Health Care Reform

The health care reform has been a major topic of discussion in politics for quite some time now. It is an issue that is slowly being worked on to be solved. Back in November, the health care plan passed in the house. In the article, “Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House,” they take a look into this situation. Democrats decided this would help to relieve some of the struggling people in America today. Many are hoping to make changes to some of it within the House and then hopefully pass the bill as a whole. It was decided this proposal was long overdue and would be left in the hands of the Senate to make the final decision.
Unfortunately, it was not as easy of a discussion in the Senate. In an article, “Push for Deal on Public Health Plan,” the topic and where it currently stands is discussed. Obama tried convincing the Senate Democrats to sign for this health care plan. A committee of ten senators was brought together to negotiate with insurers to offer new and better health plans. Unfortunately, there are still several issues that go unresolved with this proposal and they were unable to receive enough votes to pass this bill. There is an ongoing issue with gaining enough followers to pass this bill and it appears it may still be a while until the health care bill is accepted.
The health care reform, as a whole, is impacting the lives of just about every American. Each of these articles take a look at that and then talk about the plans of action being taken. They both discuss the worries about the health care plan and the problems than could possibly arise. It is not necessarily viewed as a perfect plan. However, both articles feel that there could be measures taken to make it successful and that it should be passed to help many people. It is a question of not only when, but how. What needs to be changed to pass this bill? Can it be done?

Exercise the Unexpected Killer?

The article “Phys Ed: Does Exercise Boost Immunity?” written by Gretchen Reynolds focuses on the recent results of a study that investigated the impact of exercise on sickness. Several studies have been conducted using mouse trials which have concluded that intense exercise not only causes the subject to be more prone to sickness but also have more harmful and prolonged effects from the viruses. The reasons for these results have not been determined but many theories involve the relationship of exercise and the proportions of two helper immune cells.
The article gives us a lot of information to digest since exercise has always been seen as an activity without fault. The health benefits of exercise have been documented for years but these recent findings showing its faults to viruses especially coming into flu season, the occurrence of H1N1, and the start of marathons. Runners all around the world are voluntarily risking more harmful and serious sickness in these competitions. Some of the studies have shown however that moderate exercise will actually increase the immune system against the effects of viruses. This information creates some controversy with physical education. How do we monitor or determine the levels our children should be exercising at during these times of sickness? Education and physical activity are required to maintain a healthy balance in childhood. Where do we draw the line between education and exercise verses health risk during flu season.

Immigration and the Healthcare Debate

In a heated response to a Seattle Times article, one letter to the editor let loose on the current state of illegal immigrants and their desire to have healthcare. The writer sees this as a way of taking away American citizens healthcare, just as they take away American jobs. She explains that all of the jobs they provide are jobs that Americans want to do, and that the elderly, veteran and poor populations of this country are in need of support that they cannot receive because people are too focused on immigrants needs. She defines that these undocumented immigrants have already broken many laws to be here, and deserve to be shipped back as soon as possible. While I feel that these arguments seem to be valid, they are all coming from a very emotional and unconvincing angle that doesn't seem to be looking at the bigger picture. If American citizens were willing to do these jobs, jobs that are often offered at less than minimum wage with little or no benefits whatsoever, then I feel that I would see a lot more Americans in these job positions. The issue is not only the influx of immigrants and their desire for work, it is also that American companies have no qualms about exploiting their dire situations and their vulnerable social status. Also, if she is concerned about the needs of the elderly and veterans it is likely that she would know that Medicare and Medicaid programs support these populations using tax payer money. Most immigrants are young, labor-aged, and contribute greatly to the tax-paying population, often without receiving any of the benefits themselves. When looking at these issues there needs to be a focus on the bigger picture. What impact do undocumented citizens REALLY have, why are they so eager to leave their home, what kinds of social injustices might be going on there that makes an illegal and dangerous life here better, and because the issue is already a reality how can we handle it, rather than throw out suggestions like, "Enough is enough!", that give no potential solution.

Letter to the editor, "Enough is Enough", published October 12, 2009 concerning the previous Seattle Times article, "Anti-immigrant venom mars health-care debate” [Oct. 7]

Silenced No More: Minorities Groups Speak Out on Health Care Reform

Just when you thought that capitol hill had walked away from the issues regarding minority Americans and Health care reform, civil rights groups such as NAACP the National Council of La Raza, and the Leadership Council of Civil Rights, have stepped to the podium to speak on behalf of the millions of minorities who have been forgotten. Their message: to demand a voice in the decision making over America's health care system.

In the article entitled "Minority Groups Speak Out on Health Care Reform" by Kelly Brewington of the Baltimore Sun, Brewington attempts to capture the fervor that lies within these groups due to the lack of attention being paid to the minorities that this reform will affect the most. The article provides some insightful facts regarding minorities and health care. These include the disparities in health care access, like the fact that "Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites to go without health care because they can't afford it" (Brewington, 2009). Disparities regarding access and the quality of health care for minority groups has been a huge problem in the United States. One way to shorten the gap in disparities, according to minority civil rights groups, would be for Congress to include some type of public insurance option.

Much of the news today seems to report that the option for a public option has been swept under the rug, forcing groups like La Raza and the NAACP to join forces and speak out against Capitol Hill and urge them to have some sort of option that will provide relief and shorten disparities within minority communities. The NAACP, La Raza, and the Leadership Council on Civil Rights have taken their campaign to the airwaves, creating various advertisements and commercials to reveal that health care is morally imperative (and so is the public option). They have also held town hall meetings regarding myths about health care proposals in congress and provided an open forum for community members "to ask questions of congressional staffers and experts of reform" (Brewington, 2009).

It is extremely commendable to see that minority advocacy groups such as the NAACP and La Raza have chosen to speak on behalf of the millions of minorities who have unfortunately been silenced in a reform that concerns them and their health the most. With their many health disparities that exist within minority communities today, do you think that Congress should be forced to provide some sort of public option due to the lack of affordability for some minorities?

Also, with their being a lack of minorities in the Senate, do you think that Congress should be forced to consult minority groups and leaders while creating this new health care bill? Why or why not?

Full Link to Article: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/health/2009/10/minorities_and_health_care_ref.html

Health Care Reform Commercial Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkvj-yCbKI&feature=player_embedded#

Higher autism rates? Awareness can't be the only reason

On Oct. , 2009 the department of health and human services released a report about how the autism rate in the U.S. had a drastic increase. The previous estimate was 1 in 150 children had Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and the current rate for children with ASD is 1 in 100. This the report which appeared in American Academy of Pediatrics Journal showed that the rate for boys is a shocking 1 in 58. According to this article one reason this sudden increase could have happened is because the autism spectrum has grown to include the Attention Deficit Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome and all compassing PDD-NOS or persuasive development Disorder. One issue with autism is no one really knows the cause of it. One reason that has not been scientifically proven is children living near toxic waste. Another is toxic synergy in food and consumers products that become toxic after being heated or combined. According to Mitochondrial expert Salvatore DiMauro of Columbia University, "Autism is probably caused by many things, most of them genetic, and [link between autism and certain metabolic diseases] is one of them."
Even though there is not a cure or knowing cause a new device that has hit the market to offer parents a way to detect autism and analyze speech patterns in 2-4 years old. The with this according to Dr. Susan Anderson, director of the autism clinic at the University of Virginia children's hospital, autism " is also a disorder of social development and interacting skills, and a disorder which includes a typical behavior. Any means of screening for autism needs to include all of these measures." This article talks about possible causes and cures of ASD and different assumptions on why the number of children with ASD has been increasing, but one thing that still remains a question is " Are more kids being misdiagnosed with ASD in an attempt to explain their no quite perfect behavior?
http://www.boston.com/community/moms/blogs/child_caring/2009/10/higher_autism_rates_awareness_cant_be_the_only_reason.html?s_campaign=8315

Birth Control Results in Boyfriend Blues?

In the article, "Birth Control Bummer?" it is found that using oral contraceptives results in less attractiveness and the inability of selecting a good mate. According to Dr. Alvergne and Dr. Lumma, when a woman ovulates she becomes more attractive. During ovulation, there is fluctuation in a "woman's facial appearance, vocal pitch, and body odor." As evidence, they found that lap dancers make more money on nights they were ovulating. All of this occurs because the woman's body is letting her know she is fertile and needs to find a mate. When birth control prevents a woman from ovulating, the increase in attractiveness does not occur.

Additionally, the article finds birth control limits a woman's ability to select a genetically ideal mate. It is found that when mates have dissimilar physical characteristics, they have a better chance of producing healthy children. According to a study at the University of Liverpool, when women use birth control, they don't detect these cues and tend to "prefer the odor of genetically incompatible men." However, women who are fertile tend to make the correct choice. They can rely more on their natural instincts.

It is advised in the article that despite these findings, there is no proof birth control will effect women long term. There is no proof that relationships will be worse and people will produce less healthy children if women use birth control.

I thought this article was rather interesting and worthy of consideration. To me, these findings do not seem strong enough for women to start making decisions about whether or not to use birth control. More importantly, I just wanted see if there are any reactions to this article. Do you think these findings are true? Or do you think birth control has no influence on attractiveness and the ability to choose mates?

Foster Kids and Health Insurance Challenges

There is ongoing controversy regarding whether or not a universal health care plan would be the best option for the American economy. I came across an article from CNN.com entitled, "Foster kids face loss of health coverage at 18". The article presented another issue effected by a new health care reform bill, but this specific issue is unique and not a typical controversy in the health care debate. The issue revolves around foster kids; foster kids will lose their health insurance covered by the state once they turn 18.

The article focuses on Jourdane Hamilton, an 18-year-old from Rockville, Maryland, who has been in the foster care system for over two years. Jourdane plans to attend Montgomery College on a football scholarship. However, he is worried that he will not be able to play football because he will not be insured, ""Football is very physical. In every single play you have to make sure you're protecting yourself because the game is ruthless and there is a high possibility of getting hurt," said Hamilton. "If I didn't have health care coverage I don't think I would be able to put myself in high-risk situations." If Jourdane can not afford health insurance, than he will not play football, which in turn, will eliminate the possibility of him going to college since that will just be another expense he will have to pay for. If Jourdane does take the risk and play football without health insurance in order for him to continue on with his college education, he claims his academics will suffer. Jourdane believes if he plays without health insurance he, "won't be able to fully focus on his classes because he would be worried about getting hurt and paying for his basic needs."

Hamilton said that if he lost his coverage and was responsible for paying for his own plan, he would not be able to afford private insurance. "I would have to wait until Congress passes a universal health care bill," said Hamilton. "I hope this happens soon."

How should the government approach situations like Jourdane's when developing the new health care reform bill. Is it appropriate for the government to cut off foster kids' insurance at the age of 18? Should the government cover foster children beyond the age of 18 and if so, where will they find the resources to do so?

Homeless and Healthcare

One of the greatest topics in today’s society has been the health care reform. The need for health care is one that every American will face at some point in their life. However, one of the biggest groups in need of attention in the health care debate is the homeless population. In an article in The Tennessean, it states “Advocates for the homeless say these individuals face complex health problems, are generally sicker and die earlier than their housed counterparts. Advocates also say the homeless are the most frequent and expensive users of emergency room and inpatient hospital care and are much less likely than those in the general population to be insured.”

Those lobbying for health care reform are recognizing the need for an address of homelessness as a serious health care issue and failing to do so will result in a high cost of hospitalization by those facing illness. Maintenance of health is a very difficult thing for the homeless. For one, they are not a group of people that live in the most sanitary conditions, nor are the medical supplies they may have access to always the most cleanly. Nutrition is also an issue for this population. For many, finding food on a daily basis is difficult, and for those who do find meals, it may not be of the highest nutritional quality. By increasing the access the homeless population has to health care, it will increase their overall health and thus reduce the number of homeless people utilizing emergency room care, becoming inpatients in a hospital, or those dying due to a serious medical condition acquired while living on the street.

While it may seem like an expensive reform, it will be greatly worth it in the end. Making the necessary changes to provide more access to health care facilities and sanitary environments will reduce the number of diseases acquired from living on the streets, could work to provide counseling in health care maintenance, and reduce the amount of time these uninsured homeless people spend in hospitals and other clinics.

A full link to this article can be found at http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091011/NEWS01/91011009/1001/NEWS/Homeless+often+overlooked+in+health-care+reform+debate

Heath Care Reform...for the NFL

'Tis the "season" for all the talk about health care reform, and whether or not it is going to be a good idea for this country. It is also the season for the great American past time, football. In an opinion article published in the New York Times, "Health Care Reform...for the N.F.L.", Stefan Fatsis discusses how the National Football League is past due for some reform in their medical system as well.
Although the players in the National Football League receive excellent treatment, the article says that the only main goal is to just diagnose them, fix them, and return them to the field. Apparently many players like to play down their injuries. Some of the doctors in the NFL will "downplay" an injury too. The article gave a couple different examples, mainly on the Denver Broncos team, how players were injured at first and not given proper care and hurt later on in the season, or were told their injury was not as severe and were injured worse later during the season.
It turns out, the agreement for the players in the league right now is not too fair. The article goes on to explain how there needs to be some reform on the next contract for the players' union (which is being signed in 2010). Some of the changes the columnist suggests would be that there should be a league wide medical system, and not just team doctors for individual teams, doctors should tell players about injuries before they let club officials know, players should be able to view their medical records whenever they want (instead of just twice a year), and players should report any injury to the league. The columnist also feels that grievance procedures should be reformed.
This seems to be a little bit different of an article to post for this blog sight, but it is a health policy that needs to be taken into consideration when the NFL players' union goes to resign their health contracts in 2010. And if you think about it, it relates a lot to the what kind of health care issues we, the taxpayers, need to think about in reference to our nation wide health care plan option.
Do you believe that the NFL needs some health care reform of their own?

