26 Comments
Community Health House is hosting a health policy debate in Wallach Lounge from 12-2 pm. The event is cosponsored by CU Dems, CUCR, CU Debate, Health Leads, and the Phoenix Project. There will be free lunch provided by Havana Central. Bwog was interested to hear more about how health policy relates to Columbia students, and so asked CU Dems and CUCR for a preview of today’s debate.
CU Dems:
We think that everyone in America should have access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay. We believe that families should have to worry that they’ll go bankrupt, that their kids will get kicked of their plans if they get sick, or that they need to put off basic preventative care because they can’t afford it. That’s why the Affordable Care Act is so important. It’s the first major piece of healthcare reform legislation in over forty years, and it provides vital protections to every American regardless, of wealth, gender, age, or sexual orientation. Obamacare provides health insurance to 30 million people, including 3 million young people and students. It bans discrimination based on preexisting conditions and stops insurance companies from kicking people off the plans if they actually get sick. It bans insurance companies from charging women more for healthcare and ends discrimination against transgender people in the healthcare system. It gives women more control over their healthcare decisions and ensures all women have free access to contraception, and ensure that everyone has access to vital preventative services. Obamacare makes healthcare more affordable, more accessible, and moves us much closer to universal care for all, and every single person in this country benefits from healthcare reform.
CUCR:
College students find themselves at a particularly interesting junction when considering President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and its implications. We know that entitlement programs, once created, are damn near impossible to change, let alone end (think Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security). So in looking at the ACA we must remember that these requirements will likely be upon us for the rest of our lives. That means 17 distinct taxes that will increase our hospital insurance payroll tax by 25%, charge us 40% on so-called Cadillac plans (you know, the ones that cover preventative care), tax our doctors and hospitals for importing necessary medical equipment, and—as if that wasn’t enough—tax us even more if we decide not to purchase health insurance! It means limiting deductibles while raising premiums 45% on those 18-24, and 35% on those 25-29. It means adding $2.3 trillion dollars to the federal deficit by 2023. And—to my Democrat friends—it means letting unelected federal bureaucrats decide what “minimum benefits” are, putting abortion coverage for low-income Americans in jeoparady. President Obama has made efforts to woo young people to his plan by allowing you to stay on your parents premiums. But for those of us whose parents don’t have health insurance (mine don’t) or who plan on growing older than 26, the costs quickly start to outweigh the benefits.
There is an alternative. The Romney Ryan plan, in addition to promising to repeal the 2400 page monster that is Obamacare, pledges to actually save us money in the long run. It allows for strategic cuts to Medicare through vouchers and slowly raising the minimum age. It offers free market alternatives that lower premiums, like allowing you to buy insurance across state lines. It gives states the freedoms to develop programs that best suit their citizens through block grants and more flexible federal standards. The downside? You might get booted off your parents’ plan at 25, not 26. I guess they had to draw the line somewhere.
As the citizens who will carry the burden of the ACA the longest, it is imperative that we openly and intelligently evaluate the merits of the two plans. On November 6th, we effectively choose between a plan that inexplicably both cuts our benefits and raises our taxes, versus one that offers a free market strategy for lowering premiums and increasing coverage. Fortunately, unlike that multiple choice question on your Gulati midterm, this decision is easy.
Nashoba Santhanam
President, CUCR
ideological weapons by Shutterstock
Loading …
26 Comments
@Van Owen This is gay…
@may I quote? “And—to my Democrat friends—it means letting unelected federal bureaucrats decide what “minimum benefits” are, putting abortion coverage for low-income Americans in jeoparady.”
@Barnard student '13 And of course woman’s rights is not even mentioned by the CUCR, or as I like to put it, Columbia University Misogynistic Pig Republicans. Pathetic yet again.
@CC Since when did woman’s rights get confused with the right to kill unborn babies, or the right to make someone pay for your stuff? List of actually important woman’s rights: the right to vote, equality under the law, the right to not be stoned to death for getting raped or cheating, etc. You get my point. Women have it better in this country than any other country in the world.
@Anonymous everyone please downvote this jerk.
@CC Is this typically how liberals react when faced with a dissenting opinion? They call the person names and cry to others for help?
@Anonymous Liberalism is a religion to these people. They are ideologues in search of a utopian, statist society. Anything that threatens the momentum toward utopia must be destroyed. This ideology arises from a mixture of arrogance and ignorance. Barnard Student ’13, you are a perfect embodiment of this attitude. I would like you to tell me (without name calling) why Republicans are anti women? Abortion you say? Women are split evenly in their support for abortion just as men are. There is no distributional difference. How about access to free birth control? Let me ask you something, Barnard Student ’13, why birth control? Why not free mammograms? Why not free visits to the OBGYN? More broadly, last time I checked, women get sick too. They get heart disease, diabetes, cancer. Why then do the Democrats believe women want birth control more than any other preventative care? Maybe Republicans are anti women because they don’t support equal pay for equal work. Barnard Student ’13, if you knew a lick of history, you’d know that under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, employers are required to compensate employees equally for the same job and the same hours worked as well as quality. But what about the Lilly Ledbetter Act? This is where you, Barnard Student ’13, are uninformed. Do you even know what the Act does? Of course not as it is just one of your party’s talking points. The Lilly Ledbetter Act extends the amount of time under which an employee can file a wage discrimination suit. The previous window of opportunity was 180 days from the first occurrence. Now, the window of opportunity is virtually forever. You can see how this is a slip and fall lawyer’s dream — more crony Capitalism. Under the statute, only 32 cases have been filed since 2010. Basically, this act has done nothing but provide headaches to employers and opportunity to ambulance chasers. As the cool kids say these days — Truth.
