Thursday, August 20, 2009
A lot of ink has been spilled lately over the health care debate.
President Obama has been trying to push through sweeping reforms to health insurance in the United States this summer, and some of the reactions have been frustrating, to say the least.
The plan, in a nutshell, was to grant all Americans health insurance. This would come by establishing a government program to cover people who, for whatever reason, do not have prior coverage.
Those who do, either through preexisting policies or programs like Medicare and Medicaid, would keep their coverage. For those without a current plan, there would be a “public option,” a policy available to everyone.
For whatever reason, this “public option” has ignited a firestorm of criticism. Members of Congress around the country have held town hall meetings to discuss it with constituents, and depending on their ideology, have either met with applause for opposition; or unending rabble as punishment for support.
Now, I want to come back to what the public option is. It is a government insurance plan for people who don’t have coverage already.
Typically, this is because they can’t afford private health insurance. Take this in: it gives people who can’t afford it coverage. This is designed primarily for middle-class Americans who earn enough not to qualify for Medicaid, are too young for Medicare and aren’t covered by programs designed for veterans or, um… members of Congress.
So what is the problem? I have watched town halls on television, listened to pundits, and waded through the comments on a poll on Facebook (which is almost as painful as sitting through a Glenn Beck rant).
I’ve gotten that the public option is “tyrannical,” “Orwellian,” and “communist.” Protesters at public meetings, some planted by insurance companies and the Republican Party, some just angry, have claimed that the public option is secretly a plan to take away their existing plans and replace it with something inefficient, modelled off of the systems of countries such as Canada and England. Prominent Republicans, including former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, publicly insisted that the plan would subject extremely sick hospital patients to “death panels”
which would decide if they are worth the cost of treating.
Ask somebody what part of the insurance reform legislation includes this provision, and you are likely to get an awkward pause and a quick changing of the subject, what with the fact that it doesn’t exist.
Sadly, discourse over such a significant piece of legislation, one which could have profound effects on the health of our country, has been reduced to emotional outbursts, childish faux-protesters and outright lies.
— Cohen is a Topeka senior in political science.
Editorial: Health care reform and students
Students should consider impact of health care legislation.
Cohen: Healthcare debate represents a problem with ...
Bitter battle between parties stands in the way of government efficiency.
Editorial: Show support for health care, but ...
The new package benefits students but the public option should have been ...
Contributed column: Get busy on health care
Public preference absent in news commentary on health care.
Politically Correct: The public option
Columnists weigh in on the health care debate.
A guide to the proposed health care ...
A look at the health care bills that are being passed around ...
Cohen: Hopes for health care reform
Health care legislation is nearly ready for vote.
Compton: Win the battle, lose the war
Even with healthcare reform passing, Democrats face a long road ahead in ...
Two sides of healthcare
Health insurance is one of the major issues this year.
Cohen: Grim predictions reflect flaws in system
Difficulty in passing legislation complicated by partisan politics, checks and balances.
Governor’s departure poses problems
Sebelius’ acceptance of HHS secretary leaves Kansas’ future and Obama’s health care ...
Brinker: The great American rant
Everyone is angry, but where are the fingers really pointing?
Editorial: Sebelius’ experience will help as Secretary ...
The governor will do more good in Washington than she could have ...
Letter to the Editor: Public option
Negative aspects of policy discussed.
Sebelius may oversee Medicare, Medicaid
Mark Parkinson will be Kansas’ governor if Sebelius accepts position as secretary ...
Thompson: Democrats’ reform needs strength
President Obama’s healthcare reform pushes for momentum with help from unexpected endorsements.
Letter: Criticism toward Democrats is misguided
Response to criticism of Democratic leaders.
Compton: The shrinking presidency
President Obama fails in keeping political promises.
Students contemplate Sebelius’ future
Obama aides say Kansas governor might be next Health and Human Services ...
Cohen: Abstinence-only education insane
New bill is a waste of money and won't improve health of ...
Corrigan: Using class warfare in politics
The left often uses class warfare in politics to win elections.
Health care could affect student insurance
The new bill could allow some students to stay on their parent’s ...
