Archive for the ‘Health Insurance News’ Category.

On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared on NBC’s Tonight Show hosted by Jay Leno. During the interview, the candidate advocated overturning the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and said he was in favor of denying health insurance coverage to people with pre-existing conditions who had not previously held coverage.

Using the popular pejorative, “Obamacare,” Romney engaged in give and take with Leno who expressed his support for covering children and people with pre-existing conditions. As the conversation progressed, Romney said those who were uninsured and then sought coverage once their illness was discovered should not be entitled to insurance protection.

Candidate Distinguishes Pre-Existing Coverage by Timing

“Well, if they’re 45 years old, and they show up, and they say, I want insurance, because I’ve got a heart disease, it’s like, `Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that. You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered.”

“But people who have had the chance to be insured — if you’re working in an auto business for instance, the companies carry insurance, they insure all their employees — you look at the circumstances that exist,” said Romney. “But you don’t want everyone saying, `I’m going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance.’ That doesn’t make sense. But you have to find rules that get people in that are playing by the rules.”

Romney Catering to Arch Conservatives to Win Nomination

In dissecting the exchange, columnists and political pundits have pointed out how far to the conservative right Romney has moved since the days when he served as governor of Massachusetts. Because he is running for the presidency in a highly conservative climate, he’s distancing himself from the universal health care reforms he supported and passed as governor.

Currently the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the individual mandate clause of the Affordable Care Act. The mandate would require all Americans to carry health insurance by 2014 or be forced to pay a fine. The justices have the option of declaring only the single clause unconstitutional or voiding the entire piece of legislation.

The Implications of Repealing the Affordable Care Act

The question front and center in the debate over the health care law is what will happen if the entire reform package is repealed. The law has already made it illegal for insurers to exclude children from coverage due to the presence of a pre-existing conditions, and under the Affordable Care Act’s terms, adults will receive the same protection in 2014.

Conservatives who hotly call for the repeal of the law in its entirety have not clearly addressed what will happen to Americans who cannot access health coverage in a nation where health care costs have increased eight-fold over the past decade.

Although known as a health care advocate, Romney is apparently catering to the right with obfuscation of his own beliefs to get the nomination. What the election of a conservative to the White House in November actually portends for health care reform is unclear, as is the decision of the Supreme Court justices. However, it is clear that neither the problem of health care reform nor its solution have been conclusively determined, while costs continue to climb.

With the U.S. Supreme Court set to begin hearing oral arguments about the “individual mandate” provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the week of March 26, 2012, correspondent Matt Negrin reviewed the health care debate in the U.S. for ABC News in “Public Options and Death Panels: How the Health Care Debate Evolved.”

Where the Health Care Debate Began

The Negrin article, published on March 23, 2012, traced the issue to a single question in the 2008 presidential campaign. Negrin identified the moment when the health care reform controversy began, as the answer to a question put to candidates Barack Obama and John McCain at a town hall debate. Asked to define health care as a privilege, right, or responsibility, Obama said, “I think it should be a right for every American.”

The subsequent national argument that culminated in the passage in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act has not only split national opinion, but is forming one of the hottest party dividing lines in the current 2012 presidential election. A major complication has been a failure on the part of the general public to actually understand the reform law, with unfounded rumors and misconceptions flying wildly online, particularly on social networking sites like Facebook.

When CBS News conducted a poll in 2010, at the height of the debate when the most information should have been accessible to the American public, 54 percent of Americans said they did not understand how health care reform would affect them or their families. Gallup polls conducted in the same period never found a higher approval rating for the reform effort than 51 percent in October. At the time of the bill’s passage, only about 45 percent of Americans were in favor of the measure.

How the “Death Panel” Furor Began

One of the most prevalent and pervasive rumors about what conservative critics derisively call “Obamacare” is the notion of “death panels.” In August 2008, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin wrote a post on her Facebook page using the phrase “death panel” for the first time, and the inflammatory misperception of “end of life counseling” went viral.

The truth of the matter is that although the counseling measure was actually stripped from the health care reform law itself, Medicare will now pay benefits for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of annual physicals for seniors. Rather than an attempt to cut costs by “killing off” the elderly by denying them medical care, the benefit policy is a recognition of the graying of the American population. More than a fifth of the U.S. population will be over age 65 within the next two decades.