Health care Reform requires courageous politicians and a disciplined public

In this article found in Central Illinois Business magazine, the author is concerned with President Obama's health care reform and its ability to be cost effective. He points out that spending on Medicare and Medicaid are a far larger problem than financing social security and are the main source of our federal budget imbalance. Being able to manage and contain the cost of Medicare and Medicaid are very vital to long term success, but talks of changing the current system has brought about some uneasiness to the elderly. Concerns of denial of service are being fueled by rules in Britain that reportedly deny treatments such as coronary by-passes and hip replacements.

The other group of unhappy people with changes in federal health care are the nearly 85 percent of Americans who already have access to health care through a private insurance firm. A huge problem administrators are facing with implementing this new plan is being able to keep the insured happy while also covering the uninsured. To achieve this goal, the Obama administration will have to tailor a policy that both rations and controls coverage, mainly by making use of prices to control spending. One such way in which unnecessary spending could be slowed would be to have people pay more of their coverage from out of pocket expenses rather than insured coverage. This would encourage people to choose more carefully on the services they receive.

Policies such as the one mentioned above would most likely be deemed unpopular with the public at large, but enacting effective cost controlling policies needs to be a main goal for reform and it will take courageous politicians and a more disciplined public to achieve such goals.

Current Health Care Legislation Will Not Control Medical Costs, Experts Warn

In the midst of the heated debate concerning the health care reform, many problems are arising with the policies that are being proposed. Currently it seems that politicians care more about reforming how to pay for all of these health care changes, and it has become a political game in which politicians care more about expanding their popularity than doing what is right for our country. An article in the New York times called, Current Health Care Legislation Will Not control Medical Costs, Experts Warn, helps explain some issues surrounding the health care bill being proposed.
If the health care bill is passed one effect will be that insurance companies can no longer exclude patients with preexisting conditions. As a result, a lot more people who are sick are going to get insurance coverage. However, the insurance business has an adverse selection. In order to allow more sick people to have coverage, insurance companies also need to have a lot of healthy patients. These healthier patients help balance the expenses for the sick patients, but many younger, healthy people do not have health insurance because they believe it is unlikely that they will need it.
At first, congress was going make those who choose not to be covered pay a fee, but now politicians are going to make it easier for healthier people to opt out of insurance. These politicians probably know that this creates financial issues for insurance companies, but they do not care because their main concern is maintaining their popularity so they will get re-elected in the future. This in fact does create a huge problem for insurance companies because they need healthy participants to help subsidize the costs for the people who are sick with preexisting conditions. As a result, insurance companies are going to be forced to insure more people who are sick, and insurance coverage prices will raise for those who are healthy and also currently insured. This is because the insurance companies will need to compensate for the costs of the unhealthy recipients, and they will relay the costs onto the healthy recipients. As the article explains, the biggest problem facing the majority of Americans is geared toward those who already have insurance because the prices will increase.
Do you think this is fair? Are there other ways to help balance these costs, or will medical costs expand no matter what policies are implemented?

Current Health Care Legislation Will Not Control Medical Costs, Experts Warn

An article published on October 12, 2009 in the New York Times entitled “Current Health Care Legislation Will Not Control Medical Cost Exerts Warn” explains the fears the nation’s experts have about the emerging health reform bills.   David Herszenhorn explains that experts are not convinced that the new bills will do enough to decrease medical costs.  Many policy analysts, hospital offices and current and former health officials are urging adjustments that will reward quantity and quality of care to Americans.

Democrats have been aggressively pushing to pass major health care legislation this year, but with these issues arising there may be a delay.  President Barack Obama has been a strong proponent of the new health reform bill, stressing that it will provide millions of uninsured Americans with health care coverage.  Obama has been adamant on the fact that Americans and the government could save hundreds of billions of dollars by eliminating wasteful spending on things like duplicative scans for laboratory tests.  The question that Herszenhorn raises is, “Can all that money really be saved without rationing care or lowering the quality of treatment”.  Elliot G. Fisher, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at Dartmouth College, says this can defiantly happen.  He suggests to “only do the cuts in regions that are growing too fast in per-capital spending because then there’s a way to guarantee sayings”. 

For years senior citizens have been covered on a Medicare system that has provided them with benefits at a low cost, but now experts warn that these health reform bills will cause a rise in costs for the 250 million Americans who have insurance.  There needs to be more steps taken to reduce long-term spending and more benefits to the insured.  I do not think it is fair that Americans already insured are being hurt by a bill that is pushing coverage on the uninsured.  This proposal needs to be adjusted so that both groups of people are benefiting.

Agency predicts health care bill will cost $829 billion

Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor Thursday, that the Senate Finance Committee will vote on its long-awaited health care bill next Tuesday. The health care reform is predicted to cost $829 billion over the next ten years, this budget was put together by nonpartisan budget analysts. Although this number sounds like a major hit to the U.S. economy it would actually save around $80 billion during the ten year period. Senator Max Baucus, who has been in the news recently about his own version of the health care reform, said his bill would cost roughly $900 billion over a ten year period. Baucus’s plan has been discredited by most politicians including those in the Democratic party.
With such a high cost on this bill, much debate has come about, including a new one that Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of trying to add more on to the proposal. Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, said he was "afraid that part of the strategy from the Obama administration and their allies on the health care bill is to change the target so quickly and to compress the debate time as we go down the path that there is not going to be full opportunity to digest the final version of what we're voting on." Republicans believe that Obama is using this current plant to get it past the finance committee and that he will eventually add more to it that will raise the cost. Most people believe that the current plan is the only one that will remain under a 1 trillion dollar cost.
I believe the current proposal is the best we have seen so far. If the finance committee approves this, it is on the right path of making it all the way through the house. I would hope that Obama would not add more to the plan that would make it cost more because I don’t think our country and economy could afford it right now.

This article can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/health.care/index.html

Too Much Information?

According to an article from NewsOK.com, starting November 1st a new law in Oklahoma will require abortion doctors to give information on their patients, including age race, marital status, number of previous pregnancies and the reason they are seeking an abortion. This information will then be given to the Oklahoma State Department of Health, where it will later be turned into a yearly report. This bill has been met with resistance from Pro-choice advocates, their reasoning being that "the measure violates a constitutional requirement that legislative measures deal only with one subject." Not only does the bill deal with more extensive information gathering, but it also prohibits abortions based on the gender of the fetus and redefines several abortion related terms. Those opposed to the bill are calling the details "bundled abortion restrictions." Defenders of the bill argue that all aspects include the same subject, abortion.

Getting more information on those seeking abortions may provide useful history and insight for those in the field. However, many see this as an invasion of privacy and being taken advantage of by the state.

Furthermore, differences between state legislatures and the federal government can make issues such as abortion complicated and messy. Who should these decisions be left up to in the recent health care legislation? Should the federal government be more involved in regulating these matters or should if be left up to a state by state basis?

