Spring Break
Editorial: Health care reform bill a tremendous step forward
Editorial Board
Issue date: 11/10/09 Section: Commentary
Saturday night the House of Representatives passed a sweeping health care reform bill, and as it enters the Senate, The Daily Campus hopes that UConn's student body recognizes the law as a tremendous step forward, as well as a good example of political compromise.
There is no argument in saying that health insurance, and the health care industry in general, were badly in need of an overhaul; the fact that American citizens were denied the treatments that they have is obscene by anyone's standards. And the corrective structure this bill establishes addresses the problems.
The law requires all citizens to have health coverage in the same way that the university currently does, but also takes painstaking care to provide for as much leeway in choosing a health care plan as possible. What this bill mainly does is give incentive to insurance companies and profitable businesses to alter their existing plans into something that is driven more by public need than by pure profit. Citizens will still have a wide choice behind their coverage, but the average standard of that coverage will be vastly improved.
The bill has been criticized for calling for excessive spending - projections range from $900 billion to $1.2 trillion over 10 years - at a time when our economy is fragile. But is it really preferable to simply let the insurance industry and the lives of those it affects waste away while we wait for things to get better? It is impossible to tell when that may be, and this is one of those times when action is better than slow death.
This is especially true in comparison to the Republican alternative to the reform bill, which, while cheaper, would still leave an unacceptable estimated 52 million citizens uninsured.
It is regrettable that the brunt of this undeniably expensive bill is going to have to come from taxes. But the amount of people whose lifestyles will be significantly affected by those taxes is negligible compared to the wide, desperate population whose entire standard of living could rise dramatically with improved coverage.
Abortion-rights advocates are no doubt irritated at the removal of abortion funding from the bill, but we urge them to view the act as the necessary compromise that it is. At this point in the health care debate, there are plenty of side issues to consider but it is much more prudent to establish a framework upon which the government can build more controversial legislation, like abortion. And it was a necessary step in bringing a unified Congress behind an idea that needs one.
They need also to recognize the massive sea change this represents for the health care industry, and demanding that the country settle health care and reproductive rights in one fell swoop is asking quite a lot. Some sensitivity is further needed in recognizing that though doubtful conservatives have made concessions in this fight, their concerns are not invalidated.
There is no argument in saying that health insurance, and the health care industry in general, were badly in need of an overhaul; the fact that American citizens were denied the treatments that they have is obscene by anyone's standards. And the corrective structure this bill establishes addresses the problems.
The law requires all citizens to have health coverage in the same way that the university currently does, but also takes painstaking care to provide for as much leeway in choosing a health care plan as possible. What this bill mainly does is give incentive to insurance companies and profitable businesses to alter their existing plans into something that is driven more by public need than by pure profit. Citizens will still have a wide choice behind their coverage, but the average standard of that coverage will be vastly improved.
The bill has been criticized for calling for excessive spending - projections range from $900 billion to $1.2 trillion over 10 years - at a time when our economy is fragile. But is it really preferable to simply let the insurance industry and the lives of those it affects waste away while we wait for things to get better? It is impossible to tell when that may be, and this is one of those times when action is better than slow death.
This is especially true in comparison to the Republican alternative to the reform bill, which, while cheaper, would still leave an unacceptable estimated 52 million citizens uninsured.
It is regrettable that the brunt of this undeniably expensive bill is going to have to come from taxes. But the amount of people whose lifestyles will be significantly affected by those taxes is negligible compared to the wide, desperate population whose entire standard of living could rise dramatically with improved coverage.
Abortion-rights advocates are no doubt irritated at the removal of abortion funding from the bill, but we urge them to view the act as the necessary compromise that it is. At this point in the health care debate, there are plenty of side issues to consider but it is much more prudent to establish a framework upon which the government can build more controversial legislation, like abortion. And it was a necessary step in bringing a unified Congress behind an idea that needs one.
They need also to recognize the massive sea change this represents for the health care industry, and demanding that the country settle health care and reproductive rights in one fell swoop is asking quite a lot. Some sensitivity is further needed in recognizing that though doubtful conservatives have made concessions in this fight, their concerns are not invalidated.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Lido Shuffler
posted 11/10/09 @ 10:23 AM EST
Considering only one Republican supported this bill while 39 Democrats voted against it, wouldn't it be more correct to say that the bill passed despite bi-partisan opposition rather than because of compromise?
Seriously
posted 11/10/09 @ 12:49 PM EST
I didn't know Nancy Pelosi was writing for the Commentary section. Stop hiding behind false numbers (52 million uninsured? Let's be serious). I hope you realize that the 'desperate' ranks are soon going to include the 85% of Americans who are currently happy with their health care when they are subjected to government decision-making panels and rationing of care. (Continued…)
Jerry L
posted 11/10/09 @ 1:27 PM EST
The US healthcare system became a national disgrace. A bunch of lobbyists from AMA, insurance and big pharma bribed the Congress into creating a system that drives people into bankruptcy, destroys american manufacturing base and small businesses. (Continued…)
Pat Keogh
posted 11/10/09 @ 2:14 PM EST
Yes, this is a tremendous step forward for Socialism in the United States.
The truth being that if you do not have healthcare you want this Bill. And if you do have healthcare you do not want this Bill or want to pay for those who do not have healthcare. (Continued…)
Post a Comment