Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Misinformed Americans

Recently on his blog, Ezra Klein commented on the contrasting poll results on the popularity of the health-care plan. One graph stated that 52.1% did not approve of the plan, yet a different poll stated that for each main component of the bill at least 50% or more agreed on it. Why are the results so different? And why are Americans so misinformed when it comes to the health-care reform?

Klein commented, "if you actually tell people what's in the health-care reform bill, then it becomes quite popular." Why is it so hard for many of us to do the background information to make our own decisions. Many of us rely on our peers or role models to help come to a conclusion. Maybe it has to do with the fact that media is misleading us with the information they are giving us. Passing out polls that are not questioned correctly, or made clear can change the public view on a subject. One of the huge issues we have today as americans is making our own choices and not being influences by others. "The quality of information that the public has routine access to is simply too low"(Klein).

Obama supports repeal of health insurance antitrust exemption

I thought this might be relevant to those of us in Econ, because it deals with antitrust laws. Basically, the health insurance industry is exempt from some of the antitrust regulations. This exemption has been in place since the end of World War II. It was instated in order to allow new competition in the health care industry and lower consumer costs.

The health care bill passed in the House would have repealed this, but the one in the Senate would not have.

Today, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said:

"At its core, health reform is all about ensuring that American families and businesses have more choices, benefit from more competition and have greater control over their own health care," Gibbs said.

"Repealing this exemption is an important part of that effort. Today, there are no rules outlawing bid rigging, price fixing and other insurance company practices that will drive up health care costs and often drive up their own profits as well."

Advocates of the repeal argue that the current exemption has allowed health care companies to divide the country into "local monopolies"

Opponents of the repeal, however, point to the state regulations still must follow. They believe that a complete repeal is unnecessary.

Obama's plan also calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services to work with a seven-member board made up of doctors, economists and consumer and insurance representatives to review the recent premium hikes.

I'm pretty undecided on this issue, and I don't have a lot of background information. Will this really make a huge difference in health care? I agree that insurers shouldn't be exempt from antitrust laws, but I don't really understand the difference this would make. Would premiums drastically go down? What do you think? Will this make a big difference on the insurance market? Is it just Obama's latest battle against privatized health care?

Monday, February 22, 2010

Republicans Talk About Health-Care Reform

I found this blog by Ezra Klein rather funny (link in title). We always here the Republicans complaining about the health-care reform and attempt to down grade is possible success. Who knew that the Republicans great reform changes were already in the bill? Ezra gets down to the truth of the matter when he states, "establishment Republicans are shying away from them to avoid letting the Democrats swing the spotlight around to the downsides of the real conservative alternatives."

Friday, December 25, 2009

Senate passes Healthcare - Don't copy this

The senate passed its own version of the healthcare bill today with a vote of 60-39. Obama touted this as "real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people". Now both houses of Congress hope to form a compromised bill together for Obama to sign before the New Year, an unlikely achievement, but we'll see.

The House version of the bill:

1. Public-option: The government can set insurance rates. The industry is afraid that the rates might be set below market value, thus losing them money. This provision is unlikely to survive in the final bill sent to Obama's desk given the fact that the bill barely passed the Senate.

2. Increases income taxes on individuals making over $500,000 and families of four making over $1 million a year by 5.4%

3. Cuts Medicare spending by ~$500 billion.

4. Subsidies would be provided to families of four making $88,000 a year (or 400% the federal poverty level).

5. Health insurance exchanges will be allowed to help businesses and individuals to save money.

6. Premiums cannot change based on gender and/or prexisting conditions.

7. Medicaid coverage would extend to families of four making $33,000 a year (or 150% of the federal poverty level).

8. All individuals must have insurance coverage or face a fine of 2.5% of his/her income, with an exception of poor Americans.

9. Companies with a payroll over $500, 000 will need to provide insurance or pay a fine of up to 8% of its income.

10. Abortions would not be allowed in subsidized insurance and private policies exchanged.


The Senate version of the bill:

1. Does not have the public option.

2. 40% taxes on insurance companies that provide "Cadillac plans" at the value of $8,500 per individual and $23,000 per family (I'm assuming a family of four).

3. Also cuts Medicare by ~$500 billion

4. Subsidies would be provided to families of four making $88,000 a year (or 400% of the federal poverty level).

5. Health insurance exchanges are also allowed.

6. Premiums cannot change based on gender or prexisting conditions.

7. Medicaid coverage would extend to families making $29,000 a year (or 133% of the federal poverty level).

8. All individuals must have coverage or face a fine of $750 or 2% of his/her income, with exceptions of poor Americans. The higher fine is chosen.

