Health Care Reform An Emotional Topic

Health Care Refrom: An Emotional Topic©

Mark Monroe

August 19, 2010

“To the Congress of the United States:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.

In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.”[1]

This quote is not from a President Obama speech on Health Care Reform (HCR) rather it is a part of President Nixon’s address to Congress on February 6, 1971. After reading the entire text of President Nixon’s address, it is easy to see how it could be confused with a speech given by President Obama. In fact, HCR has been recognized as an issue in every Presidential administration since Franklin D. Roosevelt and each has pushed for some sort of national health care plan. Therefore, we are talking about seven (7) Democrat and six (6) Republican Presidents supported some sort of HCR. According to the publication, The Missourian , “The first federal involvement in health care was in 1798, when the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman Act was passed.” [2] With this long history and consistent Presidential support why does it seem as if America is so afraid of HCR? According to a Gallup poll, when the Affordable Health Care Act was passed in March 2010, only 49% thought it was a good idea, while 40% [3] did not approve of it. This article is going to explore six (6) of the arguments that have risen against HCR and why those arguments appear to appeal to people.

Argument 1-Immoral/Anti-American

One argument against HCR is that it goes against the moral fiber that this country was founded on. One site, claims, “…it is the duty of free individuals to decide what and whose needs appear most important to them. In a free society, the individual is of supreme importance and should not to be used as a means to society’s ends. The individual has the right to order his actions and possessions in the manner most consistent with pursuing his own happiness and values.”[4] If you did not see the title of this article, a person may be hard pressed to realize that it was about HCR. This article is making the claim that if individuals do not arrange their finances so they can afford health care or if they decide that health care insurance is not worth the cost, it is not the society’s fault. This argument assumes that everyone is economically on equal footing when it comes to his or her personal finances. In 2008, there were 301,041,000 [5] Americans living below the poverty level, where any health insurance, besides government sponsored insurance, was not likely.

For a family of three (3) (a husband, wife and child) living below the poverty line means they are making less than $17,330 annually. For example, in Dover, De (a small city in rural Delaware) a living wage which covers the basic needs for that same family is $20.38 [6] an hour (poverty wage is $7.81 and minimum wage is $7.25). That calculation includes an estimated medical expense of roughly $227 a month [7]. The moral argument is based on the belief that everyone is economically on the same playing field, which is a false assumption. The argument loses its validity when the facts about wages and income in this country are taken into consideration.

Argument 2-Death Lists

The next argument is the HCR will lead to the creation of “death lists.” According to this headline, “OBAMA'S "HEALTH-CARE" DEATH LISTS COMING YOUR WAY ”[8] This article goes on to say.

Under Obama's plan, some impersonal bureaucrat, based solely on cost to the government health-care system, will now decide whether you or your sick father or mother, die. Do you need a heart operation or expensive cancer therapy to give you a chance for life? Under Obama's plan, a bureaucrat will "calculate" how much this care would cost the government.

The bureaucrat will then do a "cost/benefit" analysis, the "benefit" being extending your life or treating your cancer or heart disease. If you're too old, forget about it. The bureaucrat will have to follow rules laid down by his superiors in a big book of "rationing" rules.”[9]

First off, this is exactly what the current health insurance system does, it makes a determination whether a procedure is cost effective or not. Is this not what the preauthorization process is all about? The following is taken directly from a brochure explaining the process of Aetna clients that are State of Delaware employees, “Sometimes you may need care that requires approval from Aetna before you get it. Your PCP [10] and other network doctors will get this approval for you.” For many procedures outside of a normal office visit, the patient has to get a preauthorization from the insurance company to ensure the procedure is covered. If the procedure is not covered, and the patient still wants the procedure accomplished, he or she will have to foot the bill themselves. This is a company of “bureaucrats” telling your doctor what they will or will not pay for.

Nowhere in this article does it point to anything that supports the claim of a death list. There is only the innuendo and the manipulation of fear of growing old. Other articles will use the Canadian and British healthcare systems as an example of government programs that routinely deny services to older citizens. These claims are without merit; one supporting example is the fact that on average, the citizens of Canada and Great Britain live longer than their American counter-parts.

