Several years ago, after her company was acquired and her husband retired, Donna Dubinsky is left without an employer that could finance her family’s health insurance. Having thought that getting individual health insurance was easy, she naïvely decided to get her family health insurance. She discussed with the insurance broker for options, filled out a very long application, yet only to find rejection letters came in the mailbox. (Dubinsky) So, why was she denied? Was it because her long lists of ailments? Or was it because of the gambling side of insurance business? Her story represents millions cases that Americans have to face to get health care access and raises a question: Does it need to be changed?
It does.
What is the problem with our current health care system? The current problem is—not everyone is covered with health insurance—particularly in the present condition, where companies opt to lay off their employees to survive the recession. As a result, millions of Americans are left without jobs, and so without health insurance; yet, even if they were fortunate enough to get health insurance while remaining unemployed—too bad, the outrageously premiums rate would eventually force them to say goodbye to medical access.
Responding to individual health insurance, particularly in some states like New York, New Jersey and Vermont, Robert Bland, chief executive of online insurance broker called Insure.com claims, “Even young healthy men, who are the cheapest to insure, could be charged as much as $1,000 a month” (qtd in. Bradford). Basically, Bland is showing how expensive that individual health insurance could be.
This unfortunate problem, according to United State’s Institute of Medicine and Harvard University, has taken so many lives. In 2002, Institute of Medicine released a figure, which suggested that there were about 18,000 unnecessary deaths annually due to lack of health insurance. (“Harvard Study”) That is to say, happened before the 2008 world financial crisis. Now, back to the financial crisis scenario where millions of Americans are getting laid off and left without health insurance, how does it affect the statistics?
Answering that question, a study conducted by Harvard University in 2009, estimates that on average, roughly 20% of the total population in each states were uninsured, indicating approximately 45,000 cases of unnecessary death in the year of 2009. (“Harvard Study”) The number has gone up by more than doubled between the seven years period of the study.
The problem of people die needlessly seems bad enough, yet thinking how the overbearing insurance companies are able to deny the health insurance coverage for patients with cancer is as incredibly disturbing as dying needlessly. A national survey in 2007 suggest that as many as 12 million Americans were discriminated by insurance companies because they had pre-existing conditions or illnesses. (Obama) The wreckage in our broken market of health insurance seems to be dominated by business rather than human morality.
These concerns, however, are no longer burdens to the society. As March, 23rd 2010, the health care reform bill, namely “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, or also known as “ObamaCare” has became a law that stamped out the previous health care system’s major weak spots; now, everyone is covered by health care insurance—low- and moderate-income families who are not qualified for Medicaid, or even people who were capable of gaining access to medical care, with or without insurance, but were not covered by health insurance from their employers can be relieved. The bill will require all Americans to purchase health care insurance. Yet, an annual fine of $695 will be charged to those who are reluctant to purchase the health care insurance, with exceptions for low-income individuals and families. (Jackson and Nolen)
But wait, how would “ObamaCare” expect the low-income individuals and families to purchase health insurance if they had no money? How are they going to pay the premiums? Thankfully, our government is not that foolish. According to CBS News, “Individual and families who make between 100-400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies” (Jackson and Nolen).
In other words, there is nothing to worry about if you do not have the money to finance you, and your family with health insurance. As the president himself puts it, “ . . . if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family – coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job” (Obama).
Other primary benefits might include coverage of grown children until the age of 26. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans and companies to include the adult children into their parent’s insurance, despite financial dependency, employment, marital status, or even other eligibility requirements. As many as 1.2 million young adults, according to the administrator of the law, will obtain coverage and benefit from their parents’ insurance policies. (Hacker and DeTorres) This policy will give young adults the stability and security they need before they really are prepared to take off from their parents’ shadows.
Additionally one of the new health care reform major changes is fighting off the previous system’s downside; where life-and-death decision made by the insurers—not doctors, not even the patient. With the establishment of the new health care reform, Americans can actually mitigate the anxiety of seeing their family members or even themselves helplessly dying because pre-existing conditions—such as asthma, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or other diseases that fulfill the requirement of pre-existing conditions—with no insurance. But rather, now they can sit and relax, because the new regulation of health care reform will ban insurance companies from excluding patients with pre-existing conditions. The law estimates about 31,000 to 72,000 children with pre-existing conditions will be covered by 2011. (Hacker and DeTorres)
“The new law prohibited insurance companies to deny you from coverage because of your medical history, or drop your insurance when you are sick.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, says U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services—Kathleen Sebelius, is freeing Americans’ anxiety if they run out of insurance benefits when they needed them the most. (Abelson)
Many others benefits have taken place, including the rebate for the “donut hole” in Medicare, discounts on medication for seniors, and subsidize small businesses so that they can provide insurance for their employees. So, if the Affordable Care Act seemed so great and beneficial to the Americans, why there are so many controversies about it?
After a long discussion and debate over the 1900-page bill, the Republicans unanimously decided to oppose the “ObamaCare” bill, complaining that the new health care reform will actually impede job creations and give the government too big role in the health care system.
By raising insurance costs to cover all Americans with health insurance, Republicans believe, it could hamper hiring, and job creation. Yet unfortunately, no real evidence has been published to supports Republican’s apprehension. Instead, 1.1 million private sector jobs and 207,000 jobs in health care industry have been created since the health care reform was enacted, according to the findings from Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (Triplett) Striking back to Republican’s argument, the Democrat argues that during President Bush regime, almost 673,000 jobs were lost.
