3. Put your choice of bill and first argument for the bill here.
1st Affirmative Constructive for S.1796 We, group 15, support the S.1796 [ America ’s Healthy Future Act of 2009]. The bill, like many of the healthcare reform bills proposed this year aims to aid the millions of uninsured and underinsured while containing the growth of medical costs. It is sponsored by Democrat Max Baucus, coining it as the Baucus Bill. We support this bill because while it tackles reform, which this country is in need of, it does so with provisions that make it adaptable, not with drastic measures that put fear into Americans. We’d like to address the key changes that we favor from the Baucus Bill that would improve our healthcare system. In no particular order, they are the following: ·Reducing the number of uninsured Americans Currently 15% of Americans are uninsured for healthcare. This 15% is not insured for all the same reasons. Some can’t afford coverage, some can afford it but feel they will never need it so they choose not to purchase it, some that can afford it are denied purchasing power due to their own pre-existing conditions, and the list goes on. For whatever their reasons, these people struggle with getting the proper care and navigating their way through the healthcare system. Having no coverage leaves them with less access and lesser quality care than those that have coverage. Reduced access and quality can be seen when providers (not including those in emergency rooms of hospitals) deny or delay treatment of patients that are uninsured, or when patients are in need of a procedure to heal a condition but instead are given medication to suppress their symptoms. According to an article in the Huffington Post, the number of people that don’t have access to healthcare is nearing 50 million, and Baucus’ plan would lower that population by about 30 million people in a 10-year period, according to congressional budget experts (Espo, 2009) This would reduce the number of people that seek all of their medical care through emergency rooms which is a significant cost to the system, particularly for the cases that reach maximum severity before treatment is sought. His initiative would require all individuals to get insurance or else they would have to pay a penalty. The penalty would be set at a maximum of $950 per individual per year. One might wonder how low-income individuals will afford this penalty. They’re already low-income and if they had $950 they would use it for other daily necessities. This brings us to the next initiative. ·Subsidies for buying insurance The bill would provide financial assistance until 2013 [when the bill would be enacted] and after that it would “provide sliding scale credits for purchasing insurance for people earning between 133% and 300% of the federal poverty level," as noted in an article posted on the political forum Opencongress.org. (Shaw, 2009) This would be beneficial for many college students that only work part/full time jobs that aren’t working in their field of study yet. It is also beneficial for those that are in the working middle class, seeing as how $14,404 marks 133% of the federal poverty level and $32,490 marks 300% of the federal poverty level, the maximum amount of income one can make before being ineligible for subsidies. And these numbers are just for a single person. For a family of 2, the maximum income for the household can be $43,710 while still qualifying for subsidies. As anyone can see, eligibility for subsidies is quite generous and this provision would help the poor and middle class afford health coverage. We see this as an advantage for many Americans because these numbers provide a cap to healthcare expenditures for citizens. Currently, healthcare expenditures account for nearly 17% of one’s income, whereas these subsidies as well as other initiatives will lower the cap to 13%. ·Establishing an insurance exchange This exchange would be a marketplace where individuals and small businesses could shop and compare health plans. They would be able to opt into a private health plan. The process would be standardized to minimize the confusion and complexities that usually accompany the insurance enrollment and buying process. A key factor noted by the RAND corporation is ‘Participating insurers would have to charge the same price for the same products inside and outside the Exchange. Plans participating in the Exchange would be subject to regulatory oversight by states.’ (RAND, 2009) And unlike many health insurance plans that sometimes dominate an entire state because it is the only plan offered in the area, the exchange would extend to a national level. Some of us that have moved from one state to another have found that a health plan that we were previously satisfied with is not available in the state that we moved to. With this plan, people in Seattle , Washington could have the same plan as someone in Birmingham , Alabama . Another advantage of the bill is that it would allow people to keep the insurance plans that they already have if they are satisfied with them, and it will not require the plans to change to the new government standards. Of course, these plans will not be able to be offered to new clients. ·Employer responsibility for providing