I was all hyped, for example, about universal coverage. As far as I’m concerned, there are times when the government has to ensure that resources are distributed equitably. And health care is just one such issue.

No matter, though. When conservatives cried foul, the president quickly ditched the idea for the seemingly more palatable public option, which was in and then it was out, and then it was in again and now it’s out.

Who can keep up? It’s difficult to figure out which reform is actually part of the reform. And am I the only one who feels like the entire debate has gone from energizing to energy draining? These days, health care reminds me of last week’s hangover: heavy, tiresome and short on fun.

In the latest non-progress surrounding the bill, the Senate race in Massachusetts is closer than Democrats expected. The party is in danger of losing its majority, which it needs to push health care legislation through. A surprise win for the GOP in Ted Kennedy’s old seat would no doubt be a setback for the Dems. In turn, that would likely delay the bill further, which translates into critical setbacks for me and many others.

You see, I’m one of those Americans who would be denied insurance coverage because of my preexisting condition, even if I pay for it out of pocket. My medical history sends up clouds of black smoke to carriers. But under the new health care bill, discriminating against folks based on health conditions would be illegal.

In the interim, a program like Medicare could offer a reprieve for people in my situation. Under the new bill, Medicare will be expanded to include Americans with serious diseases under the age of 65. These measures, however, take time to implement, and a languishing bill is only exasperating matters. According to a piece written by DNC Chairman Howard Dean, most Americans wouldn’t see the benefits of the bill until 2014.

A lot of good that’s doing for the uninsured or underinsured today.

The latest news out of Washington is that there will likely be another version of the health care bill before lawmakers agree on one. I’m feeling like they’ve had one too many already.

]]> http://cancerslayergyrl.com/2010/01/12/health-care-hangover/feed/ 6 garciagyrl hangover http://cancerslayergyrl.com/2009/11/12/how-roland-burris-punked-the-democrats-saved-the-public-option/ http://cancerslayergyrl.com/2009/11/12/how-roland-burris-punked-the-democrats-saved-the-public-option/#comments Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:02:33 +0000 garciagyrl http://cancerslayergyrl.com/?p=1215 Continue reading →]]> This is a piece that I wrote for TheRoot.com. Considering the events of the last week, though, I thought it was important to re-post it here.

When Illinois Sen. Roland Burris took office almost a year ago, he already appeared to be a lame-duck politician.

After being appointed by the shady Gov. Rod Blagojevich in late December, Burris found himself shrouded in a haze of suspicion and controversy. With such a troubled introduction to national politics, it seemed as if “Blago’s boy” was little more than a political eunuch.

But the hard-knuckle Chicago politician seized his moment a few weeks ago when he proclaimed that he wouldn’t sign a health care bill that didn’t include a public option. With that, he not only propelled himself into prime time, landing  spots on C-SPAN, MSNBC, and Fox, but he also made himself relevant.

The landmark bill that passed the House on Saturday likely included a government-sponsored plan because of Burris. And if all goes right, he might just emerge as the savior of the public option. Read more here.

Last Wednesday, the American Medical Association announced plans to publicly oppose President Obama’s health care reform. The AMA, a powerful 250,000-member physicians’ group, is against a government-sponsored health care option, which it claims will restrict patients’ choices by driving out private insurers. It went on to say that a public plan would also lead to “an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

Maybe I’m confused, but I thought this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in now, hence the need for an alternative.

More than 44 million Americans are uninsured and another 38 million of us are underinsured. Those of us who fall into these categories often forgo medical appointments, preventive care, screenings, and follow-up visits, which result in more late-stage diagnoses and worsening medical conditions. In turn, this places a significant financial burden on the system.

When uninsured Americans get sick, for example, they head straight to the emergency room. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the uninsured are 30 to 50 times more likely to be hospitalized for unavoidable conditions. And about 20 percent of uninsured Americans rely on emergency rooms as their primary source of care.

This increasing dependence on emergency-room medicine, coupled with the poor management, administrative costs, and inefficiencies of our current health care system, is costing everyone. Those without insurance end up paying more upfront, if they can pay at all, while folks with coverage are watching their premiums rise (between 5 and 10 percent in 2009, experts estimate). What’s even more disturbing is that the United States spends more on health care than most industrialized nations, yet we have one of the highest numbers of uninsured residents. Clearly, what we got ain’t working.

The president unveiled his plans for health care reform while on the campaign trail, and his critics wasted no time tearing it apart. They referred to his government-sponsored option as “big brother-esque,” yet offered little in the way of alternatives. What do these folks propose that we do about the tens of millions of Americans without health insurance? Or the rising costs for people with coverage? Instead, those opposed to the idea of universal care, such as the AMA, throw around terms like “socialized medicine” in a poorly veiled attempt to incite fear in Americans who support free-market capitalism. It’s as if the Obama critics want us to believe that the communist fairy is just waiting in the lurks to turn our nation into a government-run camp.

As far as the AMA is concerned, that seems to have been its M.O. from way back. Since the ’60s, the group has been vocal about its opposition to government-involved health care regulation. According to a story published last week, in 1961, the group attempted to block Medicare, calling it a varying form of totalitarianism. Word? Medicare? That program that provides health coverage for the elderly and the disabled? Wow.

More recently, during the Clinton administration, the AMA allegedly spent $3 million to defeat Hillary Clinton’s universal health care proposal, opting instead to support Republican-backed policies that called for cuts in Medicare spending. And these are doctors we’re talking about here.

But today is a different and far more difficult time for our nation. Our economy is in bad shape, and a high unemployment rate means that people are rapidly losing their company-sponsored insurance. In 2007 and 2008, for instance, one in three Americans went without coverage at some point, a startling statistic that proves our all-or-nothing health care system is zero-sum game. It requires all of us to fend for ourselves amid exorbitant costs and red tape, while big companies and big organizations try to convince us that nothing good will come from a government alternative. Other nonsupporters say universal coverage will result in patients waiting for months to see a physician and that the quality of care would be subpar.

How come our only option is to keep what we have or embrace a socialist regime? This is America we’re talking about here. I’m certain that we can do better than that. What about a cross between an individual and  government-sponsored policy? Something that might resemble a public-private partnership, a plan that allows those with insurance to keep what they have but gives those who can’t afford individual care some sort of coverage. Oh, wait, that’s what Obama is proposing, and his plan may be the most viable for millions of Americans.

The president is planning to address the AMA today, and I’m eager to hear what its members have to say.  So far, they haven’t said much.