Natalia Duarte
Eng 103
Dr. McCormick
Natalia.Duarte89@gmail.com
President Obama’s Poorly Designed Health Care Reform.
The making of President Obama’s long campaign trail explains how the politician who emerged in an extraordinary election learned the personal and political skills necessary to make history in both America and worldwide. Throughout his candidacy, Obama campaigned for a better health care reform. However, after more than a year in office, he passed the new health care bill that has sparked tension and controversy between democrats and republicans. Despite the President’s good intention to aid those who cannot afford to buy private health insurance or to force employers to provide their employees health coverage even in the smallest of business by 2014, many Americans still doubt the real benefits behind this bill. The gap between how much Americans spend on healthcare and what they get in return occurs because they are embedded in a confusing system that gives them low value for their money, which makes people demand more than they need. I believe that president Obama’s health care bill was rushed, poorly designed, costly, and it should have been implemented in a more inclusive, publicly funded way. This new reform has a lot of gaps to fix, especially in the employment-based insurance and Medicare/Medicaid sectors.
The New health Care law will cause a costly and continuous economical downturn nationwide. Peter Grier, author of Health Care Reform Bill 101; Who Will Pay For Reform? states,“ Change like that doesn't come cheap. More specifically, change like that would cost about $940 billion over its first 10 years,
according to the Congressional Budget Office.” The law doesn’t make a single change to achieve its goal of insuring nearly all Americans. Instead, it provides a loose safety net designed to attract people who do not receive health coverage through employment and can't afford to buy their own, who are unemployed, and
those who have been dependent on their insurance due to a pre-existing condition. After the bill is enacted in 2014, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, with the exception of immigrants who will neither benefit from this law nor Medicaid even if they pay out of their own pockets. Moreover, everyone must purchase health insurance or face an annual fee. The bill plans to overtax small businesses, large employers and the rich. If business owners cannot afford their employees, the health-care recipients will lose their jobs. According to Arthur B. Laffer, author of How to Fix the Health-Care Wedge, “a one trillion increase in federal government health subsidies will accelerate health-care inflation, lead to continued growth in healthcare expenditures, and diminish our economic growth even further.” With the rise of unemployment, more people will have to depend on the government (welfare) to make ends meet. Additionally, they won’t be able to pay for either health insurance or imposed fees. President Obama continuously spoke about Democratic and Republican support during his reform proposal. Angie Holan, author of Health Care Reform Bill Not that by Partisan states, “So is technically correct that the proposal had "Democratic and Republican support." But he didn't mention that it got only one Republican vote, which meant the nine other GOP senators voted against it. That's not exactly a robust example of bipartisanship. So we rate his statement Barely True.” The truth is, Democrats and Republicans have been debating over this bill ever since President Obama’s campaign. Actually ever since Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton campaigned for universal healthcare. The right wing believes that the problem of uninsured individuals should be addressed within the free market healthcare system and that the government should not control healthcare.However, liberals believe that affordable health coverage will bring the American society at ease. Americans won’t have to worry about bankruptcy or going untreated for a serious illness. In my opinion, both political concepts of this bill are biased. Republicans fail to deal with situations in which people cannot always afford health care. For example, if a working parent has to choose between food and health care, she or he will probably choose food for their family and thus be unprepared for a medical emergency. In the other hand, health coverage for all is indeed a great investment, bu democrats fail to notice the gap between price paid and price received.Americans are still unsure of how this costly insurance regulation will affect them and where it could go wrong. Thomas E. Getzen author of Health Economics and Financing states, “ An economic boom feels so good that people may not realize that such high growth rates are abnormal, that another recession is bound to come eventually” (314-15). Nowadays, people have the ideal belief that the economy will remain stable forever and that there’s no need to save up for a rainy day or an emergency. As a consequence, it is easier to pile up debts than to gather savings. While Democrats believe that their effective health care plan would stabilize the deficit, Republicans argue that if the current U.S spending rhythm keeps up, the country is headed for a greater economical downturn.
