College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Forum helps explain health care

By Paige Kirby
The Daily Gamecock

|

Published: Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Updated: Monday, November 16, 2009

health care debate

David Walters/The Daily Gamecock

The “Demystifying Health Care” forum brought out a large audience to hear the new policies simplified.

When Charles Bierbauer, dean of the College of Mass Communications and Information Studies, was asked by a friend to explain the new health care reform bill he said, “I am helpless in describing health care reform.”

So are many others, and in order to clear up the many questions people have, the University of South Carolina held a forum called “De-Mystifying Health Care Reform: What it Means to You.”

The goal of the presentation was to “demystify health care by explaining it’s contents through meaningful dialogue and interaction” according to Darcy Freedman, an assistant professor and centenary faculty in social disparities in built community environments in the College of Social Work.

While the official bill is just short of 2,000 words, John Ruoff, research director of South Carolina Fair Share, tried to explain it in a manner easy to understand. He explained that the actual bill is complicated, long, and even most politicians have only read a short-hand cheat sheet of it.  He also said that while Democrats and Republicans disagree on a lot of details in the bill, there are main points on which they agree.

“If the plan passes, it would probably require all United States citizens to have heath care, large employers to provide health care to their workers, prohibit co-pays on preventative services and have more people eligible for Medicare and Medicaid,” Ruoff said.

The main goal of the plan is to have health care be affordable for everyone, organizers say. In addition, contrary to what Rep. Joe Wilson believes, “the new health care plan will not cover illegal immigrants,” Ruoff said.

According to Ruoff, the new plan will also prevent insurance companies from cancelling insurance, prohibit companies from placing annual caps on benefits and make it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

The biggest argument regarding the plan is where to procure funding. President Obama requires the bill to have no cost, which means there has to be some other way to raise approximately $900 billion to fund new programs. The House wants to tax citizens whose income is over a million dollars, while the Senate wants to lower incentives for hospitals and save money rather than tax.

For college students, there’s a lot on the line. People under the age of 26 might have to start paying for their own health insurance. Many young people do not have insurance because they can’t afford it, and many people think they simply won’t get sick.

The money would enable the government to pay for the most expensive age group — 50 to 65 years old. The thinking is just like the thinking behind social security, young people must contribute to the system now to get taken care of down the road.

The seminar also pushed college students to get involved.

“You have a major advantage living two blocks away from the state capital. Get involved, get educated and network,” Alan Tauber, president of USC Graduate Student Association, said. “Look online and research health care reform.”

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

11 comments

Hannah
Fri Dec 25 2009 20:54
Anne, you happen to be the biggest idiot I have ever met. Do not try to speak for all women. You my friend, may deem it reasonable not to get a mammogram before the age of 40, and that is your personal desicion. If a woman feels it is necessary to have one earlier than that she should be able to make that decision for herself. The government should not dictate when she should have one. I know two women who developed breast cancer before the age of 35. Mammograms are vital to detection and should not be controlled by the governement (just like any other aspect of healthcare). Wait until it happens to someone you know and then "overly cautious" wont seem so petty. It seems you need to inform yourself on the issues a little bit more.
Lane Hayes
Thu Nov 19 2009 21:08
The government can't even run the post office without literally hemorrhaging money. All government sponsored health care plans, Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs, all done by the same Ted Kennedy democrats, are all completely bankrupt and defunct. How the heck do people STILL trust these morons with even MORE control?

If you think insurance companies are bad for whatever reason (btw, they're already so heavily regulated that their profit margins are less than 3%), wait til the government puts their hand in this mess.

Amicus to USC
Wed Nov 18 2009 16:25
Response to Elizabeth Bee:

EB: I would just like to see a provision for a more pro-active approach to preventive care and make the insurance companies provide and pay for it.

Insurance companies manage risk. A collective of people pool their money together (premiums) and the insurance company manage it and metes it out according risk, certain agreed upon rules and government regulations. They keep a percentage as profit. If they are made to pay for additional procedures, that money will have to come out of the premiums it collects. Thus, they will have to charge higher premiums. People should do everything in their power to prevent disease. Many of these measures don't cost anything or actually save cash (don't smoke, eat right, lose weight, exercise more, etc.). As far as preventive tests, it should be the decision of the patient and the doctor whether to perform the tests. If the insurance covers the tests, great. If not, there is a decision to be made.