Rising Health Insurance Costs Are the Real Cause for Concern

It is perhaps a more relevant point of debate for most Americans coming out of the Great Recession that the aggregate affect of health care reform has been an 8-9 percent increase in insurance rates for most Americans. Employers say their healthcare costs are up 2-5 percent. An additional complication is that less than 30 percent of employers have been able to keep grandfathered status for their health care plans, a rate far lower than that estimated by the Obama administration, which suggested a figure closer to 78 percent at the end of 2011.

The recent Willis Report of Employers said, “The accelerated loss of grandfathered status suggests that employers have had to make many plan changes to offset cost increases, and perhaps employers have been more willing to give up grandfathered status in order to take other steps to control costs.”

Controversy and Heel-Dragging Creates Sense of Limbo

This situation, combined with the reluctance of most states to move forward with the required health care exchanges, has largely created a sense of limbo over the progress of the overall health care reform effort. Most Americans feel no progress will be made in this arena until after the November elections, and many are hoping a Republican will be moving into the White House who will dismantle the entire system. At this point, that would certainly lead to even greater confusion, and likely to higher costs. And it would do little to change the fact that more than 50 million Americans still have no insurance coverage whatsoever two years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

In addition to being considerably less successful than first envisioned, a fact largely attributable to the Great Recession, health care reform has become an election year headache for President Obama. Not only is he in a position of defending rising insurance costs in the midst of a recession, but he is also being forced to defend statements he made during the 2008 campaign including his initial opposition to the individual mandate the Supreme Court will be reviewing next week.

It is impossible to predict where the status of health care reform will be in 2014 when the bulk of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions will be in place, but now the only fair assessment is to say the measure has elevated costs and contributed to a political stalemate. The losers in that scenario are cash-strapped consumers who, given the astronomical costs of health care in this country, live one major medical crisis away from financial ruin.

Fully 60 percent of the personal bankruptcy proceedings filed in this country are directly attributable to medical debt. And those are the people who will be going to the polls in November. Whether they will be voting for a candidate or against health care reform may not be a matter of semantics so much as a realistic assessment of the current political climate in the nation.

With many states lagging behind on the creation of the health insurance exchanges mandated under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration has announced it will be issuing the standards by which the exchanges are to operate. If any state fails to or refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government will assume responsibility for the project and move forward.

The health insurance exchanges are to serve as a competitive marketplace where small businesses and consumers can buy private coverage plans. The intent is to drive down rates and to make policies more affordable. While the states will be given broad operational latitude, the establishment of the exchanges will proceed, under federal control if necessary.

States Openly Lag on Exchange Creation

Many states have openly said they will not move forward with the implementation of the required exchange pending the outcome of the Supreme Court’s review of the individual health insurance mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act. Others are waiting for the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

The move to issue the exchange standards makes it clear the Obama administration is continuing with the scheduled implementation of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, regardless of conservative critics or the current political climate in the nation.

Administration Officials Defend Exchanges

Testifying at a Senate hearing on Wednesday, March 7, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius described the exchanges as a one-stop-shop for price and benefit comparison. If insurers want to be competitive in the marketplace, they will have to set their rates accordingly, which will be to the advantage of consumers.

On Thursday, Timothy B. Hill, a senior HHSS official, speaking at a conference held by the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans said, “We want states to be successful in establishing their own exchanges. We are doing everything we can to help states get ready. But we are not naive. There is a likelihood that some states won’t be ready.”

Overview of the Exchange Rules

Under the rules, each exchange will certify given plans, and must establish a web site that provides cost and benefit comparisons, as well as other assistance for consumers who want to enroll. The exchange will be responsible for determining eligibility for federal subsidies, which are an option for people with annual incomes of as much as four times the federal poverty level. Currently that would be approximately $92,000 for a family of four.

States can, however, choose to operate the exchange through either a new non-profit entity or through an existing department. The marketplace can be open to all insurers and plans, or to a limited number. The role of brokers and agents can be determined by the state, and larger employers with as many as 100 employees an be allowed to participate.

Currently the implementation of state-based exchanges is spotty, with states like Connecticut, California, and Washington virtually ready to proceed, while other states, including Florida and Texas, have taken no action whatsoever.

On February 9, 2012, the Obama administration announced that private health insurance plans will now have to produce a clearly worded summary for consumers of exactly what the policy covers along with concise deals on all costs like deductibles and copays. The summary must be no longer than six pages in length and contain no fine print.