Argument 3- Health Care Benefit Tax

The next argument claims that Obama is taxing employee health care benefits. One article, states, “The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it's a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care. Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.”[11] This claim has a bit of truth to it; but the individual’s health benefits will not be taxed under the current plan. In 2012 employers will begin reporting on the W-2 everyone’s health benefits, then in 2018, health insurance companies and self insured businesses may be taxed on their health plans. If a health insurance policy for a single employee is above $10,200, or identifies a policy that covers an employee plus their family is over $27,500 [12], the funds over those amounts will be taxed. For example if a health care plan for a single employee cost $10,201 annually, the company would be taxed on the $1. A 2008 [13] report by Kaiser Family Foundation [14] has the average employer-sponsored plan for a family costs $12,680, and the rate for a single employee at $5,791. Both rates are well below the purposed taxable limit.

Argument 4-Illegal Aliens

The argument that got Joe Wilson into trouble is the current plan would cover undocumented aliens. On September 9, 2010, Representative Wilson (R-SC), during a Presidential address of Congress shouted “You Lie” when the President stated that the HCR package would not cover illegal aliens. Representative Wilson thought the statement was false thus prompting him to break with protocol. He and others believe that the HCR package authorizes subsidized health care for undocumented aliens. Again, there is a grain of truth to his claim. Currently, undocumented aliens are being treated in hospital emergency rooms across the nation; no hospital is going to turn someone away for emergency medical help. Most of the cost associated with these services is being covered by the hospital and local and state governments.

Many critics are pointing to section 1557a’s anti-discrimination clause, which states:

“…an individual shall not, on the ground prohibited under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance, including credits, subsidies, or contracts of insurance, or under any program or activity that is administered by an Executive Agency or any entity established under this title (or amendments). The enforcement mechanisms provided for and available under such title VI, title IX, section 504, or such Age Discrimination Act shall apply for purposes of violations of this subsection.”

The claim is that this clause will prevent the government from discriminating against a person’s citizenship status. However, the first part of the sentence reads, “Except as otherwise provided for in this title (or an amendment made by this title).”

Section 1312 (f)(2) clearly outline the capacity of undocumented aliens to participate in health care programs. “ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS.—If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.” They are not qualified for health care subsidies set up for American citizens and legal residents.

Argument 5-Unconstitutional

A Washington Post article asked the question, “Is health-care reform constitutional? ”[15] The article was citing the arguments of several states, in particular Virginia, where the State’s Attorney General claims that the HCR bill violated “the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”[16] Currently there are 13 states that have filed lawsuits claiming that HCR is unconstitutional. To understand the argument, you first have to understand what the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are saying.

The Ninth Amendment States, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I had to read this Amendment several times before it made any sense. It simply means that identified or named rights cannot deny the rights of people that are not named or identified in the Constitution (that is as clear as mud). When the courts have cited the Ninth Amendment, the judiciary has not based a ruling solely on its content alone. The Ninth is used in support of another Amendment(s). I would think that citing this Amendment is dangerous for people who do not normally want to expand personal freedom.

What I do not understand is what right is being violated by the passage of HCR? The right to reject or not have health insurance? This is why the Ninth Amendment is not cited by itself, because there has to be some right that has been violated. The state of Virginia is claiming that the Tenth Amendment is the other half of their Constitutional argument. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, the argument is that the Health Insurance Industry is the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. Except that Insurance Companies operate in multi-states, interstate commerce, thus it is within the realm of the Federal Government.

Article I SECTION. 8. of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Ensuring that everyone has adequate healthcare insurance is taking care of the general welfare of the citizens of this country.

Argument 6-We have the greatest Healthcare System in the world

One argument is that we have the greatest health care system in the world and we do not want to diminish the quality of care we receive. I understand that there are many factors that go into determining the quality of a health care system. Two measures that I would like to look at are infant morality rate and life expectancy. In 2010, if you compared the United States to other industrialized countries such as Germany, England and Canada you will see that we have a higher infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy. Even Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate with a comparative life expectancy. The small country of Monaco has the lowest infant morality rate and the longest life expectancy of any country. If you compare U.S. to Canada you will find that Canada has a lower Infant Mortality Rate, a higher Life expectancy, and a lower Death Rate (7.87 Canada verses 8.38 United States).


 

I am not questioning the quality of healthcare providers in this country.  My medical history is a testament of the excellent care that I have received.  Thankfully, I had insurance that allowed me access to that care.  However, that is not to say that there were no problems along the way.  There are fights between what my doctors believe is in my best interest and what the insurance company believes I need.  In one instance, for an operation that I had to have to save my life, the insurance company agreed to pay the surgeon’s costs, but not pay the hospital where he practiced.  The point of this section is simply that industrialized/capitalistic nations which have a national health care system provide quality of life equal to or better than the United States.