9. Companies with over 50 employees would face fines up to $750 per employee that relies on government coverage funded by subsidies.

10. States would get to choose whether to provide coverage for abortions in exchanged insurances.

Just to clarify a few things, do not confuse medicaid with medicare. Medicare is public insurance provided for people over 65. Medicaid is a welfare program for poor, disabled, and old people that provides health services. It is largely determined by income, whereas Medicare is completely based on age.

From an insurance company's point of view, they should be pretty happy at all the new customers they'll be receiving, at least in the long run. In the short run, they'll be hurt by the riskier policy holders: diabetics, cancer patients, etc. However, those losses would eventually be offset by the fact that they can charge higher premiums on older people. Those costs could also shift towards younger people because there is nothing in the bills that prevent insurance companies from charging people extra based on age.

Next point of discussion would be the fines. I have doubts that they would persuade some Americans from buying coverage, at least for the Senate bill. The fines seem to be cheaper than the insurance they are encouraged to purchase. For those Americans that can afford insurance, but choose not to buy it, the law is much like the seat belt law: it's there to prevent people from facing huge medical costs that could be paid for by medicaid. Simply because those people may afford insurance, but they may not be able to pay for their own medical bills.

I'm sure there are exceptions for the abortion provision of the bills. Women who are endangered by childbirth, rape, and other noteworthy causes would be exception. Congress isn't that heartless...I hope.

There is no mention of undocumented immigrants, but they are definately part of both bills. Now, there are those of you that say that these immigrants should not be entitled to subsidies. But the work that most of these people do offset the income taxes that they don't pay. For example, a small box of strawberries cost about $1.99 (a rough estimate) because of cheap immigrant labor, but it could easily cost over twice as much if it these immigrants aren't working in the fields. The money they save us could even exceed the taxes we collect from them.

This health care reform is no doubt the highlight of Obama's presidency. It's unlikely he'll get any other major changes passed (except maybe something about the environment) because his popularity fades over time. And as it fades, so does his mandate.

That's all I have to say for now. If there are any other important provisions of either bills that I missed, feel free to point them out (the bills are a huge stack of papers and I'm sure there are more provisions that weren't included in this news article).

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Pelosi is such a Boss

For the full article, please refer to the link embedded in the title.
Pelosi has been given credit for her deft ability of democratic caucus to pass the new Health Bill. This victory will be a gateway to further government assistance and presence in the lives of Americans. The new bill will help all Americans have better access to health-care, be covered for more of their health-care costs, and will hopefully help to fix other issues within the health-care system.
I personally want to thank Ms. Pelosi for her dedication and self sacrifice. This bill truly could not have happened without her. John Murtha said that Pelosi hit the apex of her career by passing the bill, but I feel like she could truly do even more good for the country in her time as Speaker of the House. It's as if her full potential has not even been unlocked yet.
THANK YOU MS. PELOSI!

Friday, October 16, 2009

Don't Read Before You Eat

According to this article, a study conducted in Britain found out that 65% of women actually use soap when washing their hands, and only 31% of men do. Another funny part and gross part of this study found out that while women respond to signs like "Please wash your hands with soap", men require more graphic motivations. This study done by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found out that men are more convinced by signs that say "Soap it off or eat it later."

Wow, this kind of makes you think twice before taking that next cookie or chip from your friend's hand. With the ongoing flu "crisis", maybe more graphic signs should be put up.





-Henry Zhang

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Symbolism of the white lab coat


I was reading this weekend about how the American Medical Association (AMA) is in talks about efforts against the white lab coats that many doctors wear to work. This entry in the Wall Street Journal's blog explains a bit of the reasoning behind why. Essentially, lab coat sleeves have been pointed to as a carrier of disease between patients, especially in hospitals. The WSJ report cites the CDC's finding that ~100,000 people died of hospital-contracted diseases in 2002. There has been no correlation between this gargantuan number and lab coats. However, the logic of those proposing to get rid of the coats is that if they increase risk of infection by even a minimal amount, they should be eliminated.

Meanwhile, those who fear the loss of the symbolism and respect carried by the lab coat are intent on seeing more research before taking action. Britain has already carried out a similar decision, as described in this BBC article from Sept. 2007.

These poor lab coats... subject to the great irony of representing professionalism and cleanliness but pointed to as carriers of disease. I draw a connection between these AMA talks and how recent presidential advocacy sessions for health care have been careful to have white coat-adorned doctors present, as discussed here. Of course, anybody can understand why the White House was so intent that the doctors were wearing lab coats--throughout the health care debate, doctors' opinions have been important in swaying public opinion, and doctors dressed in lab coats make for a much more direct image for the public than those in suits.

Images courtesy of ahrp.org and thethinkingblog.com.