@why is a barnard student here
@Anonymous @Barnard student ’13: You know Nashoba is pro-choice, right?
@Anonymous You know Nashoba and half of CUCR’s board is pro-choice, right?
@The Dark Hand i see no mention of the most pressing issue in this election: that of the unfortunate continued existence of the spec. everyone knows that spec exerts a terrible influence on our community and society as a whole and yet neither party is brave enough to face this pressing issue at hand and stand up to the evil spec. that is why this election i am writing in the third party that really cares about the issues that matter to me and other every day citizens the most. this election day, write in the cloaked mask. his bravery is unmatched as evidenced by his willingness to face the powerful entity of spec and working hard to bring it to its knees as editor-in-chief of the his powerful blog. thousands are already members and following the progress of overturning the societal power dynamic which has placed spec at the top and pulling all the strings. a vote for democrats or a vote for republicans is a vote for spec. this year, choose the truth that spec does in fact sucks, choose the cloaked mask.
@The Light Hand i see no mention of the most pressing issue in this election: that of the unfortunate continued existence of bwog. everyone knows that bwog exerts a terrible influence on our community and society as a whole and yet neither party is brave enough to face this pressing issue at hand and stand up to the evil bwog. that is why this election i am writing in the third party that really cares about the issues that matter to me and other every day citizens the most. this election day, write in the uncloaked mask. his bravery is unmatched as evidenced by his willingness to face the powerful entity of bwog and working hard to bring it to its knees as editor-in-chief of the his powerful blog. thousands are already members and following the progress of overturning the societal power dynamic which has placed bwog at the top and pulling all the strings. a vote for democrats or a vote for republicans is a vote for bwog. this year, choose the truth that bwog does in fact sucks, choose the uncloaked mask.
long live spec!
@Masked Hamburger Helper i see no mention of the most pressing issue in this election: that of the unfortunate continued existence of clean water. everyone knows that clean water exerts a terrible influence on our community and society as a whole and yet neither party is brave enough to face this pressing issue at hand and stand up to the evil potability. that is why this election i am writing in the third party that really cares about the issues that matter to me and other every day citizens the most. this election day, write in the clean watery masked fappiness. his bravery is unmatched as evidenced by his willingness to face the powerful entity of bwog and working hard to bring it to its knees as editor-in-chief of the his powerful blog. thousands are already members and following the progress of overturning the societal power dynamic which has placed clean water at the top and pulling all the strings. a vote for democrats or a vote for republicans is a vote for bwog. this year, choose the truth that clean water does in fact sucks, choose the uncloaked mask. long live mao!
@Anonymous degenerate liberals
@nashoba is a beast
@bias? I find it interesting that the Dems statement is on the front page while CUCR’s is buried after the jump. Just sayin.
@Anonymous Well we do go to a communist school after all. To all you nonbelievers remember that Columbia housed the Institute for Social Research from 1934-1951.
@Anonymous I think they put them in alphabetical party order. Hahaha
@i chalked it up to alphabetical order
@Alex It’s because I’m biased.
@Anonymous It’s funny cuz Alex’s roommate is the President of CUCR
@Anonymous As usual, the Republican response is far more thoughtful and logical. Why is it that the document on which the entire framework of our nation was founded is only six pages while this piece of legislation is longer than the Bible?
@Ron Paul absolutely. I find it despicable that anyone would vote for laws which are long. To counteract this, I’ve proposed a system where our laws would be replaced by single sentences. For example, our entire compendium of criminal statutes regarding the classification, prosecution, and sentencing of all the various forms of homicide can be replaced by the sentence “Don’t kill people”. Think about how much more efficient our country would be. We would finally be in a country where the everyday men can understand their own laws. This would usher in a new era of transparency and citizen involvement in government.
@Anonymous Oh look we got a funny guy over here. Dr. Paul seems to think this is a joke. He believes it is funny when politicians vote on legislation they haven’t read. Also, in his own insecurity, Dr. Paul has attempted to cover up the fact that the law is a terrible law, and has made a mockery of the subject by intentionally misunderstanding the underlying point. What’s next Dr. Paul? Big Bird or Binders? You sir are a drone.
@Ron Paul Hey now, our libel laws would be reduced to “don’t insult people”, so you better be careful what you say. Do not think the underlying point has escaped me, just because I’m not a “mainstream” republican candidate. I understand that laws which are too long are just part of the picture. We take a universal stand against supporting things that you haven’t read in their entirety. For example, starting after the third year of our mandate, it will become illegal to vote for a candidate if you haven’t read their life transcript. We see this not only as a direct mitigator of harm, but also a new system of incentives for candidates. Candidates who wish to be voted for must spend the majority of their life living an acetic lifestyle, saying close to nothing, except on issues of sure gravity. Instead of this pathetic mishmash of candidates who have said any old thing over the course of their lifetime (who has time to read through the transcript of every order they made at the drive-through?) instead the free market will create an elite class of uber-candidates, born and bred for their intended purpose, speaking sparingly, built to rule. Surely with them in charge, we won’t have rhetorical imbeciles still walking the political landscape (ahem).
@anon Yes, agreed. In fact, we should take a cue from ancient athenian democracy and require that all laws be short enough to be immediately chiseled into stone by their legislative proponents. Finally, a solution to logrolling (or more summer internships in DC).