Health care reform will prove politically popular
WASHINGTON — My mother has always been obsessive about making certain that her grown children have health insurance. Her Depression-era childhood in the rural, segregated South taught her the hazard and heartbreak that can engulf those without the financial resources to get medical care.
But she’s by no means the only parent to worry about health insurance for adult children. The labor-force-entry period right after college has frequently been a time of low earnings and no benefits for young workers, who are routinely kicked off their parents’ health insurance plans once they finish college (or before that, if they hit a defined age limit, usually 23). Parents of young adults have scrounged about for an affordable health insurance plan to cover them.
One of the many benefits which will likely be enshrined in health insurance reform is a provision which would allow an adult child to stay on a parent’s policy until his/her 27th birthday; that simple change would grant coverage through graduate school for students, as well as covering the period when many 20-somethings find themselves in a low-paying job with no health care coverage. Despite the constant drumbeat from Rush Limbaugh’s microphone about a U.S. health care system that’s “the best in the world,” ours is not. It is the most expensive in the world — a dysfunctional hodge-podge of fee-for-service care that de-emphasizes preventive medicine and encourages expensive procedures and pills.
You’d think that, with those facts on their side, President Obama and Congressional leaders would be able to construct a simple, compelling narrative to compete with Limbaugh’s line. But they’re Democrats. So they’re losing the rhetorical war over health care reform.
Yet, both the House and Senate versions contain measures that will improve the marketplace for health care consumers, including those who already have insurance. Both bills, for example, would curb the infuriating practice of denying coverage for “pre-existing conditions.” That’s a significant improvement.
Critics have rightly noted that some of the harsher measures in the legislation — such as penalties for small businesses that don’t provide insurance for their employees — would go into effect in the coming months, while the major benefits for consumers will be phased in through 2014. But Obama recently outlined benefits that he expects to become effective immediately, including tax credits for small business to purchase health insurance. The immediate provisions would also include curbs on the practice of using “pre-existing conditions” to deny coverage, he said.
Neither the House nor the Senate bill is perfect. The House bill was passed with an amendment whose sole purpose is to restrict women’s reproductive rights. The Senate bill has been criticized for the porkbarrel measures and special provisions with which it was larded — simply because 60 senators could not be persuaded to pass health insurance reform for its own sake. Nevertheless, at the core of both bills is a consensus about reforms that would improve health care for most Americans.
When my mother was young, she stayed several days in a small, rural hospital to help her own mother, hospitalized after surgery. While she was there, my mother heard the anguished screams of a man whose family couldn’t pay for the amputation he needed. He died of gangrene because emergency care wasn’t considered a basic right back then.
Today, we take emergency care for granted. We simply can’t conceive of a nation in which a man dies of gangrene because he can’t afford an amputation. I’m betting that getting rid of insurance-company-baloney such as “pre-existing conditions” will prove equally popular — an obvious improvement — when health insurance reform becomes law.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
90 comments Add your comment
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
7:50 am
I think I have seen and heard it all. Health care reform that was suppose to help the needy, ignores them and adds massive new taxes to the working folks. Now Cynthia Tucker says it will be politically popular. Cynthia, you are either stupid or ignorant and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will say the later.
The reform will help only a precious few, those the administration has paid off.
Instead of helping, the reform will impose massive new taxes, rationing and huge overhead for the medical system.
Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right.
jt
January 13th, 2010
7:55 am
“The reform will help only a precious few, those the administration has paid off.”
Yep, the insurance companies.
Those seeking government help,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,duped again.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
7:56 am
“I’m betting that getting rid of insurance-company-baloney such as “pre-existing conditions” will prove equally popular — an obvious improvement — when health insurance reform becomes law.”
Most 21 to 27 year olds dont need insurance as most are perfectly healthy.
Lack of the pre-existing clause will lead to adverse selection unless Obobo’s plan, and I think it does, forces EVERYONE of legal age to obtain healthcare insurance.
This OboboCare is a bad idea.
