Since we talked about healthcare reform in class last week, I thought I'd give my opinion because I'm sure the readers of my blog are just dying to hear it :)
I'll start by explaining what I know about what the bill could offer:
-expansion Medicaid eligibility
-barring insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions
-immediate reduction in drug costs for Medicare recipients
-allowing Medicare families to keep their children on their insurance plan until age 26
-banning lifetime limits on coverage
-new investments in community health centers
-efforts to increase the number of primary care physicians
-public option that would allow citizens to purchase a cheaper insurance plan from the government
-new requirement for employers to provide coverage for employees
-institution of a new review process for insurance companies
-etc.
All of this would be funded through new taxes and cuts to government run health programs, like Medicare.
Let me start by saying that I believe healthcare is a basic human right. We can all agree that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is in need of some major changes. That being said, I think legislation for this reform is being rushed through Congress. I appreciate the fact that President Obama is trying to make do on his campaign promises, but reform of such magnitude takes time. I would take more solace in knowing that the reform was being well thought out. Instead, it seems to be legislation for legislation's sake.
Another thing is this very controversial "public option", which is, to my understanding, was the forethought of the reform. In a effort to please everyone, the public option has been considerably reduced. I'll admit, the idea of our healthcare being in the hands of our government is scary. What's scarier, though, is the millions of people without healthcare in this country. So I did some research! In an ideal world, the public option would cut costs of healthcare for many living under the poverty line. However, according to Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post, "
The evidence ... is Medicare, which spends about 2% to 3% of its budget on administration. But if a government-run plan had to spend its own money to collect premiums, market itself to customers, maintain a reserve, and manage care in a way that lowers costs and raises quality — none of which Medicare now does ... its administrative costs would be nowhere near 2% or 3%." Now, I'm no economist, but that sorta defeats the purpose when we're trying to cut the cost of healthcare for the average american's pocketbook while simultaneously dealing with our $1.4 trillion deficit.
It's gonna be really interesting to see how this healthcare thing all pans out. If successful, I'd be proud to be alive during one of the biggest social reforms in our nation's history. If not... well I'd rather not think about that. Anyway, I feel like I'm not informed enough to give a wise opinion, so please feel free to leave your thoughts. Any other opinions would be appreciated.
