WPBA » Hot Debate

What Kind of Agriculture Are We Subsidizing? By Curt Ellis

Sam Oldak — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:07:55 +0000

Hot Question: Is it unethical for developed nations such as the United States or those in the European Union to subsidize their agriculture? Do these subsidies affect the agricultural industries of undeveloped nations and should international bodies do anything about this?

Let’s be honest: agricultural subsidies aren’t anybody’s favorite topic.

Farmers don’t like to talk about them; what self-reliant yeoman wants to admit they’re on welfare? Urban people don’t take an interest in them either; a good reading of the Farm Bill will send even the most stubborn insomniac into a slumber. The right dismisses farm programs as government distortions of the free market, and the left sees them as handouts to agribusiness conglomerates. So why are farm subsidies still in full force? Probably because it’s difficult to have anyone engaged enough to reform them.

There are signs that change is on the horizon, though. In the last few years, farm programs have begun attracting attention from unlikely quarters.

Public health experts have drawn a convincing connection between the kind of farming we subsidize and the quality of food we eat. With CDC research predicting that one in three children born in the year 2000 will in time develop Type II diabetes, incentivizing all-out production of high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and fast-food meat may only deepen our healthcare catastrophe.

Leaders in the climate change community have recently taken up the topic, too, pointing to soil as one of the only carbon sinks capable of storing a meaningful amount of atmospheric CO2. Under subsidized row-crop production (itself powered by fossil fuel fertilizer, petroleum-derived pesticides and diesel tractors), environmentalists warn that this climate-stabilizing potential is––quite literally––eroding.

It is the fallout from the 2008 Global Food Crisis, however, that has spurred much of the recent debate over farm subsidies. The riots that erupted in Senegal and Egypt and toppled the government in Haiti forced legislators in subsidy-driven Europe and the United States to acknowledge the international consequences of distorting agricultural markets at home.

So, with our global economy staring down a climate crisis and an obesity epidemic, we have to ask ourselves: what kind of agriculture are we subsidizing?

For much of the last 40 years, American farm subsidies have rewarded the all-out production of a handful of commodities. These policies delivered processors a ready supply of cheap raw materials for processing into snacks and feeding to confined livestock. What food companies couldn’t convince American consumers to eat (though judging from our waistlines, we did our part!) was exported. Often, barges of subsidized corn, soy and wheat reached foreign shores, where their contents could be sold at below the local cost of production.

The ripple effects of these policies have been dramatic, and are nowhere more apparent than in Mexico. There, corn farmers saw the price of corn plummet by half when NAFTA opened the door to subsidized imports. Unable to compete, millions of Mexican farmers left the land, pursuing economic promise in impoverished cities or across the US border. When the Food Crisis began, however, with a spike in imported corn prices related to ethanol, drought, and expensive oil, the price of a tortilla in Mexico shot up more than 400%. For many, the effects of skyrocketing staples were devastating.

This scenario of subsidy-induced dependence has repeated itself across the globe. American exports flood foreign markets with cheap grain; local farmers see their profit margins dwindle and leave the land; without the infrastructure for self-sufficiency in place, a shock felt in one part of the system––US grain production––suddenly leaves everyone vulnerable, and without a safety net in place.

America’s 20^th century production-oriented agricultural policies have––under the banner of abundance and affordability––only made the world’s food systems more fragile. At home, subsidies have enabled an obesity epidemic and ecological degradation. Abroad, they have replaced local production and processing with a reliance on imports.

With any broken system, the tendency is to throw everything out and start from scratch. That’s rarely the best course, however. In the case of agricultural subsidies, there’s little logic to doing away with government incentives altogether. Some fundamentals––water, food, education––are important enough that the government should keep a hand on the tiller. Slashing farm programs tomorrow would leave farmers indebted and in the lurch, add another shock to fragile markets around the world, and likely lead to more corporate consolidation in a food processing industry already stifled by monopolies.