employee insurance The Baucus plan would not require employers to provide insurance, but they would be more inclined to do so because a penalty would be imposed if they did not. The penalty would be in the form of a payroll tax that would be calculated based on annual revenue of the employer organization. Small businesses that didn’t offer employees insurance wouldn’t have to pay as much as larger businesses that didn’t offer insurance. In addition, an employer would have to pay taxes into the Insurance Exchange if standards show that the employer doesn’t offer insurance with adequate coverage or affordability. This inadequacy will be determined if the benefits offered don’t meet certain criteria (government standard), or if employees are forced to use subsidies because they can’t afford the employer’s insurance. Employers would be able to deduct insurance premiums from their business as a business cost, but they would not be allowed to deduct these fees (taxes) as business costs. ·Medicaid Expansion Baucus would make changes to the current eligibility standards to the Medicaid program. Eligibility would be more liberal, accepting everyone at and below 133% of the federal poverty level. Currently there are many more stipulations that are accounted for to qualify for Medicaid such as consideration of assets, disabilities, dependent children, and being a pregnant woman. We favor this provision because there are many working Americans living in the United States that have very limited income and struggle to make ends meet, yet they are not eligible for Medicaid because they don’t fulfill some of the criteria. A recent article released just a couple of months ago noted a specific example of the Medicaid restrictions: “In 43 states, adults without dependent children “are ineligible for Medicaid no matter how low their income.” (Volsky, 2009) References:
1st Affirmative Constructive for S.1796
We, group 15, support the S.1796 [ America ’s Healthy Future Act of 2009]. The bill, like many of the healthcare reform bills proposed this year aims to aid the millions of uninsured and underinsured while containing the growth of medical costs. It is sponsored by Democrat Max Baucus, coining it as the Baucus Bill. We support this bill because while it tackles reform, which this country is in need of, it does so with provisions that make it adaptable, not with drastic measures that put fear into Americans. We’d like to address the key changes that we favor from the Baucus Bill that would improve our healthcare system. In no particular order, they are the following:
· Reducing the number of uninsured Americans
Currently 15% of Americans are uninsured for healthcare. This 15% is not insured for all the same reasons. Some can’t afford coverage, some can afford it but feel they will never need it so they choose not to purchase it, some that can afford it are denied purchasing power due to their own pre-existing conditions, and the list goes on. For whatever their reasons, these people struggle with getting the proper care and navigating their way through the healthcare system. Having no coverage leaves them with less access and lesser quality care than those that have coverage. Reduced access and quality can be seen when providers (not including those in emergency rooms of hospitals) deny or delay treatment of patients that are uninsured, or when patients are in need of a procedure to heal a condition but instead are given medication to suppress their symptoms.
According to an article in the Huffington Post, the number of people that don’t have access to healthcare is nearing 50 million, and Baucus’ plan would lower that population by about 30 million people in a 10-year period, according to congressional budget experts (Espo, 2009)
This would reduce the number of people that seek all of their medical care through emergency rooms which is a significant cost to the system, particularly for the cases that reach maximum severity before treatment is sought. His initiative would require all individuals to get insurance or else they would have to pay a penalty. The penalty would be set at a maximum of $950 per individual per year. One might wonder how low-income individuals will afford this penalty. They’re already low-income and if they had $950 they would use it for other daily necessities. This brings us to the next initiative.
· Subsidies for buying insurance
The bill would provide financial assistance until 2013 [when the bill would be enacted] and after that it would “provide sliding scale credits for purchasing insurance for people earning between 133% and 300% of the federal poverty level," as noted in an article posted on the political forum Opencongress.org. (Shaw, 2009) This would be beneficial for many college students that only work part/full time jobs that aren’t working in their field of study yet. It is also beneficial for those that are in the working middle class, seeing as how $14,404 marks 133% of the federal poverty level and $32,490 marks 300% of the federal poverty level, the maximum amount of income one can make before being ineligible for subsidies. And these numbers are just for a single person. For a family of 2, the maximum income for the household can be $43,710 while still qualifying for subsidies.
