Health Care Costs and Health Care Reform.

Here is a short descriptive paper one of the students wrote about health care costs and the health care reform of 2010.

Frightening statistics surrounding the healthcare field appear to be released every day. In 2008, it was projected that 16.2% of our nation’s economy is spent on healthcare. New reports have that number increasing again for 2009. Early estimates report that Americans spent $2.5 trillion on healthcare, giving the overall percentage a gain to about 17.3% of our nation’s budgetary allowance. This symbolizes the biggest one-year expansion of healthcare’s share in our nation’s economy on record. Justifications for such dramatic increase are accredited to the recession. As millions of Americans have lost their jobs and consequently their health insurance, Medicaid has seen a record increase involving those individuals that qualify. Roughly 45 million people remain uninsured, translating into sky rocketing costs for current insurance holders.

The United States government may or may not have finally come up with a solution. Following decades of failed attempts by Democrats, the United States House of Representatives made history when they passed health care reform in a 219 to 212 vote on March 21^st, 2010. Two days later, President Obama signed the bill it into law. So far, Democrats vow that the new law will yield great changes for the American public. Beginning with the reduction of premium costs and providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, 32 million Americans are expected to be able to afford healthcare who otherwise would go uninsured. It sets the stage for a new competitive health insurance market, allowing millions of citizens to choose from the same pool that members of Congress do. By overseeing insurance companies, the government boasts that there will come an end to the discrimination of people with pre-existing conditions. Perhaps at a greater sell, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the healthcare reform will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years. Yet, the reality of healthcare reform has not been met without criticism.

Just as one argues that the reform will greatly reduce our nation’s budget, those that oppose argue that the $938 billion price tag for this bill (over the next ten years) outweighs its advantages. Lack of funding to support the massive bill would, in turn, lead to rationed care, longer waits, and delays. Furthermore, the bill neglects a secondary source of negligent spending, the pharmaceutical industry. In 2009, spending increased a whopping 5.2% to $246.3 billion dollars. Researchers hold the growth of brand name drugs, the demand for H1N1 vaccines, and the increased per-person use of drugs as responsible. Some concerned insurance holders fear that the quality of medical care will nose dive as the demand for care steadily increases.

Regardless of what the supporters and those that oppose the bill say, the outcomes of the healthcare reform have yet to be tallied. What faces the American public now is a lengthy waiting game.

The following websites were used as references:

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us-health-care-spending-rose-at-record-rate-in-2009/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html

Student supports health care reform

Second Reaction essay

In my second reaction essay I will be focusing on healthcare. This is a much debated issue in America right now. In my opinion this bill will revolutionize the way we look at healthcare and is a monumental step forward in what we have tried to achieve with healthcare since we passed The Social Security Act of 1935.

Many right wing individuals have been blowing this bill way out of proportion, and I wonder if it is because of their underlying racism that they have learned to ignore throughout their lifetimes, because I have not seen one African American, Chinese American, or any other person of non-traditional European American descent in any of these rallies they are deciding to go through with. It shows me that many Americans are not agreeing with an African American’s viewpoint which will make sure that all Americans will receive the sort of healthcare that is unbiased and more equal than it ever has been before. Every new policy has its flaws, which can be changed over time, and this is one which we will have to live and learn with.

Tea baggers have been protesting this because of misleading propaganda that many government officials have been lying about in the media. One of the main points I would like to make is that millions of Americans do not have insurance, and due to this they do not go to receive medical attention unless they go to an emergency room where they cannot be denied healthcare. [The Census Bureau estimated about 44 million Americans had no health insurance in 2007] If every American had affordable health insurance they would be more apt to visit doctors and have small medical bills with preventative measures they can seek out and take advantage of. Going to an emergency room is substantially higher in cost because they are denied the help before there ailment becomes severe. This means that we are paying out of pocket for procedures that cost $300 dollars for an aspirin, when in a normal doctor’s visit they can tell the patient to buy aspirin themselves at a pharmacy. This is one of the main reasons that healthcare can become more affordable when we take a residual view into the whole medical system and make sure we prevent more illnesses instead of waiting for them to become much more serious and monetarily painful to all Americans.

They are also trying to limit women’s reproductive health in the bill, which should not be taking place. If a woman has a right to choose what method of contraceptive she wants to utilize for herself, many more would be apt to take advantage of this and it would be a preventative measure to ensure fewer abortions are occurring. We need to educate and use vital resources that are available in order to reduce things instead of leaving no options open and having people throwing a devastating life choice, such as abortion, in the individuals face after they have had no options.