A single-payer system would be a big step in changing America’s poorly designed health care system. America has the world’s most expensive health care cost in the world. According to William E. Lafferty, author of Healing, Medical Care, and Health Service Organizations, “the United States has by far the most expensive health care system in the world per capita (per person).” Many indices of healthcare effectiveness shows that the United States fares very poorly in comparison to other developed capitalist countries. Almost all the other capitalist countries have universal healthcare. All their citizens are insured and their per capita costs are much lower. Even communist Cuba and capitalist Denmark provides free health care for all of its citizens and both countries have a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. Canada also has a much lower infant and overall mortality rate than the U.S. Holly Dressel, author of Has Canada Got the Cure? states,“ Most Americans are unaware that the United States is the only country in the world that doesn’t already have a fundamentally public-that is, tax-supported-health care system.” In other words, the U.S has been divided between private and public health care funding for the past 30 years or so. The difference is that Canada has a single-payer system. The government pays for almost all medical costs. In contrast, the United States rely on many competitive private insurance companies (non-profit as well as for- profit) and employment-based insurance plans, ignoring the fact that this type of funding leads to a fall in public health. It is also unfortunate that about half of all reasons for bankruptcy in the United States are due to a serious health problems, coverage denial, and costly medical bills. Unlike the current system, single payer would let patients choose their own doctors and put an end to the bureaucratic policies of private insurances. Healthcare would be both affordable and universal, and the inequalities in health care would no longer contribute to the overall inequalities of U.S. society. When taxation is the primary means of financing health care, everyone receives the same level of coverage regardless of their ability to pay, their level of taxation, or risk factors.
One of the biggest gaps in the new health care system occurs within employment-based insurance. The original plan was to help families keep their health costs to an estimated 10% of income, until Congress realized they couldn’t afford to support everyone. Large companies are expected to continue to offer coverage to their employees but we can’t say the same about the smallest companies. For this matter, Congress imposed the fine, which is completely understandable because every employee, be the firm large or small, should be entitled to health coverage. Since this bill was rushed and not carefully analyzed, something had to go wrong. The penalty that companies will pay for failing to offer coverage is lower than the actual cost of the insurance. So basically, employers, specially small business owners, have the choice to either provide insurance or pay the fine since it’s cheaper. Nothing will count against them as long as they’re paying the fine, the government won’t interfere. In my opinion this reform contradicts itself. It was mainly created to ensure the majority working class, but yet it gives employers the alternative to choose between paying a lower fee instead of the actual “mandated” health coverage. The Senate’s health reform plan is very easy on employers. According to Jeremy Smerd, author of Employers, The Pros and Cons of Health Care Reform Emerge, “The Senate health reform plan, which levies a smaller annual fee of $750 per full-time employee against employers that do not provide insurance, would reduce the number of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance by 5 million people by 2019.” If the reform is passed, most employers will stop offering coverage to their employees. Since the minimum benefit requirement would raise the costs in employment-based insurance, business owners would much rather save money by dropping the coverage instead of upgrading it. However, if the new healthcare bill was passed by the House, the number of people insured by employers would increase by “ six million by 2019 ” (Smerd). If the penalties enforced are greater than the actual cost of health benefits, employers would be forced to provide [employees] immediatem coverage. The heath care reform has been facing a great deal of judgment. Like any other law, it has flaws and gaps that need to be addressed and revised with care, in order to meet the needs of the American society.
