Health Care Incentive Act of 2011 - Essay Example

Health Care Incentive Act of Health Care Incentive Act of otherwise known as United s National HealthCare Act of 2011 is a bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives by Issa, a representative in the house from the state of California. As of now, the bill has no cosponsor. According to Colander (64), the act intends to create a single-payer, universal system of health care in United States, an equivalent of the Canadian Medicare, the National Health Service of the United Kingdom; the National Insurance Health Bureau of Taiwan among other such examples. The policies to be enacted by the bill will see the Government of the United States automatically and directly paying for all the medical care that is medically necessary as decided between the doctor and a patient. This is expected to end private insurance needs for such care, and likely transforming private insurance companies into providers of supplemental medical coverage, which shall be resorted to for non-essential care as is the case in the United Kingdom, mostly for such services as dentistry (Colton 22). The national healthcare system is expected to be funded through taxes, monies expected to replace insurance premiums which has been the major justification for private insurance. Individuals advocating for the single payer system of healthcare, including economists, have voiced their opinion that eliminating the companies dealing in medical insurance currently would eliminate their overheads, especially administrative, hence sufficiently reducing the overall cost of health care, which would enable the uninsured individuals at the moment and every other American citizen to be covered with much ease and even realize a monetary surplus from the program (Colton 23). Colander (65) explains that the bill was initially introduced in 2003. At the time, it had 25 cosponsors. Since then, it has been introduced in each congress but has consistently failed. In one such occasion, the bill was pushed by activists during the debates on healthcare in 2009. The bill was amended and ended up as the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. This particular bill is expected to be debated then voted upon in February 2012 by the house. People who staunchly advocate for health care with single payer system, as the most appropriate vote and passage of the act have loomed and tried to present the bill as the best alternative to another bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2011. The nationwide debate has been implicitly approved by Max Baucus, who also acts as the leader of the nationwide debate on the bill. Currently, the bill has been referred to subcommittee on health while advocacy for it continues even though its advocates seem to have accepted that the realization of a single payer health care system is yet again a project of the long term, whose realization may take years or even decades. Some of the proponents of the act have shifted emphasis from the effort to enact it as a national law and moved towards enacting the single payer health care systems in the individual states of the United States. The enactment of the single payer systems at the state level is expected to serve as the base for argument to enact it at the federal level. During the 2008 presidential campaigns, Barack Obama had promised health care as one of the major reforms his administration would bring. Despite admitting that universal health care coverage can only be provided by a single payer health care system, he instead favored a plan for more insurance coverage. However, during his pronouncements in 2003 at town hall, Obama’s remarks included promotion for a system of health care that is single payer driven (Boyes 29). The single payer system of health care is based on the value of equality and social solidarity. Primarily, this will be achieved by health care financing, where resources shall be redistributed from the rich to the poor citizens (Newnan 36). In the first place, the financing is progressive with revenues, both federal and state, for the health care system being raised via general progressive taxation. Further redistribution of resources occurs during the federal-state transfer of revenues where the cash component of the transfer shall be adjusted according to the socioeconomic characteristics of the state, particularly the condition of the health care facilities and other resources in the state. This will see the federal government allocating resources from the rich states to the poorer states hence diminishing the differences in ability of states to raise funds for the health care system. In essence, this will see all Americans getting quality and assured health care, which is in fact a fundamental right of every citizen in the United States. Moreover, redistribution of resources shall be achieved through additional and direct funding by the federal government for particular segments of the population, especially those that have not been able to access quality medical care due to marginalization over the years (Newman 37). Binger (91) explains that the single payer system will also promote solidarity through regulation of the private sector, failure of which may lead to a health care system that is two tiered. In this case, insurance coverage by private entities shall not be permitted to overlap with insurance coverage from the public. Any physician who shall accept to offer health care services for private payments will be required by the act to opt out of any public payments for the same. Finally, the single payer health care system shall achieve solidarity through allocation of capital. The decisions on capital allocation shall primarily be based on need as opposed to the ability to finance capital projects by institutions. Individuals shall be protected against over spending on the cost of health care through limiting maximum amounts that they may get out of their own pockets towards the same. Solidarity shall be promoted further through the organization that is expected to promote equality in the access of medical care by all individuals. In this case, county hospitals shall be providing specialty care. However, services that require high technology facilities such as neurosurgery and others shall be offered at state run hospitals and other special hospitals that shall be set up by the federal government throughout the country (Binger 96). The bid to equal access to health care by all American citizens by Issa Darrel, whose career as a representative in the house stretches back to the era of civil rights activism in the 1960s, according to his biography, is rooted much in his ideological background. Darrel, who is one of the oldest members in the House of Representatives, saw many of the major political advances made during those years publicize him either as a cosponsor or sponsor of the civil rights activism. In his early days as a legislator in the house, Darrel is known to have signed as a cosponsor of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He also supported liberal social legislation which included the Medicare program establishment that was championed by the then president Lyndon Johnson. Throughout his time as a legislator, Darrel has conspicuously