Health Care Reform Bill HR 3962

Historical Background

The health care industry in the United States in one of the most contested areas of political and financial debates over the last several decades. The international image projected by the level of poor management of the US national spending o health care has likewise drawn criticism from various sections of the American population. In comparison with the rest of the world, health care spending in the US is among the few countries with huge imbalances with respect to the country’s GDP. It therefore follows that political criticism has crept into the debate with an intention of protecting the American image at the international front. Presidential campaigns for instance, have targeted the health care provision agenda on the promise list since improvement in the industry is good music to every American.

Presidential campaigns during the last elections were particularly instrumental for the candidates to seek votes, making promises of rapid initiatives to bring normalcy into health care management. Both Senators Obama and McCain had pleasant promises that targeted government policy on health care provision and regulation. Upon winning the presidential elections, President Obama embarked on a plan to ensure that the promises made regarding the health care industry were delivered. Rapid initiative for reforms in the industry witnessed instrumental health care reform attempts designed in form of legal structures. The Health Care Reform Bill (HR 3962) was soon introduced into the legislative front and subsequently enacted into law amid standoff between the major political parties in the legislature. Since President Obama’s Democratic Party enjoys a slight majority advantage in the legislature, it was possible to enact the Bill into law in 2009. Despite a massive backing from the Democrats, the Republicans later rose in calls to reject the law having analyzed it to spot various ‘mistakes’ that negatively impact on the industry and indeed the entire country’s economy both directly and indirectly. Similar sentiments have continued to be elicited following the introduction of the National Health Care Act by the Democratic Party.

Tension between President and Congress

The functions and powers of the US Congress (legislature) and the office of the US President (executive) are clearly separated by the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Each of these alongside the third arm of government (judiciary) is constitutionally designed to act independently and in checks to protect the supremacy of the American people. The powers of these offices are constitutionally engineered to act in a balance that would facilitate the rule of law that guides a democratic society such as the American society. Due to the possibility of emergence of conflicts among the arms, procedures are clearly laid out to solve the tension that arises between the governance of the country’s affairs. The US President is therefore under checks from Parliament and any dispute among them is solved through the interpreter of the law in form of the Judiciary. Certain sections of the criticism have also targeted the House Speaker for allowing such a sensitive Bill pass through the Congress without action as would have stopped such enactment. To this effect, the Bill has been labeled Pelosi Government Health Care Takeover Bill.

In the arising conflict upon the passing of the Bill HR 3962, the Republican wing of the Congress could not allow the Obama’s government to run its agenda in the legislature. They argued that the political conflict presented by the desire to blindly achieve campaign promises on reigning in on the health care industry. Grave mistakes that would only leave the state of the health care industry and management in a worse condition have since been spotted. The standoff in the Congress threatened to disrupt government operations at various interactions as guided by legal provisions. Lobbying for support against the health care reforms has since got its way into the corridors of justice with a number of rulings being made in favor of the opposition (Republicans). Building opposition has been branded insignificant since it was not enough to stop the Bill at the floor of the house when being enacted into law. The democrats on the other hand have defended their support for the Bill and have continued to hold their position in supporting President Obama’s health care reform agenda.

Critical Analysis of the Tension

Health care reforms in the US are today formulated on a backdrop of a significant economic and financial consideration that touches on fundamental national policy. Despite the huge spending that the country makes with regard to health care, a materially significant proportion of the population (10 per cent) still remains uncovered for health care provision. A serious challenge for the coverage of health care provision for the retiring generation that relies on the federal government health care systems is also presented to the sector. The most challenging fact of the health care sector is that spending needs to be brought down to match with the international standards of spending against national GDP. Involvement of cuts and other tax interventions are the most basic channels that populist regimes have feared to integrate in the ailing system. Aware of this fact, the democrats have cracked the whip to introduce the much needed reforms that will change the manner in which the health care sector is managed and contained. However, they must be braced for the battle since the abrupt change cannot easily be welcome in a country whose economy is still coming to terms with recent economic crisis. Political will has not easily been forthcoming since the legislature must play its role in shielding the electorate from sudden and uncertain policy.

Rejection of the health care bills is therefore a clear battle between the main political players namely Republicans and Democrats at the floor of the House and the Senate. While the President seems to be reform hungry for the sector flanked by his party, the showdown must go on at the legislature since the rival Republicans have been unable to deliver the reforms. Showdown is also fueled by the fact that the current healthcare control regime is largely a product of Republican administration over the past years. Congress and the President continue to fight over the reform agenda as contributed largely by political and ideological principles which diverge at certain level of engagement with the reality of the health care sector.