The new Health Care reform lowered reimbursement rates for state funded insurances, forcing pharmacists and pharmacy owners to deny Medicaid and Medicare holders. The pharmaceutical industry is losing a lot of money and patients. Nature’s Chemist Pharmacy owner and Pharmacist Vincenzo Polise states, “ Due to the guidelines, I currently do not except Medicaid and Medicare plans. I did before the new health care bill catastrophe came along. This bill hasn’t benefited my business at all. In fact, it has made it worse because I’m no longer able to accept and care for these patients. With lower reimbursement rates on public health insurances, it is impossible to make our profit and to provide proper care .” Independent pharmacies rely almost entirely on prescription sales to stay in business. The less prescriptions they fill, the greater are the chances of running out of business. Hospitals, mostly in the ER sector are also suffering from deficit cuts. According to Abby Goodnough, author of Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care, “ The Hospital, Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year… the suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.” Medicaid and Medicare covers a vast majority of the U.S population. Many Medicare recipients receive benefits through private advantage plans, also known as managed-care programs, that may limit health care provider choice. If pharmacies, hospitals, and doctor’s offices start denying Medicaid and Medicare users, their coverage will become useless and they will end up paying out of their own pockets, which is currently happening to Medicare Part D holders. Seniors covered by Medicare find themselves in a giant doughnut hole, literally. Despite the sugary terminology, there’s nothing sweet about it. The doughnut role refers to a gap in prescription drug coverage under the Medicare Part D plan. Beneficiaries enter the coverage gap when their prescription tab hits a certain amount. Such raise in the Doughnut hole can make patients procrastinate and sometimes fail to fill their Prescriptions. Josie Howard-Ruben, author of Unexpected “Donut Hole” Raises Concerns That Patients Will Fail to Fill Needed Prescriptions states, “ Beneficiaries pay out-of pocket for the first $250 of drug costs. Thereafter, Medicare covers 75% of remaining costs but only until the combined drug costs to the government and the beneficiary reach $2,250. Then patients are expected to pay the next $2,850, plus the plan premium costs, until the plan coverage resumes” (10). Once seniors hit the coverage gap, they are responsible for 100 percent of their medical bills. This medical bureaucracy is extremely unfair. “ Patients taking high-priced medications, such as Imatinib or Erlotinib (cancer medications), however, are likely to reach the coverage gap much sooner…Coverage for Imatinub, approved for treating Myelogenous Leukemia and Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are estimated to cost about $2,000-$2,400 a month” (Howard 10). Patients with Pre-existing conditions such as Cancer, Diabetes, Leukemia, and HIV depend on their coverage to pay for their costly medications. Since Medicare covers mostly 95% of costs, their chances of reaching the Doughnut hole are bound to happen a lot faster. Once again, the new health care bill does nothing to benefit the poor or the working class, by all means; it makes their lives way more difficult. The government should remove the coverage gap and compensate beneficiaries. The bottom line is that further research is needed to identify better strategies for improving medication compliance.
If pushing Medicare holders into a coverage hole wasn’t enough, the new healthcare reform is destroying retirement benefits for baby boomers and it might increase retirement age to 69 due to the nation’s uncontrolled deficit spending. The United States will eventually be crushed over the weight of its own spending. The fact that baby boomers are now getting ready for Medicare and Social Security, will further more end to the increasing of the debt. In order to stabilize the national debt, President Obama suggested rising the retiring age to 69. In the article, Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and High Taxes, the author Jackie Calmes explains how does the Bipartisan Commission views the economy’s future reestablishment. “ Those changes and others, none of which would take effect before 2012 to avoid undermining the tepid economic recovery, would erase nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020, the proposal says, and stabilize the accumulated debt.” High deficit spending has been happening for quite a long time. It came from tax cuts, fighting two wars, and from prescription drug programs, none of which was paid for. As a result, the government was taking on more debt when it should have been saving to prepare for Medicare and Social Security payouts to current retirees. Consequently, retirees find themselves working part-time jobs, because retirement pensions are not enough to live comfortably. Sherisse Pham, describes in his article The Graying Workforce, how his parents’ are still employed and working long hours of the day, even though they are both retired. “ In this economy, my parents’ combined pension is not enough to live on. Many older adults have suffered huge investment losses, and low interest rates reduce the income for those relying on savings andinvestments… the oldest cohort of baby boomers may not have enough money for basic retirement expenses and uninsured health care.” Retirees (65 older) are supposed to enjoy what’s left of their lives, travel, and be worry free. It’s not fair that they’re left with nothing, after they have worked so hard throughout the years. Many seniors do enjoy working after being retired to avoid boredom, to feel productive, to keep young, or just to earn an extra income. Unfortunately, those who have disabilities or no longer have the option nor the physical capabilities to hold a nine to five job, find themselves at risk of not having sufficient retirement resources to pay for basic bills, specially medical. It’s absurd that because the U.S doesn’t have sufficient funds to pay the national debt, senior citizens have to pay the price and give up their retirements’ rights. Besides, there’s no guarantee that the debt will be fully paid in four years, if the retirement age changes to 69.
