation to support a basic necessity to maintain human life. In France, the U.K., their health systems are guaranteed and affordable to all constituents. On top of free healthcare, they also get 100% subsidized education provided all the way through University, which includes medical school, which in turn is one less burden on doctor’s in France (Capell), but that is a different topic for discussion. France is rated as the healthiest nation in the world in terms of longevity, well being and lowest infant mortality rate. Their system is supported by taxes and supplemental insurance plans. To quote the French embassy from their website: For more than 96 percent of the population, medical care is either entirely free or is reimbursed 100 percent. The French also have the right to choose among healthcare providers, regardless of their income level…(qtd. in United States Emabassy lines 19-23) Recently, I have heard people call an increased tax on alcohol and tobacco as a reduction in our freedoms. I consider it a reduction in our ability to attain tobacco & alcohol. Aside from being unable to attain tobacco & alcohol due to higher pricing, these products have inherent health risks. Looking at how France is paying for their health system, I figured it would have something to do with higher taxes. Do I want to pay more taxes' Generally no, but I am willing to pay higher taxes for a cause that will reduce my stress by making sure that I will be able to take care of myself and my family. I am not a conservative or democrat or republican. We all know there is no such thing as a free meal and that everything has an opportunity cost. Likewise, we shouldn’t expect to get healthcare for free. If we want something we should be willing to pay for it or fight for it. The opponents of this bill are taking talking points directly from the insurance industry using terms like socialism, bureaucratic interference, expansion of government, healthcare rationing, prison time, death panels etc. (Moyers; Sicko) The national healthcare bill will likely be defeated again in the name of politics and greed. After viewing the interview with Wendell Potter and watching the movie Sicko, it is so astonishing that the Insurance Industry has been able to get rich for as long as it has using the same lies, old mudslinging and dirty politics time after time. Equally disturbing is the fact that the insurance industry has been able to essentially purchase our congressmen, senators and presidents by lining their pockets with hefty sums of money. In Sicko, they show how former President Nixon helped to create a out of control health insurance system. They show how the insurance industry has been able to escape from regulators and scrutiny. In essence they have purchased their way out of law and ethics all by paying our “representatives” all in the name of making money. Also in Sicko, they talked about whenever the insurance industry has to pay on a claim, they call it a medical loss. Since when is treating a person, who already paid for the insurance, but is simply making a claim to use their insurance a loss' They already paid and therefore should have the right to use it. Not according to the insurance industry (Sicko). Sicko even showed volunteer workers of 9/11 who developed complications during the rescue attempts at Ground Zero, but were refused treatment by our healthcare system because they had no insurance or did not qualify according to the plan’s restrictions. Michael Moore tried to get them treated at Guantanamo Bay where they treat hardened terrorists for free, but Moore and the sick people were warned away. They all ended up getting treated in a country that is so “vile” and “communistic”: Cuba. All the patients were welcomed, diagnosed and treated free of charge. The medication that one of the female patients needed costs her $120 here in the United States which made it hard on her living expenses, in Cuba she got the medication for 3.20 pesos, the equivalent of about 5 cents. Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association said, “What 'Sicko' exposed is that the U.S. national health care policy itself is sick. … Since 'Sicko,' the debate has changed. Government-sponsored health care, like Medicare-for-all, is now on the forefront of the public's mind. What 'Sicko' taught America is that health insurance is not health care. Coverage is not care, because the holes in the coverage are large enough to slip through and die”. (Waldman) First, President Obama should repeal the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. The bill, passed by the Republicans, was originally supposed to cost 400 billion dollars, but when former Chief Actuary of the Medicare program was going to revise it to say that it would cost 530 billion, he was told that he would be fired by the Bush Administration (Martin). In 2005, the cost was revised to 1.2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Independent Researchers project that the Act could end up costing us nearly $30 trillion dollars in the long term. (Antos, Gokhale). This bill needs to be repealed because in essence it allows pharmaceutical companies to charge whatever they want for their medication and moves regulators out of the way (Sicko), and two: it will cost us much more in the future years. Second, I feel as though we should at least start by getting our feet through the door. That is, let’s start some sort of national health care and fine tune the details along the way and tell our congressmen and senators to support the bill. I hope that we, as Americans, wise up and are willing to pay for something that is good not just for one of us but all of us. A fraction of us can’t afford healthcare, but as a nation united we can achieve providing everyone with healthcare or whatever vices we have as a nation. The media provides so much entertainment; it is easy to lose focus on healthcare. The Republican party is simply stalling, because they know that the public gets distracted easy and loses patience easily (Wendell Potter). The Republicans also believe by making President Obama appear to fail to accomplish any of his ambitions, that they will be able to regain control of the white house and congress in 2010 (supposedly because the same tactic worked during the Clinton Presidency) (Corley). Therefore, the public needs to keep a vigilant watch and let politicians know that playing games with public health is not something easily tolerated. The public should exhibit more involvement with their representatives, patience, some can do attitude, and a willingness to be unselfish and start being compassionate about each other again regardless of race, color, gender, national origin, age, religion, handicap, disposition or social status so that in the end the public wins. Works Cited Antos, J. & Gokhale, J. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 26 June 2009. “The Medicare prescription-Drug Benefit Is Bad For America’s Health”. 3 Dec. 2009. Axvig, Adam. Minnesota Free Market Institute. 18 Nov. 2009. “CBO: Senate Health Care Bill Costs $849 Billion”. 3 Dec. 2009. Capell, Kerry. "The French Lesson In Health Care." BusinessWeek 4042 (2007): 98-99. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. Cecere, David. "New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage." HarvardScience (2009). Harvard Office of News and Public Affairs, Academic Search Complete. EBSCO 17 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. Corley, Matt. “Inhofe: If GOP Can ‘Stall’ Or ‘Block’ Health Care Reform, It Will Be ‘A Huge Gain’ For The 2010 Elections”. 23 July 2009. Thinkprogress.org. 3 Dec. 2009. Martin, Patrick. “The selling of Bush’s Medicare plan: a case history of political gangsterism World Socialist Web Site. International Committee of the Fourth International. 31 March 2004.”. 3 Dec. 2009. Moyers, Bill. “Wendell Potter.” Bill Moyers Journal. 10 July 2009. Transcript. 4 Dec. 2009. Sicko. Prod. M. O'Hara. Dir. Michael Moore. Perf. Michael Moore. Weinstein Co. Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD. United States. Dept. of Health & Human Services. “About”. 3 Dec. 2009. United States. Embassy of France. “French Health Care System”. 3 Dec 2009. Waldman, Allison J. "THE 'SICKO' EFFECT." Television Week 27.9 (2008): 39-50. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 4 Dec. 2009.