THE American health system needs fixing and quickly, too. Its health care costs are way too high, and until two years ago, Americans without health care numbered about 50 million. Former Harvard University President Derek Bok in his “The Great Health Care Debate of 1993-94” in explaining the astronomical healthcare costs pointed to waste and fraud. He noted that medical doctors’ incomes were 50-200% more than in other developed countries; the General Accounting Office (GAO) showed that fraud was prevalent in 10% of the total healthcare cost; U.S. hospitals are hugely more staffed than other hospitals globally; carrying more expensive medical technology; and 20-25% of medical procedures are uncalled for in the U.S.

Notwithstanding this grim healthcare scenario, any legislative move by any party, be it the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, to reform the health care system in the U.S. always stirs controversy. Professor Sara Rosenbaum believes that this controversy happens because Americans are morally hesitant of government using its funds to help other people. And the situation is even worse in the case of the Democratic Party as it is is stuck with the label that it favours big government with huge funds to help others.
Nevertheless, it was the Democratic Party over the last two decades that tried to introduce health reforms to reduce health inequities in the society. The first time was during the Clinton Administration and the second time was President Barack Obama’s turn. During the Clinton Administration, Hillary Clinton was tasked to address health reforms.
The health plan proposed basic healthcare for all Americans, where employers would provide most of the coverage funded through payroll taxes and where health maintenance organizations (HMOs) would do the delivery. The unemployed would receive coverage at these HMOs at government’s expense. And this proposal also called for the creation of health alliances that would relate to healthcare providers to determine their performance quality and suitability. The proposal failed to reach Congress, and was shelved.
Then came Obamacare. President Obama currently is intensifying his reelection campaign and placing high stakes on his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that became law in 2010. Obamacare has a key focus on channeling government’s funds to help other people in need of healthcare, such as, those footing high healthcare bills, those with no employer health coverage, and those with uninsurable health conditions for some illnesses.
Obamacare would bring about 30 million of the 50 million Americans and 2.5 million young people without health coverage into the healthcare system, and would reduce prescription costs to older people, in addition to addressing the healthcare needs of the poor and minorities, insurance discrimination against sick people, and the provision of diversity and cultural competency training in healthcare.
These reforms amount to a healthcare revolution that no other American President achieved, perhaps with the exception of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Readers may want to visit ‘the misirpost.wordpress.com’ and peruse the content under ‘Population Health’ for further analyses on Obamacare.
Obama’s health law did induce considerable controversy across States, possibly giving rise to the tea party movement, informally aligned to the Republican Party. At any rate, notwithstanding Obama’s health revolution, 26 States, the National Federation of Independent Business, and some individuals are now challenging in court the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
On March 26, 2012, the United States Supreme Court started three days of hearings on the health law. On day one, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether they should hear the case, and they agreed that they could; on day two, the justices posed the question whether the Federal Government should compel individuals not involved in commerce to purchase health insurance from private companies; and on day three, the justices asked that if they remove a key provision in the law, whether other provisions may not fall too. The U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling possibly in June this year.