Obama’s campaign promises of tax cuts, expansion of healthcare, and the resignation of U.S troops out of Iraq, raised hope in the American society. He promised that healthcare would be his top priority. Unfortunately, our current system is a mess. Although the new healthcare reform has its pros and cons, my position in this research paper was to point out some of the issues of this bill. Every American has the right to affordable healthcare, regardless of their economical status. I certainly give President Obama credit for trying to expand universal care, but I also think that this bill should have been planned out more carefully. Instead of creating a whole new health system, Congress insists on upgrading the current one. Therefore, President Obama is not entirely to blame for this poorly designed bill. I strongly disagree with the term “Obamacare,” commonly emphasized by the opposition. Why call it “Obamacare” when it was the Congress especially the republicans who tore this bill apart to make it what it is today. Consequently, their vision of reform will become the pain instead of the remedy and will be criticized as the cause of the problem when coverage begins hurting the nation’s pockets. It’s better to start from scratch and create a new healthcare system that will benefit not only one economical class, but all of them. Everyone needs to negotiate in good faith and give concrete solutions to the current healthcare rupture. Instead of fixing what is already broken, senators and congressional representatives willing to resolve the problems of healthcare in America, need to start working towards a solution. With America’s health care cost considered as the most expensive in the world, there’s clearly a problem. Congress needs to get out of their comfort zone and start thinking outside the box. They should start being open to new ideas such as implementing single payer plans, eliminating coverage gaps, and restoring employment based insurance. They won’t know if it works until they try it. This bill is supposed to take effect in 2014 therefore, the American government should experiment every resource possible, in order to make this reform not only a prestigious victory for president Obama, but one of the greatest accomplishment’s in American politics.
Work Cited:
Calmes, Jackie. “Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts Higher Taxes.” New York Times 11 Nov. 2010 New York ed.: A1. Print.
Dressel, Holly. “Has Canada Got the Cure?” Yes Magazine. 4 Aug. 2006. 30 Oct. 2010< http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/has-canada-got-the-cure>.
Getzen E. Thomas. “Health Economics and Finance.” Ed. Wiley, 4th edition. New Jersey, 2010. 314-15. Print.
Goodnough, Abby. “Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care.” New York Times 15 Jul. 2009: A16. Web. 28 Nov. 2010.
Grier, Peter. “Health Care Reform Bill 101: Who Will Pay For Reform?” The Christian Science Monitor. 21 Mar. 2010. 15 Nov. 2010
bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform>.
Holan D. Angie. “ Health Care Reform Bill Not That Bipartisan.” St. Petersburg Times. 19 Oct. 2009. Politifact Edition. : News. Lexis-Nexis Universe: General News Topics. Online. 28 Nov. 2010.
Howard-Ruben, Josie. "Unexpected "Donut Hole" Raises Concerns That Patients Will Fail to Fill Needed Prescriptions." ONS News 21.12 (2006): 10-11. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
Laffer B. Arthur. “How to Fix the Health-Care Wedge.” The Wall Street Journal 5 Aug. 2009. 19 Oct. 2010.
Lafferty E. William. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Healing, Medical Care, and Health Service Organizations. Washington: DOHS, 2004. PDF file.
Smerd, Jeremy. “Employers, The Pros and Cons of Health Care Reform Emerge.” Workforce magagement.com. Crain Communications Inc. Dec. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.
Pham, Sherisse. “The Graying Work Force” New York Times 30 Nov. 2010: Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
Polise, Vinccenzo. Personal Interview. 29 Nov. 2010.
