healthcare by andrew lin

this is not my final, ill be writing another copy

It’s hard to make sense of the chaotic swirl that is health care reform. We hear of angry folk shouting down congressmen in town hall meetings, comparing Obama to Hitler, comparing the health care bill to socialism and Nazism incarnate—and for a while, it can all be pretty amusing. However, none of it matters or says anything worthwhile about health care reform.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand some basics, to understand, for one, the controversy surrounding the proposed “public option.” Supporters of the plan argue that insurance ought to be available to everyone and that the most effective way of accomplishing this is by creating a government-backed insurance plan. This plan would be affordable for the uninsured because, for one, the national government needs not to make a profit, and so the price of this government-back insurance plan would be comparably lower than that of privately run insurance companies, who do need to make a profit. The cheaper public option would also, in turn, force insurance companies to compete by lowering their prices.

Opponents, however, fear that because the national government needs not to make a profit, prices will in fact be too low, so low as to undercut privately run insurance companies, thereby driving them out of business and snuffing out all competition. Opponents also fear that a public option might create a messy, complicated bureaucracy to administer insurance, in effect creating a veritable maze of paperwork and procedure between the patient and the doctor.

Proponents of the public option argue that the government has before competed with the private sector, and that results have been favorable: the United States Postal Service has competed with the likes of UPS and FedEx, and it is the last two, both privately run, that traditionally do better.

However, despite arguments in favor of the public option, it has remained a famous foothold for opponents to health care reform, and so officials will most likely scrap it in favor of a number of alternatives, on e of which would most likely have far-reaching effects in Arcadia. One alternative to the public option recommends that employers provide insurance for their employees. Though many people have differing interpretations about the degree to which employers ought to be responsible, one thing is certain: if executed incorrectly, an employer responsibility provision will hurt small businesses in Arcadia.

Under the weight of the current economy, small businesses would have to take on extra costs that could stress their budget and potentially close them down. Certain iconic businesses in Arcadia, such as Sinbala, may have to give way for, say, Applebee’s, which, on account of its size, can absorb these sorts of losses more easily. Such a scenario would affect everyone. Junior Priscilla Liu acknowledged this possibility when she said, “Since my parents and their friends are mostly independent business owners, I hear a lot about the difficulties it will bring for them.”

It’s hard to make sense of the chaotic swirl that is health care reform. We hear of angry folk shouting down congressmen in town hall meetings, comparing Obama to Hitler, comparing the health care bill to socialism and Nazism incarnate—and for a while, it can all be pretty amusing. However, none of it matters or says anything worthwhile about health care reform.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand some basics, to understand, for one, the controversy surrounding the proposed “public option.” Supporters of the plan argue that insurance ought to be available to everyone and that the most effective way of accomplishing this is by creating a government-backed insurance plan. This plan would be affordable for the uninsured because, for one, the national government needs not to make a profit, and so the price of this government-back[ed] insurance plan would be comparably lower than that of privately run insurance companies, who do need to make a profit. The cheaper public option would also, in turn, force insurance companies to compete by lowering their prices.

Opponents, however, fear that because the national government needs not to make a profit, prices will in fact be too low, so low as to undercut privately run insurance companies, thereby driving them out of business and snuffing out all competition. Opponents also fear that a public option might create a messy, complicated bureaucracy to administer insurance, in effect creating a veritable maze of paperwork and procedure between the patient and the doctor.

Proponents of the public option argue that the government has before competed with the private sector, and that [the]results have been favorable: the United States Postal Service has competed with the likes of UPS and FedEx, and it is the last two, both privately run, that traditionally do better.

However, despite arguments in favor of the public option, it has remained a famous foothold for opponents to health care reform, and so officials will most likely scrap it in favor of a number of alternatives, on e [?] of which would most likely have far-reaching effects in Arcadia. One alternative to the public option recommends that employers provide insurance for their employees. Though many people have differing interpretations about the degree to which employers ought to be responsible, one thing is certain: if executed incorrectly, an employer responsibility provision will hurt small businesses in Arcadia.

Under the weight of the current economy, small businesses would have to take on extra costs that could stress their budget and potentially close them down. Certain iconic businesses in Arcadia, such as Sinbala, may have to give way for, say, Applebee’s, which, on account of its size, can absorb these sorts of losses more easily. Such a scenario would affect everyone. Junior Priscilla Liu acknowledged this possibility when she said, “Since my parents and their friends are mostly independent business owners, I hear a lot about the difficulties it will bring for them.”