The rest of the article can be found here:
http://newsok.com/women-challenge-oklahoma-abortion-law/article/3404987

The Danger of Fertility Treatments

An article published on Saturday, October 10, 2009 in the New York Times entitled “The Gift of Life, and Its Price,” discusses the complications associated with fertility treatments. In today’s society, with the popular television show Jon and Kate Plus 8 and celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Lopez having twins, giving birth to multiples seems like a safe, and even popular thing to do. Using fertility treatments is increasingly common as women are waiting to have children later in life. However, many risks are associated with fertility treatments, causing dangers to both mother and baby.

The article discusses various ways fertility treatments can be abused. Doctors may not follow industry guidelines by implanting more than one embryo in the uterus at a time. Since females are designed to only be able to carry one fetus at a time, being pregnant with twins is dangerous. It strains the mother, as she cannot provide enough nutrients for the babies, and it strains the babies as they are cramped in a womb that is not big enough for both of them.

Multiples are almost always born prematurely, which can lead to birth defects, mental retardation, and even death. Premature birth also leads to longer hospital stays for the mother and child, which causes higher medical bills.

Of course couples want to have their own children. Sometimes fertility treatments are their only option. Do you think the government should regulate fertility doctors’ procedures when it comes to fertility treatments? Should fertility doctors only be able to implant one embryo at a time?

Malpractice Reforms Save Money, but at What Cost?

In an article written by Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post, “CBO: Medical Malpractice Reforms Could Save Up to $54 billion” she discusses how the Congressional Budget Office is set to impose a range of limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. Obama’s new health care reform attempts to lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers. The money saved comes from limiting the number of procedures, tests, and data that must be shown in court to defend themselves. This clause within the health care reform is important, not only because it saves billions of dollars, but Republicans are backing this decision having stressed for months that the health care package needed limits on malpractice lawsuits.

However these incentives and bipartisanship does not come without a few strings. First, there is a cap of $250,000 on awards for nonecomonic damages; pain and suffering.
Second, a cap on punitive damages of $500,000.
Third, there is a modification of the “collateral source” rule to allow evidence of income from such sources as health and life insurance, workers’ compensation, and automobile insurance to be introduced at trials or to require that such income is subtracted from awards decided by juries.
Fourth, a statute of limitations, one year for adults and three years for children, from the date of discovery of an injury. This means that an injured person must respond and file a lawsuit within a certain time frame. If something were to occur as a direct result from a malpractice, after the time window, they are simply out of luck.
Finally, replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule, under which a defendant in a lawsuit would be liable only for the percentage of the final award that was equal to his or her share of responsibility for the injury.

The question is, are these tradeoffs proposed by lawmakers worth the potential $54 billion saved? Or is this another way for malpractice to continue without as severe repercussions?

Can Anti-Abortion Protesters Make a Difference?

Pro-life activists have been taking enormous strides in getting to the heart of legislators and pregnant mothers considering abortion policy. Their tactic is blunt and visual with images of mutilated babies. They go around neighborhoods and schools displaying these images in big posters with text from the Bible and quotes that are meant to convict and offend. The article goes into detail of a select few personal stories of anti-abortion protesters and what they do. There is also a multimedia that shows pictures of protesters and gory images of dead fetus chopped up in pieces.

Just last month, a protester named James Pouillon was shot dead in a small town Michigan because of his obscene images and strong anti-abortion belief. This incident did not discourage his comrade protesters to stop, but did the opposite. Mr. Pouillon's protesting comrades became even more bold and dedicated to their "service" because of his death. They even used his death as another protesting aid.

Chet Gallagher, a former Las Vegas police officer, joined the anti-abortion protesting because of his Christian belief. When he was serving as a police officer, he was assigned to arrest anti-abortion protesters, but refused to do so because of his belief. He was resigned from his position due to his bold action for his belief and ended up joining the anti-abortion group. The group praised him for his firm action in his spiritual belief over the human law.

Deborah Anderson was abused and raped as a child from her foster parents. Her biological mother was planning on getting an abortion for her, but could not find a clinic at the time. She sees herself as a blessing and feels the need to impact the community about abortion.

These are three of many anti-abortion protesters' testimony. They are explicitly anti-abortion each from their personal experiences. The question is how effective these protests are in affecting policy decisions. There are multiple instances where pregnant mothers are planning on getting an abortion and get convicted not to when they see these protesters standing up for what they believe in, but can it do the same thing at the Congressional level? ACT-UP had a significant effect up top, but can anti-abortion protesters do the same for abortion?

MENTAL Health Reform

In the past week there has been an article in The Baltimore Sun by Meredith Cohn regarding health reform, but more importantly a change in provisions for the mentally ill. The article provides real-world examples of mentally ill people who have suffered from the lack of insurance. For example, Deneice Valentine suffered from stress and major depression, but after losing her health insurance she took a downward spiral. She lost her home in Baltimore, custody of her children, and the ability to care for herself. These types of stories provide an emotional appeal to the issue of mental health because these are everyday people just like us. While the reform for mental health care would be very beneficial for the mentally ill it is also very costly. According to Cohn, "the bill for health care reform is expected to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars." In terms of how it would affect people individually, there would be a 1 to 3 percent raise in premiums for everyone. While the idea seems great for raising money so that stories like Deneice Valentine's don't occur again it also puts a serious toll on others. For example, if a person only makes $9 dollars an hour then this 1 to 3 percent mandate for health reform is quite costly for that person, but they will be forced to pay it. Numerous statistics are provided to reinforce the seriousness of the issue. Some statistics include the fact that an estimated one in four uninsured Americans suffer from a mental health condition. With those kind of statistics, shouldn't there be a urgency to change the current mental health policy? Even more so, shouldn't there be a reform that helps the mentally ill, but also isn't too costly for those who aren't making as much?

The High Price of Being a Gay Couple

A recent article in the New York Times, The High Price of Being a Gay Couple, argues that over a lifetime the average gay couple pays far more in living expenses than the average straight couple. These higher costs are due to extra health-care and tax fees they bear mostly because they are unable to marry (aka are unmarried).

This analysis was done by creating two hypothetical couples, one lesbian couple and one straight married couple. Income, health, residence, education, and children were all kept the same. With Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center they concluded that same-sex couples pay a total of $41,196 to $467,562 more than the average straight couple on health-care, social security, taxes, child bearing, pensions, and spousal I.R.A’s.

Explanation for the range in costs:

Worst scenario: the “lower earner’s employer did not provide health insurance and her partner’s employer didn’t cover domestic partners.” This is a common practice – especially for government employees – resulting in the uncovered domestic partner having to buy private health insurance while her partner and children are still covered. This costs the lesbian couple $211,993 more than the married couple.

Best case: they only had to pay $28,595 more. If both partners could attain employer-provided health-care and the higher earner could provide domestic partner coverage for the five years she stays at home to raise their children (same for married couple). But why the $29,000 additional fee if the married couple is also attaining spousal coverage for those five years? Just that. It’s for spouses only - there are additional taxes for domestic partnerships. “A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable income, and she can’t use pretax dollars to pay the premiums.
What do you think some of the implications are if coverage for domestic partners is left off the bill?

