Sick Kids, Welfare Queens, and Aging Boomers

Former Speaker Gets Pricey Perks

2009-12-21T20:09:48Z

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30846_Page2.html

This article talks about the pricey perks that former House speaker Dennis Hastert is receiving. Taxpayers are spending over $40,000 monthly on things like an office, a very well paid staff, computers, cell phones, and even a leased 2008 GMC Yukon. Hastert is allowed to spend $840,000 annually to run his office for five years. This means that he could potentially spend $4,200,000 of taxpayers money.

I don't think it is right to give previous house speakers this money given our current budget deficit. Yes, he did serve twenty-one years in the House, but he received far too many perks during that time as well. Hastert should have enough money to pay for these expenses on his own. He is a foreign agent, representing the interests of both Turkey and Luxembourg in Washington. He also lobbies for three U.S. companies. Former House speakers are forbidden to use their allowance on lobbying, but how do we know Hastert isn't?

Health Care Bill addressing the Medicare 'doughnut hole'

2009-12-21T03:52:20Z

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/11/17/medicare-doughnut-hole/

I found this article by MPR news that explains the issues with our current Minnesota Medicare system concerning the 'doughnut holes' many recipients face. After Medicare recipients exceed the amount of $2,700, coverage stops and their premiums increase substantially. The only way for coverage to reenact is after the recipient has spent over $4,550. This is just under $2,000 that the Medicare recipient would have to pay for themselves. Over a decade, this could amount in over $6,000 in expenditures. This is leading to a decrease in customer efficiency, as many customers are fiscally forced to stop or decrease the amount of medicine they take on a daily basis. One woman explained that ever since she ended up in the 'doughnut hole' she took her back medication only when her back was in severe pain vs. her everyday pains. What the health care reform bills would do is decrease this senior's gap by $500 and the cost of her dugs would cut in half. Although there would still be a rather large gap between when she is covered and when she is not, it is still beneficial progress. They are unclear as to exactly how much this will cost everyone exactly, but one estimate is that it will cost drug manufacturers up to $80 billion over the course of a decade. Overall, the seniors' overall drug spending would decrease, which will be a big benefit to seniors who are dealing with this 'doughnut hole' situation. I definitely think it's good that Congress is taking a look at the flaws in our system. Of course it'd be nice if there was one easy quick-fix solution to the issue, but as there is not, and since it's hard to enact change at all, any progress should be considered a success. I believe this is a step in the right direction, and I was overall pleased with the reaction and results reflected in the House and Senate Bill reforms.

Left Rebels Against Health Reform

2009-12-18T18:24:43Z

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30737_Page2.html

This article talks about how some liberal democrats are no longer supporting the senate health care reform bill because it has become so watered down and is only helping health insurance companies. The author quotes many politicians and other bloggers on the issue. One thing I was not sure about was whether a bloggers opinion counts as good evidence.

I do agree with the liberals that the current bill is more about getting something passed then on reforming health care. Health care cannot be reformed when the interests of health insurance companies are also considered. The only problem is that the health insurance companies have too much power due to lobbying. In order for true health care reform to happen, insurance companies need to lose the power that they have over politicians.

Left Turns on Senate Bill

2009-12-17T20:19:00Z

Left Turns on Individual Mandate. This article examines how the Senate Health Care reform bill, introduced by Harry Reid, is quickly losing support from democrats due to changes made to the bill. Foster argues that because of the elimination of the public option, many democrats are turning on the bill becuase of the cost many middle class taxpayers will incur, and because it will force Americans to purchase insurance from the private sector, which is where the problem originated in the first place. Clearly Foster brings up a great point that due to the amendments the bill is taking on, it can no longer be passed due to the extreme condition it would leave many middle and lower class citizens. However, this still may not rule out passage of some sort of reform, as there is still the possibility of passing the bill, and ironing out the differences in conference committee of both houses.