So, what kind of agriculture should we be subsidizing? Unfortunately, the answer isn’t tidy enough to be enacted all at once; nor is it the kind of policy that can be passed in a vacuum. It’s a policy that looks long-term, and across borders and disciplines.

First, 21^st century farm policy will have to be––first and foremost––food policy. If we put good nutrition at the top of our priorities, we will begin promoting fruit and vegetable production at home, instead of fast food. Internationally, we will help developing nations grow their internal agricultural capacity (as the Obama administration has already pledged to do in Africa), and will cease to see foreign markets as a dumping ground for American surplus.

Second, next-generation farm policies will put long-term sustainability ahead of short-term, extraction-dependent yields. Green payments will compensate farmers for their contributions to climate stability, and those who work at the forefront of sustainable agriculture––testing perennial crops instead of soil-depleting annuals and pushing the limits of local and organic production––will be rewarded for their investments in a post-petroleum future.

Weaning ourselves off present agricultural subsidies won’t be an easy process, but it can be an incremental one.

Curt Ellis is a Food and Society Fellow with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the WK Kellogg Foundation. He co-created and starred in the Peabody-winning documentary King Corn, and produced and directed the sequel, Big River.

No related posts.

Changing Healthcare Delivery in America By Corbett Brown, Chair, Graduate and Professional Students Assembly

Sam Oldak — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:40:42 +0000

Recently President Obama referred to the American employer-based provision of healthcare as “an accident.” He was right, and this accident, instead of being cleared from the free-market roadway, has been causing chain-reaction wrecks ever since it first began.

Historically, employer-based healthcare started during World War II when the Federal Government enacted wage restrictions and a salary freeze. No longer could employers use salary as a means to persuade new talent to choose his/her company as a place to work. However, government meddling did not stop savvy leaders of business from developing creative incentives to attract new talent. These business leaders used expanded benefits packages as a way to pay for certain expenditures for the employee, which were previously individually paid, thus freeing up that portion of the take-home pay for whatever the employee desired. This was an ingenious method used to attract employees, and it worked so well that it became widespread. That was the first accident, or unforeseen consequence of government restrictions on wages.

Although President Obama used accident in a singular sense, this accident really occurred in stages. The first stage occurred when the government froze wages and salaries, and the second stage occurred when the Federal Government amended tax laws to allow for employers to use pre-tax dollars for the purchase of health insurance, while not providing the individual American, nor his or her family the same allowance. In reality, employers could, and do, purchase the same coverage as an individual does on his/her own for less due to the fact that the individual is using dollars that have already been taxed. This is an inequality that does not make much sense, and is truly the accidental result of taxation without individual consideration.

The employer-based health insurance accident would not be so terrible if it was not for the many chain-reaction wrecks that it has caused. One chain-reaction wreck is the loss of health insurance when one leaves employment, since his/her health insurance and that of his/her family is tied directly to the work-place, and is not portable without COBRA insurance, which by-the-way is too expensive for most. Since many individuals are unable to afford COBRA insurance while in-between jobs, they choose to remain uninsured. These workers who are in-between jobs make up a large segment of the total uninsured in America.

Unfortunately that chain-reaction wreck led to another, job-lock. Job-lock is when one is afraid of changing jobs for fear of losing coverage by not being able to either afford new coverage or be approved for new coverage in the case of preexisting condition. This leads to decreased job mobility, which is especially true for females and older workers, and causes employees to stay with jobs they would otherwise leave.

Additionally, while there are many who are afraid to leave a job, the majority of Americans are forced to change jobs numerous times during their working career. According to the United States Department of labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, baby boomers born in the years “1957 to 1964” had on average “10.8 jobs from ages 18 to 42.” The high frequency of job-changes makes the notion that health insurance should be tied to one employer even more ridiculous.

