Letters to Artvoice
Obamacare = Modest Reform with Republican Roots
by Carl Mrozek
While roughly half of America is happy or at least relieved at the passage of the Health Care Reform Act, millions of Americans are on the fence and unclear about how and when this landmark legislation will impact their lives. Sadly, a small, but vociferous minority is dead against it, even though core provisions like employer-based private insurance and universal access date back to Richard Nixon’s plan for healthcare reform.
While many of those who vehemently oppose “Obamacare” acknowledge that our healthcare is broken and in urgent need of repair, for the most part they are among the well-covered in our current zero-sum health insurance system of haves and have-nots. Hence they don’t feel “the fierce urgency of now” that more than 50 million in America do today.
Instead, proponents of “repeal and replace” urge a slow, piecemeal reform of our broken healthcare system, starting with tort reform, and more tort reform—as if what we needed was more lawyers, not more doctors and clinics. As chief waterboys for the health insurance monopolies, they do have a point in view of the industry’s widespread practice of recision, whereby tens of thousands of Americans have their policies cancelled as soon as they file an expensive claim. Current and former insurance executives have admitted receiving large bonuses for denying Americans coverage for cancer treatment, organ transfers, and other life-saving procedures, often resulting in their deaths. After all a million saved is a million earned—as long as you don’t have to defend this insidious practice in court. With insurance company profits tied to denying, not providing, healthcare coverage, it’s easy see why legislative lackeys for the health insurance industry would be focused first and foremost on tort reform and not expanding access to healthcare to millions more Americans.
Even though they won’t be immune from lawsuits, the stock of major health insurance companies skyrocketed after passage of the Health Care Reform Act, in anticipation of 31 million more clients entering the system, each worth at least several thousand in premiums per year. Apparently Wall Street isn’t afraid of a government takeover of the healthcare system.
Seniors shouldn’t fear the Health Care Reform Act either. For starters it will get rid of the odious “donut hole” in Medicare Part D—the only Republican-sponsored contribution to our modern healthcare system, despite controlling both houses of Congress for more than a decade under Clinton and Bush, and the presidency for eight years prior to Obama. This alone will spare seniors several thousand in out-of-pocket expenses they now incur when they slip into the “donut hole” gap in prescription coverage.
The list of other benefits is long and a bit complicated but includes making it illegal to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, starting with children in the next few months and extending to everyone within a few years. In the meantime, those denied coverage may get it via federally subsidized “high risk pools” run by nonprofits, not the government. Recision will also become illegal within six months, as will lifetime caps on coverage. That and the requirement that private plans offer preventative care for all payees without co-pay or deductibles may actually force insurance company executives to start competing for bonuses based on illness prevention instead of non-treatment of sick customers.
It is hard to fathom how any rational person can argue that a bill which does so much good for so many somehow undermines our democracy and free enterprise system. On the contrary, it provides basic protections for average Americans, the middle class, and makes affordable healthcare a right, not a rapidly vanishing privilege. It is hard to see how any but the economic elite in Rust Belt Buffalo could argue against the newly passed Health Care Reform Act let alone demonize it as undermining something sacred in America. It is impossible to condone the call to arms, to bricks and ethnic slurs, to “lock, load, and target” elected representatives who helped make this historic, compassionate, long-awaited and necessary, albeit modest reform possible.
Carl Mrozek, Lancaster
Artvoice reserves the right to edit letters for content and length. Shorter letters have a better chance at being published in their entirety. Please include your name, hometown, and contact number. E-mail letters to: editorial@artvoice.com or write to: Artvoice Letters, 810 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14202
Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)
|
BuffaloRandy 01 Apr 2010, 12:54
I opposed the version of health care reform that passed for several reasons, which seem rational to me. First, is the issue of complexity. The bill is too complex for anyone to understand all its ramifications in my opinion. Second, the one size fits all approach. The exchanges will be limited to government dictated benefits and deductibles. The current high deductible policies paired with health savings accounts may be outlawed, depending on how the regulations are written. They will also dictate procedures available by controlling payment policies, probably on a political basis. Third, the allocation of power. The bill did not address the issue of credentialing. Currently, every insurance company can determine who can provide services that they pay for. This means that government licensing operations (in NY the Education Department) can issue and revoke licenses, but insurance companies can refuse to credential licensed providers, limiting supply and choice. (interestingly, the AMA wants to maintain the status quo, consistently opposing any willing provider laws) Fourth, the issue of mandatory purchase of health insurance. In my opinion, forcing someone to buy something or pay a fine simply for existing is unconstitutional, or if it is not, it should be. Fifth, the continuing inequity to the younger members of our society. Currently the federal government spends $7 on seniors for every $1 spent on children. My estimate is that this law will make that even worse by shifting costs from the elderly to the young, regardless of ability to pay. Mr. Mrozek summarizes many good things about the law, but it is unfair to state that the only reason to oppose it is being wealthy.
Lloyd A. Marshall, Jr. 02 Apr 2010, 21:19
I understand why people who have cars are required to have car insurance. Driviing also involves others around you. With health insurance, though... where is the public-safety angle? And I don't agree with having the IRS in charge of administering such a flawed bill. The bill was passed, and now it's time to canceli it and start from scratch. How about tort reform as part of helath care reform? How about letting people shop across state lines for health insurance that may do what they want for less money? How about getting the government out of the decision-making business and letting people and their doctors make such decisions?
Peter A Reese 03 Apr 2010, 10:11
What Americans need is health care. What the HCRA forces them to buy is insurance. Insurance is not health care. Insurance is a weaselly promise to maybe pay for health care if you need it. What don’t we understand about that? In addition, this promise is made to us by the same criminals who have destroyed the system so well to date. Insurance companies maximize profits by not paying claims. What don’t we understand about that? HCRA cannot plug all the loopholes which clever insurers will find to deny, delay or defeat coverage. If you don’t understand this, you don’t have health insurance or you have never been sick. Wait until 2014 when premiums, profits and executive compensation zoom through the roof with the new batch of people (23 million are still not going to be covered) who land on the system. Obama has proven to be more conservative than Nixon on health care and we still need a comprehensive fix to the entire system. What we need is Medicare for all, with an age range price adjusted buy-in option for those under 65 years of age. I am on Medicare (I’m old). It is great. Nobody messes with you because Medicare is backed by the feds. What you see is what you get. Once the doctor agrees to participate, you know what to expect. |
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v9n13 (week of Thursday, April 1) > Obamacare = Modest Reform with Republican Roots This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |







