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?