I have a DREAM too. I HOPE and PRAY that we DO not have to dream anymore.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
September to Remember
September to Remember
September was a good month. My brother had a birthday and Health Care reform took another big leap forward. As you may know, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is being rolled out in phases and September 23rd marked another day of roll outs. So what did we get?
For starters young adults can stay on their parents’ health care plan until age 26 instead of being forced to get their own plan. As a graduate student, this is a life saver and it doesn’t matter if I get married or not. Not to mention it can be a cost saver for many American families. What insurance companies soon realized was that it doesn’t cost much to cover a child, but an adult under another adult’s plan throws off their profit scale. By forcing a parent to remove their child from their plan at a certain age the company reduces their payouts and potentially gains more money if the person gets their own individual health insurance. For the business owner this seems like a dream, but for the families affected this is not so good. The US Department of HHS presents statistics showing that young adults have the highest rate of uninsured of any age group, have the lowest rate of access to employer-based insurance, and have chronic illnesses contrary to the belief that they are the healthiest population.
If you think you can’t get on board with this because your plan is not open for insurance, then know that the PPACA has got you covered. For 30 days, starting September 23, 2010, the law allows children who qualify to enroll regardless if the coverage offers an open enrollment period. You know I could see insurance companies changing the benefits and coverage type for these additional qualifiers, but so did the PPACA. In fact the qualified young adult must be offered the same package as other individuals in the same situation. Keep in mind that this doesn’t apply to companies that didn’t have a dependent coverage to begin with.
Now not all insurance companies are bad. In fact a good number of them decided to accept these rules voluntarily BEFORE September 23rd and some may extend the dependent coverage past the 26th birthday. If they do, not only will they be showing some moral responsibility, but they will receive a tax benefit by having the value excluded from the employee’s income. This means that providing this extra coverage will not affect the company’s payroll taxes. This same tax benefit will go to an employee who pays toward their plan as well.
 | |
| PPACA is taking the headache out of Health Care |
Still, these changes are only some of the roll outs. Section 2711 prevents insurance companies from having lifetime and annual limits on the dollar value of benefits. With section 2712 they can’t drop someone once the coverage has begun unless the enrollee has committed fraud and they have to tell you before they drop you. Also, insurance companies can’t deny coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions to children under 19. In addition, patients will have a standardized process of appeals for their claims. First the enrollee will appeal to the internal process and if it is denied they can appeal to an external process and there is a $30 million dollar grant program to back this up. Take a look for yourself by clicking here.
Now, my favorite part of the bill is the portion that enforces coverage of preventive measures. People don’t realize that part of the cost of health care is to treat preventable illnesses. If we can put money into preventing illness, then we won’t pay so much to treat them. The PPACA has made it so you will not have to pay a co-payment, co-insurance or deductible for certain preventive services. These services include, but are not limited to blood pressure tests, diabetes tests, cancer screenings, vaccinations, pregnancy counseling and regular well-baby and well-child visits up until age 21. If you want to see a more detailed list, look here. Now remember, for those “grandfathered” plans this may not apply and you may have to pay for the office visit.
This month, I stayed within my budget for September, Tony and I are one year closer to going to Vegas together, Lamar Odom had a double-double in the world championships and Health Care Reform took another big leap. Yep, September was a good month!
Do you want to know what changes are coming up? Well HealthCare.gov is a great site and they have a nice timeline that tells you what changes are scheduled for when. You can click here to check it out for yourself. You can also check the numerous fact sheets available on HealthCare.gov if you have other questions. These sheets can point you in the right direction, but remember that it is always better to read the bill for yourself. It is H.R. 3590 and can be found on The THOMAS database on the Library of Congress’ Website.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Stem Cell Research for the General Welfare
On June 20, 2007 former President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13435 that banned The Secretary of Health and Human Services from conducting or supporting research on stem cells which are created from or created by destroying human embryos. The order specifically states:
The debate of the “moral” issues surrounding stem cell research has its roots in the abortion battle that is being waged in the US. Many opponents of abortion make the argument that taking a life to save a life is not ethical and that an embyo/a fetus is an early form of life. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim may give the argument about the definition of life some weight considering US “moral and ethical boundaries”. However, the premise of military combat shows that taking a life to save many others is well within these indistinct boundaries. Still, since 1973, it has been uniformly legal throughout the US to abort a pregnancy except during the 3rd trimester. So how do we decide if the government should control/limit experimental stem cell research? We don’t; we don’t have to.