Disparities Amongst American Minorities Costing America Billions of Dollars

They say, "when it rains on middle-America, it's a hurricane for lower class minorities". This becomes quite evident in the times of one of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, and most recently in the push for health care reform. In an article published in the Baltimore Sun titled "Real Health Disparities Exact Moral, Financial Toll on Nation" by Thomas A. LaVeist and Darrell J. Gaskin, it focuses on the enormous price tag that comes along with the health disparties that continue to run rampant and neglected within Americas minority communities.

The focus of this article allows readers to see that the minorities, the men and women who contribute greatly to this country, are receiving deplorable health care, increasing their risk for death due to the many health disparities like hypertension and diabetes. In a study done by a Washington-based think tank, they found that between 2003 and 2006 "30.6 percent of medical care expenditures for African-American's, Asians, and Hispanics were excess costs that were the result of inequalities in the health of these groups" (LaVeist and Gaskin, 2009). With the combination of the deplorable quality of health care and the health disparities within the minority communities, the economic price tag seems to be on the rise.

Another study done by the Institute of Medicine in 2002, provides a detailed report documenting the disparities in the quality of health care received by minorities. This study has led to an increase in rally support by health care advocacy groups to "press policymakers to direct resources to efforts to address racial and ethnic inequalities in health" (LaVeist and Gaskin, 2009). The article also mentions the political support for this issue from both left and right wing politicians. Even former President George W. Bush had to agree with the disparities that continue to plague minority communities, especially Black men. Although his support wasn't due to health care reform, but rather support for families to receive deceased members' social security benefits, it seems as if everyone agrees about the disparities facing minority Americans.

The author's accounts moves along to talk about the premature deaths that constantly plague these minority groups, effecting not only immediate families, but the whole community as well. Some people, according to LaVeist and Gaskin, believe tha tthese health ailments amongst minorities are due to "genetic differences amongst racial groups or irresponsible behaviors" (LaVeist and Gaskin, 2009). Both authors negate this belief, claiming that the disparities aren't due to genetic defects, but rather "racial factors associated with poverty and inequalities" (LaVeist and Gaskin, 2009).

So the purpose of this article is not only to increase awareness regarding the constantly ignored state of the minority population, but to also show how the creation of a better health care system could indeed end the plagues facing Americas minorities, and save America billions of dollars.

It seems as if a public option would be extremely beneficial to the lower class minorities discussed in this article. What option do you think would be most beneficial?

Another question that I have is regarding the coverage of this topic. It took me about a week to actually find an article regarding the minorities in this country. Why do you think there is such a lack of coverage regarding the people who need health care reform the most?

Article Link: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.disparities28sep28,0,6881697.story

Tax on Alcohol for Health Reform? I don't think so.

According to Lloyd I. Sederer and Eric Goplerud of The Washington Post there should be a tax on alcohol because of the money it could raise for health reform. In this article entitled, "Pay for Health Reform with an Alcohol Tax" they lay down the statistics of how an alcohol tax would raise up to $60 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Even more so, they explain how these taxes could "pay for the health care for the uninsured and budget busting and state Medicaid expenditure; some portion of the tax could be directed to alcohol prevention and treatment programs." In my opinion, the majority of money should be directed towards prevention and treatment programs given the fact that alcoholism is a serious disease. Even more so, the money could be used to better educate the underage consumers of alcohol. Although, the tax on alcohol could have a negative impact because of the prices. Bars on campus here at the University of Illinois are always providing drink specials and special event nights promoting alcohol consumption. If taxes are raised then those drink specials go up and purchases go down which in turn helps decrease underage drinking and more importantly binge drinking in the long run. This is a issue that I think should be stressed more so than it's ability to raise money for health reform. It shouldn't be a tax on alcohol for health reform, but instead for alcoholism. Alcoholism is a deadly disease and binge drinking is something that occurs right here on campus. The real question is if prices go up is consumption going to go down?

What are the deal-breakers?

In David Kirkpatrick's article released in yesterday's New York Times, "Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Healthcare", a very touchy subject brings up a value debate that cannot be disputed. The issue of abortion is not the kind of debate that can be reasoned out. It is one that is fundamental to one's personal values and beliefs, and therefore, a potential deal-breaker for the crafting of healthcare policy. For those in opposition to federal funding being used to support elective abortions, it is hard to disagree with their stance. For one, healthcare doesn't often include any elective or unnecessary procedures, and it is one's own prerogative to feel angry about providing the cost for something they fundamentally do not support.

However, it is hard to argue that an abortion would ever be seen as an elective procedure, or something that was ever really sought after. More often then not, abortions come about due to unwanted pregnancies, rape, inability to care for a child financially and/or emotionally, or to maintain the health of the mother. And truthfully, it is often those without the means to provide for a child who seek abortion attention, essentially those who would be using government funding for healthcare in the first place.

I do not argue that the government is responsible for such operations, but I do feel that this defines the kinds of coverage that need to be available through healthcare reform. There are many aspects of healthcare that individuals will not always agree on, and therefore, multiple options must be available. By maintaining private insurance plan options, providing expanded coverage of medicaid, and enhancing the coverage regulations of insurance, the healthcare reform plan seems to be taking this all into consideration and allowing the individual as much personal choice as possible. Though it is a terrible situation, the call for abortions will not soon subside, and nor will its opponents.

On issues such as this, it becomes apparent that in crafting healthcare policy, there needs to be many options to accommodate the many differing life situations and values of all individuals.

a much needed reform for women

One specific aspect of the healthcare reform that is under scrutiny is the access that women have to it, and the affordability and restrictions that accompany the reform. There has been development of a plan that will give women affordable care for maternity and reproductive health. In an article from The Huffington Post by Bob Burnett, he states that "The pending healthcare legislation will provide all women, who are legal residents of the U.S., with full-range of care at an equitable cost. In addition, females will not be denied coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition, including breast cancer, pregnancy, or evidence of "uninsurability" such as being a victim of domestic violence." However, the problem that some are finding with this reform is the potential use of federal funds for procedures like abortion, and this thus threatens the pending legislation. It is seen as contradicting the Hyde Amendment of 1976, which has not allowed for federal funds for abortion.

While I can agree and relate to people’s concerns about the use of federal funding for abortion, I do not see the benefits in halting the pending legislation because of all the other medical benefits it provides. So often women do not receive the proper preventative care such as pap smears, mammograms, or prenatal care due to the high costs, especially for the uninsured. It is so important that women have access to this care in order to ensure longevity and quality of life, for themselves and potentially an unborn child. While ethical concerns are raised surrounding controversial procedures, and cannot be ignored, the benefits of this reform simply cannot be overlooked either.

Including more restrictive language in the legislation is one way to satisfy both sides of the argument. It would not affect women receiving proper maternity and reproductive healthcare, yet it would also assure those who fear funding of abortion. The point is that women’s healthcare bills can be significantly higher than that of men’s because of the medical attention required for pregnancy, as well as yearly exams. A reform needs to happen in order to service more women at a significantly lower price.

full article found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/healthcare-reforms-aborti_b_299647.html

Should we deny a human being meical care because they came here to live the American Dream?