Eng 103
Dr. McCormick
Natalia.Duarte89@gmail.com
President Obama’s Poorly Designed Health Care Reform.
The making of President Obama’s long campaign trail explains how the politician who emerged in an extraordinary election learned the personal and political skills necessary to make history in both America and worldwide. Throughout his candidacy, Obama campaigned for a better health care reform. However, after more than a year in office, he passed the new health care bill that has sparked tension and controversy between democrats and republicans. Despite the President’s good intention to aid those who cannot afford to buy private health insurance or to force employers to provide their employees health coverage even in the smallest of business by 2014, many Americans still doubt the real benefits behind this bill. The gap between how much Americans spend on healthcare and what they get in return occurs because they are embedded in a confusing system that gives them low value for their money, which makes people demand more than they need. I believe that president Obama’s health care bill was rushed, poorly designed, costly, and it should have been implemented in a more inclusive, publicly funded way. This new reform has a lot of gaps to fix, especially in the employment-based insurance and Medicare/Medicaid sectors.
The New health Care law will cause a costly and continuous economical downturn nationwide. Peter Grier, author of Health Care Reform Bill 101; Who Will Pay For Reform? states,“ Change like that doesn't come cheap. More specifically, change like that would cost about $940 billion over its first 10 years,
according to the Congressional Budget Office.” The law doesn’t make a single change to achieve its goal of insuring nearly all Americans. Instead, it provides a loose safety net designed to attract people who do not receive health coverage through employment and can't afford to buy their own, who are unemployed, and
those who have been dependent on their insurance due to a pre-existing condition. After the bill is enacted in 2014, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, with the exception of immigrants who will neither benefit from this law nor Medicaid even if they pay out of their own pockets. Moreover, everyone must purchase health insurance or face an annual fee. The bill plans to overtax small businesses, large employers and the rich. If business owners cannot afford their employees, the health-care recipients will lose their jobs. According to Arthur B. Laffer, author of How to Fix the Health-Care Wedge, “a one trillion increase in federal government health subsidies will accelerate health-care inflation, lead to continued growth in healthcare expenditures, and diminish our economic growth even further.” With the rise of unemployment, more people will have to depend on the government (welfare) to make ends meet. Additionally, they won’t be able to pay for either health insurance or imposed fees. President Obama continuously spoke about Democratic and Republican support during his reform proposal. Angie Holan, author of Health Care Reform Bill Not that by Partisan states, “So is technically correct that the proposal had "Democratic and Republican support." But he didn't mention that it got only one Republican vote, which meant the nine other GOP senators voted against it. That's not exactly a robust example of bipartisanship. So we rate his statement Barely True.” The truth is, Democrats and Republicans have been debating over this bill ever since President Obama’s campaign. Actually ever since Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton campaigned for universal healthcare. The right wing believes that the problem of uninsured individuals should be addressed within the free market healthcare system and that the government should not control healthcare.However, liberals believe that affordable health coverage will bring the American society at ease. Americans won’t have to worry about bankruptcy or going untreated for a serious illness. In my opinion, both political concepts of this bill are biased. Republicans fail to deal with situations in which people cannot always afford health care. For example, if a working parent has to choose between food and health care, she or he will probably choose food for their family and thus be unprepared for a medical emergency. In the other hand, health coverage for all is indeed a great investment, bu democrats fail to notice the gap between price paid and price received.Americans are still unsure of how this costly insurance regulation will affect them and where it could go wrong. Thomas E. Getzen author of Health Economics and Financing states, “ An economic boom feels so good that people may not realize that such high growth rates are abnormal, that another recession is bound to come eventually” (314-15). Nowadays, people have the ideal belief that the economy will remain stable forever and that there’s no need to save up for a rainy day or an emergency. As a consequence, it is easier to pile up debts than to gather savings. While Democrats believe that their effective health care plan would stabilize the deficit, Republicans argue that if the current U.S spending rhythm keeps up, the country is headed for a greater economical downturn.
