The Health Care Reform Bill is legislation that would change health care in the United States. This bill calls for the creation of health insurance exchanges that would allow individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance on a sliding scale based on income. These state based exchanges would be subsidized by the federal government the amount subsidized would again be based on income. It calls for some of the funding to come from a tax on investment income of 3.8%, an excise tax on high end insurance plans, tax on indoor tanning and a fine or tax levied on businesses with more than 50 employees that does not provide health insurance. One article found on the Internet that talks about the repeal of the bill is from The Huffington post. This article describes Senator Jim DeMint’s position on repeal of the bill. It quotes Sen. DeMint in saying the bill is a trillion dollar assault on our freedoms and that there were free market solutions that could have been a better solution. This article is short in length, only provides quotes from Sen.
DeMint and gives no opposing viewpoint. Another article found on the Internet comes from CBS News. This article discusses that Sen. DeMint is joined by Representatives Steve King and Michelle Bachmann in his intention to introduce legislation to repeal the bill. It also goes on to talk about other avenues that the Republican Party is using to battle the bill including a lawsuit brought forth by some State Governors against the government. This article was much more informative and represented both viewpoints. Both articles make clear the difficulty of forming domestic policy. It describes the troubles associated with policy formulation. If this bill becomes policy it may be quite different than the present example, due to the importance of the issue and the many facets of government that it would affect. It will by nature not satisfy everyone involved, so this will open it up for many debates until a compromise may be reached. If one can be reached this could lead to policy adoption.
Policy adoption comes with a cost, and usually the cost is a nice dose of pork that wins enough votes for the legislation to pass through both the House and Senate. These articles allude to the resistance that the Republican Party has to this redistributive social policy. This bill would be structured to help those in need of health care by providing it at a lower cost to those at or near the poverty level and fund it through monies gained through taxes on income that is normally earned by the rich. Any change to the current health care system will be met with quite a bit of resistance. Both the insurance and pharmaceutical companies do not want an end to come to their cash cow. The money spent on health care has increased at a steady rate per year with no end in sight. The markup on drugs in America is higher than any other developed nation. Both of these industries are heavy into lobbying and will use all resources to keep the status quo.
There are many forms of universal health care implemented around the world, this allows for many blueprints to follow. Many in opposition claim that universal health care would restrict and lessen the care we already receive, this is a viable concern. One way it can be addressed is by allowing private health insurance companies to provide supplemental health insurance programs. There is no reason that a citizen of one of the most developed nations should go without basic health insurance, some would even call health insurance a basic right. In every labor agreement that I have heard about in the last three years has included concessions by the workforce because of the rise in healthcare costs. If our system were broken than would it not make sense to look at how other nations have solved this problem? Once one looks past the propaganda and hype than one must at least see the benefits of universal healthcare.