Thursday, May 15, 2008

But What Does It All Mean?

Hello everyone. For my last blog I would like to summarize the knowledge and insight that I have gained from this project. Shamita and I began with providing some basic information about America’s health care system, where party’s stand on health care issues, various interest groups, and news about how health care is changing today. So here is what it means to me.

When I began researching health care, I sided with the Democrats for the most part. I believe in expanding health insurance coverage to all, but I know it’s not realistic for America to make the radical change to socialized medicine, at least not any time soon. I also realize the importance of helping individuals to manage their own health needs and customizing insurance, which the Republican Party advocates. Everyone should be responsible for their health and taking care of it, but no one should ever be denied help especially when their life is at risk. No side has all the solutions, but now I at least understand where they’re coming from.

I think Shamita makes a good point when she noted the conservative contradiction on “reserved” health care and at what point they believe life begins. In Denver last Tuesday, 131,000 signatures were delivered to the Secretary of State’s office that supported a constitutional amendment that would, “define ‘person,’ to include any human being, from the time of conception...‘Proponents have said that their goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade, so certainly there are national implications,’ said Toni Panetta, spokesperson for the Protect Families Protect Choices Coalition”. http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=91715 Although this is primarily a human rights issue, it affects the legalization of abortions and brings up the issue of legislating morality.

This project has been very enlightening, however, I feel like our health care system is stuck in some weird limbo of ineffectiveness. Each party has its own beliefs, but no solution. We know the system isn’t working as well as it could be, but it gets us by for now. All we can do is follow what we have now until we can create a health care system that is more efficient and beneficial to Americans.

The Bigger Picture

To culminate the larger meaning of my project, I would like to present a summary of what I have learned the impact on my knowledge and awareness that the project has had this past year.

My overall goal was to be able to understand how various interest groups and current policies are shaping the health care policies of tomorrow. Periodically, I have done some reading on online web sources and been paying attention to the news. Below, are some of the most important ideas I have walked away with…

This project has definitely given some depth to my political perspective on health care. Because I am now more aware of platforms and issues, it has become easier for me to view how my ideology adheres more closely to one party line than another. Before this project, I always viewed myself quite liberally aligned in terms of all issues. However, now I find that I am extremely conservative when it comes to abortion and medical law. My liberal and Democratic side seems to hold strongly with health insurance and health care costs (more on the economics of health care).

Maybe someone can respond to this concern of mine, but if conservatives believe that life begins at conception and it should be protected, then why don’t they feel that health care should be “reserved” and not allowed to protect as many human beings as possible, not just the elderly and the poor? These two stances of theirs seem to contradict one another…

I recently read an article that discussed “health care cost inflation”. It stated that although health care itself is on the lowdown, health care costs are at their peak. Revenues to the social security budget that are being given to the beneficiaries are also starting to decrease. As the burden of health care costs shifts from employer to employee, citizens are becoming very frustrated about having to pay so much for health insurance in addition to automobile gasoline. I noticed a comment after this article made by an M.D. in Los Angeles. I followed the link to his blog and discovered that he doesn’t exactly view the American Health System as perfect…http://mckinseytomainst.blogspot.com/.

Researching health care this past semester has helped me comprehend the various issues and their potential solutions. It is clearer than ever that we will be struggling with a relatively incompetent health care budget in the next couple decades. Most probably, the struggle will begin soon. Possibly, the struggle began very long ago.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Party Platforms and Health Care Article

Here's a blurb on what the party positions toward Health Care tend to be in the United States. I've chosen some helpful paragraphs from different websites and pasted them below.