Prospects for GOP support of Senate healthcare bill are dwindling

2009-12-17T05:16:33Z

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/12/prospects_for_gop_support_of_s.html?wprss=capitol-briefing

This article shed light on a major issue surrounding healthcare reform, the time table Senator Reid set up. Senator Snowe says in this article that a political deadline doesn't translate into good policy and I think this is true. There should not be a deadline for healthcare reform if it is just to ensure that the Democrats remain the majority in the House and the Senate after the 2010 election year. Policy should be worked out until we have the best bill possible and clearly with the recent dropping of the public option a concrete bill is not in place. It would be incredibly difficult to correctly review the bill in two weeks time. The deadline of Christmas to get the healthcare bill through the Senate is a ridiculous hope. If a bill were to be passed by Christmas, it would not be a well thought-out bill because of all the flip flopping of items like the public option. If this bill is to pass in the Senate, it needs to be cohesive and not just be kicked through to meet a silly deadline.

should Minnesota Opt-out

2009-12-15T18:53:10Z

Is 'opting out' a real option for Minnesota

Before reading this article I had no idea that an opt out option was even on the table for health care reform. Personally I feel that as a progressive state if Minnesota were to opt out it would be a major setback for the entire state not just the 875,000 Minnesotans who would be eligible to use the public option. If we opted out there would still be 519000 Minnesotans uninsured, and we would become a backwards state in the union. While I can see the points being made by republicans, I feel that if democrats let states opt out they are failing and leaving citizens behind. I also think if we opt out it will continue to put pressure on our health care providers as 519000 uninsured will still be using our facilities and we will still be footing their bills, and the bills for other states. I think this issue will make the race for governor very exciting, as it is not Tim Pawlenty who decides what to do, but the next governor. I also think that this issue really shows why it is important that we stay up to date on our state politics not just federal, as health care is especially an issue for the state.

What should Rahm have done?

2009-12-15T18:39:45Z

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

I totally agree with Ezra Klein. I don't think that Rahm Emanuel really has any power over the moderates or the Republicans when it comes to health care reform. They are the ones who have all the power right now. The White House isn't going to try and flex muscle with these members when they all individually could completely block the entire health care reform, not just the public option. The President and major Democrats really just want to get some sort of reform and if they tried to twist anyone's arm that just wouldn't happen. Someone would filibuster the bill stopping any reform from happening. To be completely honest when it comes to health care I think its smart for the White House to not flex a lot of muscle.

The Power of "Moderates"

2009-12-15T03:50:14Z

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30601.html

Today, politico.com ran an article about how, because Joe Lieberman is opposed to it, Democrats are considering dropping an expansion to Medicare that they had been proposing. Although this isn't necessarily a bad thing (it all depends on you political philosophy and party affiliation) it is still very interesting to see how powerful one "moderate" senator can be. (I use quotes for the word moderate because it really just means that you share a number of views with the opposite party, not that you have moderate views.) When one party or another desperately needs votes, they are often ready to appease fringe members of both parties by giving in to their demands. It's really crazy how, in the United States, just one or two people are able to shape the debate on an entire issue. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats treat Senator Lieberman if they gain or lose a few votes in next year's election.

Federal Workers Gripe About Senate Health Bill

2009-12-14T19:43:43Z

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/07/federal-workers-gripe-about-senate-health-bill/

This blog post talks about the latest group of people who are unhappy with the current Senate proposals on healthcare. The bill would increase government workers insurance premiums between $103 and $159 per year just to help pay for uninsured people. Some people are unsure that this is actually true or if this information was released by the insurer who administers to government employees. In the end, the article states that this bill would hit the low earning government workers the most. For example, a letter carrier earning $45,000 - $50,000 a year.

I believe that this article brings up very valid information. I think that certain proposals for universal healthcare are impossible and would make the current situation worse. However, I think that some sort of assistance should be given to those who cannot afford healthcare on their own. Although this article only talks about how this senate bill would affect government workers, I believe it is an issue the involves everyone.