Public Law and Supreme Court rulings have specifically expressed that abortion (the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus) is legal, but victimizing of an embryo/utero is not. Indirectly, the US has expressed its Pro-Choice policy and a mother should have the right to choose to abort or donate her embryo by the same merit.
Some argue that this may increase the rate of abortions in the US, but studies out of the Guttmacher Institute in New York show that the number of abortions in the US have declined by 8% between 2000 and 2005. This is 2 years prior to the Bush Executive Order. Studies have shown that government intervention has not drastically decreased the incidence of abortions. Since 2001 when former president Bush made his presidential statement to 2005 the rate of reported abortions has decreased on an average of 0.375 per 1,000 abortions per year. This is compared to the average rate of decrease of 0.4125 per 1,000 abortions per year from the peak in 1981 to 2005.
Still we have to ask, “Does stem cell research have enough benefits to compel the US government to get involved in its research?” The National Institute of Health concedes that the promise of the capabilities of stem cells is limited due to our limited research. We are in the early stages of research and cannot make conclusive statements about what stem cells can do, but with more research we can see if the potential of stem cells can be achieved. The Constitution gives the federal government the ability to provide for the general welfare of the United States and by supporting research that could potentially save numerous lives we are directly benefiting the general welfare of the US.
I would go so far as to say that not only should the government support stem cell research, but it is their duty to the people of United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, to promote the general welfare through stem cell research.
(b) it is critical to establish moral and ethical boundaries to allow the Nation to move forward vigorously with medical research, while also maintaining the highest ethical standards and respecting human life and human dignity.
The debate of the “moral” issues surrounding stem cell research has its roots in the abortion battle that is being waged in the US. Many opponents of abortion make the argument that taking a life to save a life is not ethical and that an embyo/a fetus is an early form of life. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim may give the argument about the definition of life some weight considering US “moral and ethical boundaries”. However, the premise of military combat shows that taking a life to save many others is well within these indistinct boundaries. Still, since 1973, it has been uniformly legal throughout the US to abort a pregnancy except during the 3rd trimester. So how do we decide if the government should control/limit experimental stem cell research? We don’t; we don’t have to. Public Law and Supreme Court rulings have specifically expressed that abortion (the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus) is legal, but victimizing of an embryo/utero is not. Indirectly, the US has expressed its Pro-Choice policy and a mother should have the right to choose to abort or donate her embryo by the same merit.
Some argue that this may increase the rate of abortions in the US, but studies out of the Guttmacher Institute in New York show that the number of abortions in the US have declined by 8% between 2000 and 2005. This is 2 years prior to the Bush Executive Order. Studies have shown that government intervention has not drastically decreased the incidence of abortions. Since 2001 when former president Bush made his presidential statement to 2005 the rate of reported abortions has decreased on an average of 0.375 per 1,000 abortions per year. This is compared to the average rate of decrease of 0.4125 per 1,000 abortions per year from the peak in 1981 to 2005.
Still we have to ask, “Does stem cell research have enough benefits to compel the US government to get involved in its research?” The National Institute of Health concedes that the promise of the capabilities of stem cells is limited due to our limited research. We are in the early stages of research and cannot make conclusive statements about what stem cells can do, but with more research we can see if the potential of stem cells can be achieved. The Constitution gives the federal government the ability to provide for the general welfare of the United States and by supporting research that could potentially save numerous lives we are directly benefiting the general welfare of the US. I would go so far as to say that not only should the government support stem cell research, but it is their duty to the people of United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, to promote the general welfare through stem cell research.