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

Reform Scares Away Senior Citizens

Democrats Trying to Sell Health Plan to Seniors", worries and questions were brought up by seniors regarding their current health benefits and how the new Health Bill will affect them. Vice President Joe Biden assured seniors at a retirement community in Maryland told them, "Nobody is going to mess with your benefits. Nobody. All we do is make it better for people on Medicare."

In order to aid in persuading the seniors, who play major part in the voting process, Democrats are prodding at AARP, American Association of Retired Persons. However, AARP is on the same page as the senior citizens because their financial documents show that more than half of their revenue last year came from royalties they earned by letting private health insurance companies and other firms use AARP's name in selling their products. Although there are other organizations Democrats are trying to win over, none compare to the magnitude of AARP's distinction.

This relates to the question of whether to use the available money to cure the young or the senior who's on his or her deathbed. Instead of the question "who should we cure", now it is "how can we convince the senior that the reform will not affect them adversely in a considerable amount".

Someone has to bite the bullet. The question is who, when, and how is it going to be.

Who Represents the Uninsured?

As shown in this interactive map provided by National Public Radio (NPR), the majority of the districts with the highest uninsured rates are under republican or Blue Dog representation. Blue Dogs are conservative democrats who, for many reasons including reform, have worked to slow health care reform. In the NPR article, Who's Representing The Uninsured On Capitol Hill, Arkansas Republican Rep. Mike Ross’s involvement with the health care reform is analyzed taking into consideration his voice as one of the highest uninsured districts.

As most representatives, Ross held many town hall meetings over the past months. However, NPR notes that out of a 2+ hour meeting only three questions were asked by people without insurance. When asked why the meeting was so underrepresented, one attendee suggested that " [the uninsured] were too busy earning hourly wages and trying to keep roofs above their children's heads. [Their] voices are not going to be present in that discourse." If the uninsured are too busy to attend town halls how will they communicate their needs to politicians?

Over the course of the summer many congressmen held meeting with donors and constituents to talk about health care and raise campaign contributions. This summer alone, Rep. Ross earned $20,000 from health care political action committees. These donations usually come with suggestions on how to make health care work better for the private sector. Obviously the poor and uninsured are not making campaign contributions, so how are their voices being heard by the politicians that promise they’re working to help the uninsured? The answer? Re-election. Analysts suggest that even incumbent politicians worry about re-election. If politicians aren’t hearing the opinions of their constituents how will they correctly represent them in congress? Will the big players such as lobbyists and the wealthy drown out their needs?

Healthcare For Inmates

In an editorial published in the New York Times on September 15, 2009 legislation regarding healthcare programs for the inmates of New York State Prisons was questioned. According to the article, inmates have the highest HIV and Hepatitis C rates of any group in the population. Despite these rates correctional officers in the state of New York are urging the current New York governor David Patterson to veto a bill that would offer testing, counseling and treatment for the infected inmates.

The correctional department is urging the veto of this bill because of their current increase in identifying and treating the cases of HIV and Hepatitis C amongst the inmates. Because their new system, they claim, is working well, they do not need to improve it.

Opponents to the bill also think the bill would cost too much money.

What do you think? Should the state of New York implement this policy of better testing, counseling and treatment for inmates with HIV and Hepatitis C?

Gunning for Health Care

The article, "Gunning for Health Care" poses the question " Is it okay to carry a armed gun as long as it is legal in the state? and if so, how can this pose a safety problem when it comes to a health care protest where safety is the biggest issue? In this article, columnist Gail Collins talks about how people feel the need to bear arms on everyday occasions such as going to the supermarket, going to a meeting and health events. The problem posed is a gun not being seen as a defensive tool but being seen more as a threat to public safety. There were four incidents talked about in this article: The first incident occurred in Portsmouth, New Hampshire where William Kostric welcomed President Obama with a gun strapped to his thigh. William Kostric feels everyone should bear arms and wonders why people do not bear arms as much anymore. He has the right to feel this way because in New Hampshire guns are legal. The next incident resulted in a congresswoman being exscorted out after her gun fell to the floor and bounced at a supermarket. This is another case in which having a gun is legal not only that, this incident caused a larger danger of having the ability to back fire when it hit the ground, but still no action was taken. What is amazing is the the fact that in the article a 62 year old man was arresting for lingering around a high school in which the president was suppose to appear at, the reason he was arrested was because he had a loaded gun in his car with no permit. I find it remarkable that a congressman can physically drop her gun on the floor and not be arrested but a man can have his gun in a car and be arrested because it is not registered. But still the question today is, Is it okay to carry a armed gun as long as it is legal in the state? and if so, how can this pose a safety problem when it comes to a health care protest where safety is the biggest issue
To see the full article go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13collins.html?scp=3&sq=Ron+Paul&st=nyt