In addition, Republican and other opponents of the bill address the concern of giving the government too much role in health care system would lead to a government take over of health care and ultimately, socialized medicine and ration health care. Writing for U.S News & Reports in response to the Affordable Care Act, Bernadine Healy, former president of National Institute of Health and former professor of medicine of John Hopkins University complains that the rationed health care in the new bill would not be caused by insurance companies capability to afford the necessary care, but rather because of the comparative-effectiveness study on whether the treatment cost is justifiable. (Healy)
Nevertheless, both Republican and other opponents like Healy overlook our current health care faulty: health care rationing is already existed in the current health care system. By denying pre-existing conditions and illnesses, charging different premium rates for coverage, and refusing to cover some applicants—insurance companies have already adhered the practice of health care rationing.
But, more questions should be asked: Are those concerns real? Or the Republican just made that up? Likewise, as award-winning Washington reporter and a contributing editor of U.S. News & World Report, John Aloysius Farrell asks the same question, “If this bill is such a political loser for the Democratic Party, why the Republicans fought so hard to defeat it?” (Farrell)
By extension, for the answer, we must look at a bit of history. Back when Bill Clinton tried to establish health care reform in 1993, although the Republicans found some faulty in the bill, they would cooperate to fix it together with the Democrats. Until William Kristol, a neoconservative political analyst and the founder of The Weekly Standards political magazine wrote in his memo, “The Clinton proposal is a serious threat to the Republican Party. Republican must therefore adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal and defeat its partisan purpose” (qtd in. Farrell). In making this comment, Kristol triggers the Republicans attitude towards Democrats’ health care reform for the next 20 years.
Another concerns that was brought up regarding the new health care law is because of the government fiscal irresponsibility. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which would cost a great portion of nation’s budget would eventually lead to an infamous fiscal policy by the government; raising taxes to finance the new health care reform bill.
And yes, this is a valid concern. Soon after President Barack Obama’s proposal passed the congress, a new regulation for taxing is created. Starting in 2011, individuals whose gross income exceeding $280,000 a year, and families with $350,000 a year will be charged additional tax rate with range from 1 to 5.4 percent, adjusting with the income. Meanwhile, families making $500,000 will be charged with additional $1,500 to subsidize the health care reform, and those who are making more than $1 million would have to pay for additional $9,000. (Pear and Herszenhorn) The new tax regulation is surely a burden for rich people, and there is no way to deny it.
Furthermore, some readers also might ask, “With the current recession and budget deficit, how are the states going to finance the new bill?” This is a legitimate concern that worth thinking about. The proponents of the “ObamaCare” believe that implementing the bill one step at a time until the health care reform is really effective in 2014 will reduce impact in our financial crisis condition.
Even the proponent of the bill, claims that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has made prediction and projects that the new health care reform would reduce the nation’s future deficit.
Recalling back Dubinsky’s ordeal, finally, she got three different insurance companies to cover her husband, daughter, and herself. Yet, like many other Americans, she eventually found herself stuck with incredibly high premiums to cover her family.
The laws might still have some flaws, but even Barrack Obama himself, as the president is open for suggestions, so that the bill would sustain the needs of all Americans. Besides, for decades, Barrack Obama’s predecessors acknowledged that something wrong had been going on in our health care system, and they had been trying to fix it.
Finally, we must admit, the purpose of the Affordable Care Act is undoubtedly noble, and the prognosis seems pretty good. But perhaps, the timing might not be perfect, and so causing so many controversies. According to Donna Dubinsky, and many others who have faced the same kind of problems, health care reform is necessary. What do you think?
Works Cited
Abelson, Reed. "Awaiting Health Law's Prognosis." New York Times 2 Feb. 2011: B1(L). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.
Bradford, Stacey L. “Buying Private Health Insurance.” Smart Money. Dow Jones & Company, 7 Jan. 2008. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.
DeTorres, Carl, and Jacob S. Hacker. "The Health of Reform." New York Times 17 Feb. 2011: A31(L). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.
Dubinsky, Donna. “Money Won’t Buy You Health Insurance.” San Jose Mercury News. San Jose Mercury News, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 4 Mar. 2011.
Farrel, John A. “Why Republicans Fear Obama’s Healthcare Reform.” U.S News & World Report. U.S News & World Report, 19 March 2010. Web. 5 March 2011.
“Harvard Study Finds Nearly 45,000 Excess Death Annually Linked to Lack of Health Coverage.” Physicians For A National Health Program. Physician For A National Health Program, 17 Sep. 2009. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.
“Health Care Reform.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 4 March 2011. Web. 6 March 2011.
Healy, Bernadine. "Health Reform's Effect on You." U.S. News & World Report 146.7 (2009): 24-28. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Feb. 2011.
Obama, Barrack. “Why We Need Health Care Reform.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 15 Aug. 2009. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
Pear, Robert, and David M. Harszenhorn. “House Health Plan Outlines Higher Taxes on Rich.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 14 July 2009. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.
Thomas, Mark. “Who Benefits From Health Care Reform?” CBS Money Watch. CBS Interactive Inc., 22 Mar. 2010. Web. 8 Mar. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment