For the past few weeks President Obama has been heavily campaigning his new health care reform plan, hoping to have a new law enacted by October.
The new plan is not the all-in-one universal health care plan you may have already heard about. Instead, it creates a new government-sponsored health insurance package. If passed, people would have the option of choosing between their existing insurance policies and the government’s public plan.
The public plan is intended to be cheaper than most options available today in hopes it would provide insurance to the current 45 million Americans without health care.
Obama’s plan also would offer tax cuts everywhere from the cost of medication to tax cuts for businesses for their cost of insuring employees.
Obama hopes to fund the new plan by eliminating former President Bush’s tax cuts for people making over $250,000.
Proponents argue the new plan would offer nearly everyone insurance who cannot currently afford it, as well as keeping private companies accountable by giving consumers another option to choose from.
Opponents argue the quality of health care in America would go down and drive out private business, as consumers would likely go for the cheaper government option. As well as worries of having to pay more in taxes.
Those against the current health care reform plan do have valid concerns. Our government has dropped the ball on other public programs in the past. For example, education is mostly left up to the politicians and our grade schools are hardly something to be proud of.
Those who live a healthy life and only have health care in case of emergencies also have legitimate complaints. After all, why should they pay more in taxes to pay for the insurance of someone who, for example, is a lifelong smoker?
However, this policy seems to offer a good middle ground for those who believe in universal health care, and the people who want government to stay out of health care.
First off, it keeps us, the consumers, in control. Currently corporations are in charge of our nations health care. Companies, who are mostly concerned with running a profitable business, should not be in charge of our nation’s health insurance.
Right now there are few restrictions on what private insurance companies can charge customers, and costs are spiraling out of control. After all, when it is a matter of life or death, you are likely to pay anything for the medical procedures you need, regardless of how much debt it puts you in.
People concerned about the quality of health care dropping also do not need to worry with the proposed policy.
If the new public plan does drive out private insurance companies, it simply means the public plan is better, and we as consumers chose to leave those companies and go with the government plan.
If the government-run system turns out to worsen health care, more people are going to stay with those private companies which will have competition to ensure they do not take advantage like they have in our current system.
Most importantly, this new plan offers many Americans who cannot pay for health care an affordable option. We can all agree that hard-working citizens should not be left uninsured, and this plan is the closest we have come to giving them a realistic option.
-Dara Mirzaie is an economics senior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
bruenig 2 years, 11 months ago
The congressional budget office has said this plan will add 1 trillion dollar to budget deficits in the next decade while only managing to insure an extra 16 million people (leaving over 30 million still uninsured). Single-payer health care covers everyone and does it more cheaply. Obama used to be a proponent of single-payer but he is a political coward who does not have the courage to pursue an issue that would pit him against the health insurance lobby.
The public option health care plan proposed by Obama is a farce meant to not step on the swindling health insurance companies. If they were to go against the insurance companies, where would they get money to finance their campaigns after all!
kdbp1213 2 years, 11 months ago
We're living in the UNSA, the United Nanny States of America. Government's gotta be in everything and more since the early 20th century..........
Maybe i should buy some deserted island somewhere?............ The United Island of KDBP...... ???
JJanowiak 2 years, 11 months ago
Unfortunately a lot of commenters (at least on the left) are speculating that this plan doesn't go nearly far enough in revamping the system and that Obama's savings predictions are wildly optimistic. But with Max Baucus as the gatekeeper, the right has pushed any talk of single-payer off the agenda so we may just have to settle for a band-aid until the system starts completely hemorrhaging.
majid 2 years, 11 months ago
in response to the president of the united island of kdbp,make sure in your island you do not watch fox news, and please no phone calls to glen beck.
dio 2 years, 11 months ago
"For example, education is mostly left up to the politicians and our grade schools are hardly something to be proud of."
Indeed, grade schools AND high schools. Such an awful shame.
Nanny States? Well, fine, let us just pay for maintaining only courts, a military and a police force. That is all. We will see who will be the first to complain when roads get in disrepair, when hospital bills reach six digits (wait, isn't it the case already?) and when insurances and schools become unaffordable, even for the middle classes. Maybe you will realize at that time that a government has to invest in many things you take for granted, your health included.