One of the many issues with this health care debate is that what do we do with the illegal immigrants? In an article publishes Setpember 28,2009 in the Baltimore Sun titled, "Bishop Linked Illegal Immigrants, Abortion" health care reform for illegal immigrants is favored by many Catholic bishops because by leaving the illegal immigrants out we are sayig that we are not a just country for all people. Many U.S. bishops in fact are speaking out and expressing their opinions saying that being the richest country in the world, the U.S. should find a way for everyone within its borders to have accesss to medical care ("from conception to natural death"). They argue that there has to be some kinda of safety net for all the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country.

This article argues that anyone should have access to emerergnecy medical care. If this is the case, then why not offer illegal immigrants medical care in case of an emergency, treat them, and then deport them? Is this right? They are breaking the law by being here so is it right to deport them after they receieve medical care?

Bishop William F. Murphy states, "How can we say that we're a country of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all who come to our shores if we say, 'except the unborn.' Or, if we say, 'except the handicapped.' Or, if we say, 'except the new person." Although this is a good argument the bishops to make, how can we U.S. citizens pay taxes for people who live here illegally and break the law every day for being here illegally so they can have access to health care? So many (documented) immigrants go through so much to be able to live here or establish citizenship so they can have the same rights as everyone else and then there are the immigrants who cross our borders illegally and are dishonest and want to take advantage of a system that they technically do not have any right to. How is this fair?

This is a very controversial issue, and I simply want to ask that people look at this issue from both ways: fro the bishops point of view and from an opposing point of view. If we make the public option available to illegal immigrants, are we simply saying "Hey come on over, legally or illegally, you can use our health care! We do not care if you are breaking our laws"? If not, then what are we saying? Where do we draw the line?

"Better" Medicare Filled with Destructive Loopholes

Paula Span's article, Coming Soon: Better Medicare Support for Mental Health, was published September 17, 2009 in the New York Times. Span writes about the troublesome stigma that the American society attaches to mental illnesses. Both Span and mental health advocacy groups believe, "The current policy, as old as Medicare itself, treats mental illness differently from physical illness, a discrepancy that discourages elderly patients from seeking help for psychiatric problems." The good news is that by January 1st 2010, the Mental Health Parity Act will take action. This act requires both group health plans and group health insurers (Medicare) to apply the same treatment and financial limits to mental health disorder and substance abuse as they do for physical illness and surgical producers. Therefore, this act was developed to gradually change Medicare fore the better; "Medicare will gradually begin reimbursing for mental health treatment the same way it reimburses for care of cancer or kidney disease."

With this said, insurers would not be able to put a dollar amount cap on mental disorders. The once approved cap on mental disorders was discouraging patients to seek help in the first place, because they would eventually run out of coverage and fall into financial troubles. So, one would think the Mental Health Parity Act solved all and everyone suffering from a mental illness would be treated and cured some short time after January 1st, 2010, well one thought wrong.

Insurers have found a loop hole in the Mental Health Parity Act. Instead of placing a dollar cap on mental illness treatment, insurance companies created a new cap that is perfectly "legal" within the new act. Insurers are now placing a limit on the number of visits to a therapist, psychiatrists, and so forth. Furthermore, they have placed a limit on the number of days one can be treated in a hospital. In a way, this cap is negatively effecting patients just as much as the dollar cap did. For example, a teenager with an eating disorder may not seek medical treatment because she knows it would cost more than her cap would cover; therefore, she closes the door on any opportunity to get help and continues to suffer. But, even after January 1st, after the Mental Health Parity Act has been enacted, this teen will still suffer. She would still suffer because she wants and knows she needs to be checked into a hospital for medical care, but her case is so severe she will out use the number of days her insurance will cover, leaving her with an outrageous bill to pay out of her pocket.

All and all, insurance companies are finding ways to treat mental illnesses differently and in turn, more people are suffering at unnecessary levels. Do you think the health care reform plan should consider mental illnesses to be the same as physical illnesses and how would the bill ensure that insurance companies would follow the plan?

Women's Stake in Health Care Reform

Nancy Folbre's article in the NYTimes.com Economix section addresses the subject of women and health care. The article quotes Senator John Kyl (D-AZ) claiming that as a man, he should not have to pay premiums to finance maternity costs because he has never needed maternity care. His remark is mind blowing considering that his mother needed maternity care while giving birth to him. Furthermore, other women in his life such as his wife, sister, friends, and so on might need maternity care, and his lack of acknowledging this fact is appalling.

We as Americans are in health care reform together, yet often the heavier burden of health care falls to the responsibility of the woman. Women are starting at a disadvantage simply due to biology. Women are the ones who are physically affected by pregnancy, so they are expected to take charge when it comes to family planning, pregnancy, or even raising a child.

Women are simply at a disadvantage in our society regarding health care. The amount of single mothers has risen over the years, and women who are head of households have to take care of themselves and their children. This can be difficult, especially given the fact that women make less money than men. Furthermore, women who are married are more likely to be under their husband's employer insurance. Once the husband retires (or loses his job, in this economy), the wife is then left in a predicament.

Congress needs to take gender into account while drafting a new health care reform bill. Although many aspects of health care can be seen as "Women's Issues," they affect all of us.

Further reading of the article can be found here:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/health-care-reform-is-a-womens-issue/

Heart Attacks, Literally or Financially?

In the article, “A Case of Getting What You Pay For,” by David Brown of the Washington Post, Mr. Brown discusses the advances of treatment for coronary heart disease, or more commonly known as heart attacks and acute myocardial infarction, which are the greatest components. This year, $93 billion of the total $2.3 trillion spent on medical care in the United States, is directly related to coronary heart disease. Today, 35% of deaths in America each year are attributed to cardiovascular disease.

That statistic may seem alarming, but over the past 20 years, Mr. Brown discusses that medical success in treating someone with a heart attack has risen greatly. However, that does not come without a hefty price. In 1977 the bill for treating a heart attack was $5,700 and in 2007 that same bill can cost a patient $54,000 without adjusting for inflation. However in 1977 the chance of dying within the first week after a heart attack was between 30%-40% but now that chance of dying is an amazing 6%.

This shows that over the past 20 years, doctors have been able to reduce the chance of death after a heart attack by 500%, however the costs have clearly risen. This is due to massive spending, research, and testing, but it clearly comes with a hefty price.

The issue Mr. Brown raises is, with 47 million people uninsured who would not be able to finance a procedure to save themselves from a heart attack, where do these people fall in with the new health-care reform? Will the health-care reform be able to accommodate newly insured people who have a heart attack at such a great expense? And even for those people who are insured, but could not afford insurance for heart attacks, where do they fall in line?
Should the health-care reform, that would provide insurance for all, apply to people with heart attacks, and at what cost? Yes, medical advances are continually validating the money invested in saving people with coronary heart disease, but can the new bill realistically support these people?