Reason verse Emotion

All this information does not answer the question of why America would be so against a national health care plan.  The insurance and medical industries profit by maintaining the status quo, which does not benefit the average American.  We have seen health care costs sky rocket over the past 10 years; and, we have seen health insurance companies profits increase as well.  The table below show the profit margins for five (5) of the health insurance companies in America. [17] 


Some may want to point to the President’s race as a reason people are fighting. While that is a factor it is not the primary reason for the opposition. Remember HRC reform, in some form, has been apart of every Presidential agenda since Franklin D. Roosevelt. All of President Obama’s predecessors were Caucasian and many of their efforts were out right defeated. But, still you have to take into consideration the varicosity of the attacks against the President and the current HCR movement. The verbal assaults often come as personal commentary of his ancestry rather on the policy that he is putting forth.

Even if I could definitely prove that a national health care program is a good thing for this society, the sociological wiring of this country will continue to make it hard to accept. Part of the blame goes to how effective American politicians were at demonizing everything that appears to be anti-capitalist. With HCR there seems to be this unreasonable fear that medical professionals will be not be allowed to practice their art, and that the health insurance industry will no longer exist. Health care providers will continue to do their job and health insurance companies will continue to exist and make a profit.

I think that the bottom line is that we have a problem with giving something to people that we believe they do not deserve or earned. This is a hard argument to overcome, because it is less than a rational position, but instead an emotional response. I have to go back to President Nixon’s address where he states, “Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities.” Access to good health care is a need and a right that every American should have. Without it their ability to contribute to the greater good of the nation becomes hampered.



Comments 26 comments

JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

Mark Monroe

May I add comments to your very interesting article.

“In 2008, there were 301,041,000 [5] Americans living below the poverty level, where any health insurance, besides government sponsored insurance, was not likely.”

With 14.5 unemployed workers the poverty rolls will increase due to the recession.

“First off, this is exactly what the current health insurance system does, it makes a determination whether a procedure is cost effective or not. Is this not what the preauthorization process is all about?”

Who is the largest healthcare insurer in the world?

Yep, the US government

The US government administers medical programs, ship, veterans administration (VA),Medicaid and Medicare.

By the way some of those government managed programs are going broke.

Which insurance companies/programs have denied claims by their members?

US government #1 has denied 8.5% of service claims

Aetna #2 has denied 6.2% of service claims

“The insurance and medical industries profit by maintaining the status quo, which does not benefit the average American. We have seen health care costs sky rocket over the past 10 years; and, we have seen health insurance companies profits increase as well. “. [17]

“Health care providers will continue to do their job and health insurance companies will continue to exist and make a profit.”

We all know that if companies don’t make a profit they could go out of business unless you’re the federal government. The chart that you used HEALTH INSURANCE PROFITS , although truthful did not give the reader the whole truth about the healthcare providers net profits after taxes. For example see Aetna’s income statement for years 2007,2008 and 2009.

Income Statement AETNA all profits are in millions

Dec 09 Dec 08 Dec 07

2009 2008 2007

Revenue 34,764.1 30,950.7 27,599.6

Total Operations 1,276.5 1,384.1 1,831.0

Total Net Income

Net Profit Margin 3.7% 4.5% 6.6%

Income Taxes 624.7 790.1 965.4

FEDERAL 48%

Notice that in 2007 net profit was 6.6% and federal taxies were 965.4.The recession started in Dec of 2007,as the recession deepened revenue went up, profits went down and federal taxes were 790.1.Unemployment in Jan 2007 was 4.6% and rose to 6.7% in 2008. In 2009 net profit was 3.7% and federal taxes was 624.7, again income went up to 34,764.1. The chart shows income going up giving a reader the opinion that the providers were gouging the public. With 14.5 million unemployed the pool has shrunk creating greater cost expenditures to the providers. The profit margins are not excessive for the healthcare or major other industries.

Let’s be fair, government regulations on the healthcare industries has caused higher prices which again are passed down to the consumer.If government wanted to reduce healthcare cost they could reduce the tax burden on the providers. Government officials claiming the healthcare providers are the bad guys need only to first look to Washington.


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 6 years ago from Dover De Author

Jon

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my hub.

Before I respond to the majority of your comments I have research your information first. Please look for a response in the near future.

However I will response to your last comment, "Government officials claiming the healthcare providers are the bad guys need only to first look to Washington."