A single-payer system would be a big step in changing America’s poorly designed health care system. America has the world’s most expensive health care cost in the world. According to William E. Lafferty, author of Healing, Medical Care, and Health Service Organizations, “the United States has by far the most expensive health care system in the world per capita (per person).” Many indices of healthcare effectiveness shows that the United States fares very poorly in comparison to other developed capitalist countries. Almost all the other capitalist countries have universal healthcare. All their citizens are insured and their per capita costs are much lower. Even communist Cuba and capitalist Denmark provides free health care for all of its citizens and both countries have a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. Canada also has a much lower infant and overall mortality rate than the U.S. Holly Dressel, author of Has Canada Got the Cure? states,“ Most Americans are unaware that the United States is the only country in the world that doesn’t already have a fundamentally public-that is, tax-supported-health care system.” In other words, the U.S has been divided between private and public health care funding for the past 30 years or so. The difference is that Canada has a single-payer system. The government pays for almost all medical costs. In contrast, the United States rely on many competitive private insurance companies (non-profit as well as for- profit) and employment-based insurance plans, ignoring the fact that this type of funding leads to a fall in public health. It is also unfortunate that about half of all reasons for bankruptcy in the United States are due to a serious health problems, coverage denial, and costly medical bills. Unlike the current system, single payer would let patients choose their own doctors and put an end to the bureaucratic policies of private insurances. Healthcare would be both affordable and universal, and the inequalities in health care would no longer contribute to the overall inequalities of U.S. society. When taxation is the primary means of financing health care, everyone receives the same level of coverage regardless of their ability to pay, their level of taxation, or risk factors.
One of the biggest gaps in the new health care system occurs within employment-based insurance. The original plan was to help families keep their health costs to an estimated 10% of income, until Congress realized they couldn’t afford to support everyone. Large companies are expected to continue to offer coverage to their employees but we can’t say the same about the smallest companies. For this matter, Congress imposed the fine, which is completely understandable because every employee, be the firm large or small, should be entitled to health coverage. Since this bill was rushed and not carefully analyzed, something had to go wrong. The penalty that companies will pay for failing to offer coverage is lower than the actual cost of the insurance. So basically, employers, specially small business owners, have the choice to either provide insurance or pay the fine since it’s cheaper. Nothing will count against them as long as they’re paying the fine, the government won’t interfere. In my opinion this reform contradicts itself. It was mainly created to ensure the majority working class, but yet it gives employers the alternative to choose between paying a lower fee instead of the actual “mandated” health coverage. The Senate’s health reform plan is very easy on employers. According to Jeremy Smerd, author of Employers, The Pros and Cons of Health Care Reform Emerge, “The Senate health reform plan, which levies a smaller annual fee of $750 per full-time employee against employers that do not provide insurance, would reduce the number of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance by 5 million people by 2019.” If the reform is passed, most employers will stop offering coverage to their employees. Since the minimum benefit requirement would raise the costs in employment-based insurance, business owners would much rather save money by dropping the coverage instead of upgrading it. However, if the new healthcare bill was passed by the House, the number of people insured by employers would increase by “ six million by 2019 ” (Smerd). If the penalties enforced are greater than the actual cost of health benefits, employers would be forced to provide [employees] immediatem coverage. The heath care reform has been facing a great deal of judgment. Like any other law, it has flaws and gaps that need to be addressed and revised with care, in order to meet the needs of the American society.