Tall
January 13th, 2010
8:01 am
“I’m betting that getting rid of insurance-company-baloney such as “pre-existing conditions” will prove equally popular — an obvious improvement — when health insurance reform becomes law.”
Ms. Tucker, you are absolutely clueless. Insurers have a fiduciary duty to their existing policy holders. When you relax the pre-existing conditions clauses there is no point in buying insurance until you get sick. New York used to have a competitive health insurance market until the state mandated that AIDS victims couldn’t be excluded under prexisting conditions clauses. Those insurers exited the state. Everyone wants the best healthcare they can get, as long as someone else pays. You are no different and you are going to get what you wish for. Wait until the tax increases start showing up and the standard of care begins to decline. It will be interesting to see who will be left for you to villanize.
Bob
January 13th, 2010
8:02 am
reform was supposed to clear the illegals out of the emergency rooms and bring down costs, this bill does neither. This is more social programming than reform.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:03 am
Which would you prefer. A plan that is politically popular or one that helps the people. They are mutually exclusive.
Peadawg
January 13th, 2010
8:04 am
And then Cynthia woke up…..
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:11 am
New question. When the majority of insurance companies no longer exist, who will cover the government employees excluded from the government mandated plan?
Also, if this reform is so great, why is Congress not part of it?
Same questions, never any answers.
Richard
January 13th, 2010
8:18 am
Forcing people to buy insurance from a for-profit corporation that uses those profits to actively lobby against the interests of the people will never be politically popular. The only way I see for the current bill to become popular after passage is if Congress passes more legislation that prevents insurance companies from lobbying, and requires insurance companies to be non-profit, and increases the subsidies massively, and somehow accomplishes this while getting our national debt in check without massive tax increases. I just don’t see that as a possibility, so I don’t think this will be popular at all.
I also don’t think the subsidies can ever become popular as structured. Welfare isn’t popular, nor is Medicaid. Medicare is popular. They’re all just entitlements, so what’s the difference between the systems? Medicare is for everyone, so everyone plans on getting benefit from it. People oppose expensive programs that don’t benefit them. People are selfish. Planning such a lopsided subsidy program is foolish, and doomed to be politically unpopular.
Joey
January 13th, 2010
8:20 am
First: It is incorrect to label these Bills “reform”.
Second: At the point where every US Senator, every Representative, the President, their immediate families and their staff are covered by this or some other Health Care Bill; at that point I will begin to believe that it will be good for our country and its residents.
Cynthia, you need to have enough integrity to acknowledge this.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:25 am
Joey,
Lefties have integrity???? I thought their god was “politically popular”.
TnGelding
January 13th, 2010
8:34 am
Only if done properly. Let’s just take the “consensus” and jettison the rest. No mandates. No fines. No special provisions to get votes. And let’s stop confusing health insurance with health care. Our current health insurance system actually prevents health care. We simply have to become better health care consumers and stop making ourselves sick with unhealthy lifestyles. (Sorry to be so repetitive.)
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:40 am
And the really good news is that the additional costs and government constraints will guarantee that all of the health insurance companies will fail within five years. That’ll show those greedy insurance company executives.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:43 am
I wonder if government restrictions on reimbursement rates will cause Mayo Clinic to quit taking medicare? That would make the bill even more politically popular.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:45 am
TnGelding,
You’re right. States limit who can compete within their borders. I wish Georgia would open it up and let every insurance company in – real competition. Oh, and of course tort reform – but why confuse folks inside the perimeter with common sense items.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:46 am
It is a great thing to live in a country where the politicians substitute their economic judgments for those of the corporate executives. If only the Congress had passed laws dictating safety and pollution standards for the automobile companies, perhaps they would not have gone bankrupt.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:50 am
Question for the group – has any politician from Georgia actually earn the privilege to be re-elected?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:50 am
Maybe Congress ought to pass a law having the taxpayers subsidize the sale of home mortgages up to $700,000. That would stimulate the housing market, and ensure economic growth for decades to come. That would be politically popular.
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
8:51 am
Healthcare could become popular the way Young Frankenstein’s monster would have become popular. (It’s about his enormous schvanztooker).