Max's Mad Mandate: The Baucus health bill will break 50 state budgets via medicaid

I chose to comment on an editorial written in the Wall Street Journal called Max's Mad Mandate. This article is pointing out some of the important flaws in the Max Baucus health care plan. It explains that the reason politicians are saying that medicaid pays for itself is because over 10 years it will break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding medicaid, which is the government based program for health care for the poor. This plan wants medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level, making it easier for people to receive medicaid funded plans. Baucus wants to get more people into medicaid because it is the cheapest form for health care. It has the lowest reimbursement to medical providers. Baucus believes that if he can get more people on medicaid than the government can save money for itself.

There are problems in raising the income levels to get more medicaid eligible participants. To begin with, doctors resist seeing medicaid patients because they do not get as much money, so it would be hard for these medicaid participants to see doctors simply because fewer doctors are willing to see these patients. If they expand the medicaid population, knowing that doctors resist seeing these patients, it will create a whole new load of problems. The second problem is that the states are incredibly nervous that the federal government will shift more people into medicaid, but not provide each state with enough money to pay for the additional medicaid population. Basically, the burden would arrive at the states, which will cause a huge financial crisis. The federal government is trying to save money by transferring the budget concerning medicaid onto the states because the federal budget will benefit as they transfer this money. Because of the recession, the states are already in need of more money. This upsets the National Governors Association because their legislatures will get stuck with these medicaid bills while losing the freedom to manage their own bidgets. Obama said that he would not do anything to increase the federal government deficit, so Baucus is trying to push it onto the states. States need to provide a number of services themselves like education, transportation, and public safety to name a few. They would have less money to spend on these services, which are also necessary, if they are forced by the federal government to pay for this medicaid increase.

What do you think will happen in terms of Baucus' plan to push these costs onto the state governments? Will it go through? If so, what other problems could arise besides the states being in a huge deficit? Also, what will the doctors, and other medical providers, think of this increase in the medicaid population?

Cigarette Ban Excludes Menthol Cigarettes

In an article published on September 27, 2009 in USA Today, author Rita Robin discusses a new ban placed on flavored cigarettes. This ban no longer allows cigarette companies to make candy or fruit-flavored cigarettes in an attempt to cut back on the incidence of teen smoking.

The Food and Drug Administration is still no satisfied, however. The most popular flavor of cigarettes among teens, menthol, is still on the market. The Food and Drug administration, through the formulation and passage of this piece of legislation, was required to do research to prove that flavored cigarettes were preferred among young smokers. Among other startling statistics, they found that of middle school smokers, 60% smoked menthol.

So what do you think? Should menthol cigarettes have been banned with this legislation? Or is it ok they stayed on the market?

While this health care reform bill is not a switch to the single payer health care system that Canada has or the socialized health care of Great Britain, it does create a bigger role for government in the health care industry, leading many pundits such as George Will to claim that it is simply a slow transition to a single payer system much like Canada's system. It has been widely stated that the United States spends more money per person on health care than any other industrialized nation. I believe this video from a segment on 20/20 shows many of the reasons why. The video shows the increased waits for treatment as well as the importance of the private industry.

One of the major elements of the video is showing how long waits can take. Much like with the private insurance companies in the United States, the Canadian and British governments have deemed certain procedures as elective and will not cover certain medications. This has been a major factor in each governments ability to keep costs down. The governments ration the amount of health care they provide in order to keep costs low. This means the government is only willing to pay for a certain number of doctors and a certain amount of equipment.

Medical innovation in the United States is also highlighted in this segment. Private industry has greatly funded research for new medicines, procedures, and technologies in health care industry in the United States. As the video states, only 4% of medicines used today are from government research. Medical research, like the free market, has many success and failures. So while many possible medicines have not succeed, many others have become important breakthroughs in medical technology. Government, which operates on efficiency and providing the least expensive ways to reach a certain goal, cannot afford the trial and error that private industry can in developing new medicines and technologies.

So while universal health care does have many benefits, it is important to realize that these benefits come at certain costs. Keeping costs down in government health care systems requires rationing money spent on doctors, equipment, and, most significantly, research.

Birth Control: Is it Always Helpful?

Birth control has been displayed as a positive invention in most situations. It is a way to help protect against teen pregnancy, help teenage girls and women with the negative effects of the menstrual cycle, and to help with skin problems. However, recent studies are beginning to show doubts against birth control always being a positive thing. Specifically, the birth control pill Yaz has been displayed as one of the best and most helpful pills when it may, in fact, have the worst side effects and cause the most issues in the long run.
The Food and Drug Administration cited the company that makes Yaz for improper control in an environment where these hormones are being produced. The company has been served with over 74 lawsuits by women who have claimed to have developed health problems after going on this pill. The company still plans to stand behind their product. Is it worth it? Although Yaz and Yasmin are the big money maker for Bayer, they could face problems if their product is proven to have caused these issues.
Birth control seems to be a very positive product. It helps teenagers everywhere and it is said to help reduce problems, such as skin issues, cramps and fatigue. But is it actually causing more health problems? Should teenage girls and women continue to take it? Yaz and Yasmin may not be as positive of products as they seem. So the big question is: What will happen to this company and is it really causing health issues?

Uninsured Penalties

In the article Premiums, Penalties and Political Costs written by David Herszenhorn and published in the New York Times on September 27th, 2009. Currently congress is not concerned of the affordability for the federal government with the proposed health care legislation. The current question being considered is whether the taxpayers can foot the health insurance bill.

The current bill will require almost all Americans to obtain health insurance. This is mandatory since most people will incur a penalty if they do not obtain coverage. Penalties for families not obtaining health insurance could run as high as $1,900. There are two very obvious ways to avoid the high cost of insurance falling on the tax-paying Americans. The first being broad improvements in efficiency of the health care system which cannot happen overnight. Its a final goal of course but not being addressed in this particular policy. The second option would be to unload the cost onto the government but Obama has already placed a limit in $900 billion dollars in ten years.

The penalty insures that Americans are pushed to have health insurance instead of allowing many people continuing without it. The problem comes when people start being penalized for not obtaining health insurance they cannot afford to begin with. Subsidies are being used to alleviate cost of the mandatory health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 29 million fewer uninsured people as a result of legislation.

Many senators have already suggested reforms and opinions to the current health proposal. Penalty waivers have been suggested to cost as low as 7 percent, 5 percent, or even as low as 3 percent of their income. The only concern about lowering the penalty will give Americans already without insurance less enticement to obtain the government insurance.

Should Senior Citizens Be Fearing Health Care Reform?

In an attempt to help insure the uninsured, a new bill has been proposed to legislation that is suggesting Medicare funds be cut. In 10 years, $500 billion would be taken from the Medicare program if this bill were enacted. Senior citizens are being directly affected and have shown outrage to this new bill. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida explains his fears of the current bill in a September 23, 2009 article in the New York Times. In the article “Senator Tries to Allay Fears on Health Overhaul”, Nelson argues, “It would be intolerable to ask senior citizens to give up substantial health benefits they are enjoying on Medicare”.

