Where does abortion fall in the healthcare reform?

In a news article from the US News and World Report, published September 9, 2009, Dan Gilgoff tackles the heated debate on the health care reform in relation to abortion. Although abortion is not the first thing that comes to mind when discussing the health care reform, it is in fact a significant issue that is preventing revised versions of the bill to be passed. Conservative Christians and pro-life activists fear the new public health insurance plan will increase abortion coverage. “They object to pooled premiums of those participating in the public plan going to abortion coverage for others in the plan, as laid out in the House healthcare bill. Americans who are opposed to abortion, the activists say, shouldn't be forced to pay for abortion procedures for others with their premiums”.

The White House and Capitol Hill Democrats have presented religious activist groups with two “solutions” to their concerns of increased federal funding for abortions. “One idea is to offer a second public option that excludes abortion coverage. Another is to offer a supplemental insurance rider for those who want abortion coverage.”

Additionally, progressive thinkers presented Congress with the idea that the bill could reduce the number of abortions by expanding the number of women whom receive health insurance that covers contraception. Lastly, California Representative Lois Capps believes her amendment gives antiabortion Americans options; her amendment requires at least one plan in any new government-controlled health insurance to exclude abortion coverage.

How do you think the government should handle abortion coverage if the public option bill is passed?

To read the full article, visit the Nation and World page of US News & World Report

smaller scale implementation

Jim Clyburn has presented what he refers to as a "half a loaf" approach to the growing controversy surrounding the public option. Instead of immediately implementing a public option nationwide, he suggests developing smaller, more regional, pilot programs in order to see what does and does not work within this reform. This would include putting a smaller-scale public option reform into place in several regions throughout the country. Then, after four years of this pilot program, he suggests that an evaluation be done to see if the public option really is beneficial to the nation or if there is a more advantageous alternative available.

I think that implementing such a large reform on a smaller scale could be nothing but beneficial. It is no doubt that changes are necessary. Many of the current ways of health care administration simply are not working, and the shear fact that there are so many uninsured Americans is cause for great concern. Major health care reforms are under discussion currently that will drastically change the ways in which health care is administered in our country, one of which being the public option. Currently, the United States does not have a program that compares to this option and therefore many of the effects of it are unknown. As a result, implementing it on a smaller scale will allow for many of the potential “kinks” to be worked out before it becomes a nation-wide program. This way, a stronger, and more solid program, can be put into place and as a result, be much more beneficial to the American people. It is important to realize that such major changes cannot be made over night and expected to be flawless. Therefore, we need to take steps to alter and tweak implemented reforms in order to reach the desired result.

The full article can be found at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/74879.html.

Tax the rich to keep everyone healthy

Can Robin Hood tactics really be a possibility for paying our way through a universal health care plan? Taxing the rich to save the poor has always been a controversial topic but a tax on the top one percent of the public might be worth trying to save the lowest 2o percent.

The proposed tax would be taking from the top one percent that provide for the rest of the public via public investments and hiring new employees, so this tax could stifle the rest of the economy by disturbing the top. But to many this is not the case and the opposite is actually true. If taking a tiny sliver of the richest in the country could pay the way for the poorest 20 percent of the nation than the benefits to the public welfare would drastically outweigh the discourse of the rich.

This surtax would not hit small businesses hard as many critics have said. Not only that but only the profits of small businesses would be taxed and the firm would have to make over $350,000 in profits. A surtax would be easy to administer and it is fairly straightforward and easy for the public to understand. So it is very possible for the richest of the rich to pay the way for the uncovered poor to have the chance to finally be protected.

Public Option Threat for a Later Time

The article Government plan is crux of health care debate discuss how on the day before President Obama will address the Congress on health care reform top house democrats are divided over the government run insurance option.

Many top democrats have expressed the idea that a government run insurance option is not a necessity but the current reform without the public option will still be an excellent step in improving overall health care. While resistors such as house speaker Nancy Pelosi stand firm that the public option is necessary. Speaker Pelosi stated after a meeting with Obama on Tuesday, “I believe a public option is essential to our passing a bill.”

This has caused a chasm between the Democratic Party but has resulted in many ideas for solutions. Democratic whip James Clyburn suggested possible side projects and triggers that will results in a high quality public option. Clyburn stated, “We will be on our way to a robust public option but may not be robust on day one.” The need for a public option to develop is understood but building to it over time can create a public option without needing to include one immediately.

