Health Care Reform: Sure its historic, but is it a good historic?

(Written by New Breed contributor and resident law adviser Kathryn)

It is troubling to be living in America in at time that the government is truly not listening to the American public, and passing legislation that is both unpopular and quite possibly unconstitutional. The Heath Care Reform was signed into law with all the media attention on the highly scripted moment on Tuesday, with a high amount of backlash.

Perhaps I should take a moment to introduce myself, and the perspective that I am coming from. I am currently a law student with a healthy skepticism of the government as a whole. I identify myself as a conservative, but am open to ideas from both sides of the isle. I am further along then just my first year, so I am just educated enough to be really dangerous in the legal field. I also come from a medical family who has never had to deal with medical malpractice as a defendant, but nonetheless have instilled in me a healthy respect for the field as a whole. Which is why I feel that that this Health Care Act is more of a detriment then the cure for the illness of the lack of insured in this country.

Sure the American people need to have heath care that would be affordable and available to all, but is this really the best our government could do? In many ways I feel that this particular round in the political arena was geared toward showing that the party in control of the government could get something done, rather then crafting legislation that might actually accomplish the goals put forth. A thousand page piece of legislation with so many loopholes and throwbacks to contributing states is not what this country needs. The fact that half of those voting did not even bother to read the document should tell you how well this piece of legislation is crafted.

The legislation takes way from people the right to choose. This is a fundamental issue in the American society. WE are a free nation. WE are able to choose if we want to drive and have to purchase car insurance, or if we want to take the bus and save the expense. We are free to choose our own destiny and path in the world, not one that is predetermined by the government. WE THE PEOPLE have the right to be free from government tyranny and forced fines for not purchasing insurance. What ever happened to “no taxation without representation” for the American public? If the current administration thinks that they are representing the will of the American people maybe they should look at the polls showing that the public is against this act by a +10.5 spread on average.

Even if we give the current administration the benefit of the doubt and say that they were truly trying to help the people and not just push their own political agenda, there is still the constitutional issue. The Tenth Amendment, which I hope the people in power are familiar with, says that the powers that are not expressly given in the constitution are reserved for the states. This is why there have already been 12 state Attorney Generals who filed suit a mere two minutes after the law was signed, alleging the law is unconstitutional based on the Tenth Amendment. I have not read this complaint yet, but if I were the one writing it I would have included the overreaching aspects of the new law that controls state actions. The states have always been in control of insurance practices. They are the ones who have been in the real trenches with insurance issues; maybe they should be the ones who are on the forefront of change.

On the topic of what could have been done instead of the current Act, how about tort reform? I know, I know it is not the sexiest topic to overhaul the tort system, or even the most popular among attorneys, but it would be effective in getting insurance under control. It seems that most people assume that the insurance companies have a huge pool of money that they can draw from to pay out massive settlements to everyone who suffers from a hangnail well under a doctor’s care, but this is not true. Attorneys that get into medical malpractice (and I am not saying all are this way, after all there are many in my profession that are very moral and ethnical people who really are looking to do the best for their clients) tend to get into the field looking for a big pay out that they can retire on. But the money that is paid out in the court cases comes from the pockets of all who pay into insurance. Think about it. If the total profit margin on the insurance business is only $5 million and there is a $10 million pay out that they have to deal with, where do you think that the extra money comes from? Answer: you and me. If you impose a cap on the amount of money that can be given out then the premiums could go down and insurers maybe more willing to take on “high risk” people who, let’s face it, they are afraid to take not only because of the health cost, but the risk of lawsuits later down the line. It stands to reason that the more issues a person has the greater risk there is in having some type of slipup and resulting law suit.

Oh, but I am not paying the insurance company that pays out for malpractice suits of doctors you may say, but the cost is still being passed on to you. Once again, think about it, where are the costs going to come from? If you sue a doctor they are going to be covered by malpractice insurance. The money is not coming out of the doctor’s pocket, but the insurer who covers them. When a jury gives a huge payout for malpractice, the insurer covers the cost and the cost for all of the doctors insurance goes up. When the cost goes up, doctors have to charge more, thus the higher cost of health care. If the government took control of that aspect then there would be no need to do this “Overhaul of Health Care.”

How about also regulating the cost of prescription drugs? This current law does nothing to help the rising cost of drugs. Maybe, the government should be giving incentives to make affordable drugs and encourage the making of generic drugs after the patent expires, not expanding the rights of drug companies and prevent the making of generic drugs. But this would mean that the politicians would have to stop listening to the lobbyists flying them of private plains to tropical islands of “conferences” and actually take a stand.

Fix those two elements and this past year of legislation would not have needed to take place.

It is not as if there was not government control over the health care system in the first place. Currently insurance agencies set their payouts to doctors based on the Medicare standard. That is were they pass on the cost to those that they cover. The insurers will pay out the same as the government to the physician not any more, because if it is good enough for the government it is good enough for them. The problem is that the doctors still need to be paid. They have large insurance policies to pay for after all, so the extra cost is once again passed on to you and me.

Another way to fix the problem is to work on increasing jobs in this country. If people are employed they will generally be given benefits, or at very least have the ability to pay for insurance if they want it. That’s it, give incentives to actually grow small business and that could help much more then just the health care aspect of the current state of the country.

The cost of this program is so stunning in a deficit of a few trillion dollars that it almost is not worth mentioning. Almost. The fact that health care cost is the largest growing cost for the federal government should have been taken into account. Any extra funds going to government heath care is just he wrong way to go. The best part of the suggestions above? They have little to no cost.

Maybe if Washington thought about more then the need to push forward a law that so many were against and make sure that a “historical” event happened during this administration, we would have gotten the change that was actually needed. But for now we are stuck with a law that is more then likely unconstitutional and all those who are against it are racist and small-minded. If the law actually did make a difference then I would be all for it, but as it stands now this law is only going to make things worse.

I could go on with the counter arguments, but I feel that this post I already long enough.