Does anyone know if Rx Reform requires mandatory participation? Because I can’t afford it. I make my living by dispensing pepper from pepper mills for diners in soup kitchens, and tips are rare these days. Things are tight.
I cant read the legalese in the Rx bill because I only made it through middle school. (But I was quite popular).
Hairy Banana Reid
January 13th, 2010
8:52 am
This woman is delusional at best.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:53 am
Dear QED @ 8:50, mostly no. Our republican senators are RINOs, and of course the democrats are even worse. I regard well a few of the congressmen – particularly Tom Price and John Linder, as each has proposed ideas that minimize the role of government in our lives.
samuel
January 13th, 2010
8:54 am
The basic premise of health care reform is this: At some point, we all become injured or sick, and we all die. Most people become injured or sick through no fault of their own and, of course, no matter what age you live to be, we all die, no matter how diligent you are in maintaining your health. You could die at 108 (my great-grandmother’s age), 71 (my maternal grandfather’s age), 66 (my father’s age), or 63 (my step-father’s age). It’s no one’s fault that they die, it’s just a simple fact. The sooner conservatives understand this, the more likely they are to support the law in the long run.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:56 am
Ragnar
Don’t give the Wesley Mouch’s inside the beltway any ideas.
NRB2
January 13th, 2010
9:00 am
Cynthia, are these the same 21-27 year olds that can afford I-Phones, a $200 per month cell phone bill, $200 bar tabs every weekend, and plasma televisions?
THAT age group?
Yes I can see why it would “evil” to think that they should have to pay a few hundred a month for their own health insurance.
Save us, government! Save us!
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
9:02 am
samuel,
I have health insurance, I like it. Why should I have to pay more for the same coverage to support other deadbeats that are too lazy to get their own. Sorry, my mistake, they are young and don’t think it is important.
If this is to help the needy, why is Congress messing with everyones insurance.
kayaker 71
January 13th, 2010
9:19 am
Never in the history of this country has the federal governmnet mandated that the electorate must purchase a commodity. The Congress is making it’s own rules. If taken to the Supreme Court, this most certainly will not win.
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
9:20 am
Bipartisan fact: 90% of our healthcare dollars are spent in the last 3 months of a patient’s life. (New England Journal of Medicine).
Do you really want to extend your life in a coma? Besides, if you live past midnite, it’s no longer the Tonite Show, then is it?
Is your life the single greatest franchise in broadcast history and thus worth bankrupting America 4?
Born Again Flat-Earther Birther healthcare plan: Inherit the earth. All six feet of it.
Conservative_American
January 13th, 2010
9:22 am
“quod erat demonstrandum” is right> Ms. Tucker is either misinformed or an idiot for taking the position she has. The current Health Care bill being debated behind closed doors (whatever happened to Nobama’s pledge for government “transparency”?) is a disaster for the 50% of Americans who actually pay income taxes (the other 50% get a welfare check under the guise of EITC). What really bothers me, as it should every taxpaying citizen, is why the assault on us from every level of government in the form of tax increases. People are losing their job, their home (some through their own doings by taking out mortgages they had no right to encumber themselves with), losing their health insurance, and genuinely desperate for relief. No longer can a family of three live off a blue-collar worker’s salary as my parents were able to do through the 1960’s; a combination of extremely high NET income tax rates, price gouging by the oil and electric ultility companies and inflation have decimated a single-income household. The possible solutions are complex and too numerous to list, but suffice it to say high taxes are a leading cause of wealth destruction and need to be lowered…along with government spending…and intrusion into our lives.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
9:24 am
kayaker…Many State attorneys general are preparing for that very thing, going to the Supreme Court over this obobocare debacle and/or reviewing possible legislation that will exclude said States from participating.
This ball game is far from over.
PS…will be interesting to see what happens if a REP wins in Mass.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 13th, 2010
9:26 am
Ms. Tucker:
There are several things like this that could have been tweaked without ruining the entire system.