EB: It is ridiculous that people I know send away for their daily heartburn medication, blood pressure, cholesterol medicine, birth control pills & whatever else medications to foreign countries because their governments regulate the price of medications and make them affordable for their citizens.

The people you describe must not have good health insurance coverage. Co pays are generally $4 - $30 with exceptions for the more exotic drugs. Also, they must be in very poor health! LOL! Advertising is not all bad and is a small percentage of the cost of bringing a drug to the market. Ads help disseminate info to the public of new and advanced drugs.

EB: By the way they just raised our rate to over $600 a month and that's for no preventive care, a $40 co-pay each time we go to a doctor for an office visit. If the doctor performs any procedure, then that negates the office visit and it falls under our deductible, $10,000, and we are responsible for the office charge and whatever "procedure" was performed.

If your family pays $600/month ($7200/year) and have a $10,000 deductible (which means your yearly out of pocket costs could be $17,000) but rarely go to the doctor, why do you have it? Is there no other coverage available in your neck of the woods? Health Savings Accounts typically have a $3000 annual deductible for individuals and $6000 for families and lower monthly premiums. You need to shop around for better insurance -- especially if your family is healthy.

EB: But when did health care become big business? Education is not...

Education is BIG BUSINESS and involves numerous unions and associations that wield lots of influence over government and is not always to the benefit of the "children". BTW: The education lobby in DC is bigger than the pharmaceutical lobby. Also, have you seen the price of college tuition lately?

Elizabeth Bee
Tue Nov 17 2009 15:56
I would just like to see a provision for a more pro-active approach to preventive care and make the insurance companies provide and pay for it. After all, we (personally) are paying them hundreds of dollars a month in premiums and they could fit the bill for my physical and hopefully find and remedy any problems before they got too big, out of hand and expensive. We, collectively are paying them millions or billions in premiums and any educated, knowledgeable, sane person knows preventive care is so much effective and cheaper than dealing with a major medical problem that has been ignored until it can't be any more.
Also, I would like someone to get a hold of the pharmaceutical companies and make them behave. It is ridiculous that people I know send away for their daily heartburn medication, blood pressure, cholesterol medicine,birth control pills & whatever else medications to foreign countries because their governments regulate the price of medications and make them affordable for their citizens. Why should I be paying for all that ridiculous advertising the drug companies now seem to think is necessary? I'm going to take what my doctor tells me regardless of all the TV commercials and I'm going to get the cheapest (generic) version available from the cheapest source (be aware people and call around before filling your prescription there is a vast difference in price from pharmacies, and Wal-Mart is NOT always the cheapest. On a recent prescription for an antibiotic I called every pharmacy within a 5 mile radius, including the grocery store and Target. The difference in price ranged from $48 to $30, with Target being the cheapest, but Publix and CVS were very close seconds. AND its different for each medication! So just because one is cheap for that prescription, doesn't meant they will be for another. You must be vigilant and call them all each time you have a different prescription!
And, frankly I'd like to have a doctor. We, our family members, only go to the doctor when we know we need an antibiotic to take care of some problem, which is rare. I haven't had a "physical" in years. And the last time I had a mammogram was 12 years ago, when I though it was covered by my insurance. They tricked me. It was covered if my deductible had been met, of course it wasn't (did I mention we don't go to the doctor?) so I got an unexpected bill for over $550 in the mail. I now read all the fine print and then call for confirmation that I read my policy correctly. By the way they just raised our rate to over $600 a month and that's for no preventive care, a $40 co-pay each time we go to a doctor for an office visit. If the doctor preforms any procedure, then that negates the office visit and it falls under our deductible, $10,000, and we are responsible for the office charge and whatever "procedure" was performed. If we weren't paying any health insurance we'd have an extra $7000 a year and could go to the doctor. But there's always that fear that someone might get really sick, or be in some catastrophic accident and we might actually meet that $10,000 deductible (of course we'll have to borrow that money from somewhere) and then be responsible for 20-30% of all other "covered" depending on what they are. I mean really! And we're healthy people, luckily, we have no "conditions" or known health problems, because we can't afford to find out.

