Political Review

Here is probably my last political review for sometime. Seeing how it is on the topic of healthcare, I feel its a fitting end to something I dearly love debating.

Whilst perusing the MSN page I came upon and article from Newsweek that talked about the new healthcare bill. This is the link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981 I would like to take the time and go through point by point and refute the author's arguments about the glories of the new healthcare bill.

First, tell me if this makes sense: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.'' From my understanding this says that the commitees "that be" cannot mandate coverage or establish policies on public healthcare coverage or private healthcare coverage. So who's paying? Who is making the policies? The section of the bill this statement comes from is vague, it states what the commitees can't do, ignores what they can, and does not identify who makes the final decisions and payments.

Second, who is going to pay for this bill? The president has already increased the national debt significantly and he hasn't been in office for a year! His promise of not signing a bill that will cost the taxpayer sounds bleak. Has he kept any of the promises or made any of the "changes" that got him elected thus far? Obama has also said he has "identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now." What costs are those exactly? As a taxpayer I feel I should have a say in what my money goes to especially if it is going to go to government programs.

Third, will private insurance become illegal? The article tries to deny that as a possibility, stating people will still be able to buy private insurance, however in the following paragraph the author contradicts his arguments: "Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn't forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange." My understanding of this paragraph is: all private insurance plans will be absorbed and regulated by the federal government, which would then have control on how much the insured would have to pay for their "private" plan, which is created by this health insurance exchange. However, it appears the cheapest opinion will be the standard government plan (how this is not classified as socialist healthcare, I have no idea). While "private" insurers will have the right to create new plans they cannot be sold and the people cannot buy them without going through the healthcare exchange...essentially making actual private (ungovernment regulated) insurance illegal.

Fourth, I am no fan of euthanasia, but end of life counseling is something I believe all people should consider. Do I think the federal government needs to involve itself in my life decision, absolutely not.

Fifth and Sixth, while the government is not cutting BENEFITS for Medicare, it is cutting SPENDING. Read that sentence again. While seniors are still entitled to all the "coverage" they receive now, the amount of money that is paid to physicians and facilities will be cut. Physicians and facilities are already reluctant to take Medicare patient because one) most have multiple healthcare problems that require regular care and because of that two) the amount of time and resources spent on older patients, is not adequetly paid for by the federal government. As of 2006-2007 the co-payments for Medicare were 20% of total cost of care, and the government would fill in the rest to a certain point, after that the physician or the facility would have to eat the remaining cost. So if the government cuts the reimbursment doctors and facilities are going to be less likely to take on the ever increasing Medicare population. Healthcare is a business.

Final point, illegal immigrants. The government says the new bill will not cover people who are here illegally and the article goes on to claim that no government program pays for illegal immigrants...I beg to differ. Medicaid covers illegal immigrants. While the new bill says it won't pay for people here illegally, what about the massive number of children they produce? While I don't want children to suffer, I don't want to pay for their children. I am sorry, but the whole "born in the US, automatic citizen" thing should not apply if one or both of the parents are illegal. (And if anyone starts on the whole "well technically you are an immigrant too, Native American thing" I have an argument for that too.) In this day and age we can't take care of our citizens, we don't take care of the ones who sacrificed their lives for the country, so why are we taking care of everyone else? Excuse my egocentric thinking, but how dare we criticize how other countries treat their citizens, when we treat illegal ones here better than we treat actual citizens?