Cost of doing nothing is high
By Wade McManus
This weekendâ€™s Congressional approval of health care reform was monumental. The bill took us closer to joining the rest of the industrialized world in providing universal health care to our citizens.
Despite all the hype from the left, the bill is not perfect and the changes that it will bring will take awhile to be realized.
But it will bring improvements to the broken system we now have. I admit this will be an expensive program, demanding more taxes from some and deepening our national deficit in the short run. But this spending is justifiable.
This is not another case of extreme taxation and reckless spending by our federal government. In fact, I believe it is our own interest and in the interest of our government that health services are provided to all citizens.
In the long run I believe we will see that the health care reform will actually lower the overall costs for health care that we Americans currently pay. Weâ€™ll see an increased amount of early consultations and preventive health care, dramatically reducing the number of costly and preventable emergency rescues.
This is the source of the true costs of health care, especially the financially crippling costs endured by working families.
What this reform will do is make health services readily available for all, presumably, at all times. Far fewer people will face debilitating disease or emergency costs that will bankrupt them and their families.
It will keep the working-class working.
This is good for all of us, and not merely a governmental intrusion into personal lives. Some will argue the costs are too high, but they arenâ€™t as high if we do nothing.
Wade McManus is a senior political science major. His column appears Thursdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Opaque health reform bill misses mark
By Ian Bezek
Even by Washington standards, the amount of troubling political deals that have gone into the making of health care reform has been breathtaking. They say that making laws is like making sausage, and the saying has rarely been more true.
We really donâ€™t even know quite what is in this bill. Are Nebraska and Connecticut still getting special deals, is the anti-abortion language still in the final bill or not? Iâ€™m not quite sure, and Iâ€™m not sure the legislators knew either while they voted.
Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wasnâ€™t kidding when she recently said, â€œWe have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.â€
The bill might save taxpayers money or cost more money, we donâ€™t quite know. It slashes some Medicare funding but showers new revenue streams on private insurance companies.
Those are, of course, the same private insurance companies that Obama was telling us were so bad.
This bill isnâ€™t a big step toward socialized health care, and it doesnâ€™t even reform much. This is a half-hearted and watered down bill that mostly serves special interests.
Is it a bad bill? Probably, but we canâ€™t really know until we are sure of what is even in it.
Is this a bad way to create legislation? Definitely. Coloradoâ€™s Attorney General, John Suthers, announced yesterday that we are joining 10 other states in suing the government claiming this bill is unconstitutional.
When you pass bills with shady midnight deals, youâ€™re bound to get bad, and often unconstitutional results. We deserved a better, and more transparent, reform bill.
Editorials Editor Ian Bezek is a senior economics major. His column appears Mondays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to email@example.com.