Guaranteed Healthcare

By Donna Smith

Today, I heard the news.  President Obama supports the Wyden-Brown amendment allowing states to innovate on healthcare reform.  You’ll have to pardon some of us while we readjust the mirrors.

Just 20 brief months ago, I recall the trepidation and trauma that surrounded allowing the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor committee to even take a vote on what was then known as the “Kucinich amendment.”  The amendment would have provided a path to waivers of some of the federal restrictions and requirements that keep states from implementing state-based single-payer healthcare plans or other kinds of health reform under the new law.  At the time, text messages were flying back and forth from all the President’s men to all of the members of Congressman Miller’s committee to keep the flock in line – no one was supposed to vote for the Kucinich amendment.

It passed anyway.  It was the only piece of health reform legislation of any kind that passed with bi-partisan support during the rough and tumble debate of 2009-2010.  Republicans hated single-payer possibilities but voted for the Kucinich amendment as a states’ rights issue; Democrats voted for it if they thought their state might pass something better that the current federal bill, maybe even single-payer legislation.   Some Democrats fought against it because they thought it was an affront to the President’s bill.  But in a remarkable moment of sensibility, the amendment passed only to be stripped from the final bill to keep the President happy and more secure in his path to passage of his larger bill.

It was clear from the beginning of the health care “reform” charade that the insurance industry, the drug industry and other parts of the corporate medical industrial complex were working to assure that any legislation that passed would add to their financial bottom lines. They largely succeeded in this. The following examples illustrate how well some of these industries made out with the final result, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), which passed in March:

    In our last post, we reviewed a daunting set of challenges to access and quality of care for Americans unfortunate enough to get cancer. In this post, we ask the obvious question whether, and to what extent, the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), may help to alleviate these problems.

Disparities within the U. S. health care system result in serious impacts on access to care for patients with cancer at all stages from screening and prevention to treatment and survival. Access barriers further lead to disparities in the quality of care received. These concerns led the American Cancer Society to launch a national effort in 2007 calling for system reform that will provide “4 As coverage”:

Our last four posts have examined the PPACA from the perspectives of the four main goals of health care reform — cost containment, affordability, improved access and quality of care. Here we draw these goals together in asking whether this legislation delivers enough to be worth the $1 trillion investment over the next 10 years, and whether it will really work.

In our last three posts, we examined how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) stacks up against the goals of reform for cost containment, affordability and access to care. Here we consider what its likely impact will be on the quality of care, the fourth major goal of the reform effort.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) is being touted by its proponents as moving the country to near-universal coverage and a great step ahead in U.S. health care. But what does this really mean? Are the many barriers to care almost a thing of the past?

In our last post, we looked at some of the uncontrolled drivers of rapidly rising health care costs despite all the assurances of our politicians supporting the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010 (PPACA).

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010 (PPACA), our new health care legislation, in March was hailed by its supporters as an historic event of the magnitude of Social Security and Medicare. But four months later, it remains controversial, with repeated polls showing three large groups of divisive opinion, including those who would work to repeal it and others who believe that it will make no difference. The Democrats have launched a $125 million PR campaign to defend the new law amidst growing signs that many Democrats facing re-election are failing to get political traction on the issue. (1) (Allen, M. Dems launch $125 M health campaign. Politico, June 7, 2010)