The new Health Care reform lowered reimbursement rates for state funded insurances, forcing pharmacists and pharmacy owners to deny Medicaid and Medicare holders. The pharmaceutical industry is losing a lot of money and patients. Nature’s Chemist Pharmacy owner and Pharmacist Vincenzo Polise states, “ Due to the guidelines, I currently do not except Medicaid and Medicare plans. I did before the new health care bill catastrophe came along. This bill hasn’t benefited my business at all. In fact, it has made it worse because I’m no longer able to accept and care for these patients. With lower reimbursement rates on public health insurances, it is impossible to make our profit and to provide proper care .” Independent pharmacies rely almost entirely on prescription sales to stay in business. The less prescriptions they fill, the greater are the chances of running out of business. Hospitals, mostly in the ER sector are also suffering from deficit cuts. According to Abby Goodnough, author of Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care, “ The Hospital, Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year… the suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.” Medicaid and Medicare covers a vast majority of the U.S population. Many Medicare recipients receive benefits through private advantage plans, also known as managed-care programs, that may limit health care provider choice. If pharmacies, hospitals, and doctor’s offices start denying Medicaid and Medicare users, their coverage will become useless and they will end up paying out of their own pockets, which is currently happening to Medicare Part D holders. Seniors covered by Medicare find themselves in a giant doughnut hole, literally. Despite the sugary terminology, there’s nothing sweet about it. The doughnut role refers to a gap in prescription drug coverage under the Medicare Part D plan. Beneficiaries enter the coverage gap when their prescription tab hits a certain amount. Such raise in the Doughnut hole can make patients procrastinate and sometimes fail to fill their Prescriptions. Josie Howard-Ruben, author of Unexpected “Donut Hole” Raises Concerns That Patients Will Fail to Fill Needed Prescriptions states, “ Beneficiaries pay out-of pocket for the first $250 of drug costs. Thereafter, Medicare covers 75% of remaining costs but only until the combined drug costs to the government and the beneficiary reach $2,250. Then patients are expected to pay the next $2,850, plus the plan premium costs, until the plan coverage resumes” (10). Once seniors hit the coverage gap, they are responsible for 100 percent of their medical bills. This medical bureaucracy is extremely unfair. “ Patients taking high-priced medications, such as Imatinib or Erlotinib (cancer medications), however, are likely to reach the coverage gap much sooner…Coverage for Imatinub, approved for treating Myelogenous Leukemia and Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are estimated to cost about $2,000-$2,400 a month” (Howard 10). Patients with Pre-existing conditions such as Cancer, Diabetes, Leukemia, and HIV depend on their coverage to pay for their costly medications. Since Medicare covers mostly 95% of costs, their chances of reaching the Doughnut hole are bound to happen a lot faster. Once again, the new health care bill does nothing to benefit the poor or the working class, by all means; it makes their lives way more difficult. The government should remove the coverage gap and compensate beneficiaries. The bottom line is that further research is needed to identify better strategies for improving medication compliance.
If pushing Medicare holders into a coverage hole wasn’t enough, the new healthcare reform is destroying retirement benefits for baby boomers and it might increase retirement age to 69 due to the nation’s uncontrolled deficit spending. The United States will eventually be crushed over the weight of its own spending. The fact that baby boomers are now getting ready for Medicare and Social Security, will further more end to the increasing of the debt. In order to stabilize the national debt, President Obama suggested rising the retiring age to 69. In the article, Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and High Taxes, the author Jackie Calmes explains how does the Bipartisan Commission views the economy’s future reestablishment. “ Those changes and others, none of which would take effect before 2012 to avoid undermining the tepid economic recovery, would erase nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020, the proposal says, and stabilize the accumulated debt.” High deficit spending has been happening for quite a long time. It came from tax cuts, fighting two wars, and from prescription drug programs, none of which was paid for. As a result, the government was taking on more debt when it should have been saving to prepare for Medicare and Social Security payouts to current retirees. Consequently, retirees find themselves working part-time jobs, because retirement pensions are not enough to live comfortably. Sherisse Pham, describes in his article The Graying Workforce, how his parents’ are still employed and working long hours of the day, even though they are both retired. “ In this economy, my parents’ combined pension is not enough to live on. Many older adults have suffered huge investment losses, and low interest rates reduce the income for those relying on savings andinvestments… the oldest cohort of baby boomers may not have enough money for basic retirement expenses and uninsured health care.” Retirees (65 older) are supposed to enjoy what’s left of their lives, travel, and be worry free. It’s not fair that they’re left with nothing, after they have worked so hard throughout the years. Many seniors do enjoy working after being retired to avoid boredom, to feel productive, to keep young, or just to earn an extra income. Unfortunately, those who have disabilities or no longer have the option nor the physical capabilities to hold a nine to five job, find themselves at risk of not having sufficient retirement resources to pay for basic bills, specially medical. It’s absurd that because the U.S doesn’t have sufficient funds to pay the national debt, senior citizens have to pay the price and give up their retirements’ rights. Besides, there’s no guarantee that the debt will be fully paid in four years, if the retirement age changes to 69.