This bill may need a lot of adjustments, but that is why new laws always need monitoring and adjusting as we fix problems that may occur in the policy once they have begun, instead of leaving millions of people uninsured, and thousands of people dying because their insurance company drops them after they get an illness because they are too big of a risk to a company who grosses billions of dollars. [A recent report estimated 45,000 deaths in America are preventable and wouldn't happen or would be delayed if everyone had access to health care.]

New Health Care Bill and Health Insurance

In The State Journal Register, Springfield, IL, there was an article on Wellpoint Insurance rates and how they were expecting a 39 percent rate increase for some customers. Wellpoint is the largest publicly traded health insurer based on membership, and it runs Blue Cross Shield plans and Unicare plans. This insurance company is well known in many states. The article was printed before the health care bill passed, and many thought this was a good example of how universal health care was a necessity for America.

As mentioned before, there was an expected 39 percent increase; however, the company had a 2.7 billion dollar profit in the fourth quarter of 2009. If the insurance company had such a large profit why would there be a need for 39 percent increase for those covered? Personally, I find it very disturbing that companies make profit off of health insurance. While people are struggling to pay medical bills, finding coverage, or going uninsured, companies are making billions of dollars. I find it immoral for businesses making a profit from people being sick, injured, or dying.

This semester I have been very ill and was taken to the hospital. I had a hard time finding hospitals or medical facilities I could go to that my insurance covered. I later discovered I needed surgery; however, my insurance company did not cover doctors in Springfield. They gave me a three month emergency period to get the surgery, and luckily there happened to be an opening within the time limit. Instead of waiting until I was on summer or spring break from school, I had to go by what the insurance companies would allow, which created stress and anxiety. My parents spent hours on the phone with the insurance company just to allow this, and it was a nightmare. I feel like although my experience was an unpleasant one, I was very lucky because I was able to get the procedure done. Many people cannot afford health care payments and have problems finding doctors that will accept Medicaid.

In one of the most significant policies to pass, the new health care bill will hopefully eliminate the stress and demands the insurance companies have, or at least allow for an alternative for people without insurance. The new health care bill allows coverage for children with pre-existing conditions, free preventative care under Medicare, banning of lifetime limits on coverage, prohibiting discrimination based on salary, and a number of other services (http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/keyprovisions.html).

Medicaid

Here is a student editorial in support of Medicaid.

I am writing today in regards to our Medicaid program.  People who are qualified to receive Medicaid include, but are not limited to:  Mothers with children 18 or younger, children under the age of 18, foster children, and some non-U.S. citizens.  The program was added to the Social Security Act in 1965, but is run through state governments.  There are many requirements in order to become eligible for Medicaid.  

The main requirement for eligibility is the family’s income.  This varies based on the children’s age.  For example, for children under the age of one, the family’s income must not exceed 200% of the federal poverty level.  For children 18 and younger, the family’s income must not exceed 133% of the federal poverty level.  For foster children, the child is automatically covered under the state until the child reaches the age of 18.  

Medicaid not only provides health care for at-risk families, but also helps to provide food and assists mothers with collection of child support.  This is a wonderful program that is designed to help our women and children in poverty.  The program will not allow people to live their lives in luxury, but rather help to provide some basic necessities of life.  

I am a full supporter of women and children who need to use this resource.  I believe that not enough people take advantage of this program.  Our society places a negative feeling regarding Medicaid.  Our nation was designed to help out those who are less fortunate, but people do not respond well to others who are utilizing this resource.  I think that our schools and media should educate people on what Medicaid is and what the qualifications are to receive benefits.  I believe that if our society was more informed on this criteria, they would not cast judgment on the people who need to use the program.

Medicaid is an important part of the current national health care policy. It covers medical care for disabled persons such as the blind as well as non-disabled poor persons. Both of my sons were born under Medicaid coverage. Over 50 million Americans and  residents of the USA are insured though Medicaid. Medicaid costs are scary.  If you check out the Federal Budget (see table S-3 in this big pdf from the White House) you can marvel at the rising costs: $201 billion in 2008, $262 billion in 2009, and $290 billion in 2010. 

Student supports CHIPRA

This is a student's editorial, and I'm providing it here without my comments.

Recently the CHIPRA became law again.  CHIPRA is the children’s health insurance protection reauthorization act.  This act gives insurance to many children.  The child’s parents can make up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level.  Many say that this is a waste of tax dollars.  Also, some believe that since we are in a financial bind we should not be supporting more expenses.  The bill has a twist; this program will be funded by a $0.62 cent federal tax on tobacco.  This is a great idea; I’m sure that if you asked citizens whether they would be willing to pay 62 cents more on anything so long as it helped give more children medical benefits most would be more than willing.  The health of our children should be our top priority.  

This policy according to Families USA’s webpage will give 4 million more children health insurance.  That means that there will be 4 million more children with the resources to obtain medicine when they are sick.  This in turn means they will be less likely to spread their illness to other children.  

This bill will also provide them with dental and mental health insurance.  Now legal immigrant children and pregnant women will no longer have to wait on a list to receive this coverage.  Also, this will reduce individual medical bills that before may not have been paid.  This will relieve some stress off the parents, and they will no longer have to choose between buying groceries that week and taking their child to the doctor.  For an extra 62 cents I think this policy is definitely worth it. If you would like to learn more about this policy visit the Families USA website at http://www.familiesusa.org/.

Student supports child advocacy plan

This is a student's editorial, and I'm offering it here without my comments.

I would like to argue for Barack Obama's child advocacy plan, and in particular I’m writing to support the aspects of this plan that are related to health. It is astonishing to me that politicians could have such a sensible and useful plan. It was my impression that politicians usually just kissed babies or shook hands with children, and did very little else to help them, since babies and children don’t vote. And yet, here is this child advocacy plan, and it is in the best interest of children throughout America. 

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are devoted promoters for children advocacy. At the www.barackobama.com website you can read: 

"They will make sure that every child has health insurance, expand educational opportunities for low-income children, extend resources for low-income families, support and supplement our struggling foster care system, and protect children from violence and neglect." 

The health part of their plan is awe-inspiring. It is my favorite part of the plan because children are my passion and providing decent healthcare for children is a very imperative cause. Obama and Biden make it a goal to protect every child with health insurance and health care. At the www.barackobama.com website we are reminded that, "as a state senator, Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expands Illinois’ KidCare program, which provided coverage to 150,000 parents and their children."  The president and vice president are asking Congress to enlarge Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to more children. 

I think that it is extraordinary that Obama and Biden are in favor of supporting healthy lifestyles. This is something that we really need in our society today; fast food restaurants are on every corner in America, and this is not good in a society that is obese. Their website explains:

 "nearly one-third of Americans live in neighborhoods without sidewalks, and less than half of our country’s children have a playground within walking distance of their homes. This lack of a safe place to walk and play is a major contributor to the growing numbers of overweight children." 

Obama makes a great point here, and I believe that if he carries out all of the expectations shown in his health part of the child advocacy plan, America's children will be by far more healthy, which will lead to healthier generations to come.

Students asks President to help with health insurance.

I'm offering this student policy proposal without any comments:

I am making a suggestion on the Obama/Biden health care policy.  After reading the policy, I see that there are many of good changes being proposed.  One of these is requiring insurance companies to cover pre-exisiting conditions so that all Americans can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.  This is helpful because people will not have to worry about having to find a new insurance provider if they get laid off or fired.  I thinks this and other changes purposed in the policy with help make it a little easier for people to get affordable health care.  

But, I think that students should be included in this policy as well.  I do not know much about how the health care system works but I do know that I am a full time student with two part-time jobs and I practically have no health care insurance.  Before my 23rd birthday, I was covered under my father's insurance but now since I have been dropped from my father's insurance I have insurance through the University I attend.  It doesn't really cover much so I am just trying to stay healthy and hoping that I don't become deathly ill because if I do have to spend some time in the hospital I will be in major debt.

So my suggestion is that the government provide health care coverage for full-time students whether or not they live with their parents.  I think students should receive health care coverage because the students that do live on their own, depending on their major, struggle to work, pay bills, and try to keep up with their school work.  So to have no health care coverage or insufficient coverage puts them in a tight spot. If they happen to get really sick this could potentially make the situation worse.  If the person gets sick and doesn't go to the doctor because they know that they don't have health insurance then they don't get the proper care they need and may possibly get worse to the point that they will be forced to go to the hospital. I know that single mothers who are also students can receive coverage, but I don't think that it is fair that you basically have to have children in order to even receive better health care benefits.  

As for students that live with their parents.  I think that we should receive coverage as well.  Just because I live with my parents does not mean they can afford to pay for my health care as well as theirs.  Just like with school tuition, when I do my taxes every year and fill out my FAFSA, I always receive loans because the government believes that since I live with my parents and they make so much per year that they should be able to contribute to my education.  But in actuality, my parents can't afford to help me pay for college because they also have bills they have to pay. So, I have to take out loans instead.  I just think that if the government helps students by providing decent health insurance it may help take the stress off of struggling students.

Student shares outrage about health care system.

This is a student reaction essay that I'm including without adding my own comments.