However, you’re probably right that generations of “American Lemmings” who have been sucking the government tit will be pleased ………. at least for awhile until those lines get long.
By the way, the military has pretty good health coverage ………. I don’t see our brave men and women lining up by the droves for that ………. too much work/danger involved.
Citizen of the World
January 13th, 2010
9:28 am
Some of the provisions of the reform bill will help my immediate family — the no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and, very possibly, the prohibition against recision. These are good places to start for reform; however, I do think we’re going to need to eventually move to universal single-payer, where everybody buys into one non-profit insurance pool.
I certainly question how we can be required to buy insurance from a for-profit company that in turn uses our premium dollars to award lavish executive compensation packages, pay lobbyists to influence legislation with which we as individuals might disagree and, worst of all, contribute to the campaign coffers of politicians we don’t support.
StJ
January 13th, 2010
9:35 am
[Democrats are "losing the rhetorical war over health care reform". Wrong. We the people see what is going on and we don't like it...and we are letting our elected representatives know it, in no uncertain terms.
If this thing does pass, the lawsuits will fly, guaranteed. As Kayaker pointed out, the Congress has no constitutional authority to force people to buy something.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
9:43 am
Citizen of the World,
Dear socialists – why do you think companies exist? To provide a product at a profit. Without profit there is no reason to exist. Even the not-for-profits pay large salaries and benefits. The FED just announced a massive profit from its investments. Freddie and Fannie pay lavish bonuses for failed businesses.
Why deionized the insurance industry where a profit margin of 5% is considered huge. Why are you so against someone getting a just compensation for the value they add. Just think, a poorly run business will not stay in business for long.
kayaker 71
January 13th, 2010
9:46 am
Many states have enacted laws against driving while talking or texting on your cell phone. Says that it prevents loss of life and helps to protect the general public. Apparently, many people get involved in activiites which put a cramp on their life expectancy on a regular basis. Wonder what the health care system would look like if it was mandated by the state that those who continued to smoke would be denied health care coverage. Smoking related illness extends to most every organ system and is the largest risk activity that contributes to early death and long term cardiovascular disease. Oh, that the general public would take a little interest in their own health. Think how much money that that would save the health care system. Add to that a 250K cap on puntitive damages, the ability of insurance companies to sell paper across state lines and the elimination of health care for illegals. And none of the above would cost the American taxpayer a thin dime.
Mr. Nobody
January 13th, 2010
9:53 am
Tucker, Stop thinking up your next controversial delusional topic for 2 seconds and defend your position…COWARD!
samuel
January 13th, 2010
9:55 am
Conservative American @9:22am, you may not remember this, but income tax rates were higher in the 1960’s than they are today. And the reason a family can’t survive on a single income, blue-collar worker’s salary goes back to the supply-side economic policies started by that conservative champion, Ronald Reagan. The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs started under his administration. So, people pay lower taxes today but families can’t survive on 1 income. How is that?
Mr Right
January 13th, 2010
10:04 am
Its so cold this morning i seen a democrat with his hands in his OWN pocket lol
Citizen of the World
January 13th, 2010
10:04 am
quod erat demonstrandum @9:43, I agree that companies exist to provide a product at a profit. And that’s the biggest problem with insurance “companies.” Their goal of making a profit takes precedence over the the provision of their “product,” which is paying our insurance claims. It’s not like I pay them X and they give me Y. I could give them X and they might possibly have to give the doctors and hospitals A through Z. They do everything possible to avoid this so they can maximize their profits. Consequently, people suffer and go without care even though they’ve paid their premiums. They go bankrupt even though they have insurance. They get cancelled after they’ve gotten sick. These are big problems that clearly show why the profit motive is incompatible with health care coverage.
