Editorial: One man’s epic journey to find what Obama’s health care proposal… actually is.
Artwork by Rebecca Holt
“This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans… this is why we cannot fail… there are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot afford coverage,” said President Barrack Obama during his health care speech on September 9, 2009. “That’s great! What is it?” said the millions of Americans watching on the edge of their seats, eager to witness the unveiling of the much-anticipated health care proposal. After all, there was much cause to be in anticipation. Obama’s health care reform was one of his most essential platforms during the 2008 elections.
It would be just as hypocritical of me to judge the health care proposal as it is for the millions of Americans who do the same whilst knowing absolutely nothing about it. Therefore, I shall set forth upon an epic quest to discover the true meaning of Obama’s health care proposal.
… This is going to be hard.
Like most Americans thirsting for knowledge, I started with something effortless, yet generally reliable: Google. Sure, it’s not the greatest resource of a respectable journalist; but then again, most Americans don’t have access to reliable sources. Besides, how unreliable could one of the most used search engines be?
Well, pretty unreliable as it turns out. After googling “Obama’s health care plan,” I found myself submerged in biased blogs, ludicrous commentaries, and articles that had little to no legitimate information on the bill. I actually found an article titled “Five freedoms you’d lose in health care reform” from CNN. That’s right, a page-long rant containing no valid information whatsoever from the self proclaimed “#1 Most Trusted Source of News. “
After wading through a flood of bogus links, I found only a few sites deemed worthy of being called genuine, with the best being FactCheck.org and Whitehouse.gov. And so, without hesitation, I dove in the pool of facts and details, only to find I had forgotten my water wings. I, regrettably, am neither an economist nor a doctor. Nonetheless, using the valuable resources of a dictionary and nearby adults, I was able to work my way through the plethora of information. Without further babble, here is what I discovered about the revised health care bill as it stands.
The summary of the bill from Whitehouse.gov and FactCheck.org separated the main points of the bill into two categories: If you already have health insurance, and if you don’t: If you do have health insurance, the proposal promises to restrict insurance companies from denying and dropping coverage based on sickness, pre-existing conditions, gender, and age. The plan also states that it will prevent out-of-pocket expenses, and prohibit insurance companies from holding back on payments. An out-of-pocket expense is money that patients have to pay, never to be refunded, for expenses that are not covered by their insurance companies, or are covered but must be given before the insurance company acts. The plan also guarantees both constant coverage to senior citizens, who are often dropped by their insurance company, and a 50% discount for prescription drugs given to senior citizens.
Okay, so we got past the bland details of health-care security, and can now proceed to the juicy and the controversial issue of the Public Option. Sharpen your pitchforks.
Ironically, the term ‘Public Option’ is never seen in the bill, and is instead referred to as ‘the exchange’. But it’s the same thing. Basically, Public Option means people who have health insurance and are content can keep their present plan, while those who can’t afford company insurance can move to cheaper, alternative health insurance provided by the government. The Public Option also provides tax-cuts to individuals who still have problems affording the plan, and to small businesses that choose to switch to public care, as well.
Throughout the summary, it is argued that the Public Option will hold insurance companies accountable, and lead to the possible lowering of prices in other companies due to the added competition. The Public Option is intended to become available in 2013, conveniently right after the predicted doomsday during 2012, meaning America can finally be healthy after worldwide destruction ensues.
But seriously, the chances of this proposal making our country socialist is about as likely as the absurd notion that the world will end because of a century-old Mayan prediction. Even with a Public Option, America would be nowhere near socialism, which would consist of health care being run entirely by the government in a completely non-competitive market. That option does not exist in this plan.
But I digress. I do understand the majority concern. Many countries that implement a system of public care have problems with the quality of the health-care being provided, rather than the percentage of uninsured. This includes extended waits and, arguably, less-qualified doctors. However, despite these concerns, countries with similar government-operated health plans such as Sweden, Australia, and even Japan have higher life expectancies, while paying approximately half the money that the United States spends on health care per capita, according to FactCheck.org. So, ultimately, the results show that a Public Option is effective in increasing life expectancy for less money.
However, on the subject of money, it is true that Obama’s plan has an expected federal cost of about $1 trillion. While Obama points out that this is less than the cost of the Iraq War, this is, in fact, not true. So far, the Iraq War has cost $642 billion, and considering that amount’s intense effect on our nation’s economy, fear of sending the United States into even greater debt is a just concern.
An entirely not just concern is that Obama’s health care plan involves death panels, which are fictitious committees who decide whether certain patients are worthy of living. “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care,” said Sarah Palin on her Facebook page during October, 2009. This rumor, started by Republican front-runners such as Sarah Palin, is a lie. I usually try to avoid such a frank response to a claim that serious, but I have trouble believing that such a bizarre claim that is not even hinted at in the health care bill could be an honest mistake.
All tangents aside, that’s the bill. That’s it.
Wait… that’s it?
oOkay, really? All that hype for this? The bill has its undeniable kinks, I agree. The cost of the plan is slightly out of reach, and the quality of the care that will ensue is still debatable, but… really? I was expecting a tablet that prophesies mankind’s destruction, or at least a statement that advocated malevolent order.
All in all, the bill has some good ideas. It restricts the present insurance companies, while not rendering them useless. It provides an option for those who cannot afford health insurance, while still leaving the power to decide in the hands of the people. It allows competition, and it allows stability. It’s expensive, it’s unpredictable, but it’s definitely coherent and well thought-out.
In addition, the bill – or at least the summary – isn’t all that difficult to understand. Okay, it uses a bit of economic lingo, but there’s really no reason why the general public can’t simply utilize the resources around them and form an educated opinion on the subject. Presently, it’s hard to find anybody who can actually explain the bill; not fully evaluate it or even comprehend it, but just explain its critical points. And I’ll admit, it’s not all the fault of the people, although they are undeniably at some fault. After browsing through countless biased articles and summaries that lack any form of content, I feel confident in saying that news sources such as CNN, CBS, and many others, are avoiding actual coverage of the bill entirely. I’ll give them credit, they do an excellent job covering the opinions of legislators, the voice of the public, and even Obama’s speeches on the proposal. But without a proper understanding of the bill itself, all of that is insignificant.
Obama’s health care proposal is out there. It has its attributes, it has its flaws, and it has its controversies. But ultimately, the power to change our insanely low standard of health care remains in the hands of those who put forth the effort to take part in its reform and its improvement. And so, despite disagreement, it is crucial that this bill be considered, improved, and put into effect. After all, in the words of Barrack Obama: “We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it.”