The solution to this problem comes through making needed changes to the tax laws, providing individuals and families the use of pre-tax dollars to purchase their own health insurance. This insurance would be portable since it is private and unassociated with the workplace. A side effect of this action would be that the number of uninsured Americans would decrease due to the increased portability of health insurance, and employees would have increased mobility within the job market.

Another benefit of allowing individuals and families to have the ability to use their own pre-tax dollars to purchase health insurance is that it would be individualized, and more closely represent the needs of the individual or family. This would create stronger competition within health insurance providers, which would in the long run decrease costs for consumers and increase the number of plans that meet their needs and wants.

This “accident” was a result of restrictions on the marketplace, and can be fixed by unshackling the marketplace for all Americans.

WHAT ASPECT OF HEALTH CARE DELIVERY IS MOST IN NEED OF REFORM? By Arnold Rosoff, Professor of Health Care Management and Legal Studies

Sam Oldak — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:39:19 +0000

Most Americans agree that Health Care Reform (HCR) is necessary. This apparent consensus evaporates, though, when you ask what aspect of our healthcare system is most in need of reform. It’s difficult, some say impossible, to balance the three essential elements of that system: Quality, Access and Cost (the “three-legged stool,” as it has been called). Many believe that achieving adequate access for all citizens, Universal Health Care (UHC), is the top priority. Approximately 16% of the U.S. population, some 46 million people, are uninsured or underinsured, a situation hard to understand or justify when most other major nations on the planet have universal coverage. However, not all Americans see UHC as the top priority. Many who have health insurance coverage for themselves and their families think the main issue is the constantly rising cost of care. Still others bemoan the variable, uncertain quality of U.S. health care. The high rate of medical error and the increasingly apparent instances of health disparities undermine the claim some make that the U.S. healthcare system is the best in the world.

In my view, although controlling cost and maintaining quality are essential, assuring all U.S. citizens access to an adequate level of health care (UHC) should be the primary goal of healthcare reform. For a nation that values equality of opportunity it is intolerable for a large segment of the population to not have reliable access to basic health services, an essential component of equal opportunity. Why have we tolerated this inequity for so long? A lack of solidarity is perhaps the key factor setting the U.S. apart from the rest of the world – in this regard, at least. Americans don’t seem to believe what most of the world’s other peoples take for granted, that we’re all in the same boat when it comes to health and we must have a healthcare system that serves all with fair, although perhaps not absolute, equality. Why is that? There’s no simple answer. The American position reflects our national history all the way back to colonial times: our deep-seated distrust of government control, our frontier values of self-sufficiency and individual initiative, our leadership in the development of free enterprise and industrial capitalism, and our role throughout the years of the Cold War, when the U.S., as the world’s principal counter-force to the spread of Communism, exalted individual responsibility. Can we now rise above these formative influences and embrace health care as a right of all our citizens?

The U.S. can’t lay claim to having a world-leading healthcare system when so many of our citizens are not regular players in the game. This isn’t just a question of philosophy and political orientation, in other words of how tightly the social fabric is woven and citizens bear responsibility for their fellows. It’s also a practical question. The uninsured and underinsured in our country are entitled to receive health services when they’re urgently needed. EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, requires most U.S. hospitals to provide emergency care; and the cost of such acute, episodic care is borne by all of us through a complex, only partly transparent, web of cost-shifting and cross-subsidizations. But discontinuous, uncoordinated care is inefficient and wasteful in many ways. A properly designed healthcare system could assure adequate care for all Americans at little or no greater cost than what we now pay. This last, though, is a statement of personal belief, not of proven fact. People can, and do, disagree widely on what “properly designed,” “adequate care,” and “little or no greater cost” mean. As with other issues in complex social systems, the devil lies in the details.

