The 2,000-plus-page bill signed into law by President Obama last week details a litany of changes to health care policy to be implemented between 2010 and 2018.
A Democratic Policy Committee summary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expresses its basic intention: to “ensure that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health insurance and put students ahead of private banks.”
The summary says the reforms will expand insurance coverage to 32 million uninsured citizens, make coverage more affordable and reduce the federal deficit by streamlining inefficiencies associated with the health industry.
State-level advocates of the bill believe the mandated reforms indicate the country is moving toward a healthier future.
“I’ve heard some people say what we have today isn’t really a health care system at all, it’s just pieces,” said Onofre Contreras, director of community engagement with Oregon Health Action Campaign. “We’ve been working diligently for the passage of health care reform.
While we see some very positive pieces in the federal reform bill, there are obviously some areas where we feel there’s more to be done. The work continues,” Contreras said.
Some critics of the bill are skeptical about its potential to address the country’s rising health care costs, the impending solvency of Medicaid and the fact that millions of Americans are
without insurance.
“The health care bill is too big, too vague and too expensive,” Oregon Republicans spokesperson Greg Leo said.
Leo expressed concern that the bill expands coverage to more people without containing costs.
“(The bill) kind of dealt with half the problem. It addresses access to health care, but not affordability of health care,” he said. “If the government is subsidizing plans for millions of Americans who formerly could not afford it, people who can afford health care are going to see rising costs.”
The bill faces criticism from the left as well. Health Care for All Oregon, a volunteer group working for universal health care in the state, asserts on its Web site that, while the legislation does expand coverage and save money in some key areas, overall the reforms do less to help Americans and more to perpetuate the welfare of insurance companies.
“The legislation fails to deliver on the promise of a single standard of excellence in care for all and instead makes piecemeal adjustments to the current privatized, for-profit health care behemoth,” the Web site states. It lists the many areas where the HCAO feels the bill falls short, such as a provision that mandates insurance coverage with the burden on most individuals in the form of a $695 annual fine.
In defense of the bill, Contreras said reforms will be enacted at the federal level, but that the most substantial restructuring of health care could occur at the state level.
“House Bill 2009 does lay out that the Oregon Health Authority can evaluate and consider a public option, so it’s still alive and still a possibility,” Contreras said. “Just because it’s not there in the federal language doesn’t mean we as advocates aren’t going to support reform. We do, very much so … The federal reform lays a foundation, but the Oregon reform will build on that.”
Contreras said the Oregon Health Authority will compile the information and develop a matrix that will diagram the effects of the federal reforms on the health care apparatus in the state, perhaps contributing some clarity to the effectiveness of the new policies.
Leo said he thought the health care system in the U.S. “may be the best in the world.” He also warned young taxpayers about the importance of their role in funding whatever health care system is developed.
“If I were a student at the UO, I would be concerned about what kind of world you’re going to have in 30 or 40; I mean, we’re layering so many costs in a way that’s essentially borrowing against your future,” he said. “I do see a couple glimmers of hope. The health care system is very inefficient, and this bill does address this by making all the records electronic and transferable, giving people more ability to substitute. Those kinds of things, which protect consumers, are very good.”
[email protected]