Health care should be a non-profit business. It used to be. The doctors took care of the sick who paid him as they could and he made enough to support himself and his family. But somehow it became an industry. Those involved should certainly be paid salaries equitable to their education, skills and experience. But when did health care become big business? Education is not, fire-fighting and police protection, libraries are not. Our health care system has gotten out of hand and the insurance companies, hospital boards, private practices, pharmaceutical companies and all other health related fields are in it for the bucks, their profits, their stock holders and the patients be damned, they are just the revenue. It is sad.

oh well
Tue Nov 17 2009 14:25
Dr. Carey Capell: I don't know where you got $2T from because it's more like $980B so your wrong. Also the administration won't raise taxes on the middle class (or whats left of it anyway) they'll raise it on those making "a milli" like they should. Also I'm guessing what you're saying to the 50 million americans who don't have health care is "sorry we don't have enough doctors so we CANT give you health care."? and Anne: Thank you for being sensible. I can't believe how many crazy people there are walking around me every day...
Anne
Tue Nov 17 2009 12:56
Dear Chris,

While it's always nice for "all the women out there" to receive high-quality, unbiased advice from random commenters (male, I presume?) on college newspaper websites, let's clear up this conspiracy theory really quickly. Mammograms are obviously incredibly valuable tools in detecting breast cancer early. That's why they've generally been recommended for women over 40. Why not women under 40? Because mammograms also expose you to radiation, and repeated exposure to radiation can also cause cancer. If the risks outweigh the benefits for women under 50, then hey, as one of those "women out there," I say let's cut this cost and save me the trouble of going through what I've heard is a pretty painful procedure - in consultation, of course, with my physician, whom I need to be able to afford to see. If you're convinced that this new study is linked to a government master plan to ration health care, you're going to believe that regardless of the facts. Just in case, however, I thought I'd offer you some information you apparently didn't have.

Chris
Tue Nov 17 2009 12:34
All you women out there, listen up.

Today (conveniently) a "government study group" released its conclusions that a woman needn't have a breast exam every year as previously advised, but rather, every two years would suffice. The reasoning was that there were false positives too often and it was therefore unneccessary except every other year.

Doesn't it seem only logical to be OVERLY cautious rather than risk letting cancer grow to the point that radical measures may be necessary at a later time. Or worse, yet, risk death just because false positives may occur if testing is done yearly???

Call me cynical if you will, but I think the administration is trying to inculcate a policy of rationing of health care in anticipation of the government takeover of the countries health care system. For if the government takes over from the private sector, rationing is inevitable. Ask England. Ask Canada. Ask any country that has a government run healthcare system and you have rationing, and you have inferior care.

I guess this is the change you could believe in.

Dr. Sam Colman
Tue Nov 17 2009 11:49
Care is already rationed, Dr. Capell, by insurance bureaucrats. We spend more of our time fighting insurance denials, while being unable to adequately treat those who have fallen through the cracks (which are more like canyons) and have no (or inadequate) health insurance. I have patients who need to choose between food and medications. What would you pick? And unfortunately, the cheapest food is never the healthiest. If only the government would spend more on preventive care and creating a healthy environment we would have less need for these very costly interventions to save people whose illnesses could have been prevented.
Cheri
Tue Nov 17 2009 10:06
What I'm concerned about is: what about those on Medicare who end up in the Gap each year and cannot afford their medications.
Marcus
Tue Nov 17 2009 09:30
So called "conservative" republicans are always complaining about what the liberal democrats are doing and casting them into the pits of hell that the conservatives think they have power over. First of all, you complain that the dems want to spend money on healthcare to protect yourselves as well as the rest of America but you do not seem to complain when the last administration spent billions to fund a war in Iraq that America still is not winning. Hmmm, where are your values, conservatives?
Dr. Carey Capell
Tue Nov 17 2009 08:42
Ruoff's organization, SC Fair Share, is a liberal community-organizing group (read their charter). Was anyone from the opposite side of the aisle invited to address USC students? If they had been, they would have mentioned that the Democrat health care initiative will likely cost $2T and will then run way over budget, as government programs always do. Of necessity, it will raise taxes for the middle class and increase costs to employers (thereby cutting jobs). Cuts in Medicare spending will force thousands of doctors into retirement. You can't add millions of patients to a system which has fewer doctors without rationing care. Pre-med anyone?






log out