After reading this week's topic about health care, it reminded me of how immense the problems are.  We (the U.S.) spend so much money on health care, yet we do not have significantly better outcomes than other developed countries.  We put so much money into newer technologies and treatments, that we have to pass those costs along to patients, and again....our outcomes are not any better than those countries using less advanced options.  The drug companies used to extravagantly wine and dine physicians and their families.  Thankfully that has been curtailed. These are the costs hidden in our drug prices that people don't realize.  My parents live in Tucson, and when I visit, I travel I pick up a medication that is very expensive here for less than 1/20th of the cost there.  It is hard to believe that some people have to choose to forego medical care because they cannot afford it.  When I worked at the University of Michigan, patients had to go through many processes when being considered for transplant.  One of those processes was meeting with the finance department. They assessed what benefits that patient had, what would and would not be covered and whether the patient had the financial means to cover their portion of the expenses.  It was not unusual for a patient to be denied being listed for organ transplant solely on the basis that they did not have the ability to pay.  So in this great country of ours, people have to die because they do not have the resources to make different choices. Unbelievable!! Sorry for the rant, but it really is a sad statement when we have had previous administrations go on and on that we cannot afford to offer insurance to everyone, yet we are spending 11 billion dollars a month ( I think that figure is accurate) in Iraq.  I think this administration will finally get something passed because we literally cannot afford to ignore it any longer.  While they are at it, I hope they tackle tort reform.

Student reaction paper related to our health care system

This is a student reaction paper, and I'm offering it here without any of my comments.

Reaction to our health care system

A baby gets sick and the parents take it to the doctor, a child breaks its arm and it gets taken to the doctor, an elderly woman is ill and she gets taken to the doctor.  This is the way that it should be.  When people get sick they should be able to visit the doctor in order to help them get better.  Unfortunately, this is not how it is in reality.  In the United States people go to the doctor without worry only if they have health insurance.  Many people do not go to the doctor or get much needed medicine because they can not afford it.

Whose responsibility is it to pay for health care?  Right now in our current society costs are put on individuals and employers who pay for health insurance, and then the insurance companies are supposed to pay most of the doctor bills.  Is our current health care policy effective if many are going without medical attention because of lack of funds?  I don't believe it is.  If our policy on health care is not allowing for a portion of Americans to receive the coverage they need, then the policy is failing.  Our pastor asked us today in church if any of us had health insurance; not one person raised their hand because no one asked has health insurance.

Should the government create a program that allows anyone with or without insurance to receive medical benefits for a minimal fee based on their income?  Yes, I think they should.  Everyone should have the security of knowing that if they get sick then they can go to the doctor.  By keeping people healthy this could help slow the spread of disease.  By slowing the spread of disease this policy would lessen the amount of citizens having to miss work because of illness, or stay home because their kids are sick.  Also, the healthier people are, the more energy they have to be productive and to go to work.

Critics that oppose a national health care system say that this would be a waste of tax dollars.  They say that if people work hard enough then they will succeed.  If  they had their priorities straight they would find the money for health care.  Many suggest that if health insurance was mandatory like car insurance, that would force people to find a way to pay for health insurance.  Some of these statements have some truth to them.  However, there are many of us, like my father, who have worked hard our whole life, and do not have money for necessities. How can we pinch pennies when we have no pennies to pinch?

CHIP

In class this past week we discussed social welfare policies that had been in the news recently. We got into a long discussion about parenting, fertility treatments, autonomy, rights to bear children, people who are unfit to be parents, and so forth. I thought the conversation went well.

We didn't talk much about the recent passage of the CHIP law, which was signed the same day as our third class session.

Read about the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act at the White House blog.
If you wanna read the actual text of the law (PL 111-3), it's available here. And by the way, it's the third law passed by the 111th Congress. The second law (the Lilly Ledbetter Act) was an amendment to various civil rights laws to clarify that unlawful discrimination continues so long as discriminatory payment is made up until the time the court finds discrimination exists. This has the practical implication that you can sue someone for violating your civil rights related to unequal pay even if the unequal payments took place a long time before you discovered it, or if you have already stopped working at the workplace that was discriminating against you in your compensation. The first law of the 111th Congress was a boring financing act involving the Department of the Interior.

If you're interested in the CHIP program, here are some links to follow to learn more:

1. National Conference of State Legislatures describes the SCHIP.
2. The progressive (liberal) non-partisan Drum Major Institute describes SCHIP and explains the law at their middle class website.
3. The very neutral and authentically non-partisan Project Vote Smart also offers some good analysis of the law.
4. The low end of the strongest opposition to this S-CHIP program and the new law can be found at Michelle Malkin's blog (I shudder).
5. For a more moderately toned opposition to this policy you'll find what you seek at the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
6. For an example of what Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said about the program, and a little of his testimony about an amendment he tried to have added to the bill, check out the Congressional Record for January 28, 2009.
7. As usual, the best reporting on this policy is from the Christian Science Monitor.