The health care industry is not what is coming uder fire, it is the health insurance industry, which is completely different. The business model for health care and the business model for health insurance are not even related, part of the problem is they are being reffered too as if they are the same.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

Mark Monroe

I am looking forward to your response to my '' last comment''.With the passage of the healthcare reform bill all of the healthcare industry is under attack. Doctors,medical providers of supplies,insurance companies,medicare and medicaid providers of services and manufactures of drugs will have their fees cut or taxed.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

When the insured pools shrink, the cost to insurance providers goes up. President Barak Obama said '' we need to get more people paying in the pool for healthcare cost to go down ''.In essence he meant that younger citizens would be forced to purchase insurance (even though they didn't want to )in order to increase the size of the paying pool

The recent passage of the Healthcare Reform bill on 3/23/10 will make an impact on healthcare cost to the taxpayers and the insurance providers. Before the bill was passed, President Obama and Democrat leaders stated that the bill will reduce future deficits and that healthcare cost will go down. Now that the bill has been in effect, many of those who told the public that healthcare costs would go down are recognizing that cost will go up. Let’s remember speaker Pelosi saying ‘’ we need to pass the bill to know what is in the bill’’. Really, can we believe that statement coming from a leader of our government.


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 6 years ago from Dover De Author

Your Statement: “With 14.5 unemployed workers the poverty rolls will increase due to the recession.”

My Response: It is hard to say which way the unemployment rate is going to go for the month of July 2010 the unemployment rate held steady at 9.5% (14.6 Million)

Your Statement: “Who is the largest healthcare insurer in the world? Yep, the US government. The US government administers medical programs, ship, veterans administration (VA), Medicaid and Medicare.

My Response: In 2008 the Census reported that 29% of Americans were on some sort of Government health insurance system. Roughly 15.4% of Americans were completely uninsured. Leaving 66.7% that are covered by private insurance companies.

Your Statement: By the way some of those government managed programs are going broke.

My Response: To say that Medicaid, VA benefits and Medicare are going broke is a misleading statement. Medicare funds come from two different trust funds, Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (payroll taxes) and Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund (allocation from Congress). While Medicaid and WA Benefits budgets are controlled annual by the government.

Your Statement: Which insurance companies/programs have denied claims by their members? US government #1 has denied 8.5% of service claims. Aetna #2 has denied 6.2% of service claims.

My Response: I am not sure where you got these statistics. Please provide a reference so I can further research this issue.

Your Statement: “Health care providers will continue to do their job and health insurance companies will continue to exist and make a profit.”

My Response: You have taken this phrase out of context. I was stating even with the HRC in place health insurance companies will continue to make a profit.

Your Statement: The chart that you used HEALTH INSURANCE PROFITS , although truthful did not give the reader the whole truth about the healthcare providers net profits after taxes.

The chart shows income going up giving a reader the opinion that the providers were gouging the public. With 14.5 million unemployed the pool has shrunk creating greater cost expenditures to the providers. The profit margins are not excessive for the healthcare or major other industries.

My Response: The chart is correct; it showing the after profits made by these companies after taxes were paid. It is interesting that you pick Aetna because they were the only insurance company that showed a decrease in profits between 2008 and 2009. Their financial statement can be found at http://investor.aetna.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=110617&p... The profits for the insurance companies were in the billions of after tax dollars.

Your Statement: Government officials claiming the healthcare providers are the bad guys need only to first look to Washington.

My Response: this is the point of this article, when all else fails this becomes an emotional argument. Instead of discussing the facts the label of “bad guys” is being thrown in. The has no quantitative value, it there to draw an emotion.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

Mark Monroe

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.Your remarks are well taken.Time will tell, how the HCR will impact society in the near future.The facts and figures provided to the CBO by the Obama administration appear to be inaccurate.


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 6 years ago from Dover De Author

Jon

Thank you


glassvisage profile image

glassvisage 6 years ago from Northern California

This is such an in-depth look at health care - you really touched on many of the controversial issues, including immigration, and I appreciate your honesty in analyzing this.


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 6 years ago from Dover De Author

Thank you


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

Mark Monroe

Some 60% of the people do not want the healthcare

reform bill passed in its present form.

The US has the best health care system in the world. It’s not about health care, it's about controlling insurance cost and government control of healthcare. Last year some 33,000 Canadians came to the US for treatment.


Jane 5 years ago

Headline from Fox Jan 17 2011 “Poll Shows Opposition to Health Care Law Easing, 1 in 4 Support Repeal” which means only 25% support repealing the law.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 5 years ago from Chicago

'Ensuring that everyone has adequate healthcare insurance is taking care of the general welfare of the citizens of this country." Yes, a FRAMEWORK for taking care of the beneral welfare may be construed as HEALTHCARE.