SO THIS IS TOTALLY REWRITTEN

second to last draft

Health Care Reform
It is hard to make sense of health care reform. We hear of angry folk shouting down congressmen in town hall meetings, comparing Obama to Hitler, comparing the health care bill to socialism and Nazism incarnate—and for a while, it can all be pretty amusing. However, none of it matters or says anything worthwhile about health care reform.
Nonetheless, it is important to understand some basics, for one, the rationale behind the health care overhaul. In reformers’ minds, three issues must be addressed: uneven quality of care, inadequate coverage, and, finally, cost.
They argue that for a nation that spends on health care almost twice the average for rich, developed nations, survival rates for heart attacks, infant mortality, and life-expectancy in America are all worse than the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average. Simply put, Americans are not getting their money’s worth. Proponents of reform also point to statistics concerning Americans’ budget: health care costs consume 16% of the economic output, and on top of that, Medicare, the government-run insurance plan for the elderly, could be exhausted by 2017.
Critics of the health care system bring up several key wasteful practices. To begin, most American doctors work on a fee-for-service basis: the more pills and tests they order—the more resources they consume—the more they get paid. All this encourages exorbitant spending and waste. At the same time, doctors have no incentive to work for better patient results. The American insurance system also promotes over consumption: employers buy for their employees expensive insurance plans, which employees in turn abuse by ordering nonessential care. Thus, insurance companies make money and so have all the more reason to feed the aforementioned reckless spending. Meanwhile, the population of the uninsured grows, currently at 46 million, up 13% from 2 years ago. Then there is the less publicized population of the underinsured, numbering at 25 million, whose insurance plans cover little: in 2007, an American family filed for medical bankruptcy every 90 seconds—three quarters were “insured.”
On the other hand, defenders of the existing system argue that a free-spending attitude promotes medical advancement, and they cite the number of innovations America’s health care system has made over its European counterparts.
However, the majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree that reform ought to occur—the question then is to what degree. That is the controversy. For instance, while liberal Democrats urge for a provision that creates a “public option,” or government-offered insurance plan, some conservative Democrats and most Republicans won’t have it. Supporters of the public option argue that insurance ought to be available to everyone and that the most effective way of accomplishing this is by creating a government-backed insurance plan. This plan would be affordable for the uninsured because, one, the national government needs not to make a profit, and so the price of this government-back insurance plan would be comparably lower than that of privately run insurance companies, who do need to make a profit. The cheaper public option would also, in turn, force insurance companies to compete by lowering their prices.
Opponents believe that a public option would cause insurance companies to go entirely out of business, not to even mention lower its prices. Because the national government does not need to make a profit, prices will in fact be so low as to undercut privately run insurance companies. Another fear is that a public option might create a messy, complicated bureaucracy to administer insurance, in effect creating a veritable maze of paperwork and procedure between the patient and the doctor. Given that a public option would create a complex, compartmentalized government agency, such a fear is not unfounded.
In his Sep. 9 Speech to Congress, President Obama set forth that though he was in favor of a public option, he would also be willing to compromise in favor of a workable and passable bill. And borrowing from both sides, the President gave what he believed to be a plan that was both.