Health care changes can't please all

2009-12-14T16:51:37Z

http://www.jsonline.com/business/79183027.html

This article does a good job of pointing out just how complicated healthcare reform is. There is the complexity of the bill (2000 plus pages of ways to improve healthcare), there is the fact that the bill is ever changing (most news days include some sort of change to the bill), and Boulton discusses how people's contradictory opinions make healthcare reform even more difficult.

The contradictory examples provided ("People are concerned about federal deficit, but think to little is spent on healthcare") mimic the contradictory attitudes about welfare we saw earlier in the year (people were supportive of spending more on the poor, but didn't want to spend more on welfare). The vacillation of the American public really makes it difficult to pass any legislation. Individuals, and their ambiguous opinions, make it hard for the government to form popular legislation. Congressmen will want to please their constituents, but if they get conflicting ideas, they will have a hard time getting anything accomplished.

However, I believe that by going ahead and implementing some of the pilot programs in the bill, we will, in some ways, force people to make up their minds. Boulton talked in the article about how Medicare had only been supported by 46% of the population when it was enacted, but now Medicare is a very popular program. By enacting some of the pilot programs suggested in the healthcare bill, we will be creating a change in healthcare. Maybe citizens won't like this change, but at least then we will know what not to try in the future - and maybe we could then implement the other side of their conflicting ideas.

Should Food Stamps Exclude Unhealthy Purchases?

2009-12-12T21:33:12Z

http://theamericanscene.com/2009/12/08/should-food-stamps-exclude-unhealthy-purchases

In Tom Laskaway's article he addresses the issue of the government funded food program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program otherwise known as food stamps. He continues to argue that the food stamps should subsidize and include healthy choice options for the poor. He claims that healthy food should not just be a luxury just to those who can afford them, but made available to all. He believes that they should be giving an option to make better food choices, yet he understands the government's resistance to further interference with people's lives.

I think Laskaway makes a fair argument that food stamps should include healthy choices for individuals, but I think he forgets in his argument that the government will have to put more money into these programs as well as monitor them closer. It's easy to say we should do this, but it's not so easy to enact it. The government already has a tight budget and as seen through past legislation it's likely to infer that the government will be more likely to make further restrictions on the program and cut funding before adding to it. Laskaway has the right idea, but I think it's at the wrong time as of right now the government's main focus is on healthcare.

Will the Senate Really Push Back Against the Drug Industry?

2009-12-11T18:56:27Z

The article

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/will-the-senate-really-end-pushing-back-against-the-drug-industry

This article is from the blog, The Treatment, and is about two new amendments to the current healthcare bill introduced by Sheerod Brown in order to provide more affordable drugs for Americans. As we talked about in class, Pharma companies have monopoly rights over their drugs for 12 years after they have been released. This denies other drug companies the ability to produce generic drugs for cheaper until a decade has past. The Federal Trade Commission has deemed this time too long and only beneficial to the drug companies. They are still making enough money to cover R&D well before the time has expired.

Both of Brown's amendments address the issue of why drugs are so much higher here than the rest of the world. She believes it is one reason: The government's inability to negotiate drug prices with pharma companies. Her amendments try to weaken the monopoly rule by putting a cap on the profit. When it hits a certain profit, the rights would be released. Also, she wants to give more of a discount to Medicare Part D.

I really like the idea of these amendments. I think drugs cost way too much and the gov't should be able to neogotiate. I believe we have a double standards by not allowing monopolies but at the same time giving the Pharma companies certain entitlements. It is time these companies face reform because they have dodged every other attempt. This amend probably wont pass, but it is a smart idea. Drug companies have gotten away with way too much and the 12 rule needs to lifted in order to benefit every American.

Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years?

2009-12-11T03:26:26Z

Medicare going out of business

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/going-out-of-business/

I hope the link works otherwise I put the URL as part of the post!

This article is about a new ad airing on TV from the conservative group called Americans for Prosperity which claims Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years according to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees 2009 Annual Report.

Yet they leave out a lot of small details that impact this claim greatly. The annual report claims that Part A is in trouble, but not Part B-D. It claims that in 2017, Part A will not have enough money to cover all of the costs, but can be "bought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years" and if certain reforms happen it could be funded beyond that 75 years.