The new bill being proposed would make huge changes in Medicare such as: raising premiums for some high-income beneficiaries, cutting payments to hospitals and nursing homes, and trimming payments for many “overvalued services” provided by doctors. Senator Nelson explained he is not willing to stand by and witness the one million Florida senior citizens be hurt by this bill.

This issue is causing a great deal of debate because the Democrats-the party that created Medicare- are being accused of tearing it apart. Republicans are using this new bill to their advantage and accusing Democrats of using Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for coverage of the uninsured. Democrats counter this argument by stating that without the new cost adjustments to Medicare, the trust fund could run out of money in 2017. This bill would save nearly $200 billion over 10 years by permanently reducing annual inflation adjustments in Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers. They would also cut special Medicare payments to hospitals serving large numbers of low-income people, on the assumption that more patients will have insurance.

This bill may be beneficial in the long run, but it will be a tough challenge for President Obama to convince senior citizens that this bill will actually benefit them in the long run. Medicare is an important system to senior citizens. The substantial benefits the elderly have gained from Medicare over the years will cause a strong resistance towards any change in the system.

Since Medicare benefits are something that senior citizens value, what incentives do you suggest legislation should propose for seniors to get on board with this new bill?

Coverage for Illegal Immigrants?

One controversial topic that has concerned the U.S. government is how to handle illegal and legal immigrants. More importantly, what rights should we extend to them? As the debate over the health care reform bill continues, a key question is whether or not we should extend health-care insurance coverage to illegal immigrants. In the article, "Liberals Seek Health-care Access for Illegals," from the Washington Times, it discusses both parties views on this issue. From a Democratic standpoint, illegal immigrants deserve the right to receive health insurance. They argue that because illegal immigrants are generally young and in good health that if they can afford to purchase health insurance, whether it be through the government or private insurers, the cost of healthcare will go down for everyone. One key element to their argument is that providing health care insurance for illegal immigrants will reduce the number of emergency room visits that result in unnecessary costs for hospitals.

On the other side of the issue, a Republican from Iowa argues that, "If anybody can, with a straight face, advocate that we should provide health insurance for people who broke into our country, broke our law and for the most part are criminals, I don't know where they would ever draw the line." For decades, the government has tried to come up with several ways to punish illegal immigrants for crossing the border and living on U.S. soil without paying taxes and not following state and federal laws. Because of this, Republicans feel that it is ridiculous that we are even thinking of giving illegal immigrants the opportunity to purchase health insurance.

Another question is that once immigrants are legal, should they be allowed to purchase health insurance? The Democrats find that since legal immigrants are involved in communities and contribute to society in several different ways, that they should have the right to purchase health insurance. Ultimately, I feel that if illegal immigrants make the effort to become legalized citizens, they should receive the same rights as any natural born citizen of the U.S.

However, the bigger question is whether or not illegal immigrants should be allowed to purchase health insurance? Will it be a benefit or detriment to the health care reform?

Baucus targeted by liberal groups in new ad

In my first blog post I talked about an article that questioned and compared recent commercials regarding the new heath care plan. I found an article from CNN.com about a top Democrat’s (Max Baucus) effort of removing the public option in order to help please the Republican side. This article focuses on a new television ad from other liberals opposing his idea for new heath care.

The commercial will begin airing this Tuesday in Senator Baucus’s home state of Montana. The ad will feature a Montana farmer that faces over 10,000 dollars in medical expenses because of heart problems. Baucus, who is known as a top Democrat, is trying to come up with a heath care plan to please both sides, yet he faces ads such as this one which are funded by major liberal organizations. Those organizations are, Progressive Change Committee and Democracy for America.

The Montana farmer that is featured in the ad is Bing Perrine and he is questioning what side Baucus is on. Perrine says, “ Senator Baucus, when you take millions of dollars from health and insurance interests that oppose reform, and oppose giving families like mine the choice of a public option, I have to ask: Whose side are you on?”

The Baucus plan has seemed to backfire so far, angering some members of his own party. Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia have already proposed a version of Baucus’s bill that would include a public option.

The article can be found here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Prevention Vs. Over Utilization

In an attempt to cut the cost of health care, some people including the President are pushing for more preventative measures to hopefully catch a disease before expensive treatments are needed. President Obama wants insurance companies to cover routine checkups and screening tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies. “That makes sense, it saves live, and it will also save money over the long run,” said Obama. While these savings and benefits seem clear, it will be very hard to determine how much these preventative measures will cut costs, if any. Lawrence Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, said recently that savings from technology, wellness and illness prevention programs are difficult to measure.

This is where the fine line between prevention and over utilization comes into play. While these preventative tests seem like they will cut costs, the reality may be that the cost savings realized from these tests may come into play in more than ten years from now which is outside the government budget window. Also, many experts agree that a large part of our relatively high health care expenses are due to over utilization of expensive test, surgeries, and procedures. Other factors contributing to over utilization of health care can be related to pharmaceutical companies marketing directly to consumers who in turn ask their doctors for the newest treatments

Are we as a nation spending too much in hopes that we will not get sick later in life and if so is that necessarily a bad thing?

Weighing the Health Benefits of Birth Control

In 1960, Contraception was transfigured with the birth control pill. But even with the plentiful amounts of birth control options, many of the pregnancies in the country are still unintended, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Close to 1/3 of women who start a new type of birth control will stop within a year because of changes in their insurance coverage. Not only that women that are getting the intrauterine devices which have a nearly perfect efficacy rate have been slow to catch on because doctors need more extensive training on properly inserting them. Women need to know that, According to Dr. Nancy Padian, an epidemiologist at the University of California, “To have a significant effect you have to use a product very consistently.”

Birth Control Manufacturers and doctors that are trying to promote their specific brand or trying to encourage better compliance promote contraception by using the noncontraceptive benefits like reducing the risk of cancer, improving the health of mothers to be, easing cramps amongst many others. These contraceptives are made by using different combinations of estrogen and progestin and distributing them in array of ways such as the pill, the shot, skin patches, implants and vaginal rings. Each method is proven to reduce the risk of ovarian, endometrial cancer and help protect against osteoporosis. Using contraception can give women a chance to get healthy by helping them stop smoking, lose weight, and lower blood sugar.

Many manufacturers are now marketing the “no-bleed” or “extended regimen” pills. It is said that the newer contraceptive techniques are likely to cause no long-term problem since in the past women spent most of their reproductive years either pregnant or nursing which made them have fewer menstrual periods but the health effects of going months or years with a period is still a mystery. In clinical trials led by the Food and Drug Administration, 40 percent of participants had breakthrough bleeding after a year of use. Lybrel’s manufacturer, Wyeth, recommended that women take a monthly pregnancy test because the absence of a regular menstrual period makes it harder to tell whether conception has occurred.

The Question is, is it really worth it to using birth control with all the other side factors you have to factor in?

To view full article: http://health.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-contraception-ess.html