6. Put your second affirmative constructive here. Group 15 - Second Affirmative Constructive There is a general agreement that our current healthcare system has some serious issues that need to be addressed.Healthcare costs have been rising dramatically; they have tripled in the last 19 years.If the current healthcare system is allowed to continue on this path there will be no end in sight to these increased costs.According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2009), over the next decade out of pocket healthcare costs for an individual are projected to rise more than 35%.There are estimations that businesses employees’ healthcare costs will double in the next 10 years and there could be approximately 66 million uninsured Americans. These estimates are based on worse case scenarios, yes, but can we afford to risk the chance and gamble with our lives and the future of healthcare for us, our children and our children’s children? There are a lot different views on what needs to be done to address this National issue but one thing is clear, there is a need for healthcare reform.If action isn’t taken soon there could be serious consequences that would jeopardize efforts to stabilize and improve the economic recovery of the United States. America needs increased stabilization and recovery to maintain its Global appeal. Now is the time to act and the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (S. 1796) is the amendment that is capable of delivering much needed healthcare reform.
Benefit of Co-ops
While S. 1796 does not call for provisions to provide health care coverage for American’s by way of a public option, it’s this lack thereof that strengthens this bill over H.R. 676, H.R. 1200, H.R. 3200, S. 703, and S. 1679. If the public health insurance option is realized, a negative financial effect will hamper American citizens, after the appropriated $2,000,000,000 for the establishment of the option is spent. After said funds are expensed, patients will be responsible for the funding the Exchange-participating insurance option through premiums (Rangel et. al, 2009). This creates a serious issue as premiums will rise, creating a financial burden if well-know upward trends continue with respect to health care costs. This claim is backed on the notion that payment rates for the public option will be based on payment rates under parts A and B of Medicare, which is currently having financing problems itself (Orszag, 2009). Similar legislation has shown taxing one set of individuals to provide for the health care needs of others is not financially effective. For instance, studies indicate the Medicare program, which is financed partly by payroll taxes, is unsustainable given its current financial outlook. Most of this financial burden will fall on the shoulders of high income individuals. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that such enactment would result in $81 billion in raised taxes in 2019 alone. This is a considerable figure give that the surtax would only have an effect on a meager amount of American patients. The Joint Tax Committee reports only 1.2% of taxpayers would be subject to the tax, leaving 98.8% of taxpayers unaffected by the surcharge. This leaves a big tax burden on a small amount of Americans, who are assessed this surcharge involuntarily to contribute towards the cost of providing healthcare to those Americans without coverage (“Estimated Effects” 2009). You asked: Why not give qualified American’s the choice of a public health insurance plan or a private insurance plan? The answer is simple; it is not financially feasible given the reasons above. Furthermore, consider the fact that other government attempts to provide health care for American’s are currently struggling, hence the need for such reform. Continuing, these enacted attempts (Medicare and Medicaid) only provide access to a defined population of American’s, with that said it is unfathomable to think of the obstacles the government would encounter providing access to health care through a public option. History has shown such task is not easy.
·Employer responsibility for providing employee insurance
Some securitize S. 1796 as it contains provisions to impose an exercise tax on employers who fail to offer health insurance coverage requirements for full-time employees, claiming it would create a negative financial impact, however such tax on employers will greatly decrease the number of uninsured. The number of uninsured American’s is reported to have increased by six million individuals between 2000 and 2004, as a primary result of declining employer sponsored health care coverage (Holahan & Cook, 2005). According to Sheils & Haught (2009) the costs to these employers would be approximately $300 per worker but in the long run this fee would pale in the costs of the lost time and productivity for employees being out sick for illness that could have been managed by the routine preventative services that are offered through health insurance coverage.