Benefits Summary Akin to Nutritional Labels

Likening the Summary of Benefits and Coverage form to nutritional labels on food products, the administration said the provided information will not include data on premiums, which will be available elsewhere, but will otherwise be a valuable resource for insurance policy holders to derive the full benefit of the coverage for which they are paying. A common complaint is that health care policies are so confusing, and the policy language is so difficult, consumers often pay too much or do not get benefits to which they are entitled.

Medicare Chief Marilyn Tavenner, who is in charge of spearheading the implementation of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for the administration said, “These documents will allow consumers to compare plans on an apples-apples basis.”

“For too many Americans today, choosing a health plan means reading through a human resources book usually the size of a small phone book, and important information about eligibility and benefits is often buried in the fine print,” said Tavenner. “With these new rules, we’re making it easier for consumers to find the plan that is right for them.”

Summaries Will Be Available This Fall

The summaries will begin to appear with insurance policies offered this fall during the open enrollment period since the provision in the health care law direction their including becomes effective on September 23. The requirement applies to all private insurance including individually purchased employer coverage. The change will affect approximately 150 million Americans.

The complete overhaul of the health care system is a divisive one with Americans, especially in the 2012 election year. The proposed requirement, for instance, for all citizens to carry health insurance by 2014 is greatly disliked and its constitutionality will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in March. Conversely, this provision, for simplified benefits explanations, is viewed favorably by 84% of consumers surveyed.

Forms will Facilitate Comparison Shopping

In particular the summaries should be useful to consumers shopping for new coverage since they will have a standardized means of side-by-side comparison. Although many employers currently give out these kinds of documents when workers join health plans, the government versions will include “coverage examples.” These sections will provide cost estimate scenarios for a common condition, for instance diabetes, in a typical individual. In the future, as many as six of these examples may be included in the summary forms.

Both insurers and employers have complained that generating this paper summaries will add substantially to their costs. The administration will allow for compliance with an online version, but consumers must be given instructions on how to receive a paper copy and those requests must be promptly fulfilled.

A recent study conducted at the University of Memphis looked at the effect of federal health care reform on residents of the state. Approximately 558,044 Tennesseans age 65 and under will benefit from new health care insurance coverage as a consequence of the federal reform measures.

These individuals will either qualify to buy insurance through the state-run health care exchange, will remain on their parents’ coverage through age 26, or will be covered by TennCare (the state’s Medicaid program.)

The effect of this increased level of insurance cover will cut the number of uninsured state residents by 50 percent, and will reduce state debt for uncompensated medical care by approximately $2.3 billion.

Some critics, are concerned, however, about the extent to which the newly insured will place a strain on the state’s medical care facilities. A rush on doctor’s services and available infrastructure could actually create a new barrier to available care.

Currently 44 of the state’s 95 counties are not adequately staffed by primary care physicians. An additional 194 doctors would be required to remedy that deficiency alone, which is particularly prevalent in rural areas where newly graduated physicians do not tend to gravitate.

The Tennessee study reveals the conundrum faced by many states as they attempt to move toward full implementation of the federal reform. Only 12-14 states have actually taken concrete measures toward complying with the provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The remainder of the states are either progressing slowly or openly waiting for the outcome of both the Supreme Court review of the Affordable Care Act in March, and the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

While health care reform may well extend the degree of insurance coverage for the 50 million Americans currently living with no protection whatsoever, there is serious concern that the health care system in the U.S. will not be able to appropriately handle the resulting load of new patients.

On Friday, January 20, 2012, the Obama administration announced that it would not expand exemptions for religious institutions under the guidelines of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that require health insurance benefits to cover contraceptives.

In its statement, however, the Department of Health and Human Services did grant an extra year for compliance to become mandatory for nonprofit employers, pushing their deadline from August 1 of this year to August 1, 2013.

Organizations that are pro-life and that support religious freedom said the one-year delay does not address their serious concerns about being forced to comply with a position to which their faith is opposed.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the administration’s approach “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” The department’s decision came after months of heated protest about the health care law provision.

In response, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission said in a statement, “Secretary Sebelius is stating that people who have religious convictions against contraceptives or particular types of contraceptives that are abortifacients will have a one-year reprieve before they will be forced to pay for health insurance for that which they find unconscionable.”