SO THIS IS TOTALLY REWRITTEN

second to last draft

Health Care Reform
It is hard to make sense of health care reform. We hear of angry folk shouting down congressmen in town hall meetings, comparing Obama to Hitler, comparing the health care bill to socialism and Nazism incarnate—and for a while, it can all be pretty amusing. However, none of it matters or says anything worthwhile about health care reform.
Nonetheless, it is important to understand some basics, for one, the rationale behind the health care overhaul. In reformers’ minds, three issues must be addressed: uneven quality of care, inadequate coverage, and, finally, cost.
They argue that for a nation that spends on health care almost twice the average for rich, developed nations, survival rates for heart attacks, infant mortality, and life-expectancy in America are all worse than the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average. Simply put, Americans are not getting their money’s worth. Proponents of reform also point to statistics concerning Americans’ budget: health care costs consume 16% of the economic output, and on top of that, Medicare, the government-run insurance plan for the elderly, could be exhausted by 2017.
Critics of the health care system bring up several key wasteful practices. To begin, most American doctors work on a fee-for-service basis: the more pills and tests they order—the more resources they consume—the more they get paid. All this encourages exorbitant spending and waste. At the same time, doctors have no incentive to work for better patient results. The American insurance system also promotes over consumption: employers buy [,] for their employees [,] expensive insurance plans, which employees in turn abuse by ordering nonessential care. Thus, insurance companies make money and so have all the more reason to feed the aforementioned reckless spending. Meanwhile, the population of the uninsured grows, currently at 46 million, up 13% from 2 years ago. Then there is the less publicized population of the underinsured, numbering at 25 million, whose insurance plans cover little: in 2007, an American family filed for medical bankruptcy every 90 seconds—three quarters were “insured.”
On the other hand, defenders of the existing system argue that a free-spending attitude promotes medical advancement, and they cite the number of innovations America’s health care system has made over its European counterparts.
However, the majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree that reform ought to occur—the question then is to what degree. That is the controversy. For instance, while liberal Democrats urge for a provision that creates a “public option,” or government-offered insurance plan, some conservative Democrats and most Republicans won’t have it. Supporters of the public option argue that insurance ought to be available to everyone and that the most effective way of accomplishing this is by creating a government-backed insurance plan. This plan would be affordable for the uninsured because, one, the national government needs not to make a profit, and so the price of this government-back [is it government- back or government- backed?] insurance plan would be comparably lower than that of privately run insurance companies, who do need to make a profit. The cheaper public option would also, in turn, force insurance companies to compete by lowering their prices.
Opponents believe that a public option would cause insurance companies to go entirely out of business, not to even mention lower its prices. Because the national government does not need to make a profit, prices will in fact be so low as to undercut privately run insurance companies. Another fear is that a public option might create a messy, complicated bureaucracy to administer insurance, in effect creating a veritable maze of paperwork and procedure between the patient and the doctor. Given that a public option would create a complex, compartmentalized government agency, such a fear is not unfounded.
In his Sep. 9 Speech to Congress, President Obama set forth that though he was in favor of a public option, he would also be willing to compromise in favor of a workable and passable bill. And borrowing from both sides, the President gave what he believed to be a plan that was both.

It is hard to make sense of health care reform. We hear of angry folk shouting down congressmen in town hall meetings, comparing Obama to Hitler, comparing the health care bill to socialism and Nazism incarnate—and for a while, it can all be pretty amusing. However, none of it matters or says anything worthwhile about health care reform.
Nonetheless, it is important to understand some basics, for one, the rationale behind the health care overhaul. In reformers’ minds, three issues must be addressed: uneven quality of care, inadequate coverage, and finally, cost.
They argue that for a nation that spends on health care almost twice the average of rich, developed nations, survival rates for heart attacks, infant mortality, and life-expectancy in America are all worse than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average. Simply put, Americans are not getting their money’s worth. Proponents of reform also point to statistics concerning Americans’ budget: health care costs consume 16% of the economic output, and on top of that, Medicare, the government-run insurance plan for the elderly, could be exhausted by 2017.
Critics of the health care system bring up several key wasteful practices. To begin, most American doctors work on a fee-for-service basis: the more pills and tests they order—the more resources they consume—the more they get paid. All this encourages exorbitant spending and waste. The insurance system also promotes over-consumption: employers buy for their employees expensive insurance plans, which employees in turn abuse by ordering nonessential care. Thus, insurance companies make money and so have all the more reason to feed the aforementioned reckless spending.
Meanwhile, the population of the uninsured grows, currently at 46 million, up 13% from two years ago. Then there is the less publicized population of the underinsured, numbering at 25 million, whose insurance plans cover little: in 2007, an American family filed for medical bankruptcy every 90 seconds—three quarters were “insured.”
On the other hand, defenders of the existing system argue that a free-spending attitude promotes medical advancement and they cite the number of innovations America’s health care system has made over its European counterparts.
However, the majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree that reform ought to occur—the question now is to what degree. Liberal Democrats urge for a “public option,” or government-offered insurance plan. Supporters of the public option argue that insurance ought to be available to everyone and that the most effective way of accomplishing this is by creating a government-backed insurance plan. This plan would be affordable for the uninsured because the government needs not to make a profit, and so the price of this government-back insurance plan would be comparably lower than that of privately run insurance companies, who do need to make a profit. The cheaper public option would also, in turn, force insurance companies to compete by lowering their prices.
Opponents believe that because the government does not need to make a profit, prices will be so low that it would undercut private insurance companies. Another fear is that a public option might create a messy, complicated bureaucracy to administer insurance. Given that a public option would create a complex, compartmentalized government agency, such a fear is not unfounded.
In his Sep. 9 speech to congress, President Barack Obama set forth though he was in favor of a public option, he would also be willing to compromise in favor of a workable and passable bill. Borrowing from both sides, the President gave what he believed to be a plan that was both.