The notion that all citizens should have access to basic services and coverage to pay for them goes to the core structure of the healthcare system. It affects whether there should be mandated coverage, in other words whether all who can afford health insurance should be required to have it and pay for it. It also affects whether health insurers should be allowed to exclude people from coverage, or impose exclusions, limitations or surcharges, based on their health status – a practice known as “medical underwriting,” long a tenet of our free-enterprise private health insurance system. As we ponder whether the U.S. should continue to have basically a private or a governmental system, the questions of whether coverage should be mandated and whether medical underwriting should be allowed are “inextricably intertwined.” As Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt so aptly puts it:

“Many Americans oppose such a mandate as an infringement of their personal rights, all the while believing that they have a perfect right to highly expensive, critically needed health care, even when they cannot pay for it. This immature, asocial mentality is rare in the rest of the world. An insurance sector that must insure all comers at premiums that are not contingent on the insured’s health status — a feature President Obama has promised — cannot function for long if people can go without insurance when they are healthy, but are entitled to premiums unrelated to their health status when they fall ill.”

To summarize, the fate of healthcare reform in the U.S. at this critical juncture turns on how we, as a people, perceive the role and responsibility of individual Americans and of our government. That statement is, at the same time, both profound and obvious. How we approach and deal with healthcare reform will show the wisdom and character of our leaders, the strength and flexibility of cherished institutions and, above all, our mettle as a people and a nation. At this time of great moment and challenge, hope and change must be more than political slogans; we must embrace them as national ideals.

Cultural Competency, Community-Based Organizations, and a Resilient Community Landscape-Important Elements of Philadelphia’s Health Care System By Raymond Lum, Professor of Health Management and Policy

admin — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:41:42 +0000

The healthcare landscape of Philadelphia is constantly changing. Often a byproduct of change is the hope for improved health care. Philadelphia’s diverse population brings much richness and uniqueness. It is when this human capital is used to provide culturally competent health care services, when community-based organizations assume a major role, and when the community infrastructure and landscape is strong and resilient when a diverse community such as Philadelphia’s can best provide effective health care services.

Communities and their community based organizations play an important role in providing a spectrum of services that impact everyday life of many. They vary from social, educational, legal, economical and medical programs. For some communities, the health care services of community-based organizations are the linchpin for better health services; they provide health care services that lay below the umbrella of hospitals and other official health care services. They also can galvanize the community to advocate for health care reform. Communities and their respective organizations provide direct and indirect support to individuals and households on personal, public, private and professional levels.

Cultural competency plays an important role in providing healthcare services to a diverse population like Philadelphia’s. It provides a sense of equity and reduces health disparity. The strength of Philadelphia lies in its collaborative nature among established organizations with emerging and existing multi-cultural community-based organizations. It is clear that the vision, passion and drive of these multi-cultural community based organizations along with their collaborating partners are critical for better health services. It is the co-mingling of organizational capital and community human capital that strengthens the capacity for culturally competent practices and health care delivery.

In addition, health services are wide ranging. Organizations need to be able to provide access to services for acute conditions while providing access to those who need to manage chronic conditions. Also, organizations need to be able to address concerns of quality as well as cost to support health care. While ongoing capacity is being built, it is the resilience of the community landscape that provides the energy and will power to advocate for improved health care and navigate the complex health system for improved health care delivery in Philadelphia.

See the other side

Barriers to Health Care Access in Philadelphia By Marla Gold, Dean, Drexel School of Public Health

admin — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:41:27 +0000

One might anticipate that the question “what are the barriers to providing free health care in Philadelphia?” would trigger a thorough analysis of the various factors that could comprise health reform in our City. Such an analysis exceeds the page limits of this newsletter! Achieving health reform on a National level received much attention in the recent election and certainly ranks high on President Obama’s policy agenda. On a national, state and local level, the ideal goal is to ensure health care is available, affordable and accessible to all people who need it. Rather than embark on a detailed analysis of the nuances of our current health care system in Philadelphia, I offer the following points:

Health care is never free. The issue is how to optimally pay for it- who pays and how much? Currently, the majority of people obtain their health care through employer-based insurance plans. However, a significant number of people work in positions where no health benefits are provided, yet their incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid. An increasing unemployment rate is further contributing to the growing pool of uninsured.