Differences that create the rift in the debate are mainly brought about by the various interpretations of the Bill with an aim of maintaining control over the sensitive sector. Each of the two parties would want to be associated with success in the sector that has tormented the American health care seeker for a considerable length of time. It is therefore not a surprise that the Republican and Democrat rivalry emerges at the mention of an issue gaining such high level sensitivity on national interest measure. Application of democratic avenues such as the legislature is an important strategy in the maintenance of political dominance for the two parties. Emerging tension between the President and the Congress is a show of political battle for supremacy, particularly in a national matter that could be used to build on national popularity. While it is not entirely possible to have perfect legislation for the various sectors of the American society, it is important to recognize and acknowledge the fact that compromise is important for political process to make sense to the American people. At least what the health care sector experiences today is the impact of failed systems that ought to be replaced with better, even if not completely responsive of the plight of the American people.

Democrats and the President claim that the Bill HR 3962 is targeted at the good of the American health care services seeker for a number of reasons. A number of strength areas for the Bill seem to present the conviction that acted as the driving power for the advocacy and eventual passage of the Bill into law. Firstly, the significant number of Americans not served by any insurance coverage will be reduced under the new regime. It is expected that health care insurance coverage targets will be increased from 83 per cent to 93 per cent within the full implementation timeline (CMS, 6). This follows the trickling effect of the expansionary element that the Bill will eventually introduce to the health care sector. The modern program has been unable to cover the entire population despite the heavy health care spending which is well represented under HR 3962.

Secondly, federal expenditure will be increased under the implementation of FR 3962 by a net increase of about $ 935 billion over the ten year implementation period. It therefore implies that the government contribution over the implementation period will be enough to cater for new health care provision enrollees, which is a huge departure from the current program. Thirdly, there will be savings on the Hospital Insurance trust under the enhanced Medicare and Medicaid savings up to an estimated amount of about $ 571 billion. Under the current program, it is impossible to make such savings and the new law can only be welcome for such benefits. Fourthly, an important element of shifting healthcare spending will be incorporated in the new program to allow non-Medicare reductions. Such reductions will be useful in funding other important elements of health care such as research provision. There are several other benefits that the President and Democratic Party keenly highlight in support of HR 3962.

Contrary to proposed advocacy for the HR 3962 law, the Republican wing of the debate punches several holes on the document and continually calls for its disbandment and rejection by the American people. Firstly, the opposition claims that the implementation of the Bill will be accompanied by rocketed costs beyond the trillion dollar mark. To add cost elements to the implementation plan, the Sustainable Growth Rate Fix will attract over $ 245 dollars across the implementation period. In formulation of the opposition points, the Republicans find mischief in the direct provision of possible uncertainty in cost estimation over the extensive period of ten years of implementation. Secondly, the much celebrated expansion of the Medicaid plan to accommodate the uninsured will create an imbalance in the manner in which the current coverage operates (RSC, 2).

While 15 million more people will be absorbed by the expanded Medicaid, employer-market health care provision will be disrupted and about 9 million people will lose their coverage. The implication of this fact is that only a few people will be absorbed by the “expanded” government cover provision. Thirdly, by taking over the health care coverage through increased intervention, the government will eventually place the running of health care coverage into the hands of the public. From past experiences, placing public management of such commercialized entity will spell doom for the sector in the long run. Fourthly, the provision of Sustainable Growth Rate was intentionally detached from the main Bill for wrong reasons. Doctors and other professional health care providers are left in the dark over their operations in the new regulations regime. Fifthly, business will be hurt by implementing the Bill since the increased cost significantly impacts on the productivity of commercial entities. These are among the many grievances raised over the logic behind implementation of HR 3962.

Conclusion

Future relations between the President and the Congress for various interactions in dispensation of official duties will heavily rely on the direction that the conflict on health care reform agenda takes. A divided legislature will be forced to come to terms with the realities of health care sensitivity. Complete success on reform policy in the health care sector is likely to involve conflicts between the executive and the legislature, particularly due to the political affiliations that the legislators have. The US President will find it hard to continue his reform agenda that spurs cut throat debate and divisions along political affiliation. In order for a comprehensive agenda on policies that the President will be formulating in future for interaction with the legislature, there might be need for consensus building for an implementation program without frustration by unnecessary debate.

Works Cited

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – CMS “Estimated Financial Effects of the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” (H.R. 3962), as Passed by the House on November 7, 2009” 13 November 2009. Web. HYPERLINK “http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/HR3962_2009-11-13.pdf” http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/HR3962_2009-11-13.pdf (accessed 29June 2011)

Republican Study Committee- RSC “RSC Policy Brief: Highlights of H.R. 3962, The “Pelosi Government Healthcare Takeover Bill,”” (n.d). Web. HYPERLINK “http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PB_103009_healthcarehighlights.pdf” http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PB_103009_healthcarehighlights.pdf (accessed 29 June 2011)