DEMOCRATS
Bush's Medicare Rx program helps companies more than seniors. (Jul 2004)
Expand coverage and cut healthcare costs. (Jul 2004)
Every American should have affordable health insurance. (Aug 2000)
Add prescription drug benefit to Medicare. (Aug 2000)
Health care and insurance coverage

Democrats call for "affordable and quality health care," and many advocate an expansion of government intervention in this area. Many Democrats favor a national health insurance system in a variety of forms to address the rising costs of modern health insurance. Some Democrats, such as Rep. John Dingell and Senator Edward Kennedy, have called for a program of "Medicare for All."[26]
Some Democratic governors have supported purchasing Canadian drugs, citing lower costs and budget restrictions as a primary incentive. Recognizing that unpaid insurance bills increase costs to the service provider, who passes the cost on to health-care consumers, many Democrats advocate expansion of health insurance coverage.

REPUBLICANS
ABC for AIDS: Abstinence, Be faithful, Change behavior. (Sep 2004)
Ethical research yes; embryo cells no; cloning no. (Sep 2004)
No assisted suicide. (Sep 2004)
Government-run universal health care leads to inefficiencies. (Sep 2004)
A reformed Medicare will give seniors choice, flexibility. (Aug 2000)
Give individuals tools to manage their own health needs. (Aug 2000)
Allow customization of insurance, support health centers. (Aug 2000)
Lawyers should not hold physicians hostage. (Aug 2000)

The party opposes a single-payer universal health care system, such as that found in all other developed countries, referring to it as "socialized medicine" and is in favor of the current personal or employer-based system of insurance, supplemented by Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. The GOP has a mixed record of supporting the historically popular Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs, all of which Republicans initially opposed. On the one hand, congressional Republicans and the Bush administration supported a reduction in Medicaid's growth rate.[10] On the other hand, congressional Republicans expanded Medicare, supporting a new drug plan for seniors starting 2006.

Since the elections and such are such a hot topic, the following link goes to a page that discusses the candidate's views on health care: http://www.ontheissues.org/News_Medicare_+_Medicaid.htm

The link below is a recent article online that discusses some of the pros and cons of the American Health Care system: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Campaign08/tb1/8856
Question: The linked article above asked citizens if they thought American health care was the best in the world. From what you know about health care do you think our system is the best? Why or what could be changed to make it better?
Please blog about your reactions to these platforms and issues!

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Interest Groups

Hi Everyone!
I just thought I would put out some information about some of the interest groups who play a big part in creating policies in our health care system, one of them being the AMA, the American Medical Association. The AMA is the nation’s largest physician’s group that is working to ensure that every American, regardless of race and economic standing, has the health insurance that will allow them to have control over their care and access to doctors. For the AMA’s 2008 policy agenda they have proposed to lawmakers a system of tax credits that allows individuals to purchase health care. The AMA has also urged Congress to fix the current Medicare law that creates cuts in payments to doctors and the group is also seeking reasonable limits to medical lawsuits that are forcing doctors out of work and increasing health care costs. The AMA is currently fighting to prevent legislation that will cut Medicare physician payments by 10 percent which would lead to a reduction in medical staff because physicians would not be able to meet payrolls with such a payment decrease and prevent doctors from being able to invest in medical technology. The AMA has a list of all the current legislation they are involved in at their address: http://capwiz.com/ama/issues .

Families USA is a national non-profit organization that works on the national, state, and community level. Families USA is urging Congress and the President to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and like the AMA is informing the public about President Bush’s budget for health care. They fear that Bush’s budget will create steep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, provide disproportionate tax breaks for the high income tax payers, and cut programs that aid people who cannot afford health insurance. Families USA is pushing for an alternative plan to this budget that proposes that the government negotiate better drug prices, stop overpaying private Medicare Advantage plans, improve the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and design a refundable tax credit for those in the lower tax brackets. Families USA has also posted their video opposing the President’s budget plan on their website: http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.familiesusa.org/

America’s Health Insurance Plan’s, AHIP, is a national association for the healthcare financing industry. Earlier this week AHIP wrote to the House opposing the H.R. 1424, or the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equality Act. AHIP’s reasons being, “we support the Senate approach to mental health parity, S. 558, which was developed with input from consumer groups, employers, health insurance plans, and other stakeholders in this debate. Our letter noted that this approach recognizes the use of appropriate medical management tools to improve the quality and accessibility of behavioral health benefits; focuses on coverage for behavioral health and substance abuse problems, instead of applying broadly to all conditions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); and would allow plans to deliver behavioral health benefits through providers who participate in their medical management and quality improvement programs.” AHIP has also posted a list of health care activity currently going on Washington at: http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.hiaa.org/

Monday, February 18, 2008

Had an Urge to Post...Bush's Medicare Plan

Just read this article off of the Wall Street Journal and had the urge to share... It looks like there's going to be some heated debate about how the government will handle the increasing spending toward Medicare.
Let me know what you think!