This report is alarming, but not as shocking as it made it seem. This also shows how needed Medicare and other healthcare reform actually is.

The Americans for Prosperity also claims Congress is trying to set up a Canada-British style of healthcare and from class we know this is not the style Congress would set up and Congress is just beginning reforming the entire system.

Do people actually believe these ads or is this just fear tactics that no one believes?

ALTERNATIVE: The Non-Public Option

2009-12-11T01:07:54Z

Here is an editorial from today by the New York Times. The article is about the possible inclusion of those 55 and older into Medicare and about creating non-profit healthcare insurance options.

        According to the editorial ten democratic senators are ditching the "maligned public option" because they believe they can achieve the same goal with a different approach. The proposal is still in it's development stage and the CBO still has to analyze it. The article also touches on the fact that the current public option would be more expensive than the average price of current private insurance policies because it targets only small group of people. It's other weaknesses come from the fact that it has to negotiate it's own rates, instead of using the rates of Medicare.
        The proposal of including those 55 and older into Medicare would only include those who are eligible to purchase insurance on the exchanges. Those who choose to enroll that are under the age of 65 would be require to pay around $7600 in premiums, which would hopefully be cheaper than private insurance and help cover a few million people.
       The second proposal surrounds the private sector and would require them to create a group of non-profit insurance plans to compete with for profit plans on the exchange. If the insurance companies failed to do this, the government would. These plans would be controlled by the Office of Personnel Management, the same agency that deals with health insurance for federal employees. The weaknesses of these possible plans is there inability to compete in monopolized markets. Until the CBO analyzes these possibilities the future of the proposal is up in the air for now.
       I believe this a better attempt at increasing healthcare coverage in the US, but is still not the "magic bullet" everyone is hoping for. The non-profit groups could definitely be strengthened by requiring the insurance companies to create them, instead of offering it as a suggestion to them. If they fail to comply then they would be subject to federal fines or some other reprimanding consequence. This would force them to drive their costs down because they would be forced to compete with their own non-profit plans. The idea of using Medicare as a pathway to increase healthcare coverage is a excellent idea because it uses the current resources and system that we currently have in play. I like the idea of protecting older Americans because they are more susceptible to illness and disease, and require more attention. I think this idea will also be appealing to other people because it isn't too drastic to spark a huge controversy.

No Snowe for the Holidays?

2009-12-09T21:10:34Z

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30350.html

This article touches on the changes affecting the healthcare bill as it passes through Congress and also the politicians that support or oppose these changes. The public option, which has been largely watered down from its original version, is still meeting opposition, as it did in the beginning. In hopes of retaining some of the public option "idea," a suggestion to expand Medicare coverage has been proposed. This is also being met with pessimism.

It surprises me how much of a "one step forward, two steps back" path healthcare reform has taken. It seems that when progress is made (such as when Snowe's vote helped get the healthcare bill out of committee), it soon loses support or a new quagmire shows up in the problem (like Snowe's reluctance to now vote yes on the bill). Although the democrats knew Snowe voted yes to move the Senate Healthcare bill out of committee on the grounds that there would be changes and compromises made to it, it seems as if there have been many more compromises than anticipated. The public option's affect has been diminished and this Medicare proposal is not being met with open arms either. In the beginnings of this healthcare debate there was a real move for change, now it is as if the democrats are just trying to push something through for healthcare reform.

The article reflects some of the themes we've been talking about in class - mostly the affect of institutions and groups on legislation. The focus on procuring Snowe and Lieberman's votes shows that in the US political institutions, minorities really can have power to stop something they don't like. In the end of the article, you can also see how groups have affected the creation of the healthcare policy, with American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals urging their members to contact their representatives to say "no" to the expanded Medicare idea.

Also, this is an interesting article about a move from a public option to expanded Medicare coverage, which the "NO Snowe for the Holidays" article mentions:

http://www.slate.com/id/2237780/