Health Care Reform - Boon or Bane - Essay Example

Health Care Reform, Boon or Bane? By Andrew Dool and XXX     Introduction-Attention Getter: Imagine yourself taking your morning jog when you suddenly feel a sharp pain on the left side of your chest. You find the nearest medical facility, and the admitting resident doctor determines that while your condition is far from critical, you need to consult a heart specialist. You are thankful that you have Medicare coverage to answer for your unexpected expenses, and proceed to the office of the hospital’s cardiologist, anxious to find out if you have a heart condition. You are confident that your mind will be put at ease by the specialist on the other side of the door. Just as you turn the knob on that door, a sign posted on it catches your attention. It says: “Sorry, Medicare not accepted. Only cash payments, please.” I bet you, that sign is enough to give anybody a heart attack. Body Paragraph I This would probably be the likely outcome of our new healthcare law, which took effect earlier this year. On its face, the health care reform embodied in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is designed to provide the several benefits to the public. It promises certain advantages. For instance, an additional 32 million people are expected to be extended health insurance coverage as a result of this law, which should mean that we should see a general improvement in health specially in the poorer sectors of society. Also, those already enjoying coverage will have a broader protection under the new bill, according to the politicians who support the law. Unfortunately, however, critics had pointed out that there are burdens that the law imposes on individuals and businesses. For instance, and probably the greatest complaint about the law, is that individuals will be mandated to obtain health insurance; those who do not obtain coverage will be meted with fines of 2.5% of income by the year 2016. Therefore, even if you do not wish to buy health insurance, you will have to or else suffer the punishment of paying a hefty fine! The same is true for businesses with more than 50 workers who fail to offer medical coverage, as they could be fined up to $2,000 per full-time employee. Aside from the burdens on the direct buyers and beneficiaries of the insurance, the new law also imposes new burdens on the taxpayer in the form of additional taxes on the taxpayer.   A 40% excise tax will be applied on high-cost health insurance plans, and payroll taxes will be raised for Medicare, the government health insurance plan for the disabled, from the present 1.45% to 2.35%, for individuals paying $200,000 or more and for couples earning $250,000 or more. Also, a tax of 3.8% will be imposed on some investment income for high-income groups, which should put a further dampener on our already nervous investment market. Medical device manufacturers, insurance providers, and brand-name pharmaceuticals will likewise feel the brunt of the new law when they shall be required to pay additional fees, increasing their cost of operations. But the greater financial obligations are not confined to businesses. The new law will also be a heavy burden also to families as well as taxpayers. The average cost of a family health insurance policy offered by employers was $13,375, 80% of which is shouldered by the employer (roughly $10,700 per employee). Applying these statistics to currently uncovered families who will be required to buy coverage, means that a family of four with a national average income of $70,000 will have to spend less of their income on family needs as they will have to pay $6,650 for healthcare coverage. The other half of the cost – about $6,725 – will be subsidized by taxpayers’ money. There is a broad negative reaction to the health care law from several sectors. The loudest protest is because of the mandatory requirement that people purchase health care coverage, even if they don’t want to. Healthcare professionals likewise reacted to the healthcare reform measures that impose a wide array of fees and regulations on health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers and other companies in the healthcare sector. Drug companies look forward to bleak earnings between 2011 and 2012, when the biggest wave of patent expirations in the history of the pharmaceuticals industry will peak, meaning lower revenues by pharmaceutical firms. If pharmaceuticals become unprofitable, they will engage less in the costly research and development for new medicines, and for cutting-edge research such as the cure for cancer. Other groups are discouraged about the added restrictions. Cardiologists will receive a 42% reduction in reimbursements for Medicare services rendered, causing speculation that some doctors will either retire, or refuse Medicare for payments and require cash payments instead. There is a general apprehension that eventually, when it becomes apparent that taxes on the rich will not be enough, more taxes will be imposed on the poor and middle class to cover the additional costs of this new law. After everything, the additional insurance will not improve healthcare quality at all. David Goldhill (2009) tells a story about how his father was killed by hospital-borne infection. Although the hospital had state-of-the-art facilities and a well-regarded reputation, the cause of his father’s hospital-acquired sepsis was due to failure of the hospital to implement simple protocols like physician hand-washing and other basic sterilization procedures. Goldhill says, “I suspect that our collective search for someone to blame has distracted us and our political leaders from addressing the fundamental causes of our healthcare crisis…Health care will need to be subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We need to reduce, rather than expand the role of insurance, overcome our addiction to hidden subsidies and manipulated prices, and rely on ourselves as ultimate guarantor of good service.” Healthcare advisor Tim Nelson agrees with Goldhill, saying: “Shifting healthcare costs to consumers help employers save money. [However], increased regulatory requirements mean less innovation, less differentiation and more pricing pressure for the foreseeable future.” We cannot change the law, but living in a democratic society, we could surely mobilize people and inform our representatives in congress about our sentiments. Body Paragraph II : Proposed solutions and implementation Informed citizens should organize an information campaign for dissemination to wider groups. This could be done through email, posters, and groups meetings. An open debate could be initiated in order to thresh out the issues behind the law and arrive at an acceptable compromise to be proposed to our representative. Also, a signature campaign can be undertaken to allow concerned individuals to express their opposition to the undesirable provisions in the law. Letters can be sent to congressmen to persuade them to introduce changes to the law. One of the most important strengths of our political system is the power to express ourselves on matters that tend to affect us, and thereby affect change. We should therefore take advantage of every avenue open to us. Body Paragraph III: Benefits of solution for your specific audience If Republicans obtain majority seats in the coming elections, they may push for amendments of the health care law. Should congress be successful in passing an amendment of the law that takes into consideration the concerns we expressed, then we could be relieved of additional costs and taxes, which would be very helpful during a time of financial difficulty. If changes are necessary, a more careful study and gradual transition would be better for us, because it will prevent our government from making sudden changes that are not well studied. The opposition to this law comes not only from the taxpayer, but from healthcare professionals, companies, and both political parties, which calls for a re-examination of the most controversial issues. Conclusion The new healthcare legislation promises a wider insurance coverage and more insurable conditions for the people. However, the law also passes on the cost to the taxpayer in the form of higher taxes, which people fear will not only affect “rich” people but also the middle income and poor sectors of society. Healthcare companies such as pharmaceutical firms will shoulder higher costs and new fees, and it is expected that this will be passed on to their consumers. Most importantly, all citizens will be required to buy healthcare insurance whether or not they want to, and will be fined accordingly if they do not. The healthcare law must therefore be amended, if not repealed, in order to avoid making the mistake of adopting a changes that are too drastic without undergoing closer study. Read More