Issue #1-Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reform

Summary: The United States health care system has some of the best doctors in the entire world. The problem is that many Americans can't afford health insurance and therefore can't visit these doctors. Solutions to this problem have been disscussed for over a century and the debate is mostly over if the government should fund insurance programs to help the poorest of Americans, or keep insurance companies privatized. Today there are two health insurance programs for senior citizens. These include Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare users pay a certain amount, and then rest of the medical hospital expenses are paid by medicare and 80% of their doctors' fees, laboratory tests, and other medical expenses are also covered. This is funded by a payroll tax that everyone pays out of their paycheck. Medicaid helps low-income people pay for their health insurance. It continues to drain out more and more of states' budgets as medical costs continue to increase. Both Medicare and Medicaid will go bankrupt or severely damage the economy if something isn't done about them. The reason for the rapid increase in health care costs has been the expansion of the system where the government and insurance companies pay medical bills instead of patients, expensive new medical technology and drugs being invented, and the rapid growth of America's older generation ("the baby boomers"). Most Americans get their health insurance through employers by paying monthy premiums and deductibles for medical visits and procedures. This system also uses "after the fact" payment results, which means a person isn't able to see the total costs of their medical care and treatment until it's already done. This causes people to not be able to comparison shop and then providers don't have to compete for lower prices. Instead, they can raise their prices because people can't do anything about it. Then starting in 1990 employers began moving their employees from fee-for-service plans to PPO's and HMO's that offer consumers a range of medical services for a set monthly fee. Some people argue this helps keep costs down, while others think it denies patients being able to have important medical tools and specalists. In 2007 there was a consensus that the health care system needed to be reformed. Today the debate continues over if the change should involve universal coverage (comprehensive changes), or using incremental adjustments to expand existing coverage and reduce the number of uninsured people. Universal health care supporters believe the best way to make sure everyone has health care is to completely overhaul the nation's health care system. They believe Medicare and Medicaid have only increased medical costs and have not provided a reliable source of coverage for uninsured people. In their opinion the federal government should be the single purchaser of health care and force health care providers to not charge too much and hold them responsible for how they care for their patients. Another option is that government subsidies should be controlled by the federal government so that the poor get tax credits or money to help them pay for their health care. Others favor a mix of government funding basic health care while still providing elements of competition and choice. Everyone would be able to have basic health care, but people would have the choice to choose from competing plans to purchase more coverage. Then there are those who completely oppose universal health care. They still want health care for all, but they belive that government control over medical programs would create less competition between providers that would eventually lead to a decrease in quality of health care. They also think it will lead to soaring costs, inefficiency, bureaucracy, and unemployment for many people in the health insurance companies. What they support is incremental changes health savings accounts that help people save money tax-free for certain health care expenses. With more people paying for their own health care insurance and medical expenses, the market would naturally cut their medical costs. These are the two sides of the issue.


Opinion: I most agree with the opinion of a mix of the government funding basic health care with the option of people being able to purchase more coverage from competing plans. This provides a sort of "bridge" between both sides and is a good compromise. With this system, everyone will be able to get their basic health needs met. No longer would there be 50 million American uninsured, and 18,000 people would no longer die each year because they can't afford to get the care they need. People wouldn't be turned away because they couldn't pay for a chemo treatment. People wouldn't have to chose between the loss of two fingers which one they wanted to reattach because it's all they could afford. People wouldn't be turned away because they had a "prexisting condition" that may be as minor as headaches or a yeast infection from 15 years previous. (These instances I got from the movie "Sicko.") I don't think anyone could argue that getting rid of these problems wouldn't be a good thing. As to appease the Republicans, though, I think it's important to allow people to purchase more coverage if they desire it. That way competition between companies can still exist, people won't loose their jobs, and the quality of care would not decrease. Hopefully they won't feel like the government is taking too big or a role, it's just trying to help those people in our country who can't afford health insurance or can't set aside money in a health savings account. Against what some people might think, I believe there are many, many, people in our country who work very hard, but just do not make enough to purchase health insurance. Maybe it's a young woman who had to start working at Wal-mart instead of going to college to help a sick or disabled mother who had her as a teenager and therefore herself couldn't go to college or earn enough money to pay for health insurance either. Then when that mother dies, the daughter has no means to go to college or get a higher paying job that would require a college education either. There are numerous instances where people are doing there best to make it in the world, but they can't afford to go to the doctor when they're sick. I don't think this is right and that's why I think that their basic care should be funded by the government. Then for those who can afford it, they can purchase more health care if they desire and don't have to worry about a decrease in their quality of health care. This are also primarily the views of President Obama and I believe are a win-win situation.

To see issue #2 visit my classmate's blog at:
 http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-2-ensuring-quality-care-for.html

To see issue #3 visit my classmate's blog at:
http://maxineannec.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-3-safe-to-eat.html