Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. health care legislation recently passed into law?
TLT Sounding Board May 2010
www.canstockphoto.com
The United States has the largest economy of any single nation in the world, and how it—and the lubricants industry—will be impacted by the recently enacted U.S. health care reform is the trillion-dollar question. Supporters of the legislation say it delivers a much needed benefit at a time when many people have lost their jobs and, consequently, their health insurance. They maintain it reduces the federal deficit by $138 billion during the next 10 years. Detractors say the bill does not reduce the cost of health care and hits businesses in the pocketbook when they can least afford it. They claim it will add more than half a trillion dollars of debt in the same 10 years. However it unfolds, the issue certainly struck a chord with TLT readers, some 228 of which responded to this month’s survey.
Approve
I don't believe that quality health care should be a privilege of the wealthy.
May not be the best bill, but we cannot go on with no plan. Something (in this case) is better than nothing.
Everyone needs health care coverage.
I approve because insurance companies cannot turn you down for pre-existing conditions, children can be on your policy until they turn 27, there’s no life-time limit cap, and illegal aliens cannot get it.
Nothing perfect; however, doing nothing to our existing health care system is not a solution in the long run. Let’s give the new legislation a chance.
It seems reasonable that all U.S. citizens should have access to health care regardless of income.
This is only a good first step.
Everyone in the U.S. should have access to health care. We are the only industrialized democracy without that right for everyone.
Medicare works, why can’t this?
This will provide insurance coverage for the greatest number of Americans for the least overall cost.
High numbers of uninsured people represent a public health risk. Without regulation, insurance corporations are obligated only by the profit motive, counter to public interest. The law helps stabilize and limit insurance costs, which will help small businesses afford to hire people.
It reaches the poorer of the society. It also puts a spanner in the working of private medical insurance firms and prevents exploitation of people requiring medical help.
For me it is an issue of compassion. We have heard of too many people who went bankrupt or died without health care.
Health care is bankrupting this country and we need a new plan to get it under control.
It's not perfect by any means, but waiting to take action is not a reasonable option.
That 30-40 million U.S. citizens are without health care cannot be justified. Also, thousands of families are forced into bankruptcy each week due to the current health care system.
Extended coverage for college students, pre-existing condition limitations.
Too many people in this country do not have access to decent health care. This is unacceptable in the richest country in the world. Right now indigent people get care anyway. Either way the taxpayer pays.
Versus the alternative, which was really to do nothing, this isn’t that bad.
The system as it stood was broken. There’s a reason why insurance companies are building all the nice high rises and every hospital in the area is adding new wings. Currently, in one way or another, the average, hardworking employee is footing the bill for the uninsured. It may take a while, but something needed to be done.
As a Canadian, basic health services have helped all citizens. Our health care system is slowly becoming two-tiered, but it still runs more economically than the U.S.’s per citizen. If a person’s health is not cared for, they can have difficulties contributing to the health of the economy.
Wholly beneficial and much overdue. Will reduce costs to industry in the long-term if developed further.
I am a cancer survivor, and I am otherwise uninsurable. My 23-yearold son is working a temp job with no insurance since my husband’s company took him off. We need access to insurance for everyone.
It attempts to provide general health care to a larger percent of the population.
The main Thing is that it gives health care to 30 million people who have not had it until now.
Help for the needy.
The legislation is certainly imperfect but at least it provides an initial attempt at dealing with the disparity of medical care in this country. Insurance companies have used the pre-existing condition clause to avoid paying on policies far too often (once is too often).
It is a disgrace that the leading industrialized nation in the world pays 17% of GDP for health care vs. 10% of GDP for European nations with a single-payer system and that our nation leads the industrialized world in people without health care.
It is a step in the right direction and better than our present state of health care distribution.
Millions of Americans cannot afford health care or afford it at the expense of other necessities. I find it curious, no appalling, that the people opposed to the health care legislation are the ones that already have decent affordable health care.
It provides health care for all Americans.
It is time to make America a better place to live.
At some point in life, people may lose health insurance for various reasons. We need some type of insurance plan that covers these situations.
It is time that we join the rest of the civilized world and take care of the sick!
(1) More people covered and cuts emergency room costs (2.) sets standards for the insurance industry, (3.) forces more healthy people to be covered and premiums should go down, (4.) eliminates antitrust exemptions for insurance companies. And for what it didn’t do—meddle with suits against bad doctors. There is only one way to remove them and that is to make them pay when they mess up. Unfortunately the present system penalizes all doctors with high premiums. And lastly, this bill could have done a lot more for probably the same cost to the public by having the public option.