·Reducing the number of uninsured Americans
Although you are correct in stating that the S. 1796 bill will leave 25 million people uninsured, you didn’t mention the fact that 1/3 of these uninsured people are illegal immigrants.So the overall number of insured Americans will increase from 83% to about 94% of people having health insurance coverage (“America’s Healthy”, 2009).Not only will there be an increase in the number of insured Americans there will be a revamping of Medicaid eligibility guidelines that will allow more people to qualify for Medicaid coverage.The fact that more people will have insurance coverage will reduce the number of individuals that visit emergency rooms for their current health care coverage now that we all wind up paying for in the long run. These individuals take away from people that are truly in need of emergency care and the ability to reduce this abuse of a healthcare system can’t only lead to positive gains. References 1.Rangel, Waxman, Miller G., Stark, Pallone, and Andrews. House of Representatives, United States House Committee on Ways and Means. (2009). America’s affordable health choices act of 2009’’. (H.R. 3200). Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf. 2.Industry Scan. “Medicare’s financial outlook worse than previously predicted.” Health Care Financial Management 55.9 (Sep 2001): 20. 3.Orszag, Peter H. "Beyond Economics 101, Insights into Healthcare Reform from the Congressional Budget Office" Healthcare Financial Management. 63.1 (January 2009): 70 (5) 4.“Estimated Effects of the Revenue Provisions of H.R. 3200, The “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’” Fiscal Years 2010 – 2019, JCX-31-09. (2009, July 14) Retrieved from http://jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3570. 5.Holahan, John and Allison Cook. “Changes in economic conditions and health insurance coverage, 2000-2004: coverage among adults worsened, but increases in public insurance kept children’s coverage rates high.” Health Affairs 24.3 (Jul-Dec 2005): 498(10). 6.Sheils, J. & Haught, R. October 30, 2009. Long-Term Cost of the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009; As Passed by the Senate Finance Committee. The Lewin Group. Retrieved on December 5, 2009 from http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/Peterson_Finance_Report.pdf. 7.America’s Healthy Future Act. Wikipedia. Retrieved on December 5, 2009 from http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:G2j0ecuLgdIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Healthy_Future_Act+%2225+million+non-elderly+uninsured+1/3+illegal+immigrants+s.+1796%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
8. September 30, 2009. Out-of-Pocket Health Care Costs Could Increase More Than 35 Percent in Every State by 2019. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved on December 5, 2009 from http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=49149.
Group 15 - Second Affirmative Constructive
There is a general agreement that our current healthcare system has some serious issues that need to be addressed. Healthcare costs have been rising dramatically; they have tripled in the last 19 years. If the current healthcare system is allowed to continue on this path there will be no end in sight to these increased costs. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2009), over the next decade out of pocket healthcare costs for an individual are projected to rise more than 35%. There are estimations that businesses employees’ healthcare costs will double in the next 10 years and there could be approximately 66 million uninsured Americans. These estimates are based on worse case scenarios, yes, but can we afford to risk the chance and gamble with our lives and the future of healthcare for us, our children and our children’s children? There are a lot different views on what needs to be done to address this National issue but one thing is clear, there is a need for healthcare reform. If action isn’t taken soon there could be serious consequences that would jeopardize efforts to stabilize and improve the economic recovery of the United States. America needs increased stabilization and recovery to maintain its Global appeal. Now is the time to act and the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (S. 1796) is the amendment that is capable of delivering much needed healthcare reform.
While S. 1796 does not call for provisions to provide health care coverage for American’s by way of a public option, it’s this lack thereof that strengthens this bill over H.R. 676, H.R. 1200, H.R. 3200, S. 703, and S. 1679. If the public health insurance option is realized, a negative financial effect will hamper American citizens, after the appropriated $2,000,000,000 for the establishment of the option is spent. After said funds are expensed, patients will be responsible for the funding the Exchange-participating insurance option through premiums (Rangel et. al, 2009). This creates a serious issue as premiums will rise, creating a financial burden if well-know upward trends continue with respect to health care costs. This claim is backed on the notion that payment rates for the public option will be based on payment rates under parts A and B of Medicare, which is currently having financing problems itself (Orszag, 2009). Similar legislation has shown taxing one set of individuals to provide for the health care needs of others is not financially effective. For instance, studies indicate the Medicare program, which is financed partly by payroll taxes, is unsustainable given its current financial outlook. Most of this financial burden will fall on the shoulders of high income individuals. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that such enactment would result in $81 billion in raised taxes in 2019 alone. This is a considerable figure give that the surtax would only have an effect on a meager amount of American patients. The Joint Tax Committee reports only 1.2% of taxpayers would be subject to the tax, leaving 98.8% of taxpayers unaffected by the surcharge. This leaves a big tax burden on a small amount of Americans, who are assessed this surcharge involuntarily to contribute towards the cost of providing healthcare to those Americans without coverage (“Estimated Effects” 2009). You asked: Why not give qualified American’s the choice of a public health insurance plan or a private insurance plan? The answer is simple; it is not financially feasible given the reasons above. Furthermore, consider the fact that other government attempts to provide health care for American’s are currently struggling, hence the need for such reform. Continuing, these enacted attempts (Medicare and Medicaid) only provide access to a defined population of American’s, with that said it is unfathomable to think of the obstacles the government would encounter providing access to health care through a public option. History has shown such task is not easy.
