Blog 10.3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30693652/

This article, written by Robert Pear of the New York Times, says that Barack Obama’s “health care push faces daunting odds”.  On Monday, President Obama, in an attempt to create fervor over his ambitious health care hopes, brought leaders of the health care industry to the White House.  It says that doctors, hospitals, drug makers, and health insurers have “voluntarily offered $2 trillion in cost reductions over the next 10 years”.  I am not sure if I understand this statement, especially the word “volunteered”, but nevertheless, it certainly sounds good from my perspective!  Unfortunately, the proposals are incredibly vague, and history tells us this could be a recipe for failure.  Yet, the event itself was historic because it showed consensus on health care reform, something that was certainly not the case in the Clinton-era.  This consensus is something that has occurred seemingly overnight, and it is for that reason, I worry.  I fear that this whole reforming of health care will occur too quickly; it will allow for mistakes that could ruin it in the future.  I have learned a lot doing my blog on health care this semester. At the beginning of the year, I wanted change immediately.  Stories that I have read, such as this very article, prove how complicated the issue is and how we must work and listen to one another before any real change can come about.  Yet still, I remain sided with Obama in working toward a health care system in this country that is universal for all.  

Blog 10.2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090512/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=AthL1Z3BNgN7Spp23cWrcxqyFz4D

Senators are purportedly considering limiting the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits in an attempt to help pay for Barack Obama’s plan to provide coverage to the uninsured in this country.  That number is guessed to be around 50 million according to this article.  This I see as a problem because it definitely goes against some of the rhetoric that Obama used against John McCain’s plans to tax it—Obama was highly critical of it.  But, as the article explains, there are really no easy options when it comes to paying for the plans he hopes to accomplish.  The final plan is likely to include “a mix of increases in taxes, and spending cuts.”  Some of the items that could be heavily taxed are ones that can often cause health problems (where insurance is then needed)—they include: tobacco, sugary products, and alcoholic beverages.  Baucus says that one way to make this taxing problem easier is only taxing the health insurance of those who have higher incomes—I tend to agree with that.  

Blog 10.1

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/the-note-512200.html

This article starts a bit critical of President Obama and his hopes for universal healthcare.  “President Obama has found perceptions to be easier to manage than realities,” author Rick Cline writes.  The major problem that this article focuses on is not the idea of health care reform; it is how it will be paid for.  The main problems are money and time—basically 2 trillion dollars over the next decade.  There is a quote from (finally confirmed) Kathleen Sebelius that I think is important to all of this.  She says, “People are demanding a chance…they want to be a part of the change.”  I think this is important because while the chances of this reform being successful may seem bleak, it is what the people seem to want…important in a democracy.  

Blog 9.3

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/19/medical-records-internet-cio-technology-medical-records.html?feed=rss_technology

I found this article fascinating because it is so different than others I have read on the health care debate.  It talks about medical records and how no matter where a patient is, he or she must always be filling out those papers with information before a doctor can see them.  There is an obvious lack in computer automation, and this is very surprising considering how much money goes into “medical research and the rising costs of premiums for health coverage.”  According to this article, this expenditure is “one of the inefficiencies in the medical system.”  An electronic system is the answer? Perhaps.  For one, they explain the extent of the coverage, something that otherwise has to be search for.  Second, they could provide a complete medical history of the patient immediately; these records can “lower doctors' insurance, eliminate redundant tests, speed up treatment and cut costs across the board”.  I like hearing ideas like this one cause it really is not political.  Too often are the “answers” to our problems only found between bickering parties—this is something that both parties may agree on while it also could help toward improving the efficiency of our current health care system.

Blog 9.2

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103275839&ft=1&f=1027,1030,1066

This article is about how the drug industry will be pushing for health care for the poor of this country.  This is very interesting because during the last large scale attempt to overhaul the current health care system, it was the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America that were among the most powerful opponents.  The reason for this is because of the fear that the government would have too much control over the price and perhaps “limit their profit margins”.  Now PhRMA will team up with congress with the hopes of expanding coverage to those who qualify for Medicaid.  The president of PhRMA says that he will support this legislation because simply too many people cannot afford the medications they need.  The longer and longer that these people go without these medications, the more likely they will have some sort of emergency in the future.  I think this is really important for the national health care debate as well; large, national companies must be in favor of it for it to be successful and pass in congress.  

Blog 9.1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30292853/

This article is about how senators are now looking at real possibilities in how to insure the over 50 million people who are currently uninsured.  I liked how in the first paragraph it says, “Hopes are high that Democrats and Republicans can find common ground for a bill to emerge by summer”.  The article talks about how hard and how “history-making” this bill will have to be; health care reform has a history of failing in this country for the past 50 years.  This article also talks about how bold it will have to be to try to unsure the millions who are not covered during this time of recession and national debt.  Senator Max Baucus of Montana said that the only way for this sort of legislation to pass is to “do it in a way that keeps the vast majority of both parties moving in the same direction”.  This article says that liberal democrats would prefer to pay for all of this through upper-income tax increases and sales tax increases on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and even sugary sodas. Republicans want “most of the financing to come from spending cuts and from making the health care system less wasteful”.