It is time for people to have insurance when they are ill and not have to worry about being cancelled. It is time to end life-time caps on the insurance benefits. It is time for families not to go into financial ruin because they get ill.
It is a progress for people which should be the aim of any government!
Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the recently passed U.S. health care bill?
Approve
43%
Disapprove
57%
Based on responses from 228 TLT readers.
Disapprove
I disapprove of fiscal irresponsibility, and this bill is conspicuously irresponsible.
First, I believe the bill is unconstitutional—it is requiring citizens to buy a service. Secondly, I believe this bill will create a deficit that will put this country in an even greater economic crisis.
The government is becoming too involved in private industry and in our lives. It increases taxes and the deficit and lays the groundwork for complete governmental takeover of the health care industry through the use of the insurance exchanges in 2014. Why would an employer pay for health insurance for employees when the government is giving it away for free?
Do not want government to interfere in my personal affairs.
I disapprove because I don’t believe it will reduce the deficit while things are so economically tough for so many Americans and companies right now. I would rather see a stronger focus on fixing the economy and getting Americans sustainable jobs than fixing health care. I believe the health care bill will only increase the strain on the economy and prolong any sort of recovery.
Who will pay for it and how? Taxes! Increased deficit!
It's going to cost jobs.
It will cause the average American to see a very large increase in taxes at all levels. Beware of a VAT tax on top of your normal federal tax.
The current Social Security and Medicare system should be fixed first, then we should balance the budget, and then we should look at a new health care system.
This was counter to the way the health care bill was passed since it was greater than 2,500 pages long. With a situation that complex, it should have been broken into smaller, straightforward steps and not allowing even the illusion of earmarks and pork spending to be included.
U.S. citizens never got a chance to review. The public was told there would be five days to review, and 36 hours later it was signed.
The health care bill is too costly in this economy and has entirely too many special interest group accommodations.
Besides expanding the government, which we do not need, the bill is full of pork that is unrelated to health care, using favors for votes.
Federal government programs invariably lead to poorer products at higher costs (tribology research funding notwithstanding).
Adds instead of fixes problems.
It is another step closer to becoming a socialistic society. This will put a huge burden on individual states as well as private business owners.
The bill addresses who gets coverage and does little to manage the actual cost of healthcare, specifically malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits.
Too many unresolved issues. No tort reform. Pushed through too quickly. Some aspects are OK, but more should have been resolved before passing.
The bill is a monster in costs! No one goes without health care now, so what’s the point?
Government-run medical care and government-controlled benefits is not a solution. Medical care in the U.S. got that good because it was free of government bureaucracy.
Unconstitutional redistribution of wealth. Reduction of freedoms. Congress exempted itself.
The legislation expands the government bureaucracy and entitlement programs that increase the federal deficit which is already threatening the financial stability of the nation.
It costs way too much and establishes an entitlement program which will bankrupt the country.
Votes had to be bought to get it passed, and I think there will be plenty in that 2,400-page monstrosity that will shock the masses.
The legislation does nothing to get to the root of the high costs of healthcare. Having worked in health care for 20 years, I have seen the waste in unnecessary tests ordered to protect doctors from lawsuits. There is also significant cost for honest providers to comply with all of the rules in place to attempt to keep unscrupulous companies and profiteers from bilking the health care system.
It does not address tort reform, competitive bids across state line, the waste in hospitals, funding and waste due to poor management and corruption.
Do not want to pass massive debt onto my kids and grandkids.
Budget Buster. Unclear costs and benefits.
Too many unknowns and too much giveaway.
The amount of information provided to the general public was limited.
Who will pay the bill, and what did they fix?
This is the disastrous bill. It will raise taxes, increase the deficit, increase health insurance premiums and decrease the quality of health care.
Basically, I do not want to pay more in taxes to purchase health insurance for others. I pay enough taxes as it is.
Takes $500 billion from Medicare while lowering the percentage paid of the doctors’ billing. This at a time when the Baby Boomers are starting to retire, thus putting a strain on Medicare in addition to the possible mass retirements of doctors or their unwillingness to take on new Medicare patients.
Does not address issue of tort reform. No bipartisanship, no compromise. Too much special dealing, too little transparency.
Do you believe the new health care legislation will reduce the federal deficit during the next 10 years or increase it?
Reduce the deficit
33%
Increase the deficit
67%
Based on responses from 228 TLT readers.
Editor’s Note: Sounding Board is based on an e-mail survey of 13,000 TLT readers. Views expressed are those of the respondents and do not reflect the opinions of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. STLE does not vouch for the technical accuracy of opinions expressed in Sounding Board, nor does inclusion of a comment represent an endorsement of the technology by STLE.