· Employer responsibility for providing employee insurance
Some securitize S. 1796 as it contains provisions to impose an exercise tax on employers who fail to offer health insurance coverage requirements for full-time employees, claiming it would create a negative financial impact, however such tax on employers will greatly decrease the number of uninsured. The number of uninsured American’s is reported to have increased by six million individuals between 2000 and 2004, as a primary result of declining employer sponsored health care coverage (Holahan & Cook, 2005). According to Sheils & Haught (2009) the costs to these employers would be approximately $300 per worker but in the long run this fee would pale in the costs of the lost time and productivity for employees being out sick for illness that could have been managed by the routine preventative services that are offered through health insurance coverage.
· Reducing the number of uninsured Americans
Although you are correct in stating that the S. 1796 bill will leave 25 million people uninsured, you didn’t mention the fact that 1/3 of these uninsured people are illegal immigrants. So the overall number of insured Americans will increase from 83% to about 94% of people having health insurance coverage (“America’s Healthy”, 2009). Not only will there be an increase in the number of insured Americans there will be a revamping of Medicaid eligibility guidelines that will allow more people to qualify for Medicaid coverage. The fact that more people will have insurance coverage will reduce the number of individuals that visit emergency rooms for their current health care coverage now that we all wind up paying for in the long run. These individuals take away from people that are truly in need of emergency care and the ability to reduce this abuse of a healthcare system can’t only lead to positive gains.
References
1. Rangel, Waxman, Miller G., Stark, Pallone, and Andrews. House of Representatives, United States House Committee on Ways and Means. (2009). America’s affordable health choices act of 2009’’. (H.R. 3200). Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf.
2. Industry Scan. “Medicare’s financial outlook worse than previously predicted.” Health Care Financial Management 55.9 (Sep 2001): 20.
3. Orszag, Peter H. "Beyond Economics 101, Insights into Healthcare Reform from the Congressional Budget Office" Healthcare Financial Management. 63.1 (January 2009): 70 (5)
4. “Estimated Effects of the Revenue Provisions of H.R. 3200, The “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’” Fiscal Years 2010 – 2019, JCX-31-09. (2009, July 14) Retrieved from http://jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3570.
5. Holahan, John and Allison Cook. “Changes in economic conditions and health insurance coverage, 2000-2004: coverage among adults worsened, but increases in public insurance kept children’s coverage rates high.” Health Affairs 24.3 (Jul-Dec 2005): 498(10).
6. Sheils, J. & Haught, R. October 30, 2009. Long-Term Cost of the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009; As Passed by the Senate Finance Committee. The Lewin Group. Retrieved on December 5, 2009 from http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/Peterson_Finance_Report.pdf.
7. America’s Healthy Future Act. Wikipedia. Retrieved on December 5, 2009 from http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:G2j0ecuLgdIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Healthy_Future_Act+%2225+million+non-elderly+uninsured+1/3+illegal+immigrants+s.+1796%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
8. September 30, 2009. Out-of-Pocket Health Care Costs Could Increase More Than 35 Percent in Every State by 2019. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved on December 5, 2009 from http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=49149.