But, it does NOT specify at what point an entity (the governmental healthcare system) ceases taking care of the general welfare and when the same government starts making decisions for/about you that you and your doc should be making.

A goodly amount of the citizenry don't support the KIND of reform and it has been shown that yes, while we put top dollar into our system and the return is 37th according to the WHO; we still have the best system in the world. Doesn't it say something when "some 33,000 Canadians came to the US for treatment." see John Ewall post above.

Everyone wants a healthcare reform bill; but a majority don't like the reform (?) it has to offer. Even saying the American Nurses Association is for the bill is disingenuous. Yes, the ANA supports, but less than 5%of the 3.4 million nurses are ANA members and physicians are slightly better w/ about 30% of the nations physicians in favor.


Jane 5 years ago

According to the Center for Disease Control, “In 2006, there were approximately half a million overseas trips in which health treatment was at least one purpose of travel.” Americans are going to other to receive medical treatement.

Fox news stated, “Poll Shows Opposition to Health Care Law Easing, 1 in 4 Support Repeal” that is only 25% support repeal of the law.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 5 years ago from Chicago

I don't know about Fox, but a Rasmussen poll (and they're pretty reliable-not biased), reports that of LIKELY VOTERS, "62% favor repeal of the health care law, including 51% who Strongly Favor it. Only 33% of voters oppose repeal, with 24% who are Strongly Opposed.' "Support for repeal is at a 10-month high, with the number that Strongly Favors repeal at its highest level to date."

I sourced that out from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol...

another good article can be found at:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0330/Op...

When Americans do travel abroad for treatment, it is usually for CHEAPER medical treatment, not for more innovative care. A Gallup poll confirms that 29% of Americans seek treatment abroad, Quite frankly, I'd rather have the innovative care system (rural areas have systems IN PLACE to cover emergencies; flight for life to transport patients w/ complications to major medical centers).

The new health care law is tailored to people with pre-existing conditions (PEEC) and this is a MUST for most with pre-existing conditions. So, coverage for PEC is not only something we are glad about in this bill; but all need to pay more. Do you like paying for my care?

Even though our infant mortality rate is higher than many other countries (shamefully), we are aware of it and are working on it. We're also working on prevention of the illnesses and behaviors that result in higher infant mortality.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 5 years ago from Chicago

This statement from near the end, I believe the 2nd to last paragraph really struck a chord, "I think that the bottom line is that we have a problem with giving something to people that we believe they do not deserve or earned."

What? What about entitlement programs? As a country, we have an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves and we have done this around the globe. However, many disagree with the 'HOW' of caring for everyone. Do you really think those who disagree w/ HCR as it was signed into law are heartless?

I disagree w/ your assumption that having a national health plan is in society's interests. Yes, I agree that covering all IS in our best interests, but the way to do this is to acknowledge that we have lots of good in our system and there are parts of our system that aren't so good and open a dialog as to what we want to keep and what we want to toss. A dialog of values and goals shared by all Americans.

Completely gutting our existing system risks 'tossing' the good out w/ the bad. HCR is too important an issue to take on a partisan face and it's necessary to bring all parties to the table, really listening to them and not giving them lip service. There needs to be a national discussion where the ideas of John Q Public are given serious weight. We can't afford to leave everything in a HCR bill to the whim of the party in power.

I'm one w/ pre-existing conditions, so you think I'd be thrilled w/ the reform bill, right? Then why am I still paying nearly $900/month for insurance? Because I'm not able to shop for a policy across state lines is one factor. I doubt that any cost is going to go down.

Why? Common sense states that you can't offer more services to more people and pay less. Slash inefficiency everywhere and the % of GDP spent on healthcare will still be close to where it is now.

There should be a place in ANY HCR bill for preventative efforts, though they won't completely decrease the costs; but they'll contribute.

I wasn't given my 72 hours to study the bill to see that there was. This is a HUGE undertaking that will effect the whole nation; the WHOLE nation should be able to determine what it wants instead of a flippant, "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it."

Yes, our infant mortality rate is unacceptably high and that is another cost driver. Is that reason to toss out the innovative care, the R and D funding, the delivery system that we have? No, we work on decreasing our infant mortality rate, we don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater!