The cost of health care has increased exponentially over the past 10 years. Marked advances in medical technology coupled with an aging population and complex, often chronic, diseases have given rise to dramatic increases in the cost of health care. Many of the health care needs we develop come as a result of the choices we freely make or are forced to choose given our circumstances. Tobacco-related diseases and obesity, for example, are major contributors to morbidity.

Prevention is a key component of health care reform. While I agree that health care is a right of all people, preventing, where possible, disease in the first place is an important means of controlling health care costs while keeping more people healthy. It’s important to remember though, that the life circumstances of some people prohibit them from easily being able to make healthy choices. For example, in order to reduce obesity, there is a need to be able to purchase affordable, nutritious food throughout our City. Further, providing a safe environment for children is an essential support of their being able to enjoy outdoor physical activity. The point is that being able to access health care at no cost, while a major and critically important goal, is not the sole answer to ensuring a healthy population.

It is highly unlikely that a City alone can initiate a plan to ensure all of its residents receive “free” health care. Absent a federal plan, states may be able to initiate plans for statewide health reform. Vermont and Massachusetts are perhaps best known for their programs. Pennsylvania however, has been unable to move forward with health reform plans that would seek to provide coverage for all Pennsylvanians. While Governor Rendell has been trying to push his plan for health reform for some time, there is strong disagreement among individual health care providers, hospitals, insurers and the state legislature, among others. Not surprisingly, central to the disagreement is where the money will come from to support a statewide plan. In November, 2003, Philadelphians overwhelmingly voted “yes” to the following ballot question: “Shall Section 5-300 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to declare that because health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity, the City of Philadelphia Health Department shall prepare a plan for universal health care that permits everyone in the City of Philadelphia to obtain decent health care?” It’s of interest that when asked if the City should plan for universal health care, 75% of voters said yes. Providing such care is another issue. The planning process that occurred (http://www.phila.gov/health/), ultimately called for the formation of a health leadership partnership- essentially key stakeholders who could coordinate care for uninsured Philadelphians and best support safety net providers. While the document provides full information concerning the system of health care in Philadelphia, it has yet to result in a system of universal health care.

Philadelphians receive their health care through all of the “usual mechanisms.” Employer-based insurance, Medicaid managed care programs, independent insurance plans, and pubic programs (Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan known as “cover All Kids”). Uninsured City residents can receive free health care via the system of District Health Centers (DHC) that provides comprehensive care, including oral health care services. DHCs can also provide medications through on site pharmacies. In addition to those health centers run by the City, there are several independent centers that can also provide free care. The DHCs have contracts with area hospitals for additional outpatient consultant services that may be needed, as well as inpatient care. The City lacks a public hospital. The current demand for health center services is great and hence the waiting time for routine appointments and related services is often 3 months or longer. The DHC system is a lifeline for many Philadelphians but it cannot possibly handle the growing number of uninsured. Further, in the face of our City’s impending round of budget cuts, it is quite possible that DHC services will be reduced. Sometimes the only way to access needed health care is through local emergency rooms- hence hospitals provide a large amount of so-called uncompensated care.

In sum, there are multiple ways to finance health care and reform at the federal level is high on President Obama’s policy agenda. Only a few states have thus far been able to try to ensure that their residents have access to affordable health care through statewide plans and Pennsylvania is not among them. Without passage of a federal or statewide plan, provision of health care to all Philadelphians remains elusive. What is the most significant barrier to achieving health reform that assures quality health care for all along with an integrated prevention and wellness program in Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania and in the United States? We all are. Creating a fair system of health care that denies no one will ultimately require an entire retooling of our current system and all of us will no doubt be called upon to contribute in some way. There are many stakeholders involved, including insurers, providers, lawmakers, entire health care systems, employers and employees. Certainly the unemployed and uninsured also have much at stake. Understanding that together, we can create a healthier City, State and Nation and taking steps to do so moves us in a direction needed to assure conditions in which people can be healthy. Such assurance is the primary role of public health.

