ArchivesAside from war and death, Americans face few issues as immediate as access to health care, particularly during times of economic hardship and its accompanying stress. More than 47 million Americans under 65 lack health insurance.
|
|
How many people do you know who are unemployed, self-employed, partially employed or retired who choose not to go to the doctor or emergency room when they need to because they cannot afford to go?
Two bills are now before the House and Senate that, if passed and reconciled, will be signed by President Barack Obama. They are not terribly different and reflect many compromises, so reconciliation is likely.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, they will both slightly reduce the national deficit over the next 10 years and, with luck, pay for themselves.
Both bills would offer health care to more than 95 percent of Americans not already on Medicare. The proposals are actually LESS comprehensive than those made by President Richard Nixon in the 1970s when bipartisanship was more of a reality. Democrats are often blamed for killing Nixon’s plan; Republicans will mostly be blamed if this reform fails.
Health care reform is on the brink of reality and for the first time in our nation’s history, this country has a chance to offer a health care safety net to the vast majority of Americans.
What won’t either of these bills do?
They will not take away the federal Medicare program. The Medicare Commission proposed in the more conservative Senate bill could, indeed, help stabilize it.
They will not force patients to go to some government-selected physician, although a public health option may be an insurance program the government underwrites and it may be efficient or not and it may prove to be more expensive or less expensive than private insurance. Neither program should impact the time patients wait to see a physician.
They will not force starving health insurance companies (exempt from anti-trust action unless House provisions changing that pass) into bankruptcy.
For those who fear socialism, neither bill provides universal health care.
What WILL the law do? The public plan would negotiate payment rates for those who want to try it. In one bill, states can opt out of having a public plan, and the most conservative states will do so if that is the law.
Both bills will make it possible, through government subsidies, for lower- and lower-middle income families to pay for private or public insurance. Assisted living and nursing homes for disabled become more possible than they are today for the disabled and elderly. And employers will have to provide health insurance.
There would be and should be a portability to insurers, which means those who have insurance cannot be without insurance even when they lose their job or move from one job to another.
Those who like their health insurance may keep it. The example for health reform is Massachusetts, where three years ago similar legislation passed, criticized as being clumsy and complicated. Today 79 percent of Massachusetts residents want to keep the state’s public plan and only 11 percent want it repealed. And 98 percent of the state’s residents have health insurance.
How would national reform be paid for? The Senate bill envisions charging a fee for very comprehensive coverage, thus making it something available only to those willing to subsidize giving everyone the opportunity to have decent, basic health insurance. The House wants to tax individuals earning $500,000 or more and couples earning $1 million or more.
We are at a vital crossroads. We should call our senators and representatives and ask them to vote for the bills moving to the floors of both chambers, and for whatever comes out of each chamber.
If a reconciled bill becomes law, it will not be perfect. Unfortunately, given the political volatility of the United States, this opportunity to protect the health of our country may not come again.
(Editor’s Note: Robert Wick is secretary-treasurer and Walter Wick vice president of Wick Communications Co., owner of the Nogales International and Weekly Bulletin.)
Popular Searches
Comments
Hans wrote on Nov 10, 2009 3:50 PM:
Lets see, Democrats control the senate, house and presidency...just how is it Republicans can do anything except sit back and whine?
Once again, before they fail, Liberals start making excuses, it MUST be everyone else's fault ,we leftist/liberal elected jokes cant seem to pass our own liberal legislation.
I know, scream "right wing conspiracy" or maybe 'George Bush!'...that always proves your point(lessness). "
George Wilgers wrote on Nov 10, 2009 3:31 PM:
IF that is a good thing then please explain while all other major industrialized nations that provide universal health care have much lower survival rates across the board for all major deseases such as cancer?
Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology : 1
American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.]
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.
Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. As Figure II shows:
Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. 2
Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.
The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular).
Furthermore, the Lancet Oncology study found that lung cancer patients in the United States have the best chance of surviving five years — about 16 percent — whereas patients in Great Britain have only an 8 percent chance, which is lower than the European average of 11 percent.
Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada: 3
For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
Early Diagnosis. It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government. 4
In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women. "
George Wilgers wrote on Nov 10, 2009 3:25 PM:
If an employer does not provide health insurance, the Senate Bill requries them to pay a $750 fine per employee. Guess what, that is a whole lot cheaper than actually providing health insurance coverage, so employers will be dropping coverage in droves. And since everyone will normally go with the cheapest option available that would be the federal option, which would dry up the market for the actual insurance companies, eventurally driving them out of business. Low and behold, we WILL be left with a Government Health Care System for ALL. No freedom to choose, just do what the governmetn says to do.
Neither bill actually increases compitition as they do not take out the artifical wall at state boundaries that a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS PUT UP AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES DECADES AGO.
The House Bill makes it a misdemeanor to willfully decide not to pay for heath insurance, punisable by $25,000 fine and one year in jail (Section 7203 of the passed bill). Failing to purchase health insurance will actually be a FELONY punisable by a fine of $250,000 and five years in jail. If the public plan becomes the only plan, YOU CANNOT OPT OUT.
Further more, there is no Constitutional authority for this. Infact one Democratic Congressman (Shea-Porter) indicated in an interview in August that the Constitution does not really matter to anything the Congress does. This from a person who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constition from all threats foreign and domestic!
Tomorrow is Veteran's Day. For the sake of those who have fought for this country, many of whom having paid the ultimate price for OUR freedom, WE THE PEOPLE need to standup and clearly tell our elected officials that they work for US. The are not their to push personal agendas, or further their carriers. If that is what they do, we MUST VOTE THEM OUT. If they willfully trash the U.S. Consitituion, then they most be removed from office at the earliest voting opportunity.
Furthermore, we need our news industry to once again become the defenders of freedom and the watchdogs of government instead of the simpering lap dogs they have become who only care about doing the bidding of one particular political party in the hopes of getting some sort of adverstising dollars out of it. "