I could go on and on, but I think you get my drift that ALL Americans believe we need reform, but there are disagreements as to how to accomplish that reform. As far as giving something to someone that we don't believe they don't deserve or haven't earned, I don't know where or what that came from; and I resent the implication that because I and a majority of the country are 'agin the HCR bill that I take some kind of delight in watching others suffer needlessly.

The growing majority of Americans who are against the HCR bill feel that we can reform our system w/out increasing the deficit, w/out sacrificing quality of care and increasing the health care costs and portion of the GDP.


CJamesIII profile image

CJamesIII 5 years ago from Minneapolis, MN

This was a great hub and very well written. The government should only be administering health care and insuring competition from health care providers. There may not be a death list, but there is a certain amount of bioethicism in the health care laws. We should not have to pay more in the future (individually), we need more controls in the health care industry. I should be able to buy a private policy that is truly affordable, not have to worry about the ridiculous cost of prescriptions or whether it will even be covered, always have access to quality care and there should never be a deductible! Health care companies are run by some of the most greedy people on Earth, shame on them.


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 5 years ago from Dover De Author

Thank you for reading my Hub


teamrn profile image

teamrn 5 years ago from Chicago

Great and thought-provoking hub; but- and you knew there was a but coming!

The government administer health care? They bailed out the banks, car makers, they did miracles w/ Amtrak and you/me with a failed stimulus plan. I believe that they ought to keep their fingers out of the proverbial pot and allow you and me and our reps to solve problems.

Common sense dictates, "you can't offer more services to more people and pay less.." Show me, convince me that my logic is incorrect and I'll rethink my position on that one.

Finding an affordable private policy shouldn't be hard; the operative word is 'SHOULDN'T.' Buying policies across state lines would create competition that would drive those costs DOWN.

Why are we NOT taking on serious tort reform? There's a place for punitive damages, but a cap needs to be placed. There's no reason that a jury should award more than $8 million in punitive damages for a medication that resulted in a gambling addiction. An award? Yes. An $8 million award. No.

To prevent against that, physicians and drug companies need to increase their malpractice insurance, therefore premiums. That cost is passed on to.....whom? YOU and all of us.

Yes, people should always have access to affordable health care but to intimate that care in the new HC reform is going to save money is disingenuous.


OccupFormapar 4 years ago

Hello. I am not sure if I come attain the prior to arguments. I entertain a migraine.


OccupFormapar 4 years ago

Hello. I am not sure if I come win the previous arguments. I induce a migraine.


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 4 years ago from Dover De Author

OccuoFormapar

I do not understand your comment.


teamrn profile image

teamrn 4 years ago from Chicago

I think the comment was intended to indicate that if OccuoFormapar agreed with my comment (or read it) it, it would induce a migraine. I think there's disagreement! annie


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 4 years ago from Dover De Author

Teamrn

Thank you for the clarification

Mark


teamrn profile image

teamrn 4 years ago from Chicago

I think that may have been it, but I'm not sure Mark.


kileanywheway 3 years ago

When i accustomed to obtain on top of life however lately We have piled up any resistance.


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Mark - This was a great hub sixteen months ago and it is still a terrific, informative, and well-balanced hub. Thank you for all the effort you put into your writing. Tharesa

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Footnotes

     

    1. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx Accessed August 13, 2010

    2. Heisdorffer, Allison The Missourian. http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/03/23/presidential-influence-health-care-reform-throughout-20th-century/. March 23, 2010. Access August 13, 2010

    3. Saad, Lydia. Gallup.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx. March 23, 2010. Accessed August 13, 2010

    4. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_moral_case_against_health.html

    5. census.gov

    6. http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/places/1000121200

    7. IBID

    8. http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel161.htm

    9 IBID

    10. Primary Care Physician

    11. Bob Herbert.  A dishonest health-care tax: The Senate version of the bill has a nasty surprise for the middle class. Wednesday, December 30, 2009.  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09364/1024395-109.stm. accessed August 12, 2010

    12. These amounts will be adjusted over time to account for inflation

    13. Employee Health Benefits: 2008 Summary of Findings. http://ehbs.kff.org/images/abstract/7791.pdf. access August 12, 2010

    14. ttp://www.kff.org/ Access August 12, 2010

    15. Barnett, Randy E. Washington Post. Is health-care reform constitutional. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html. March 21, 2010. Accessed August 13, 2010

    16. IBID

    17. Source Health Insurance for America Now report which is based finance reports filed by the identified insurance companies. http://hcfan.3cdn.net/d605c2281191ac1f04_kam6bn3ga.pdf. accessed August 15, 2010

     

    © 2010 Mark Monroe

    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working