identified himself with racial and social justice issue which is in line with his party ideology. The party in question, the Democratic Party, according to Lee (45) believes in individual citizen rights. Such rights include liberty, life, security, dignity, justice, equality of opportunity and privacy. In the light of the health care needs of individuals, they constitute the fundamental rights that guarantee an individual life and dignity and, therefore, it is within the ideologies of the Democratic Party for every American citizen to have access to quality health care. This is envisioned to be achieved through the single payer health care system. The bill has nationwide popularity even though it is likely to fail to be chosen during the 2012 health care debate period. The bill, which tends to care for the majority of Americans’ health care, Darrel and other proponents of the bill, won additional support from the general public who in essence constitute the electorate. With the general electorate, the bill had a generally positive response even though it cannot possibly get 100 percent support. This may impact positively to the next election bid by the sponsors and cosponsors of the bill. There is the possibility of people voting for such legislators with the hope that they may successfully push the bill, albeit in another version, into law to enable all citizens get access to quality health care. However, it is shallow to believe that the bill alone can be a determining factor in the next elections since elections entail more than just health care or general policy. It is therefore an inappropriate prediction that the single payer system of health care can be the determining factor in the American politics at any point in time. However, even though the bill received support from the general electorate, there was disparity in the interest groups. For instance, According to Ackerman (211), the introduction of the system in Canada saw the income of physicians reduce considerably. There has been the same concern, though not voiced very clearly, among the American physicians who expect their income to reduce as well if the policy is implemented in the country. Another interest group whose support and opposition may delay the enactment of the bill entails the house membership, both from the senate and the house of representative. The bill has not received enough support from the house with most legislators and other officials either opposing it or preferring a different version of the same. For instance, the president among whose main campaign agenda during elections in 2008 was health care reform, favors a plan with more insurance coverage. Other interest groups have been reportedly opposed to the bill due to its elimination of the private health insurers, citing the consequent loss of jobs and business. However, social rights movements and human rights groups have been reported to support the bill since it is seen as capable of advancing health care services to the poor and other disadvantaged groups. People in the upper social class have not clearly voiced their stand but are reportedly opposed to the bill. Most of them are of the opinion that access to health care should be according to the financial ability of the individual since there is no point in using taxes to foot medical bills for individuals. The single payer system of health care stands a chance to be enacted into law even though it may take a significant period of time before it comes to effect. However, modifications have continued to be added to the bill in order to make it conformable and adoptable to the house. Even then, according to Kaiser (34), the opinion poll survey carried out in various states throughout the United States indicated support for the bill from the general public. For instance, in Massachusetts, the ballot question asked whether the representative from the state should support the health care legislation that disregards employment status, age and state of health in enacting a single payer system that is cost effective, comprehensive and provided publicly to all residents. An overwhelming majority of respondents supported the move with only two out of 80 cities recording opposition to the bill. More polls conducted in different parts of the country showed support for the bill from the public domain. The enactment of the bill into law also faces challenges from the interest groups that had been mentioned earlier and others. The main reason why there has been reluctance in enacting the policy into law lies in the different requirements by different factions especially in the house and in government who prefer other versions of the health care system. However, it is expected that the enactment of such law in states such as Vermont and Massachusetts, will influence the legislature in the future to consider enacting the bill to law. Currently, the United States is among the countries with the highest costs of medical care in the world, compared to the size of its economy. This status has continued to influence members of the house to seek for alternative solutions to bring the costs down. Among all the bills proposed, the Health Care Incentive Act of 2011 poses as one of the best in achieving the objective of significantly cutting down on the cost of health care while at the same time delivering affordable health care to all citizens. In conclusion, the general health care reform history and the particularly the Health Care Incentive Act of 2011 has indicated the complex process that policy making undergoes in the United States. Being a pluralist democracy, the competing interests of many factions and interest groups delay and refine policies to a significant extent. Compromise seems to dominate the policy making process with the policies made most of the time, being more refined versions of the initial proposals. In some cases, the initial proposal is completely transformed into something else. Works Cited Ackerman, Nelson. The Impact of Single-Payer Health Care on Physician Income in Canada, 1850-2005. American Journal of Public Health, 2010 Binger, Traurig. Financing Principles to Ensure Universality, Equity, and Accountability. The Wall Street Journal, (2009): 85-107 Boyes, Melvin. There to Here: How Obama intends to Reform Health Care. Annuals of Public Policy, (2009): Vol. 84 pg. 26-32 Colton, Gale. Cost savings associated with single-payer health care system. BMC Health Services Research, (2011): 5 (1): 20 Colander, David. The Case for Single Payer, Universal Health Care for the United States. Pathways and Policies Health Affairs, (2011): 21 N. 2, 60 - 76 Issa, Darrel’s. Biography: Congressman Issa Darrel. 2005. Web. 15 November 2011. http://www.house.gov/Darrel Kaiser, Harris. Single-Payer Poll, Survey and Initiative results. Western PA Coalition for Single-Payer Health Care. 2010. Web. 15 November 2011. http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html Lee, Murphy. What Do Democrats Believe? A Summary of Democratic Party Ideology. 2009. Web. 16 November 2011. http://www.googobits.com/articles/2720-what-do-democrats-believe-a-summary-of-democratic-party-ideology.html Newman, Katherine. Socioeconomic Disparities in Health: Pathways and Policies. Journal of Health & Biomedical Law, (2002): 1-47 Read More