Reform Moves Ahead

My Stage Three blog post is critiquing an editorial, “Reform Moves Ahead,” from the Opinion section of The New York Times. It was published on July 18, 2010 and none of the editorials on The New York Times website had authors published.

The New York Times being a more liberal newspaper, the author’s audience is liberals or people leaning left, at the least. Because the author is an author for an established national newspaper, he must have reputation and credibility within the writing and journalism industry. However, I am not aware of his experience in politics or health care. But, as this is an editorial, I can see where he established his opinion, and then ran with it.

In the article, the author is making the argument that the health care reform bill, which was passed just a few months ago, has been making progress, that it has not been easy for Administration to get to this point, and that insurance companies are the bad guys. The author makes sure that Republicans are acknowledged in their plan “to file(d) suit to nullify two important requirements of the new law” and that “The White House will have to keep pressing back and keep explaining why reform is in the clear interest of the nation.” He makes the Republicans sound like toddlers that you have to “keep” repeating explanations to. The author calls insurance companies out by describing their actions as “indefensible,” when they rescind coverage after someone falls ill or for not “covering children with pre-existing conditions.” People will instantly be against insurance companies when they read that. It does not make any sense to withhold health care from sick people, especially children. It seems that significant progress has been made in the area of purchasing prescription drugs and the author names a few actions that have already been taken or will be taken soon with drugs. The author touches on the difficulties of agreeing on the definition of “care” and opening temporary high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions in the insurance world. He then also talks about the employer aspect of the whole issue, as he has already mentioned the insurance companies and everyday people. The government and administration sounds like the good guy because they are offering “tax credit to help defray the cost of insuring their workers” and implementing a new program that will ease employers to insure retirees. Lastly, the author sarcastically supports President Obama’s decision to appoint a health care expert to lead the Center of Medicaid and Medicare Services. He says there is no one to sign on crucial decisions and to take care of the happenings at the agency.

I think providing health care for everyone is the right thing to do; it is heartbreaking if someone who is sick is denied treatment because he cannot afford it. I know the costs and logistics of the health care bill will continuously be debated, and money is the main reason for all the argument. But I feel that people and relationships are more important. The author of this editorial can support certain outcomes of the legislation and argue against others; some of it, like the bit about insurance companies, is entertaining. His view is interesting and sparks good conversation, as proven by the comments on the article.