Experts View: The Battle over US Healthcare Reform Bill Is Beneficial to the Obama Administration

Published in CRI
(China) on 28 June 2012
by Jitao Han (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Emily Zhang. Edited by Tom Proctor.
According to a report by Global Chinese Radio Network — Voice of China, [March 23] has been written into the U.S.’ history: President Obama used 20 pens, each for one letter, to sign the U.S. healthcare reform statute that took nearly 100 years to go into law.

Obama: "Today, after almost a century of trying—today, after over a year of debate—today, after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the United States of America."

In the blink of an eye, the debate over the healthcare reform has been going on for three years, and the court proceeding has lasted for three months. Today, 28 June 2012 on Washington local time, will be written into U.S. history and law school textbooks. That is because today, the U.S. Supreme Court will finalize its ruling on the Obama administration’s cornerstone project: the healthcare reform bill.

Twenty-six states sued the Obama administration. The entirety of America is waiting for the final ruling. Many Americans are opposed to Obama's healthcare reform bill. Middle-class Americans worry that the universal care will degrade the quality of their medical treatment; the rich and corporations worry that the implementation of the universal care will cost money. And, of course, the money will be collected from local taxes — adding a burden to corporations. Insurance companies in the U.S. charge very high premiums to pay for expensive reimbursements, and they worry that the universal care will reduce their revenues. For the religious world, people believe that subsidy of healthcare will encourage abortion with government money. Economists believe that the universal care will destroy the U.S.’ finance.
 
Originally, Obama's healthcare reform bill wanted to insure 95 percent of Americans, which would have almost achieved universal care. This should be a good thing benefiting the public, yet many Americans do not appreciate it. Some analysts believe that the “mandatory health insurance” provisions are unconstitutional, but the federal government thinks that if the “mandatory health insurance” were cut off, the two most popular terms of the healthcare reform bill — insurance companies being unable to reject enrollment of any applicant or charge high premiums for pre-existing conditions — would have to be taken out as well. If all these were cut-off, it would have been contrary to Obama's original intention.

The ruling day, June 28, is coming. Will the Supreme Court overthrow the healthcare reform bill? The ruling will be seen as a campaign episode before the election.

Guo Xiangang, the deputy director of the China Institute of International Studies, said that the majority of judges at the Supreme Court are in favor of the Republicans. Yet there exists another possibility: amending part of the bill. For example, if the provision mandating all Americans to participate in health insurance were removed, the bill would have to be revised. Thus there are two possibilities. But which one has a bigger chance of winning? I would think that there might be some amendments, since the Obamacare act concerns about 10 percent of the American population, which is not a small percentage. The judges from the Supreme Court have to take the 10 percent of Americans’ interest into account. Neglecting or cancelling this group of people’s interests will result in discontent. So I think the possibility of making amendments to part of the bill is relatively large.

Hui Cheng, who has lived in the U.S. for years, thinks that the U.S. media currently focuses all their attention on the impact of the healthcare bill on the upcoming U.S. election, but what the ordinary citizens are concerned with is whether the healthcare reform system is good or bad for their own benefits.

“Currently, we pay for about $400 for our own insurance. Our income is only about $5,000, so the percentage is high. After implementing universal care, a health check-up would cost ten times one in Taiwan, Hong Kong or Mainland China. For middle-class Americans, universal care would have become a heavy burden. I think [the government and media] have only taken the controversies of the healthcare bill into election debate; nobody is discussing how much of government budget has been wasted by the social welfare system. How is universal care different from the current social welfare system? In the past 30 years, I think the U.S. social welfare system is considerably good. When you do not have money to see a doctor, the kind of care you receive has nothing to do insurance. So I think the current U.S. healthcare system is considerably comprehensive. Whether universal care is necessary, personally, I think it is not.”

CBS commentator Jane Crawford said that regardless of the outcome, the battle would strike even more powerful before November.

“Many people, including Republicans, have said that if the bill were ruled unconstitutional, it would have been a huge humiliation for Barack Obama, since this bill is a cornerstone of his re-election. Nor is it a good thing for Romney, even though he has been opposing the bill. Romney is the biggest obstacle standing between many Americans and their healthcare. So it is difficult to say whom the final ruling will be in favor of, but there is no doubt that the battle will become even fiercer before November.”*

On the other hand, Professor Guo Xiangang also points out that in the future, the social class division based on health care reform bill will only be intensified.

“This healthcare bill, after all, is creating benefits for the bottom 10 percent of the U.S. population. The number of poor Americans is increasing as a result of the weak economy. In a situation like this, if the Republicans blindly entangle with the Obama administration on the healthcare bill, to the contrary, Republicans will make more and more Americans believe that the Obama administration is on their side. Consequently, it will increase [this group of] Americans’ confidence and determination of voting for Obama. So I think the battle over the healthcare bill is good for Obama, but bad for the Republicans. And such battle may worsen the [party] division in the American society.”

*Editor’s Note: The following quote, while translated appropriately, could not be confirmed in English.



