Healthcare Reform in US - Term Paper Example

?Why Healthcare Reform isn't a Done Deal...Yet. Introduction According to Physicians for A National Health Program: “The U.S. spends twice as much asother industrialized nations on health care, $8,160 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 50.7 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.” 1 The purpose of my paper is to emphasize that a single-payer nationalized healthcare reform plan, over the long term, will cost America less money.2 I would recommend that Congress expand Medicare and Medicaid benefits to cover all uninsured Americans, regardless of income. There are three talking points that I use to make this purpose clear. Current talk about budget caps and excessive spending overlook and easily dismiss the obvious. It costs America seven to ten times more to have millions of people without health coverage—for which we all pay, on the front end, or the back. 3 Point 1: The use of emergency rooms for non-emergency doctor's office visits. At five to ten times the cost of a doctor's visit, a hospital is open to interpret whatever are the costs of services and the prices they want to write off at their tax filing year-end. Every write-off is a loss to tax revenue, so an emergency room visit at $1,500-$3,000 a pop on the back end is far more expensive than a $150-$300 doctor's office visit for a covered service on the front end. Point 2: While those who oppose healthcare reform use 'the poor' as whipping posts for “excessive spending,” the truth is that the poor are already covered. That's why spending is out of control. Those who don't have Medicare/Medicaid (controlled costs), or some kind of state coverage, are automatically covered under “indigent care” (uncontrolled costs). The truth is that if they were covered, the economic factors of cost and pricing would be controlled. The main purpose of healthcare coverage is to support working taxpayers who can't afford insurance premiums and do not qualify for 'poor people's' coverage because they have a job. It hurts the economy when a person of limited necessary means has to quit a job in order to qualify for indigent care. Out went the bath water, and the baby. How does the economy improve when a worker has to call out sick every other day or week?6 Either way, corporations and small businesses pay a lot more for inefficiency and non-productivity by the spread of illnesses to other employees than they could ever pay for positive health insurance programs or premiums. Those who say “healthcare reform could cripple the system”5 easily overlook the fact that the healthcare system is already severely crippled. Now, rather than hit directly at healthcare reform, those who oppose it have attacked a piece of the legislation, on grounds of “constitutionality” the mandate that penalties of some kind be imposed if a person is found without coverage. There is no authoritative or statistical data to support this notion, and it certainly forces the hand of reform to cover those who can't afford it. However, it's not hard to make a case that the same state that sues on a small legislative 'tick' apparently value cars over healthcare. Most states now require drivers to have automobile coverage by law, which is just as 'unconstitutional'. Some will be inclined to say those laws apply only to drivers, not to everyone; but that's overstating the obvious. How does anyone quantify that argument in terms of “sick people only” when everyone gets sick or injured at some point and time in life, and more than once; a lot more often than they'd ever have car accidents. It is redundant to go there. Given that ideology, that it is far more important to legally require healthcare coverage than for states to legally require automobile coverage. Given a choice, and many often have no choice: Less people are inclined to keep a job over their health, or that of a child who needs the medical care. Most of the time, the job is simply not worth it. Why work while sick, and why risk making others sick or risk a child's health, especially on a job that typically doesn't pay enough to live on, let alone to pay for health premiums? When it comes to efficiency and equity in the face of glaring disparities, there are never losers—only winners. A country that consistently advocates for and supports the health and quality of medical care for “third world” nations can certainly do no less than perfect by its own. Anything else is insensitive at the very least, hypocritical at its worst. Point 3: As the quality and availability of healthcare goes down, so does the quality of America's health. Are we practicing 'defensive medicine' in fear of malpractice lawsuits, or to make excuses for downgrading the requirements to practice “good or great” medicine? People get sicker more often, and