See the other side

Character Trumps Policy in the 2007 Philadelphia Election By Brett Mandel, Executive Director of Philadelphia Forward

admin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:15:35 +0000

For all the talk of “policy” during the election season, voters are much more likely to cast ballots based not on the substance of a candidate’s policies, but on the content of that candidate’s character. The character-trumps-policy dynamic played out in Philadelphia in the 2007 Democratic mayoral primary when former Councilman Michael Nutter overtook businessman Tom Knox in the late stages of the campaign.

Unsatisfied with the state of the city, voters were clearly seeking change and looking for a leader to change the city’s direction. Knox outspent his rivals to tell his story of rising from public housing to become a successful businessman. As the campaign entered the closing weeks, he led in the polls. But, armed with substantial policy papers, Nutter emerged from the field of challengers to vault past Knox to win the election.

Some would suggest this was a victory of substance, given candidate Nutter’s voluminous policy documents. But, with unfettered access to information, voters are overwhelmed with policy information. Because each candidate is able to produce intelligent informational materials and find experts to lend credence to their views, voters end up more uncertain about which policy direction makes the most sense. Thus, they trust their own judgment and the views of people they trust to make an evaluation of character.

Nutter’s policy views differed only slightly from Knox’s. But, voters questioned the character of a man with a very shallow public profile and when candidate Knox made steps on the campaign that didn’t align with his claim to be a reformer, voters gravitated to the ex-Councilman who had been pushing a reform agenda for years. Voters did not choose a candidate whose policies agreed with their own policies over a candidate with alternate policy views. They chose a candidate whose character agreed with his own policies over another candidate whose character they questioned.

Brett Mandel is the Executive Director of Philadelphia Forward. For more information about the work of Philadelphia Forward visit www.philadelphiaforward.org.

See the other side

Elections and Policy By Richard Johnston, Department of Political Science, Penn

admin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:15:12 +0000

Elections matter for policy, but does policy matter for elections? Not always, and when it does the connection is pretty loose. Voters and candidates both do their part to make it so.

Start with voters. It is clear that most voters do not have much detailed policy knowledge, and can even be induced to pronounce on persons, institutions, and policies that do not exist. Where voters express opinions on policy, there is little resonance from debate among elites. Apparent positions on any given question are commonly unconnected to opinions on closely allied questions. Indeed an individual’s opinion at any given moment is only loosely related to the same person’s expressed opinion at another time, even where the survey questions are absolutely identical.

The picture is more reassuring when individuals are pooled, into groups or into the electorate as a whole. Where individuals’ opinions are not very stable, aggregate distributions change slowly, if at all. The change that does occur is interpretable in terms of sensible factors. In the short run, opinion responds to shifts in economic well-being; the current crisis is an example. In the long run, change reflects cultural evolution, as for example with gay rights. In the medium term, opinion on policy interacts with actual policy-making. A cyclical pattern is driven by party control of Congress. As that party enacts its program, it typically overshoots public opinion. This in turn shifts the electorate’s policy mood, such that the party is eventually called to account. The other party then proceeds to overshoot in the opposite direction. Opinion on defense spending is also moved by the sense of external threat. Perception of threat or of policy shift may be as important as reality, and perceptions can be manipulated. And the connection is highly general: what counts is a policy mood, rather than opinion in individual policies. Reward or punishment of individual Representatives or Senators bears little relationship to their policy positioning. In 2006 and 2008, for example, Republicans were punished for overshooting to the right, but within Republican ranks the victims have been the centrists. There are moments when individual Representatives are vulnerable for high-profile behavior, but almost always these are matters of malfeasance, not of substantive policy.