今年3月28日,反对奥巴马医疗改革的民众在联邦最高法院前举行抗议活动。(图片来源:国际在线)
  据中国之声《全球华语广播网》报道,这一天已被载入美国史册:总统奥巴马用了20支笔,每支一个字母,签署了耗时近100年的美国医改立法。
  奥巴马:今天在经历了大约一个世纪的尝试后,今天在经历了一年多的争论后,今天在所有投票亲点后,医疗保险改革议案成为了美国的法律。
  转眼就在今天,争议近三年、诉讼三个月,华盛顿当地时间2012年6月28日,也将被载入美国历史和法学院教科书。因为这一天,美国联邦最高法院将就奥巴马政府力推的政绩工程——医疗保险改革法案,做出终审裁决。
  原告美国26个州,被告奥巴马政府,这样的诉讼全美国人正在等待最终判决。对奥巴马的医改法案,很多民众都反对,中产阶级担心全民健保之后,他们自己的医疗品质会下降;有钱的人跟公司行号他们担心,既然要推行全民健保,那么钱从那里来呢?当然是向这些地方要开征健保税,对企业来说会是一个负担;美国的保险公司在收取保险费的时候非常高,支付保险钱也是非常高,他们担心会影响他们的收入;宗教界的人认为补助健保会造成利用公款来让一些人进行堕胎,所以他们也有宗教上的理由;经济学家认为,全民健保会拖垮美国的财政。
  奥巴马的医改法案中本来是想让95%的美国人获得医疗保障,几乎实现了全民医保。这应该是件“造福于民”的好事儿,却偏偏有很多人“不领情”。有分析认为,“强制医保”条款违宪,但联邦政府认为,如果砍掉“强制医保”,医改中最受欢迎的两个条款,也就是“保险公司不能拒绝投保者购买保险以及保险公司不能以投保者既往病史为由收取高额保费”的内容也就必须同时砍掉,显然这有违奥巴马的初衷。
  28日的裁决即将到来,会否推翻奥巴马政府的医改政策?这将被看成是奥巴马在大选前的一段选战插曲。
  中国国际问题研究所副所长郭宪纲:最高法法院的法官中倾向于共和党的人数比较多,但是另一种可能也存在,就是对这个法案进行部分的调整,要求进行修订,比如说对这种要求全民都参加医保的这个条款给它去掉,那就要对它进行修订,因此这两种可能性都存在。这两种可能性哪一种大呢?我倒觉得可能是部分修订的可能性比较大,因为这个医保法案它涉及到美国10%的人口这个比例是不低的,那么从最高法法院的这些法官来说,他们也要考虑到民意的这个基础,10%的利益你要给他不顾,把它取消掉,那么也会激起这种不满的情绪。因此我觉得要进行一种部分的调整的可能性是比较大的。
  在美国生活多年的程蕙认为,目前媒体目光都集中在医改法案对美国选情的影响,可是普通老百姓更关注的是医疗制度中的改革内容对自身是否有利。
程蕙:我们现在的个人保险大概要交到400美金,但是我们的收入大概是在5千多块钱,这个比例就蛮高的。一旦有健保,有保险以后,我在这里所做的身体检查,所花的钱相比台湾、香港,或者跟中国大陆贵了大概十倍,对于我们中产阶级的人买健保反而是变成一个很大的负担。我想它已经等于把健保跟它的争议点放在选举上去讨论了,没有人去讨论说今天社会福利制度浪费了多少政府的财政,那么它的全民健保将来到底怎么样来区分,因为30年了,我看到美国的社会福利制度算是很好的,你没有钱去到医院去看病的时候,所获得的医疗品质跟没交保费没有关联的。所以我个人觉得就是美国现在的医疗制度基本上算是蛮健全的了,需不需要全民健保我个人倒是觉得没有这个必要了。
  美国CBS评论员珍·克劳福德表示,无论结果怎样,11月前这场仗会越打越厉害。
  美国CBS评论员珍·克劳福德:很多人包括共和党人都说,如果法案被裁定违现对奥巴马来说是巨大的羞辱,因为这个法案是他寻求连任的基石。但对罗姆尼来说也不算什么好事,他一直反对这个法案,在美国人看来他就是挡在美国人和他们的医保之间的最大障碍,所以很难说最终的判决会对谁有利,但毫无疑问11月前这场仗会越打越厉害。
  另一方面,郭宪纲教授也认为,围绕医改法案未来的美国社会阶层的分裂也将愈演愈烈。
  郭宪纲:医保这个法案它毕竟是为10%的人口谋利益的,最穷的人谋利益,现在大家知道美国的经济不好穷的人数在增加。那么在这种情况下,如果共和党一味的就是要在医保法案上和奥巴马政府纠缠不休,那么反而会使越来越多的美国的穷人意识到奥巴马政府是真正站在他们一边的,更坚定了他们把票投给奥巴马的信心和决心。因此我觉得围绕医改法案的之争,对奥巴马政府来讲是件好事,对共和党来讲他是失算的。围绕医保法案之争可能会使美国社会的这种分裂现象更加严重。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Australia Is Far from Its Own Zohran Mamdani Moment. Here’s Why

Switzerland: Ukraine Is No Longer a Priority for America: Trump Leaves the Country High and Dry

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

China: Trump’s ‘Opportunism First’ — Attacking Iran Opens Pandora’s Box

Canada: Elbows Down on the Digital Services Tax

Topics

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

Nigeria: The Global Fallout of Trump’s Travel Bans

Australia: Donald Trump Just Won the Fight To Remake America in 3 Big Ways

Colombia: The Horsemen of the New Cold War

Related Articles

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*