Health for Sale
The US Supreme Court disproved most predictions with its decision to support Barack Obama’s health reform. The news was so unexpected that amidst the hussle over the ruling, CNN and Fox News rushed into reporting the opposite.
A Bush appointee, Chief Justice John Roberts, so far considered a loyal member of the conservative majority in the Court, surprisingly gave his vote in favor of the health reform that passed by a 5 to 4 vote in favor of Obama. The decision gave a green light to the 2010 Health Care law that remains in force with minor changes. And all of a sudden, the Supreme Court became an unloved institution whose approval among the right wing dropped from 70 percent to 40 percent. Recently, both political camps have suffered from reflexive belligerence against each other. Yet, the Republican leaders and proponents who are fighting to get back the White House are discernibly more aggressive.
The truth is that no one actually knows what the outcome of Obamacare (as the health reform is commonly known) will be. One of the most widely expected consequences is that at the beginning of 2014 every American will have health insurance, which is supposed to be excellent news for the 40 million uninsured. Obama’s opponents claim that the obligation de facto introduces a new tax – as if the health expenses on the uninsured were not a burden for everyone else before! Besides, denying coverage to the already sick – a common practice in the past – has been banned.
These measures are overall popular among Americans despite their conflicting views on the reform. Those getting crazy over the law on the right are afraid that the health reform is part of Obama’s secretive plan to bring socialism to the U.S. Those sitting at the very left are dissatisfied because they support more radical changes. The most serious concern out there actually is that in the next decade the implementation of the new terms of health care coverage will cost the Federal budget $1.7 trillion in aid and subsidies. At the same time, the federal program covering the elderly, Medicare, is supposed to go in the red after 12 years. The expense problem is openly admitted by the White House, with the assurance that reforming health care is worth the financial effort and in the long run it will have the opposite effect. These sorts of arguments are totally unacceptable for the right. On the contrary, Republicans have invested an astonishing $235 million (somewhat equal to what the presidential campaign has cost so far) to abolish Obamacare through TV commercials.
Crucial to the future of Obamacare are, of course, the November elections. The Republicans are more determined than ever to take back the executive power and keep their grip on the legislature in order to destroy everything initiated by the current president. Regardless of the fact that their candidate Mitt Romney has been so cautious that he has turned grey and that the so passionately refuted Obamacare is a close replica of the health care law introduced in Massachusetts at the time Romney was governor. Better a lame horse than a strong donkey.
Aside from the pros and cons, U.S. healthcare reform is overdue. I have already written about the fact that the U.S. spends twice as much per capita as the next country on the list – Norway. It would be fantastic if the spending was a guarantee for strong health, but that is not the case. Numerous statistics, from child mortality to the number of diabetics per capita, show that the U.S. is among the sickest developed countries in the world.
At the same time, American health insurers are doing quite well. Their revenue is on the uptick even in a time of economic downturn. Obamacare hits them by limiting administrative expenses and banning the option to turn down already sick applicants. On the other hand, it gives them 40 million new clients.
If my opinion is in stake, an ideal health care would be a modification of the communist principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The principle has been proven, though, to be as chimerical as communism, eternal youth and the possibility of being asked for advice by the White House.
A Bush appointee, Chief Justice John Roberts, so far considered a loyal member of the conservative majority in the Court, surprisingly gave his vote in favor of the health reform that passed by a 5 to 4 vote in favor of Obama. The decision gave a green light to the 2010 Health Care law that remains in force with minor changes. And all of a sudden, the Supreme Court became an unloved institution whose approval among the right wing dropped from 70 percent to 40 percent. Recently, both political camps have suffered from reflexive belligerence against each other. Yet, the Republican leaders and proponents who are fighting to get back the White House are discernibly more aggressive.
The truth is that no one actually knows what the outcome of Obamacare (as the health reform is commonly known) will be. One of the most widely expected consequences is that at the beginning of 2014 every American will have health insurance, which is supposed to be excellent news for the 40 million uninsured. Obama’s opponents claim that the obligation de facto introduces a new tax – as if the health expenses on the uninsured were not a burden for everyone else before! Besides, denying coverage to the already sick – a common practice in the past – has been banned.
These measures are overall popular among Americans despite their conflicting views on the reform. Those getting crazy over the law on the right are afraid that the health reform is part of Obama’s secretive plan to bring socialism to the U.S. Those sitting at the very left are dissatisfied because they support more radical changes. The most serious concern out there actually is that in the next decade the implementation of the new terms of health care coverage will cost the Federal budget $1.7 trillion in aid and subsidies. At the same time, the federal program covering the elderly, Medicare, is supposed to go in the red after 12 years. The expense problem is openly admitted by the White House, with the assurance that reforming health care is worth the financial effort and in the long run it will have the opposite effect. These sorts of arguments are totally unacceptable for the right. On the contrary, Republicans have invested an astonishing $235 million (somewhat equal to what the presidential campaign has cost so far) to abolish Obamacare through TV commercials.
Crucial to the future of Obamacare are, of course, the November elections. The Republicans are more determined than ever to take back the executive power and keep their grip on the legislature in order to destroy everything initiated by the current president. Regardless of the fact that their candidate Mitt Romney has been so cautious that he has turned grey and that the so passionately refuted Obamacare is a close replica of the health care law introduced in Massachusetts at the time Romney was governor. Better a lame horse than a strong donkey.
Aside from the pros and cons, U.S. healthcare reform is overdue. I have already written about the fact that the U.S. spends twice as much per capita as the next country on the list – Norway. It would be fantastic if the spending was a guarantee for strong health, but that is not the case. Numerous statistics, from child mortality to the number of diabetics per capita, show that the U.S. is among the sickest developed countries in the world.
At the same time, American health insurers are doing quite well. Their revenue is on the uptick even in a time of economic downturn. Obamacare hits them by limiting administrative expenses and banning the option to turn down already sick applicants. On the other hand, it gives them 40 million new clients.
If my opinion is in stake, an ideal health care would be a modification of the communist principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The principle has been proven, though, to be as chimerical as communism, eternal youth and the possibility of being asked for advice by the White House.