by: Colin Bowen
Today October 29, 2009 Democrats in the House of Representative presented a new $894 billion health package that could potentially provide affordable healthcare to 35-36 million low-income subscribers over the next ten years. It involved drastically expanding Medicaid, a state-federal insurance program designed for the poor by creating a subsidized incentive for moderate-income American families to purchase insurance from the new government plan rather than private insurance carriers.
Citizens of the United States have a right to health just like they have a right to happiness and to be free of oppression. This bill takes a big step forward to accommodating those individuals that have not had the ability to a healthy lifestyle. However, at what cost does this new proposed system undermine our capitalist society and medical insurance businesses? It is projected that some $150 billion will be removed from the private Medicare Advantage plans over the next ten years. The bill proposes that the government would sell health insurance directly harming private insurers through subsidized competition. This competition would lower premiums and could potentially remove private insurers from the market all-together. It could also have the effect of lowering the quality of medical insurance universally.
This issue is extremely controversial. On one side everyone can understand how having a generally healthier population could make our nation stronger and on the other side paying for others medical treatment especially those who are the least efficient workers in our capitalist society seems unfair for the hard working successful people that have earned their wealth. Furthermore, this system has the potential to upset the medical business and lower the general quality of healthcare for those that are willing to pay “top dollar”. We need some balance of the two, but to me almost $900 billion over 10 years seems excessive especially in times of economic depression where critics claiming our Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will bounce in nearly eight years. If this bill does pass I hope that the government realizes their obligation to make new medical laws sustainable.
10 comments:
I think it is extremely important to provide health care for everyone in the country, it should be considered essential and part of being a citizen. Almost all other developed countries have health care programs that provide everyone with service and it does not seem to be hurting those countries in any respect. It seems especially important now with the unemployment rate so high most people can't afford insurance (this includes the hard working that have lost their jobs), they should still have the right to health care. I don't think $900 billion seems excessive if thats what it takes to provide health care.
I essentially agree with Hannah and I think universal health care should be provided. It is interesting how we still do not have it in the United States when so many other developed countries have it. However, health care is not really free since we will still be paying for it through taxes and it is questionable whether healthy people should pay for the unhealthy people such as drug users or the obese population, etc. I just don't know if the government should have full control of the health care system.
In the context of government programs, $90 billion/year is not a large outlay. We spend roughly $150-200 Billion on private military contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc.). Creating competition in insurance, and thus reducing the bloated bureaucratic costs of healthcare can only increase it's quality and availability.
I agree with the previous comments. $900 billion sounds like a lot, but when taking other budgets into consideration (military/national security) it is quite reasonable. I believe that everyone should benefit from health care; it should not be an exclusive good.
Like what Hannah said, many people, at this time, are woring hard and they have still lost thier jobs. Does this mean they don't deserve heath insurance; because they can no longer pay for it? I don't think so. I would encourage a program that will tax people higher in order to provide health insurance to all. Although, we do run into the situation that Chelsea brought up. I don't want to pay for those people that may be potentially abusing the right to free health care.
It's too bad you wrote this in october because of all the new developments. First off, now it's going to be 500 billion cut from medicare which seniors now are opposed to. Secondly, it will cost over 2.5 trillion because of "juking the stats" by hiding the cost on the back end. I'm not sure, actually i'm very sure, that we do not have a right to health maybe healthcare but not health. Some people are born with diseases and disorders which are completely natural and many times kills them prematurely. This is very sad but not unjust, its natural. And, how is it constitutional to tax the rich to pay for subsidized healthcare.
I couldn't disagree more with Matt, the constitution lists as self apparant rights Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. Health is an essentially included right in the foremost of these, and the inflation caused by allowing only private sector companies to offer health insurance deprives many persons not only this first right, but all three (one is subsequent upon the next). Persons with pre-existing medical conditions are decimated by our current medical system, when in fact, they are those most in need of its suposed benefits. It is true that implimenting a government health care supplier will stiffen competition within the public sector, however allowing patients to receive medical care at cost, instead of at cost plus private profit is critical. Damage to private insurance firms will be as per their inability to legitimately create fair and reasonable profits without extorting their clients. If they are unable to keep up with a public option, let capitalism decide it in the marketplace, not in skeptical propositions.
As much as I love the idea of universal health care, I am a bit skeptical. The speaker we had in class the other day that spoke about debt really made me a bit nervous. Is the degree of government spending we are already experiencing really sustainable? I know that everyone will point out that the war is what really is the problem and I agree, but maybe we need to think about things on the home front as well.
I agree with most people here, I believe universal health care should be applied here in the United States. I am not informed at ALL on how the best ways are to do this. I think we need to be less concerned about "the rich unfairly paying for the poor" but rather help our fellow citizens. Its not like in Canada some rich person was like I lost everything because I was paying for someone who is less fortunate than me healthcare.
On the whole health care debate in general. I recently studied Singapore's health care system and thought their solution was rather interesting.
Each individual pays out of pocket for the small things but gets $15,000 a year for big or unforeseen medical costs. Family members can transfer their 15,000 to others if they need it since not everyone will use all of their money. Kind of like roll-over minutes between the family.
Of course, Singapore is a bit more authoritarian than the U.S. and has a much (45%) higher tax rate.
Post a Comment