Candidates make their own contribution to the strength or weakness of the opinion-policy link. Candidates often obfuscate, although clarification of the choice is sometimes in the interest of at least one candidate. Negative advertising, notwithstanding its bad reputation, actually helps do this, as negative claims are commonly more truthful than positive ones, which tend to be self-congratulatory puffery. In many House races, however, challengers are so weak that they cannot afford to get their message out. In most Presidential elections, one or both candidates have only a weak national profile or none at all. The classic formulation has been to run for Washington by running against Washington. This makes it hard for even highly-informed voters to impute policy positions to the candidate. This problem is mitigated when an incumbent is running for re-election, and it helps that candidates carry party labels. By itself, the label fills lots of blanks, the more so where parties are polarized. But the label is a stereotype and not always a guide to a candidate’s position on a particular policy.

This year has been unusual in that both Presidential candidates are Senators, each with a national profile. Even so, the campaign was partly a contest over perception: How closely should John McCain be tied to an unpopular incumbent? How closely should Barack Obama be tied to the rest of the Democratic Party? Each candidate went to great lengths in the primaries to detach himself from his party. To the extent that each succeeded, they may have reduced the clarity the choice. Neither campaign really processed the economic crisis, other than to acknowledge that a crisis existed. But then the crisis may illustrate a quite common form of mandate, a mandate to do something, anything—if it works.

Richard Johnston is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. His specialties include elections, public opinion, and representation, with a special interest in campaign dynamics and survey methods. View Professor Johnston’s webpage.

See the other side

Consumers Favor More Healthcare Choices By Nick Smith-Wang of the Penn Republicans

admin — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:42:22 +0000

The United States was founded on a few simple ideals, central to which was the belief in freedom. While the fear at the time was the very real threat from the British monarchy, Americans have always been very protective of their individual freedoms as well. Large government bureaucracies are viewed with skepticism and the majority of Americans have been less than envious as they watched Europe experiment with centralized social programs. Channeling this sentiment, John McCain proposes healthcare reform based on the principles of increased choice and control for the individual. Senator McCain’s healthcare proposal isn’t some pie-in-the-sky fabrication that promises everything to everyone in a timelier manner and at a lesser cost. Americans have seen what happens to their wallets when governments embark on missions of grand expansion and unlimited promises.

Instead, the McCain plan focuses on the individual. This plan understands that patients are aided by having more control, not by taking it away. To offset insurance costs President McCain would offer a direct refundable tax credit, up to $5000 for families, that ensures Americans will be able to select the healthcare plan they prefer instead of being hit up to pay for a plan devised in Washington. No bureaucrat is better equipped to select a person’s health plan than that individual himself.

The McCain plan also proposes to make insurance portable, a common sense solution that frees consumers from healthcare plans that are tied to their current employer. This allows them to retire early, change jobs, or take time off without a change in coverage. Americans will also benefit from the flexibility of a tax-advantaged Health Savings Account. These accounts would allow consumers to avoid taxes on income set aside for medical expenses. Unused funds would roll over and accumulate at the end of the year. Again, the individual is empowered.

Ultimately, no discussion on healthcare is complete without addressing the issue of rising costs. One glance at current government entitlement programs shows us that merely handing over more control to bureaucrats will not control spiraling costs. John McCain’s focus on consumer choice and control will force companies to compete for America’s healthcare dollars, and it is this competition that will be most effective in driving down costs.

After all, it is a sad irony that, just as Europe is introducing market-based solutions to back away from its bloated healthcare systems, there are some who would have us take a sharp turn toward government control. But Americans don’t want their hospitals run like the DMV, and they don’t need a government bureaucrat to stand in the way of access to their doctor. By increasing freedom of choice and restoring control to the consumer, John McCain will make sure Americans will have healthcare tailored to their individual needs.