if healthcare needs go unmet, it seeps into the national health risk and wellness levels.6 For example, poisons and toxins in the water from factory pollutants, as well as from ill people people, affect all of us. The sicker some of us are, the sicker the rest of us will get. “...Most tap and well water in the U.S. now [is] not safe for drinking due to heavy industrial and environmental pollution...all sources of...drinking water, including municipal water systems, wells, lakes, rivers, and even glaciers, contain some level of contamination. Contaminants range from naturally-occurring minerals to man-made chemicals and by-products...Tap water may also contain traces of prescription drugs. An investigation by the Associated Press has revealed the presence of a vast array of pharmaceuticals in municipal drinking water including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones. These drugs were found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans and in 24 major metropolitan areas - from Southern California to Northern New Jersey...”4 Sickness is seldom ever self-contained and municipal water supplies are compromised, in clear violation of the “Safe Drinking Water Act.”7 That is only one very important aspect among hundreds of other obvious reasons to protect the health of all Americans. Conclusion I support nationalized single-payer healthcare reform. As goes the health of sick people in the nation, so goes the health of all concerned. No, the government is not the “be-all-end-all” of America's societal and social welfare problems, but none of this appeared as a result of a sudden “big boom,” nor does any of it operate in a vacuum without controlling mechanisms behind the scenes that guide it. The American government was advised, by economists, healthcare specialists, and even senior citizens, to do the humane and decent thing, and to shave exorbitant spending at the same time. Bringing excessive healthcare costs under control, be it front-or-back-end spending, or in the form of the intangible costs of public illnesses, make it clear that Medicaid/Medicare should be extended to all Americans. Period. Works Cited 1 Quote from Physicians for a National Health Program. 14 Aug. 2011 > 2 American Healthcare Reform: “Pass the Bill.” (2010) The Economist Newspaper. 14 Aug. 2011 > 3 Walker, Jonathan D. MD. (2011) “Address How, not Why, of Health Costs.” The Journal Gazette, Ft Wayne, IN. Reprinted in Physicians for a National Health Program. 14 Aug. 2011 > 4 APEC presents Learn about Quality Water: “The Truth about Our Environment and Water: What really happened to our tap water and underground water.” APEC Water Systems presents Free Drinking Water. 14 Aug. 2011 > 5 “Healthcare Reform could cripple the system.” (2011) Insurance Insight Now. 14 Aug. 2011 > 6 “How much is employee absenteeism costing your company?” (2009) pihms: Leave. Productivity. Analytics. 14 Aug. 2011 > 7 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1974) Safe Drinking Water Act. 14 Aug. 2011 > Polling Data from “Real Clear Politics” > Poll Date Sample Favor Repeal Oppose Repeal Spread RCP Average 3/4 - 8/6 -- 49.8 40.5 Favor Repeal +9.3 Rasmussen Reports 8/5 - 8/6 1000 LV 54 40 Favor Repeal +14 Politico/GWU/Battleground 5/8 - 5/12 1000 LV 49 42 Favor Repeal +7 Hearst/F&M 4/5 - 4/25 800 A 44 38 Favor Repeal +6 Bloomberg 3/4 - 3/7 1001 A 52 42 Favor Repeal +10 See All Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose Polling Data Editorial Commentary Rasmussen Reports: Note how one poll taken during the same period (8/5-8/6) states 'most' Americans favor the “repeal” of healthcare reform, and the other says most Americans “oppose repeal” of the healthcare reform act. Note also how one poll was title “Repeal of Healthcare Law” and the other was labeled “Obama and Democrats Health Care Plan Polling Data.” The polling data of the second count not only seems slanted and biased, and Obama-centric rather than America-centric, but it also appears that the way the question was posed may have affected the outcomes. Did the pollees (1,000 LV), whoever they were and assuming they understood the question asked, believe they were being asked whether or not they favored or opposed healthcare reform, or favored or opposed the REPEAL of healthcare reform? Given that most Americans polled also stated they did not understand, or in some cases, did not care to understand healthcare reform, these kinds of polls cannot be validated as the opinion of “most” Americans, let alone a majority in a nation of of more than 300 million people. The politics of polling samples can never be viewed or validated as “real clear.” They are typically 'smoke and mirrors' slanted to make circumstances in America appear to be something that they are not, depending on who is paying for the information. Read More