Land’s remarks are representative of the objections of many conservatives in America, and this aspect of what detractors label as “Obamacare” will be another portion of the president’s health care reform package sure to be a point of hot political debate in the 2010 presidential elections.

As the political debate surrounding the 2012 presidential elections begins to heat up, various measurements are being applied to President Obama’s health care reform package. An analysis by the Associated Press now shows that three out of four Americans who have no health insurance live in states that do not know how they will implement the required provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Currently, only 13 states have plans in place to fully enact health care reform, with 17 making “headway” and 20 lagging seriously behind. Of those, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio have the most work to do. The non-partisan Urban Institute estimates that 7 million people in those states need health insurance. When that happens, total charity care will be reduced by $10.7 billion.

Some states with Republican governments are waiting for the Supreme Court ruling this spring on the constitutionality of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act requiring all citizens to carry health insurance by 2014. The court is set to hear arguments in March. The decision will directly affect whether or not states should proceed with the implementation of health insurance exchanges.

The Obama administration insists that the different rates at which the states are moving forward does not create disparities in America’s uninsured population. Health care reform, however, is set to be one of the hottest points of debate in the coming presidential election and on this, and other aspects of its implementation, detractors say the president’s supporters are on the defensive.

With the issue of health care reform poised to once-again move front and center in the national political debate thanks to both the 2012 presidential election and the scheduled Supreme Court review of the Affordable Care Act in March, some nasty facts about the state of health care in the U.S. are once again in the spotlight. Increasingly Americans are opting to go abroad for medical procedures to combat the outrageous price of care in their own country and because medical error is a rising problem in America.

Medical Error a Serious Cause for Concern

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine determined that 1.5 million Americans are harmed each year by medication errors alone. Corollary studies place the value of the additional medical care required by such errors at $887 million in 2000, a figure that has undoubtedly climbed right along with the cost of health care. Estimates vary widely, but it is likely that 100,000 or more patients die each year as a result of medical error, with more than a million injured in non-drug related mistakes including surgical error.

Medical Debt a Leading Cause of U.S. Bankruptcies

Researchers at Harvard have determined that in 2007, 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were directly attributable to medical expenses. What was startling, however, is that 78 percent of the people who filed for bankruptcy had medical insurance at the beginning of their illness, with 60.3 percent of those covered by private policies, not Medicare or Medicaid. In 2010, more than 1.5 million Americans filed for bankruptcy. In the same year, the cost of cancer care in the nation climbed to $263.8 billion annually.

Not surprisingly, statisticians at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found a strong tie between a cancer diagnosis and bankruptcy. As compared to the general population, cancer patients are twice as likely to file for personal bankruptcy. The Duke University Medical Center’s studies indicate that even cancer patients with insurance faced monthly out-of-pocket costs that average $1,266.

Not only do medical costs on this level wipe out personal savings, destroy home equity, and obliterate retirement options, but the stress prevents healing. Many people with long-term illnesses say their number-one concern is not getting well, but the financial and emotional burden their condition places on their loved ones. These are all factors in a broken health care system that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by the Obama Administration in 2010 was designed to counteract.

Health Care Reform Has Raised Insurance Rates

Although the Obama administration has consistently maintained that the substantive cost-saving benefits of the health care reform package will be felt when the law takes full effect in 2014, the truth is that in the short-term, the legislation has increased the cost of medical care and insurance in the U.S. With mandated benefits and new restrictions cutting into their profit margins, insurers raised their premiums by 9 percent in 2011, a figure three-times that of the rate of inflation, and the greatest insurance price hike since 2005.

Medical Tourism an Increasingly Attractive Option

It is hardly surprising that some Americans are opting to leave their country to seek medical care. The Medical Tourism Associations says that in some instances, medical travelers can save as much as 90 percent on the cost of a single procedure while accessing care equal to or greater than what is available in the U.S. in terms of quality and effectiveness. For instance, a heart bypass surgery in America costs, on average $144,000. In Colombia, the same procedure is $14,802 and in India, just $5,200.

By 2012, medical tourism in Asia is expected to produce $4.4 billion in tourist income dollars, with Malaysia, India, and Turkey being particularly popular destinations for traveling patients. In 2012, Singapore expects to treat a million patients from foreign nations, while neighboring Malaysia estimates it will have 1.9 million annually by 2020. In an interview with the New York Daily News, the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that most of the patients now headed abroad are middle-class workers who can’t afford to be treated in their own country.

