What Happened When Alex Kenjeev Paid His Student Loan in Cash
Facebook's IPO Debacle, Day 3: Un-Friended and Dis-Liked on Wall…
The health care overhaul bill is the most important social policy change in the United States since the establishment of Medicare in 1965, and it ranks third behind that act, and the creation of Social Security in 1935 in social welfare state importance. Without question, the health care reform action -- aimed at eventually creating a health care system where everyone is insured and receives regular medical care -- is a civilization advance.
And, one might argue it's long overdo: President Teddy Roosevelt, R-New York, first proposed a national health care system, more than a hundred years ago.
The Senate bill now must be reconciled with the House version in a conference committee, and after the two are reconciled, the United States will join the advanced, industrial economies in Europe in having an insurance plan whose goal is universal coverage.
Still, the health care reform legislation represents a starter home -- not a mansion. Not everyone will be covered in five years -- there will be coverage gaps, citizens who seek to circumvent the system, or who simply chose to pay penalties rather than obtain health insurance. But the bill nevertheless does represent the first step at Medicare and Medicaid cost containment and at granting (via subsidies and other mechanisms) the 15-20 million Americans who do want health insurance but who can't afford it, the opportunity to purchase it. Further, as policy makers learn what's working and what doesn't, look for public officials to refine the program to further wring-out waste and expand cost-effective programs that achieve good health outcomes.
As noted, the health care bill of 2009 is a good bill, but it could have been better. However, Republicans never offered a comprehensive health care policy that had the goal of universal health care insurance at an affordable price. Essentially, the Republicans' stance was: let the market determine what health insurance products are best, let the market work to lower costs, and offer tax credits to help Americans pay for health insurance.
The problem with the above is that there is no credible evidence that suggests that a market economy in the modern era can achieve universal health insurance while simultaneously keeping costs low. To date, no modern, western, industrialized democracy has achieved it. And the United States has seen what the market economy has done as per capita incomes and wealth have increased: health care costs have exploded (and continue to rise), putting health care insurance out of reach for working-class families -- even some middle-class families -- in addition to making it too costly for lower-income citizens. As noted, the health care reform legislation will begin to contain costs, and decrease those coverage gaps.
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.
Still, the health care reform legislation represents a starter home -- not a mansion. Not everyone will be covered in five years -- there will be coverage gaps, citizens who seek to circumvent the system, or who simply chose to pay penalties rather than obtain health insurance. But the bill nevertheless does represent the first step at Medicare and Medicaid cost containment and at granting (via subsidies and other mechanisms) the 15-20 million Americans who do want health insurance but who can't afford it, the opportunity to purchase it. Further, as policy makers learn what's working and what doesn't, look for public officials to refine the program to further wring-out waste and expand cost-effective programs that achieve good health outcomes.
As noted, the health care bill of 2009 is a good bill, but it could have been better. However, Republicans never offered a comprehensive health care policy that had the goal of universal health care insurance at an affordable price. Essentially, the Republicans' stance was: let the market determine what health insurance products are best, let the market work to lower costs, and offer tax credits to help Americans pay for health insurance.
The problem with the above is that there is no credible evidence that suggests that a market economy in the modern era can achieve universal health insurance while simultaneously keeping costs low. To date, no modern, western, industrialized democracy has achieved it. And the United States has seen what the market economy has done as per capita incomes and wealth have increased: health care costs have exploded (and continue to rise), putting health care insurance out of reach for working-class families -- even some middle-class families -- in addition to making it too costly for lower-income citizens. As noted, the health care reform legislation will begin to contain costs, and decrease those coverage gaps.
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-24-2009 @ 3:23PM
Diana said...
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the wrong spelling is used; it should be "overdue".
I think it's wonderful that your country is finally getting what it deserves; a proper health care system. Although you are still a while away from universal health care, I'm sure you'll get there, and when you do, I hope it's more functional than Canada's system.
12-24-2009 @ 5:52PM
william lindblad said...
The blog seems highly supportive and I hope that the writer knows the full contents of said legislation. I have a feeling that it is more likely a major pork barrel that really does not address much of anything.
Does it include malpractice torts?
Does it remove anti-trust status from the health insurers?
Did it enlarge an already overburdened medicare?
12-26-2009 @ 5:56AM
Kevin said...
Does this guy even know what's in the bill? What a dumb log post. He gave not a single example about what he likes or dislikes, and he just took a stab at republicans in the end. Can we get some "meat" to these articles? Seems like this was just a post to get the search engines to crawl and bring guys like me here expecting some good coverage / commentary!
12-28-2009 @ 12:40PM
Kim said...
Every single Democratic Senator got something for their state out of this bill. Don't you think if it truly was a grand idea that we wouldn't have needed those kick backs! The "smart" ones held out for better kick backs, but they all got something for their state.
And I've talked to friends in those so called "advanced European nations" and anyone there with good health care pays for it, it's not free from the government. If they have health issues they pay, or wait months for proper care. Months are critical when you are sick.
And if the governments idea of a great health care system is telling women they don't need mammograms until age 50, I'm afraid what's next! I am fearful for my childrens' health with this bill.