Bush's Medicare Plan Likely to Ignite Partisan Fight
By SARAH LUECKFebruary 16, 2008; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- President Bush sent legislation to Congress aimed at reining in Medicare costs. At the top of his list: charging wealthier beneficiaries more for their prescription-drug coverage.
But Democrats said the proposal wouldn't get far, and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) called it "dead on arrival."
Bush administration health officials unveiled proposals Friday that are designed to reduce the portion of Medicare spending that comes from general revenues, as required under a 2003 law that also spelled out procedures meant to force the Democratic-controlled Congress to consider the proposals this year.
The ideas are likely to touch off an election-year fight between Democrats and Republicans about how to deal with Medicare's increasing costs. Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.) said the proposal "shows us exactly where Republicans stand when it comes to helping seniors and people with disabilities. The president's idea for 'improving' the program is to stick the beneficiaries with more of the bill."
Many Republicans backed Mr. Bush's plan, saying Medicare growth is endangering the nation's fiscal health. "We cannot delay action on entitlement reform any longer," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Senate Budget Committee's top Republican. "There is no denying that this crisis is on our doorstep." House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said he hoped Democrats would "work with Republicans to begin making these important reforms."
The Bush proposal calls for savings of $900 million in 2013, or nearly $3.2 billion over the five years starting then, by increasing the drug-insurance premiums paid by Medicare beneficiaries with incomes greater than $82,000, or $164,000 for married couples. The bill also would give the Department of Health and Human Services secretary authority to implement a nationwide system for electronic-health records, provide cost and quality data about health-care providers to Medicare beneficiaries, and design a way to link government payment of providers to their efficiency and quality.
In addition, the legislation would restrict damages in medical-malpractice lawsuits, which HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt said would reduce duplicative tests and other steps physicians may take to protect themselves. Mr. Bush has proposed many of the same ideas in recent years.
Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who chairs a committee that oversees Medicare, said the medical-liability changes are "not going to get any more traction than they have before." He said raising Medicare drug premiums for upper-income people is "an attractive option" to help pay for other priorities, but said it is a "major change that should only be considered in a broader review of the benefit."
The legislation is a response to a provision included in the Medicare drug-benefit law passed in 2003. Under that law, a warning must be issued if Medicare's trustees predict for two years in a row that the portion of its spending coming from general revenues will exceed 45% within a seven-year window. That prediction was made for the second consecutive time last year. The 2003 law calls for the legislation to be introduced in the House and Senate, making battles possible on the floor this year. Democrats, who reject the warning as constructed, said they still are considering how to proceed.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Welcome and Our Mission!

Hello! Shamita Punjabi and Nikki Blu would like to warmly welcome you to our blog, dedicated to the exploration and understanding of the United States Health Care system.
We hope to enhance your understanding on the workings of the healthcare system, how it benefits or disadvantages certain demographics, current government proposals, and more!

As intellectuals, it is important for each one of you to actively involve yourselves in responses and posts on this website, as we can only do so much for you to take advantage of this learning experience. As participants in the "game of government" it is also YOUR job to contribute to the understanding of your peers as well as the sponsors (us!) of this blog! So get ready to get involved!

Our mission is to update once every week with background information, modern day controversies, current events, etc... Please make it a healthy habit to weekly check up on the blog for new posts! As always, we welcome any suggestions regarding postings or anything you would like to express!
Thank you and enjoy!