Promise Kept: a dialogue on healthcare reform and its effect on women

Election time represents an exciting time for politics; candidates remain in our faces bludgeoning us with promises, but how often do any of the voters reflect on and evaluate the fulfillment ratio of those promises? I must admit, I usually fail to keep a detailed list of promises to measure the success rate of the elected officials but one promise that rang out in the last presidential election was that of “free health care for everyone”. Proponents and opponents continue to hold on to their reasoning throughout the process. On March 23, 2010, the President signed the health care overhaul bill, and of course, Of course people sit on each side of the fence on this issue. Let’s focus on the current state of coverage for women, potential changes for women due to the new legislation, and opinions about health care reform on both sides of the table.

As a single female part-time employee, this pledge of “free health care for all” sparked a sense of hope within me. My companies only provided insurance for full-time employees and finding decent cost-effective coverage proved itself a difficult task. Furthermore, insurance research revealed a discriminatory modus operandi toward women across America. Insurance companies charged women premiums of up to 48% more than male counterparts on the individual market, refused coverage for such "pre-existing conditions" as pregnancy, having had a C-section, or being the victim of domestic violence! The research was appalling; consequently when President Barack Obama took office, I looked forward to this “free health care” nearly a year and a half into his term the administration took steps toward fulfilling this agreement.

Personally it seems to answer a long-awaited dream for the American public, specifically women. Actually, administration outlined the key benefits of the legislation which will impact women particularly. Women will see both immediate and long-term effects due to this new law. In the short-term, the high risk pool will provide access to women previously denied health coverage due to preexisting conditions. Within the next 5 years the legislation will force a ban of this so-called “high –risk” pool. Around the same time, this health reform will make it illegal for insurers to charge women more than men for the same health care coverage. Health plans will also include coverage of maternity services in their essential benefits package. This all sounds excellent to me; it seems to cover women in any life stage; while some people agree that this represents an overdue change, many people argue against the new legislation.

Opponents believe that by signing this bill, President Obama takes a long sustained power of the state to govern its people by allowing the federal government to regulate health care. Additionally, these opponents believe that this bill opens the door for abuse and overwhelming government spending. Proponents believe the reform is a change whose time is pass due; free healthcare will promote prevention driving down the cost of health care and increasing the quality of service.

Though the bill is now “law” the country continues to come to terms with this change “free health care for all” vs. the solitary the constitution guarantees. As people like me breathe a sigh of relief government continues to hash out the details. At the least this seems to be a promise an official actually kept and if it fails, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Distant Cousins: health care and immigration reform

Recently, Arizona embraced the spotlight on the subject of immigration proposing and passing a controversial law to fight illegal immigration; law now requires police stopping motorists for routine infractions to check their immigration status due to “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful entry. Many view this law as a victory in the fight over illegal immigration. The convoluted topic of immigration reforms introduces several issues. Proponents view immigrants as an obtrusive abuse of civil liberties; arguing that the introduction of new citizens increases disease, crime, taxes due to welfare or health burdens, and crowding. In this article, I intend on focusing on health burdens.

Immigrants represent an often uninsured and underinsured portion of the population and tax payers take on the expenditure of their medical care straining the financial stability of the health care industry. They use emergency services forsaking preventative medical care, burdening the hospitals with advanced and costly medical procedures. The estimated tab left by these illegal immigrants' medical care in many states ranges well above $1 million up to as much as $4 billion a year. Delivery of babies to illegal alien mothers represents a large and frequent cost to taxpayers. And until recently, in most states these babies automatically became U.S. citizens. Consequently, in addition to an illegal expenditure by the mother, illegal immigrants legally received health care benefits.

These staggering numbers burden doctors and impeded medical care to actual citizens. Consequently, a comprehensive health care reform should include a restructuring of health coverage. This of course introduces an ethical dilemma: how can any doctor refuse care to a legitimately sick person? In reality they should not be put in this position, and by remaining negligent on immigrant emigration the government places a burden on tax payers and hospitals.

The health care reform bill doesn’t seem to outline a cure to this problem. Arizona seems to be on the right track; identify illegal immigrants and remove the burden. This will put citizens in the front of the line toward receiving the care they need. Not only will the number of patients decrease, but practitioners will be available to distribute the funds more proportionately.