Healthcare debate redux
We had our debate a couple of weeks ago, and by our professor's reckoning, it was a tie, although I don't think he was all that fair about it. He kept stopping us and refuting our claims, up to the point he drew a circle on the board, and saying that the circle represented the total pool of people insurance companies have, then erasing 3/4's of it, and saying with a government system, that would be all that was left, leaving the insurance companies to die. After he finished, I had to get up, and draw lots of little circles, and explain that those circles were what private insurance companies would be: specialty insurance, and this new government insurance would be like a Walmart insurance, ie. the most basic care, but at a reasonable rate. He didn't seem to be too impressed, but when I brought up that private insurance was alive and well in all the major countries that had socialized medicine, and it was for those people who: (1) wanted a special procedure not covered (plastic surgery), (2) did not want to wait, and (3) wanted to see whatever doctor they wanted. Anyways, these are the major points we covered, in easy to read format. I researched and wrote most of this myself.
Premise: Healthcare reform that requires all to purchase insurance is unconstitutional.
Answer: Congress has the initiative and authority to compel citizens to pay for health insurance, using Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. The supreme Court has held that the Congress is allowed to regulate intestate trade, and instances of non-interstate trade ( such as prohibiting hotel discrimination, illicit drug cultivation for personal use, etc.) Congress also could justify this as an exercise of its taxing and spending power. Congress can require the purchase of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to Social security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has accorded Congress broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine this. The constitution has given an end (promote the general welfare clause), therefore the means to achieving it has to be Constitutional.
Premise: Reform will lead to rationing of care for all.
Answer: The truth is that there is rationing already occurring. Rationing is a way of life, that there is only so many finite resources for a given amount of people, thus rationing occurs. The problem is that the rationing that is occurring is the wrong type of rationing, with too many of the healthcare dollars going to the wrong areas, unproven tests and drugs, to the costly curing of diseases once they have onset, and not enough to the preventative areas that would save money in the long term by reducing costs by spotting diseases early on, when the cure is easier and therefore cheaper.
Premise: illegal aliens will benefit from being able to use the new system
Answer: while it is true that illegal immigrants will be able to take advantage of the system, as there is no enforcement in HR 3200, as it was removed forms the bill, the best way to mitigate their overuse of it would be to have them pay into it as well as all others. As a demographic, illegal alien are generally younger, and therefore need fewer healthcares than do other groups, therefore if they were compelled to pay into the system, the risk pool of insur4ed would be deeper, and could potentially lower costs across the board. On a practical level, everyone is guaranteed healthcare access, but only at the most expensive end, that is the hospital, where even a minor ailment treatment can cost in the thousands, and according to EMTALA, no hospital can bar access regardless of status. It would seem to make more sense to bring the underground population out into the light and have them be open participants in the system.
Premise: Not enough doctors to handle the millions of new patients that would be in the system
Answer: This is a problem, and can be solved in several ways: paying primary care physicians more than they are currently, government subsidization of medical schools, with the mandate that students that receive government subsidies work in the public health sector for three years or more, or follow Britain’s lead and invite doctors from their former colonies (India/Pakistan) to serve as doctors in there NHS.
Premise: Health insurance reform will lead to government takeover
Answer: The congress Budget office estimates private insurance participation will in fact increase as more Americans get insured under the legislation. It will also offer consumers and small businesses many health insurance options to choose from (including private health insurance and public health insurance).
Premise: The public health insurance option will destroy the private health insurance market
Answer: With the Health Reform consumers we have a choice between public and private insurers. This will force competition to between the two. The competition will force private insurance plans to lower their premiums and increase the quality of coverage. The data from non-partisan CBO shows that under the house bill, private insurance plans will actually grow over the next 10 years.
Premise: Health insurance reform will harm America’s seniors by cutting Medicare benefits and reducing the quality of services they receive.
Answer: Nothing in the house bill will cut basic Medicare benefits. The bill will target are key problems in are current health care. Those problems are inefficiency, fraud and waste in Medicare. This also includes gross and unwarranted overpayments to insurance companies that offer Medicare Advantage plans. The bill will actually strengthen Medicare for America’s seniors by lengthening solvency by five years, closing the donut hole, lowering costs for preventative services for seniors and expanding the medical workforce so seniors have more than one doctor to choose from. This eliminates excess payments to private Medicare Advantage plans.
Premise: The house bill would increase the federal deficit
Answer: According to the CBO, the House bill will reduce the deficit by $30billion over the first ten years (2010-2019) and then continue to reduce deficit over a second ten year period (2020-2029). The Bottom line is we have to change are healthcare system because every year we underpay Medicare at 9% = 1 billion/ overpayment 91%=9.8 billion dollars. This negative trend will continue to dig us a bigger whole in federal deficit unless there is a change.
Premise: The Health Insurance Reform will harm small businesses
Answer: The house bill is good for small businesses because it will allow them to access affordable large group rates and plans with better benefits. Without health reform, small businesses will pay nearly 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years in health care costs for their workers.
Premise: The house bill will force taxpayers to pay for abortions.
Answer: There is no part in the bill that states federal funds can be used to pay for abortions. But it allows private insurance companies to offer such coverage.
Premise: Why not have insurers to sell Health plans across state lines
Answer: By lifting consumer protections and allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines without oversight would likely drive a “race to the bottom” and this would effectively remove consumer protections that many states have in place. Then private insurers would be able to offer individual insurance on a nationwide basis under the laws and regulations of a state of their choice, allowing them to choose states with the laxest oversight and fewest consumer protections.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
latindem's Friends Page