Predictions for Obama Administration's Health Care Bill

While many of you were probably glued to your television set during the airing (or re-airing) of the Obama health care recovery plan, bloggers, twitter bugs, and journalists alike were busy writing up news stories for up to the minute coverage regarding Obama's healthcare proposal. Some journalists from CNN and NY Times were more concerned with the outburst of "YOU LIE!" during the middle of President Obama’s speech (allowing for more political theatrics). But contrary to the recent political coverage of Republican emotional melt downs, there were indeed a number of journalists who actually took to the web to discuss the aftermath of tonight’s proposed recovery plan.

Although not necessarily a front page bolster, NY Times writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg offered audiences a well structured afterward to Obama’s latest televised address on health care recovery. In her Sept. 8^th opinion piece entitled “Despite Fears, Health Care Overhaul Is Moving Ahead”, Stolberg provides readers with a bit “hope” when she reveals the status of the health care recovery bill that is currently collecting dust in House of Representatives.

Though there has been an enormous amount of coverage geared toward the indecisiveness of the Democratic party, Stolberg reassures us that “despite tensions… there is broad agreement within the party over most of what a package would look like”. She then continues by stating that 80 percent of the “Congressional committees considering health care legislation have already passed bills. Each would require all Americans to have insurance and provide government subsidies for those who cannot afford it.”Stolberg continues by mentioning the 60 some odd votes needed in order for the bill to be passed; which she claims the Obama administration has a “reasonable chance of corralling”.

Although she provides rather optimistic forecasts for the health care bill, she also informs the reader of the failures that could occur if no action is taken. Time is indeed ticking quite hastily for the Democrats to act. Stalberg quotes current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (and former Pres. Clinton aide) as stating at a recent meeting that if Democrats failed to act on the health care bill then there will indeed be political consequences. These “consequences” that Emanuel recalls, are the same “consequences” that occurred during his time as a Clinton aid in 1994 when Dems failed to act on the Clinton health bill forcing them to lose control of the House.

Many say that history indeed repeats itself. Do you believe that the Obama health care plan may receive the same stamp of disapproval as former President Clinton’s 1994 bill?

To read the full article visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/health/policy/09assess.html?_r=1&ref=health

The politics of death

In an article published in the magazine, The Economist, the debate about health-care reform is discussed in terms of death. The article discusses Obamacare – Obama’s health-care plan – and how it will determine priority when receiving treatment. The major theme to this article is, how does the health-care plan justify age, and who receives priority. Most people would be willing to spend $1000 to save a child, but is it worth spending one million dollars on a terminally ill patient, to keep them alive for a week? Republicans are furious with the idea that middle aged people, people who have a whole life ahead of them who can contribute to society, should be treated first over very old people, 65+, who face life threatening illnesses. The article then goes to quote Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who creates an elaborate formula for who should receive medical attention first. Age is the greatest factor taken into account and that people middle age or even younger should receive priority over those who are well past their prime. Who should receive a liver transplant, someone who is 25 years of age and could potentially have a full life ahead of them, or someone 75 years of age, who could potentially die within the year because of unrelated causes.

This article brings about an excellent debate topic in terms of age and who benefits most from Obama’s health-care plan. Who will impact the United States more after receiving a life saving medical procedure? A 25 year old person who has no other illnesses, or a 75 year old person who is closer to death than actually impacting the prosperity of the United States? Clearly this is a very sensitive and controversial topic, but should the health-care reform save the most lives possible, or save lives so that they can live as long as possible?