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?