Obama’s campaign promises of tax cuts, expansion of healthcare, and the resignation of U.S troops out of Iraq, raised hope in the American society. He promised that healthcare would be his top priority. Unfortunately, our current system is a mess. Although the new healthcare reform has its pros and cons, my position in this research paper was to point out some of the issues of this bill. Every American has the right to affordable healthcare, regardless of their economical status. I certainly give President Obama credit for trying to expand universal care, but I also think that this bill should have been planned out more carefully. Instead of creating a whole new health system, Congress insists on upgrading the current one. Therefore, President Obama is not entirely to blame for this poorly designed bill. I strongly disagree with the term “Obamacare,” commonly emphasized by the opposition. Why call it “Obamacare” when it was the Congress especially the republicans who tore this bill apart to make it what it is today. Consequently, their vision of reform will become the pain instead of the remedy and will be criticized as the cause of the problem when coverage begins hurting the nation’s pockets. It’s better to start from scratch and create a new healthcare system that will benefit not only one economical class, but all of them. Everyone needs to negotiate in good faith and give concrete solutions to the current healthcare rupture. Instead of fixing what is already broken, senators and congressional representatives willing to resolve the problems of healthcare in America, need to start working towards a solution. With America’s health care cost considered as the most expensive in the world, there’s clearly a problem. Congress needs to get out of their comfort zone and start thinking outside the box. They should start being open to new ideas such as implementing single payer plans, eliminating coverage gaps, and restoring employment based insurance. They won’t know if it works until they try it. This bill is supposed to take effect in 2014 therefore, the American government should experiment every resource possible, in order to make this reform not only a prestigious victory for president Obama, but one of the greatest accomplishment’s in American politics.
Work Cited:
Calmes, Jackie. “Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts Higher Taxes.” New York Times 11 Nov. 2010 New York ed.: A1. Print.
Dressel, Holly. “Has Canada Got the Cure?” Yes Magazine. 4 Aug. 2006. 30 Oct. 2010< http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/has-canada-got-the-cure>.
Getzen E. Thomas. “Health Economics and Finance.” Ed. Wiley, 4th edition. New Jersey, 2010. 314-15. Print.
Goodnough, Abby. “Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care.” New York Times 15 Jul. 2009: A16. Web. 28 Nov. 2010.
Grier, Peter. “Health Care Reform Bill 101: Who Will Pay For Reform?” The Christian Science Monitor. 21 Mar. 2010. 15 Nov. 2010
bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform>.
Holan D. Angie. “ Health Care Reform Bill Not That Bipartisan.” St. Petersburg Times. 19 Oct. 2009. Politifact Edition. : News. Lexis-Nexis Universe: General News Topics. Online. 28 Nov. 2010.
Howard-Ruben, Josie. "Unexpected "Donut Hole" Raises Concerns That Patients Will Fail to Fill Needed Prescriptions." ONS News 21.12 (2006): 10-11. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 25 Nov. 2010.
Laffer B. Arthur. “How to Fix the Health-Care Wedge.” The Wall Street Journal 5 Aug. 2009. 19 Oct. 2010
Lafferty E. William. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Healing, Medical Care, and Health Service Organizations. Washington: DOHS, 2004. PDF file.
Smerd, Jeremy. “Employers, The Pros and Cons of Health Care Reform Emerge.” Workforce magagement.com. Crain Communications Inc. Dec. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.
Pham, Sherisse. “The Graying Work Force” New York Times 30 Nov. 2010: Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
Polise, Vinccenzo. Personal Interview. 29 Nov. 2010.