TnGelding
January 13th, 2010
10:10 am
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
9:20 am
Death with dignity needs to be part of the “reform.” I hope I have the courage to lie down and die when it comes my time.
hoads
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
Democrats are “losing the rhetorical war over healthcare reform” because the people aren’t stupid. They understand that the government cannot massively cut one entitlement to create another entitlement, create 56 new government bureaucracies in the process, subsidize the purchase of health insurance for a majority of households (those with incomes below $88,000), cut reimbursements to hospitals and doctors, outlaw cost sharing for preventive healthcare and prohibit underwriting of health insurance without lowering the quality of all healthcare services, making the upper middle class pay more for less healthcare and inserting government between patients and healthcare providers. And, on top of that, do so while almost 50% of the population pays no income tax while promising no tax increases for those making below $200,000. Not possible except in the deluded minds of wishful thinkers and government apparatchiks willing to sell their soul for the next political payback.
Russ
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
It’s time as a nation that we provide basic health care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. That is the right thing to do and something we can do. Health care should not be lost if a person loses their job or changes jobs, or is homeless or poor.
Our nation and all of us will be better when we take this step forward that all other modern nations have taken.
Time to act.
Roger
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
Any legislation that has to meet in the middle of the night behind closed doors and by people who only know the Political Correct password, can not be up to any good. If this legislation was benefiting all Americans and had substance to it, only a small number would be opposed to it. This legislation can not stand the light of day because it has too many rotten things in it. Always look below the surface- – - as your mama told you “all that glitters is not gold.”
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
10:13 am
Citizen of the World
January 13th, 2010
10:04 am
UH NO. The insurance companys must adhere to the provisions of the policy and as is normal with contractual law “if there is any ambiguity in said contract then favor will be awarded the contractee”.
The issue is indivduals “think” they are covered and do zero investigation, reading of their policy, until AFTER a claim occurs. Only to find out they were NEVER covered for “said claim.” Then its of course the insurance companys fault. Ever think perhaps it was the fault of an independent agent or ones own fault?
Also if one feels they have been cheated there are thousands of available ambulance chaser/attorneys that are willing to take up the cause of fighting the BIG BAD INSURANCE COMPANY.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
10:15 am
Russ
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
LOL…is that a cut-paste from the CNN.com website or your locally elected dummycrat representative?…LOL!
Jack
January 13th, 2010
10:21 am
Time is wasted when trying to explain to a liberal that productive people need not pay for bad planning by others.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
10:23 am
Get a tax break…Match your FSA contribution to your HCare Deductible.
Real
January 13th, 2010
10:27 am
politically popular??? — only if you think the government is the answer to everything including your care and feeding; do not support individual responsibility for poor life decisions; support increasing the number of government dependents and thereby increasing your voter base; support punishing success and rewarding failure; do not support “living within your means”; etc….
George
January 13th, 2010
10:28 am
I assume by public CT means a CNN poll of hosts and staff and the few states that were bribed. I think everyone would appreciate some well thought out health care form. The Pres., staff, and Congress just can’t let themselves understand the issues. I love the blogs that start with my great aunt…. There was a wonderful poll that more than 70% of respondents said that the public would buy a biography about themself. CT is really good at presenting myopic, selfish views.
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
10:32 am
The healthcare problem starts with our fast food franchises. Our dietary habits are a pre-existing condition.
Billions of burgers served? An average American has eaten 1,847 Big Macs by the time he gets out of college. Then he gets married and is forced to endure his wife’s cooking. So he sneaks another 939 Big Macs by the time he gets the 7 year itch. If he scratches that itch, he’ll be single again, and go on the sauce till he ends up in a pickled coma attending by a seedy nurse with nice buns named Pattie and costing taxpayers 5 or 6 thousand in lettuce a day.
My beef is that we should tax fast food.
If not, we’re finished.
rdh
January 13th, 2010
10:42 am
It will prove politically popular… just like SS and Medicare are politically popular. Nonetheless, they will still bankrupt the country (at which time, these programs will not be so popular).
It would also be “politically popular” for the government to buy everyone a car, a house, a big screen TV and put steak and lobster on the table every night. Just because something might be politically popular does not mean that it is wise, affordable or sustainable. When “politically popular” leads to an unbearable debt burden, decreased opportunity, descreased freedom and a standard of living less than our parents and grandparents, then it is the wrong choice. I would rather die of gangrene than enslave my children with debt.