More on McCain’s policy can be found at JohnMcCain.com

See the other side

Health Care Professionals Favor Single-Payer Insurance By Barry Slaff of the Penn Democrats

admin — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:41:35 +0000

In Insuring America’s Health (2004), the U.S. Institute of Medicine proposes that a health care system is successful when coverage is universal, continuous, affordable, sustainable, and equitable. Health care experts of all stripes agree that such a system can be achieved best through single-payer national health insurance. Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an advocacy organization of 15,000 members across the United States, argues for a comprehensive National Health Insurance Program in which an expanded and improved Medicare-like program funds privately-owned, privately-operated health care facilities. Survey results published this past March in the Annals of Internal Medicine indicate that about 60% of American physicians support such legislation, up 10% from just five years previous. This growing consensus reflects a widespread understanding that large business administrations make private, for-profit health care systems tremendously inefficient: a 2003 study published by the Harvard Medical School found that administrative costs account for a full 31% of health care expenditures in the United States, but just 4% of all Medicare expenditures. That study concludes that private insurers’ and providers’ large administrative tab results primarily from the costs of marketing, underwriting, and managing the minute details of thousands of different insurance plans. Such costs do not exist under a single-payer system.

Savings from for-profit administrative costs help publicly-funded hospitals save lives. Two Canadian Medical Association Journal studies of 26,000 hospitals in Canada and the United States demonstrate that, as reported by PNHP, “for-profits had 19 percent higher costs and 2 percent higher death rates. The authors attribute these defects directly to the for-profit nature of the hospitals: The necessity to generate revenues to satisfy investors, the significantly higher administrative costs and the large executive bonuses, they say, ‘result in limitations of care that adversely affect patient outcomes.’”

Analyses from every angle show that a national health insurance system is economically sustainable. PNHP has calculated that a single-payer insurance program financed by modest tax increases will completely offset the cost of insurance premiums and most medical bills and actually lower most people’s total medical expenses. Congressional Budget Office projections from 2007 indicate that rising health care costs– not a proportionally aging population– comprise by far the greatest hurdle to keeping health care widely accessible, but this concern affects any system, so it makes sense for us to favor the simplest, most efficient option. These comprehensive and favorable outlooks on national health insurance indicate that an American health insurance system will not succumb to the difficulties faced by other countries’ universal insurance models– models which, despite their difficulties, consistently outrank our current system in terms life expectancy, infant mortality, and overall satisfaction with accessibility.

A national health insurance program designed according to the experts’ recommendations will solve most of our problems, but not all of them; for those remaining problems, Congress can pursue additional well-advised reforms. For example, were Congress to also adopt World Health Organization recommendations for encouraging preventative care and promote cost- and life-saving technologies successfully utilized by our own Veterans’ Administration, our country’s health care outlook would see additional significant improvements.

PNHP’s national health insurance proposal is too well-supported by facts and by experts for our lawmakers to responsibly postpone action any longer. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee for president, advocates for a program very similar to the one PNHP supports, though he does not go as far as PHNP in supporting single-payer. On the other hand, John McCain, the Republican Party nominee, has submitted to the popular misconception that more for-profit competition will improve the quality of health insurance. To responsibly serve their constituents, elected officials must work to overcome this misconception and advocate for policies that a growing consensus of health professionals say will improve health care.

More on Obama’s policy can be found at BarackObama.com

See the other side

Reforming income tax laws will boost Pennsylvania’s families out of poverty

admin — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:37:49 +0000

Amidst all the political debate over government poverty-reducing policy, sometimes minor changes make the biggest difference. Tax law, although it may seem a few steps removed, can be one of the most effective means of redistributing wealth to the portion of our society that will receive the highest marginal benefit. The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), is one example. The federal EITC was created in 1975 for two purposes: (1) providing a guaranteed minimum income for working Americans and (2) stimulating the economy. Three years later, Congress made it a permanent part of the tax code. Today, it is one of America’s largest, most successful anti-poverty tools.

The WPBA’s policy research this semester highlights the effectiveness of earned income tax credits in reducing poverty, advocating the adoption of an earned income tax credit at the state level as a clear step in the right direction in the fight against poverty in Pennsylvania.

To read the first version of the WPBA’s policy proposal for the Pennsylvania State Legislature, Click Here.