As anyone can see, eligibility for subsidies is quite generous and this provision would help the poor and middle class afford health coverage. We see this as an advantage for many Americans because these numbers provide a cap to healthcare expenditures for citizens. Currently, healthcare expenditures account for nearly 17% of one’s income, whereas these subsidies as well as other initiatives will lower the cap to 13%.
· Establishing an insurance exchange
This exchange would be a marketplace where individuals and small businesses could shop and compare health plans. They would be able to opt into a private health plan. The process would be standardized to minimize the confusion and complexities that usually accompany the insurance enrollment and buying process. A key factor noted by the RAND corporation is ‘Participating insurers would have to charge the same price for the same products inside and outside the Exchange. Plans participating in the Exchange would be subject to regulatory oversight by states.’ (RAND, 2009)
And unlike many health insurance plans that sometimes dominate an entire state because it is the only plan offered in the area, the exchange would extend to a national level. Some of us that have moved from one state to another have found that a health plan that we were previously satisfied with is not available in the state that we moved to. With this plan, people in Seattle , Washington could have the same plan as someone in Birmingham , Alabama . Another advantage of the bill is that it would allow people to keep the insurance plans that they already have if they are satisfied with them, and it will not require the plans to change to the new government standards. Of course, these plans will not be able to be offered to new clients.
· Employer responsibility for providing employee insurance
The Baucus plan would not require employers to provide insurance, but they would be more inclined to do so because a penalty would be imposed if they did not. The penalty would be in the form of a payroll tax that would be calculated based on annual revenue of the employer organization. Small businesses that didn’t offer employees insurance wouldn’t have to pay as much as larger businesses that didn’t offer insurance. In addition, an employer would have to pay taxes into the Insurance Exchange if standards show that the employer doesn’t offer insurance with adequate coverage or affordability. This inadequacy will be determined if the benefits offered don’t meet certain criteria (government standard), or if employees are forced to use subsidies because they can’t afford the employer’s insurance. Employers would be able to deduct insurance premiums from their business as a business cost, but they would not be allowed to deduct these fees (taxes) as business costs.
· Medicaid Expansion
Baucus would make changes to the current eligibility standards to the Medicaid program. Eligibility would be more liberal, accepting everyone at and below 133% of the federal poverty level. Currently there are many more stipulations that are accounted for to qualify for Medicaid such as consideration of assets, disabilities, dependent children, and being a pregnant woman. We favor this provision because there are many working Americans living in the United States that have very limited income and struggle to make ends meet, yet they are not eligible for Medicaid because they don’t fulfill some of the criteria. A recent article released just a couple of months ago noted a specific example of the Medicaid restrictions: “In 43 states, adults without dependent children “are ineligible for Medicaid no matter how low their income.” (Volsky, 2009)
References:
1. Espo, David. (2009) Health Care Bill: Baucus Senate Legislation Finally Unveiled. The Huffington Post. Retrieved on November 27, 2009, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/health-care-bill-baucus-s_n_288218.html2. Senator Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Call to Action: Health Reform 2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, November 12, 2008. Retrieved on November 29, 2009 from http://www.randcompare.org/options/mechanism/baucus_call_to_action_phase_2
3. Shaw, Donny (2009) Choose Your Own Senate Health Care Adventure. Open Congress for the 111th United States Congress.Retrieved on November 28, 2009 from http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1277-Choose-Your-Own-Senate-Health-Care-Adventure
4. Volsky, Igor. (2009) Baucus: Medicaid Expansion Will Not ‘Cost States Nearly As Much As Was Originally Feared’ The Wonk Room:The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. Retrieved from http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/14/baucus-medicaid-expansion-will-not-cost-states-nearly-as-much-as-was-originally-feared/