The option of treatment abroad has become increasingly attractive due to improved medical standards in destination nations, and by the fact that many foreign doctors are actually trained in the U.S. Over the last decade, more than 400 organizations in 39 nations have received accreditation from the Joint Commission International, an affiliate of the body that accredits American hospitals.

Health Care Will Be a Major Topic of Debate in the 2012 Election

All of these factors will undoubtedly figure in the political debate on health care as candidates vie to claim the White House in November 2012. The Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of key points of the Affordable Care Act will also be an important indicator of the future of health care reform in the nation. Currently about 53 percent of voters support repeal of the law, with 40 percent of those strongly in favor of scrapping the effort.

The provision of the law requiring all Americans to carry health insurance by 2014 is a particularly hated provision of the legislation and is the basis of the Supreme Court appeal. Critics maintain that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the right to compel citizens to buy a product in the public market place, i.e. health care insurance. Approximately 63 percent of Americans surveyed single out the insurance mandate provision as the aspect of the law they most oppose.

It is arguable if the long-vaunted health care reform effort has indeed improved the care Americans receive. Skyrocketing costs tied to personal bankruptcies, frightening instances of medical error, and the growing trend of people leaving home to seek better, more affordable care abroad would seem to indicate it has not. The discontent this situation has caused, tied to the hardships of three-years of recession in the U.S. will figure heavily in the coming election as Americans are not only seeking, but demanding, real change and real improvements.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in March 2012, the legislative health care reform package many opponents refer to as “Obamacare.” From the 2008 election forward, President Barak Obama’s efforts to address rocketing medical and insurance costs have been the subject of contentious public debate. Now, with the law’s constitutionality set to be debated in the nation’s highest court just three months into the coming presidential election season, health care will be at the forefront of an even more politically explosive climate.

Opponents Target Mandatory Health Insurance Requirement

Conservatives are pulling out all stops to regain the White House in 2012. The provision of the health care law on which they focus much of their ire, is the requirement for all Americans to carry health insurance by 2014. By its design, the law bases the constitutionality of the coverage stipulation on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That portion of the document reads, in part:

“The Congress shall have power … to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with the Indian tribes.”

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act’s provision mandating personal medical insurance contend that while Congress has both the power and the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, the Constitution does not give it the authority to compel citizens in a free marketplace to buy a particular product like insurance coverage.

Health Care to Make a Unique Supreme Court Hearing

Twenty-six states have joined together to challenge the law in the highest court in the land. Their case will be presented by Paul D. Clement of Bancroft PLLC. As a bid to the highly complicated and controversial nature of the case, an unprecedented 5.5 hours have been allotted for arguments before the justices.

If the Court rules according to the usual interpretational positions of the individual justices, the “swing vote” will likely fall to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Consequently, much attention is being paid by pundits and the media to Kennedy’s voting record in an attempt to guess how his decision would likely fall.

Justice Anthony Kennedy Could Be Swing Vote

Kennedy, 75, was appointed to the court in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, and has frequently played the deciding role in major cases. Over the years, Kennedy has proven to be liberal on matters of free speech and gay rights, but conservative on parts of the Constitution like the Establishment Clause which prohibits the stipulation of a national religion.

Kennedy has always exhibited a strong interest in the power of the federal government to create and to maintain the national economy in an integrated sense, but he is also a supporter of “states rights.” His mixture of views on federalism and individual liberty make it difficult to hazard a guess on his position on the health insurance mandate.

Opponents Also Seek Justice Kagan’s Recusal

Other conservative groups are calling on Justice Elena Kagan, 51, to recuse herself from the health care case. Appointed to the Court by President Obama in 2010 to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama administration. Ironically, were she still serving in that capacity, she would be defending the health care law before the very Supreme Court on which she now serves.

During her confirmation hearings, Kagan answered questions regarding the inevitability of the health care law’s constitutionality being tested before the Court and said she had played no part in crafting the legislative package or preparing the administration for its defense. This denial was confirmed by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. who said that all efforts were made to ensure Kagan was in no way involved in legal discussions about the health care reform law. Kagan shows no sign of recusing herself, which is always a voluntary option for a Supreme Court Justice.

Public Opinion on Health Care Reform Divided But Strong

According to research conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in November 2011, most Americans still do not understand the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act, but 44 percent still view it unfavorably. Approximately 37 percent of those surveyed support health care reform as it currently exists, with roughly 19 percent undecided or disinterested.