Out of this divide has resulted one of the best solutions for a public option without needing to enact one with the reform. Republican Olympia Snowe has proposed a “trigger” mechanism that would act as a threat to private insurance and drug companies. The private insurance and drug companies would have to keep the cost of health care down or the enacting of a public option will pass in order to provide reasonable costs the private companies refuse to provide. This is an excellent step for a solution in the present but there still must be developments to making a public option a reality in the future. Everything will not be perfect once enacted and it will take time to work everything out so the more we try now the better system we can retool and correct overtime.

"Obama Determined to Pass Health Care Reform Bill"

On the evening of September 9, 2009, President Obama addressed Congress to tell them that he is determined to pass the health care reform bill and tried to convince some to support him. Fox News reported on this speech. According to an article published by Fox News Obama let Congress and the public know of the benefits of having a health care plan, the issues with not having one, and the plan of action he wanted to take in order for the bill to work for all Americans.

As the article states, Obama was very "combative." He let many of the opposing politicians know that now was not the time to play games. It was time for action and he would not waste time dealing with the ones that opposed his view points. "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last," Obama said.

While Congress was in session and Obama was delivering his speech, many Republican politicians shook their heads and one of them even hollered out "You lie!" while the President was talking. Obama ignored them, but this issue clearly is a sensitive topic among members of Congress. However, despite that all the different attitudes on the subject of the health care reform bill, Obama is adamant about getting this bill signed and into action. Hopefully this will do exactly what he says it will do: provide good solid health care coverage for all Americans and bring this country further away from the hole of debt we have dug ourselves into.

Click here to view the article from Fox News.

Junk Food Tax?

In an article published August 23, 2009 in the Los Angeles Times, Karen Kaplan touches upon public health expert's as well as different politician’s ideas of issuing a tax on unhealthy foods in the attempt to prevent obesity in the United States. The idea is that these taxes are issued so that obesity rates don't continue to rise and the average life expectancy continues to fall. Numerous statistics are provided to stress the seriousness of obesity. For example, University of Virginia pediatric cardiologist Arthur Garson and supporter for 'junk food' tax states, "We are killing 100,000 people per year so something needs to get done." As for the protesters, registered dietician Kellie Glass says, "This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. Folks are just not going to give up all the foods they love just because they are more expensive." In terms of relevance to health care reform this tax would raise millions maybe billions of dollars considering the sheer amount of people who consume these unhealthy foods. That money would be used to fund health care reform, which is such a huge issue as of today. Money gained from the taxes would be put towards that 10 to 20 percent drop in prices that the current health care reform promises in comparison to the high private insurers prices. As you can see, there are numerous supporters and protesters for the idea of ‘junk food’ tax or taxing unhealthy foods. It's obvious that obesity is a serious problem in the United States, but is this actually a tax that would make a difference?

Bad Incentives Increase Costs

In early June this year, the New Yorker published an article by Dr. Atul Gawande. He is not only a writer for the New Yorker but a practicing surgeon. Dr. Gawande was made aware of the sky high costs of medical care that were occurring in one small city, McAllen, in Texas in comparison to surrounding small towns and cities with similar population demographics. Gawande attempts to find out what the cause is by examining the overall population health, care received, technologies available, and so forth.

What was surprisingly found was that the cost was being promoted by overuse, overactive healthcare driven by bad incentives. These incentives were first introduced when McAllen's hospitals suffered from a major malpractice suit. However, due to the suit, a price cap was put on the amount of money that could be rewarded for a pain and suffering case. Because of the price cap, you would naturally assume that the cost would go down. However, costs started to go up, and malpractice suits plummeted.

Gawande discovered that that malpractice suit gave doctors the incentive to run more tests, prescribe more drugs, and perform more procedures in situations where they might normally wait it out due to paranoia. Additional incentives were added when they received supplement incomes for the tests used, and prescription drugs used. The patients in the hospital saw little no increase in their health due to the extensive testing and superfluous procedures. Gawande compares McAllen to other hospitals that salary their doctors and don't allow patient healthcare to create incentives, the costs of healthcare went down.

Gawande discovered a very important area of action and reaction that can lead to snowball effects like the current healthcare state. The question he poses is: How conservative should a doctor be in administering medicine? How can society regulate the incentives placed upon doctors? And how much control do the doctors themselves have over these incentives?