The U.S. Government

Since grade school, I have read and learned about democracy and how it serves as the foundation of our nation. I read about the structure of our government and how power is fairly distributed in such an ingenious way that prevents any kind of tyranny. I am grateful to live in a country where I do not have to worry about oppressive rule or my basic liberties being threatened. The government has also taken measures to go beyond just protecting my freedoms and helping me fulfill my life goals. Without the financial aid I receive from the federal government, attending college would be that much more difficult and thus obtaining the job of my dreams would be daunting to say the least. So what is there to complain about when there are other nations out there whose citizens suffer impoverished conditions with no aid from the government and cannot afford food, let alone education? Yet, after learning and revering the concept of democracy, I still feel like something is lacking with our government. Were it not for the promises of democracy that I have been taught, then I would not feel this paucity, but the fact that I know what democracy is suppose to provide brings to light a discrepancy between what is promised to me and what is actually delivered.

One of our essay questions on our most recent exam asked whether it was possible for a legislator to represent citizens who do not match the legislator’s sociodemographics. After some thought, I knew the question of possibility was easily answered. Of course it is possible for a legislator to adequately represent citizens of a different demographic, as long as they feel compelled to be the voice of that demographic and will solely focus their efforts with that demographic's best interests in mind. However, I felt the greater question was whether or not enough members of Congress actually felt this obligation to sufficiently represent their constituents. I feel the answer is no. Unless the legislator is a robot, it is human nature for he or she to look out for his or herself before the constituents, and since the sociodemographic of Congress drastically deviates from the general public, there will be a conflict of interests. Who determines the victor of this conflict? The congressman, and he will decide in his favor. I am not saying I would rather a member of the general public to represent us; I would obviously prefer a more educated individual making decisions that would affect my daily life. However, to be able to find an intellectually sound representative who is completely selfless and can identify and empathize entirely with his consituents is a near impossible task. A person with such qualities would almost cease to be human.

I do not blame the government for this disparity; it is an issue that may very well have no perfect solution. We just have to trust that in the big picture, the representatives we choose will live up to our expectations.

Health costs -- no quick fix

Continuing with my mini exploration of the health care debate, this week we take a look at an opinion article by John Stobo and Tom Rosenthal from the Los Angeles Times, "Health costs --no quick fix." As the heated health care debate rapidly escalates, more and more research is being put into how to effectively reduce the costs of health care while providing universal coverage. Particular interest is being placed on regional discrepancies in medical costs, which could help determine which regions are more cost-effective. From there, some legislators aim to redistribute Medicare payments to the more efficient regions. In this article, Stobo and Rosenthal delve deeper into the purported claims of these research findings and discuss why the approach taken by these studies may be biased and how this bias could lead to monetary mismanagement by the federal government. The article warns legislators as well as the general public of the dire consequences of using these studies as a basis for healthcare financial management.

Stobo and Rosenthal examined the design structure of the research studies and discovered that regional cost discrepancies should not be the sole variable in determining where to cut corners financially. The authors point out that poverty level, per capita income and uninsured rate all need to be taken into consideration in determining efficiency. When these factors are taken into account, we see that some regions can be further divided into subregions, with each telling a different story. The core of L.A., for example, houses healthy, wealthy patients and "vibrant, integrated healthcare infrastructure," while South and Central L.A. suffer from inadequate medical facilities and impovershed patients as a result. Not only do the patients have to put up with lower quality medical services, but they have to pay more as a result because poorer medical attention compounds the medical conditions and attention that one may require, thus leading to more costly healthcare. Without observing these aspects within a particular region, the measure of efficiency can be drastically misleading.

Stobo and Rosenthal definitely did their homework in their evaluation of the research studies; the argument made was logical and coherent. Geographic-specific data requires a closer look before any conclusive statements can be made on where costs can be reduced; otherwise, an unfair and actually harmful legislation would degrade our nation's healthcare and defeat the purpose of reform.

Aravosis' Trip to the French Doctor

Recently, I posted a reference to an article discussing the inter-party divide caused by the current health care reform debate. Today we take a look at the argument of one side of the debate presented by John Aravosis from DC in his post on AMERICABlog.com, "My whopping $32 emergency room visit in the land of socialized medicine." In the post, Aravosis basically recalls a recent trip he made to an emergency room in France. Aravosis details his experience with the prompt and timely service he received, making intermittent comparisons with experiences in the States along the way.

The purpose of Aravosis' article is to point out to nonbelievers why America would be better off with universal health care and that the feared "socialism" that universal health care supposedly subscribes to is irrational.

In two separate contexts, I agree and disagree with Aravosis. If this article were not intentionally written in light of the current health care debate in its present state and was meant to be taken as a more general approach to viewing health care in America, then I would have agreed with his points. Much of Europe and many other countries have adopted universal health care, and based off not only Aravosis' experiences but some of my own as well, a trip to the doctor is rather pleasant in some of those nations compared with the U.S. However, Aravosis makes clear the context for his post: "With the national debate on health care raging in Washington, it seemed timely to share my story." The issue I have with his post when it's taken in consideration of the current debate is that it pits his argument against the arguments of those against the health care bill discussed in my previous post. When taken in this context, Aravosis' article fails to address the arguments of the opposition, notably the effective costs of the bill, and instead, simply reiterates the proposal of universal health care in the U.S. Essentially, Aravosis' account, however enlightening, ignores the issues with universal health care that the opposition presents and does next to nothing in resolving the health care debate. His experience simply tells us what we've already known about universal health care: it's cheap.

Health Care Vote Illustrates Partisan Divide

A New York Times article recently covered the health care debate and the division a new bill has caused between parties.

A recent bill proposing one of the most substantial changes in social policy in more than 40 years was met with a partisan split from the Senate committee legislation vote. The bill aims to provide insurance coverage to all Americans. For those without insurance, the bill prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone based on pre-existing conditions, and as for those already with insurance, Senator Christopher J. Dodd explains that the bill "eliminates annual and lifetime caps on coverage and ensures that your out-of-pocket costs will never exceed your ability to pay." However, even with the promising effects of the bill, the Senate committee failed to reach a bipartisan consensus, a good indication of clashing troubles in the future. Some Republicans, like Senator Michael B. Enzi, argue that the bill in its current form is much too costly and hardly affordable in our current economic state. Others say that from the onset of the health care debate, Democrats has taken complete control, as Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah said, “Democrats have completely shut us out of the process.” Republicans on the voting panel are hoping for a consensus bill from the Senate Financing Committee, which shares jurisdiction over health issues. It is up to the finance committee to state how it intends to fund the bill's proposals through tax legislation and manipulation of Medicare and Medicaid. Some Democrats respond that it is the bottom line refusal of universal health care by Republicans that is preventing the progression of bipartisan support for the legislation. The White House has also introduced a new standard to measure bipartisanship. Rather than the number of Republic votes for a Democratic bill, the measure would count the number of Republican ideas incorporated in the legislation. President Obama said the health committee bill “includes 160 Republican amendments,” and that that was “a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product.” Republicans argue that much of these amendments were technical.

This article covers one of the most controversial topics in politics today and that is the nation's health care system. The stances on our nation's health care have widened the gap between Democrats and Republicans, and the outcome of the debate will undoubtedly determine the future of the U.S. and affect every one of its citizens.