Most analysts agree that the displeasure many Americans show with health care reform is actually an extension of the discontent evident across the nation with Washington politics. Much of that negative sentiment is aimed at financial regulations and institutions that benefit the wealthy, but which is causing the erosion of the middle class in America.

When the health care law was broken into components for the survey, some aspects were viewed favorably even by the Republican opposition. A resounding 84 percent, for instance, are in favor of the requirement for insurance companies to provide easily comprehensible benefit summaries. The second most popular provision was that awarding tax credit to small businesses, with 80 percent approval.

People also like the idea of subsidies to help individuals afford health insurance with an eye toward closing the “doughnut hole,” those policy coverage gaps where services and prescription medications revert to full cost. Additionally, the public supports banning the practice of coverage denial based on pre-existing conditions.

However, the individual mandate for consumers to purchase health insurance by 2014 is highly unpopular, with 63 percent opposing the requirement, and of those, 43 percent describing their feelings toward the requirement as “very” unfavorable.

Many See Health Care Requirement As an Infringement on Personal Liberty

Although most Americans do not really understand the complete health care reform package, it is typical for citizens to resist being made to do something by the federal government. The perception in the public is that health care reform will primarily help lower income Americans and have little effect on the middle and upper classes. However, being compelled to purchase coverage, like the existing mandate to carry auto insurance, will affect all Americans.

In March, however, the Supreme Court justices will not be voting according to public opinion, but by the standards of constitutionality it applies to every case it reviews. The fine points of existing interstate commerce law, both in its codified forms and based on prior decisions by the court, will be the basis of the opinion they ultimately deliver.

The affect the vote will have on the election season is also difficult to determine. If the law’s constitutionality is upheld, public ire could go against President Barak Obama in his bid to win a second term. But by the same token, if the provision of the law is declared unconstitutional, voters may see it as a victory for conservatism in the U.S. that will throw more support behind the Republican candidate.

Regardless, however, as 2012 opens, and as March draws nearer, health care will once again be front and center in the American political debate, and it will remain as controversially charged as ever. Given the existing climate of discontent clearly illustrated by the numerous “occupy” demonstrations, this will be a major factor crafting public sentiment in the November presidential elections.

As the only nation in the world without universal health care, the United States is working to come up with a solution to keep its citizens healthier. Many Americans go without health insurance because they cannot afford it, and their illnesses and injuries go untreated as a result. However, since the Health Care Reform Act remains so controversial, it has proved to be near impossible to find a solution that is both viable and acceptable to everyone.

People Who are for Health Care Reform

People who support the Health Care Reform bill believe that health care should be made more affordable, especially for people living in low-income households, and those who make more money should be taxed to make up for it.  Being taxed more money is acceptable to them, because of the positive changes that will come from it, and believe that everyone should be required to have health insurance so no one goes without.

People Who are Against Health Care Reform

Those who disagree with the Health Care Reform Act do not believe it is fair to be taxed any more than they already are, and do not feel responsible for making sure everyone has health insurance, even people who cannot afford it. They see a nationwide requirement to have insurance – and suffering a penalty for noncompliance – to be unconstitutional and believe it strips them of their freedom.

Is There a Compromise?

Since the Health Care Reform Act was first brought to Congress, people have been trying to find a compromise between those who support it and those who don’t. There are several options, like taxing everyone and then providing refunds to those who buy insurance, or limiting the amount of time each year people are able to buy insurance. Despite these options, and agreement is yet to be reached.

What’s Going On Now?

Certain parts of the Health Care Reform Act have already gone into effect, but the majority of the act is still being debated as far as what should be legal for the government to require of its citizens. Many people are worried that this is just the first step in the government taking control of individuals’ decisions on how to live their lives by telling them they must buy health insurance.

What’s Happening in Court

The Health Care Reform Act is now in the Supreme Court, and has been for a long time. There is a high degree of disagreement among the public and the justices, and it will be months before an agreement can be reached. The most likely outcome of the debate will be to keep certain parts of the act that people can agree on and get rid of others as everyone struggles to find an option that could work for everyone.

The Health Care Reform debate has been going on for years and is unlikely to end anytime soon. People have very strong standpoints about this matter, especially since it has to do with their health and, in some people’s opinions, their freedoms. The court will continue to edit and discuss the act until they are able to receive enough votes on a newer version to end the debate.