Students show indifference in health care
Young adults have yet to play active role in rallies, heated discussions.
Letter: Democrats don't play transparent
Before you blame Republicans for America's problems, look at what Democrats have ...
Letter to the Editor: Pro-choice protection
New amendment would make it hard for insurance companies to cover abortion.
Platt: Affording the unaffordable
Individual stories relating to health care.
Obama’s speech leaves students torn
In a speech to Congress, the president discussed the future of health ...
Planned Parenthood now granted state license
Last-minute granting prevents Kansas from losing abortion provider.
Regents may revise student health insurance
A new health insurance plan from the Board of Regents would decrease ...
Katz: Rein in insurance companies for health ...
Insurance companies' abuse American's.
Parkinson addresses budget shortfall, prevents cuts to ...
In a speech today, Gov. Parkinson released his plan to address budget ...
Free: Corporate tax avoidance just one reason ...
Even if we weren’t facing these difficult economic times, corporate tax avoidances ...
Jenkins talks health care
U.S. rep. says she’s happy to see many faces at town hall ...
Public option makes a leap toward socialism
Government-run health care could crush the operations of the free-market .
Free: New Congress, same story for the ...
The middle and lower classes are being punished for the excesses and ...
Kansas drafts new anti-abortion laws
State legislature battles over abortion laws could spill into areas of family ...
Wal-Mart offers lower drug prices
In a move that will help the uninsured afford medication, Wal-Mart is ...
Some graduates in insursance limbo
Many insurance companies drop coverage after graduation, find out what you can ...
From left: Kimberlee Hinkle, Libby Johnson and Hannah ...
1 comment
Kansas Jayhawk fans hold aloft a reproduction of ...
2 comments
Erin Saupe, a Ph.D. student from St. Cloud, ...
1 comment
0 comments
Armed robbers continue to threaten.
3 comments
Lecture from Greg Mortenson, co-author of New York ...
0 comments
Comments
Cohen: Public option opponents’ ideas lack substance
Public options will effectively kill private health insurance companies. Private companies can't compete with a gov. program that doesn't have to make a profit and is unendingly supported by tax dollars.
Also, the public option will cost a fortune. Healthcare is about getting costs under control. If healthcare costs less, insurers can cover more high risk patients and businesses will be more likely to offer coverage to employees. Government programs have never done anything but skyrocket costs.
If we find ways to lower healthcare costs across the board, both on the insurance side and the medical side, we get what we really want: private businesses offering healthcare.
Our country has grown increasingly reliant on the government during the past 50 years or so. More responsibility needs to be placed on individuals in their maintaining health rather than the government dolling out tax dollars to fix poor health decisions. We should be penalizing smokers, drug users and those who maintain health adverse lifestyles, not enabling them. The constitution does not provide for people's health. Nor does it say anything about the government compensating for their bad decisions.
This is all moot anyway because it seems the public option has been all but put to rest. The questions are: 1. How do we encourage businesses to support healthcare for their employees? 2. How do lower healthcare costs so health insurance costs are reduced as well, thus the middle class can afford its own healthcare? 3. How can we encourage a healthier life style in American? 4. How can we do all of this without increasing the already gigantic size of our government and public debt? 5. How can we accomplish all of this while imposing as little as we can on the private individual and company?
Cohen: Public option opponents’ ideas lack substance
Ben, my young friend, here is some substance: I do not want a public option until my government can prove they can operate a public program effectively. Here are my suggestions: 1) The President says there are $177 billion in waste in Medicare and that is how we can pay for the public option. Please rehabilitate Medicare first and prove you can find these savings before you take on a public option. 2) There is no mention of tort reform in this program. Ben, go ask any surgeon, internist or OB how many of their tests are run simply because they dont want to get sued. I'll bet its 25%. Tort reform is not mentioned by the administration, why is that? 3) Social Security is broke. Fix it before you take on another massive program. We owe it to our senior citizens. I am one of those people who have been to a town hall and communicated to my representative that I do not want a program that could bankrupt our country. Am I silly to feel this way?
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID