The Battle Over Health Care: What Obama's Reform Means for America's Future

( 1 )

Overview

As the most substantial health care reform in almost half a century, President Obama's health care overhaul was as historic as it was divisive. In its aftermath, the debate continues.

Drawing on decades of experience in health care policy, health care delivery reform, and economics, Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Prasad Singh provide a non-partisan analysis of the reform and what it means for America and its future. The authors shine a light on truths that have been hidden behind ...

See more details below
Hardcover
$20.87
BN.com price
(Save 19%)$26.00 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (24) from $1.99   
  • New (11) from $15.83   
  • Used (13) from $1.99   
The Battle Over Health Care: What Obama's Reform Means for America's Future

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$14.49
BN.com price
(Save 44%)$25.99 List Price

Overview

As the most substantial health care reform in almost half a century, President Obama's health care overhaul was as historic as it was divisive. In its aftermath, the debate continues.

Drawing on decades of experience in health care policy, health care delivery reform, and economics, Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Prasad Singh provide a non-partisan analysis of the reform and what it means for America and its future. The authors shine a light on truths that have been hidden behind a raucous debate marred by political correctness on both sides of the aisle. They show how health care reform was enacted only with the consent of health insurance companies, drug firms, device manufacturers, hospitals, and other special interests that comprise the medical-industrial complex, which gained millions of new customers with the stroke of a pen. Health care businesses in a market-oriented system are designed to generate revenue, which runs counter to affordable health care.

Gibson and Singh take a broader perspective on health care reform not as a single issue but as part of the economic life of the nation. The national debate unfolded while the banking and financial system teetered on the brink of collapse. The authors trace uncanny similarities between the health care industry and the unfettered banking and financial sector. They argue that a fast-changing global economy will have profound implications for the country's economic security and the jobs and health care benefits that come with it, and they predict that global competition will shape the future of employer-provided insurance more than the health care reform law.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly
Health care expert Gibson and World Bank economist Singh (coauthors of Wall of Silence) present a well-argued view that the heralded Obama health care reforms may be adverse to the public interest, since by “plowing even more funding into health care, the reform law cements inefficiency in the system.” The reforms increase insurers’ market share, giving them access to 16 million new customers beginning in 2014, but proposed subsidies for individual insurance policies simply foster greater demand, enabling continuing cost increases. By 2030, the authors estimate that health care will consume 25 percent of the country’s income, and comprehensive insurance will be unaffordable, even with subsidies. In passionate language, they prescribe possible remedies, but many are the usual suspects, for example, tackling fraud in health care spending. Meanwhile, the prognosis that the baby boomers will overwhelm Medicare might induce the despairing reader to take two aspirins. But don’t call the doctor in the morning; “a conservative estimate is that 225,000 people die every year from preventable harm in the health care system.” As one observer says: “‘They harm you and they bill you for it.’” (Apr.)
Foreword Reviews
Any well informed person who is absolutely convinced that neither they nor any member of their family, nor anyone close to them, will ever have need of a doctor, hospital, or prescription drugs during the next one hundred years can ignore this book. The same goesfor anyone who has no interest whatsoever in how or whether the American system of self-government works. Otherwise, The Battle Over Health Care: What Obama’s Reform Means for America’s Future should top everyone’s reading list. It is a thoroughly researched and well-written discussion of the most serious issues currently facing this country. Rosemary Gibson is a recognized leader in health care reform. She is the author of several books on the subject, including the noted The Wall of Silence, also co-authored by Janardan Prasad Singh, an economist at the World Bank who has been a member of an advisory council to several prime ministers of India. The authors say, “We wrote this book for the American people. They are the only special interest we represent.” Gibson and Singh go on to demonstrate that their audience is the only group that was not part of the debate over health-care reform resulting in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known derisively as “Obamacare.” The Battle Over Health Care is divided into five parts. Initially, the authors describe the process by which the dominant players in the health-care industry wrangled favorable concessions from congress and the White House. The next part explains how the current health-care system is deficient in providing quality, affordable health care to Americans and how it will be overwhelmed by the demands of the newly insured. Section three compares the health-care system to Wall Street, wherein Gibson and Singh indict the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors, and health insurance companies for being more interested in profits than in delivering better health care to patients. “For all the money spent on health care in the United States, life expectancy is no better than that of Cuba.” Gibson and Singh take on conventional wisdom in part four, dealing with the relationship of the national debt to health-care costs. They assert: “Progress to reduce the ominous burden of the federal debt can be made only if health-care spending is reduced.” In the final part the case is made for real reform in the health-care system. Gibson and Singh propose ten steps toward that end, including authorizing the federal government to negotiate drug prices and more regulation of the health-care industry patterned after that used for aviation and highway safety. “The solution,” they believe, “is to reduce the health care industry’s dependency on the blind generosity of the public.” The battle over health-care reform will rage on. It likely will be a major issue in the 2012 elections. Every citizen should be informed on these complicated, crucial issues. Gibson and Singh’s contribution is a wonderful place to start that education.
Booklist
Critics of President Obama’s health care reform will find much to love in this book by two alumni of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. The duo give depressing accounts of backstage deals that Democrats made with insurers and pharmaceutical companies to get the legislation through Congress. A typical line is “the White House was willing to give lucrative favors to the health care industry in return for support of the president’s gamble to reform health care.” (Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010.) They do note a few immediate benefits, such as no lifetime limits on benefits for sick people. But mainly, they point out flaws in health care reform and in the U.S. medical system, such as that Medicare’s payments favor expensive specialists over primary care doctors, which leads to spiraling health care costs. The book is full of interesting statistics (e.g., about $8,000 is spent per person per year on health care). Though biased, this treatise will make even hard-core liberals pause and say, “Goodness!”
The Washington Times
Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Prasad Singh, the authors of The Battle Over Health Care, have spent more than 30 years working in the health care policy field, so they are extremely well-qualified to unravel the health care onion, which has many layers and many tearful moments, and to recommend solutions on reform....[The authors] raise a lot of important issues, and the book is worthy of a read.
New York Journal of Books
Bravo to Gibson and Singh who have managed to discuss complexity and keep it simple enough to remain engaging. Who should read this book -- everyone. Read it to find out how American taxpayers, insurance premium payers, and patients are literally getting mistreated....No one is spared from this clean analysis of the U.S. health care morass and that makes it a fair nonpartisan review of an important national resource.
Courier–Journal
This book is excellent reading and gives anyone pause who thinks that monopolies will allow industry to improve quality and lower costs for the consumers.
ForeWord Reviews
Any well informed person who is absolutely convinced that neither they nor any member of their family, nor anyone close to them, will ever have need of a doctor, hospital, or prescription drugs during the next one hundred years can ignore this book. The same goesfor anyone who has no interest whatsoever in how or whether the American system of self-government works. Otherwise, The Battle Over Health Care: What Obama’s Reform Means for America’s Future should top everyone’s reading list. It is a thoroughly researched and well-written discussion of the most serious issues currently facing this country. Rosemary Gibson is a recognized leader in health care reform. She is the author of several books on the subject, including the noted The Wall of Silence, also co-authored by Janardan Prasad Singh, an economist at the World Bank who has been a member of an advisory council to several prime ministers of India. The authors say, “We wrote this book for the American people. They are the only special interest we represent.” Gibson and Singh go on to demonstrate that their audience is the only group that was not part of the debate over health-care reform resulting in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known derisively as “Obamacare.” The Battle Over Health Care is divided into five parts. Initially, the authors describe the process by which the dominant players in the health-care industry wrangled favorable concessions from congress and the White House. The next part explains how the current health-care system is deficient in providing quality, affordable health care to Americans and how it will be overwhelmed by the demands of the newly insured. Section three compares the health-care system to Wall Street, wherein Gibson and Singh indict the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors, and health insurance companies for being more interested in profits than in delivering better health care to patients. “For all the money spent on health care in the United States, life expectancy is no better than that of Cuba.” Gibson and Singh take on conventional wisdom in part four, dealing with the relationship of the national debt to health-care costs. They assert: “Progress to reduce the ominous burden of the federal debt can be made only if health-care spending is reduced.” In the final part the case is made for real reform in the health-care system. Gibson and Singh propose ten steps toward that end, including authorizing the federal government to negotiate drug prices and more regulation of the health-care industry patterned after that used for aviation and highway safety. “The solution,” they believe, “is to reduce the health care industry’s dependency on the blind generosity of the public.” The battle over health-care reform will rage on. It likely will be a major issue in the 2012 elections. Every citizen should be informed on these complicated, crucial issues. Gibson and Singh’s contribution is a wonderful place to start that education.
Health Affairs
Gibson and Singh have offered an incisive diagnosis of the problems surrounding health care in America, the urgency of dealing with them, and an outline of steps that could get us on a better footing.
Bangor Daily News
“The News that Eastern Maine Medical Center plans to sell its three outpatient dialysis clinics to one of the country’s largest for-profit dialysis companies raises issue that will affect the health and well being of Mainers”

“Health care is personal and all the more reason that Mainers should know the facts”

The Columbus Dispatch
“It would be well for those truly interested in the health-care debate to read the nonpartisan and highly informative book The battle Over Health Care: What Obama’s Reform Means for America’s Future by Rosemary Gibson and Janadan Singh”

“This book will be an eye-opener for anyone who reads it”

Library Journal
Health-care expert Gibson and World Bank economist Singh (coauthors, Wall of Silence: The Untold Story of the Medical Mistakes That Kill and Injure Millions of Americans) have produced a timely, cogent analysis of the high-stakes debate over health-care reform legislation. Veterans of conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, the authors parse critical policy concerns in this well-reasoned five-part book. Part 1 addresses the expedient political deals made by the Obama administration and the health-care industry that resulted in a significantly compromised version of the legislation. Part 2 cautions that the current health-care system cannot accommodate the increase in newly insured patients. In Part 3, the authors analogize the collapse of the banking industry and the imminent collapse of the health-care industry, both fueled by dangerous bubbles. Part 4 ties economic security to health-care security, while Part 5 asserts that, like its finance counterpart, the health-care industry privatizes gains and socializes losses. Finally, the authors advocate "careful pruning of the enormous inefficiency and waste in health care." VERDICT A provocative, informative book directed toward a general audience, but especially policymakers and health-care professionals. It's certain to appeal to readers of such books as Paul Starr's Remedy and Reaction: The Peculiar American Struggle Over Health Care Reform.—Lynne F. Maxwell, Villanova Univ. Sch. of Law Lib., PA
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781442214491
  • Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
  • Publication date: 4/16/2012
  • Pages: 190
  • Sales rank: 1,454,717
  • Product dimensions: 6.10 (w) x 9.10 (h) x 1.00 (d)

Meet the Author

Rosemary Gibson is a distinguished leader in U.S. health care. At the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, she designed and led national initiatives to improve health care. She was vice president of the Economic and Social Research Institute and served as senior associate at the American Enterprise Institute. She is principal author of Wall of Silence and The Treatment Trap. She serves as an editor for the Archives of Internal Medicine series, Less is More.

Janardan Prasad Singh is an economist at the World Bank. He has been a member of the International Advisory Council for several prime ministers of India. He worked on economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute and on foreign policy at the United Nations. He has written extensively on health care, social policy, and economic development. He was a member of the Board of Contributors of the Wall Street Journal. He is co-author of Wall of Silence and The Treatment Trap.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

The Battle Over Health Care

What Obama's Reform Means for America's Future
By Rosemary Gibson Janardan Prasad Singh

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.

Copyright © 2012 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-4422-1449-1


Chapter One

Health Insurers: What Did They Get?

One of the biggest achievements of the health care overhaul was a commitment from health insurance companies to stop their most offensive and inhumane practices that angered and frustrated millions of Americans. Why did they agree to stop? After all, they aren't charitable enterprises.

Insurance company abuses were chronicled at a June 16, 2009, congressional hearing chaired by Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California. During the hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, members of Congress heard testimony about how health insurance companies treated many of their policyholders.

The committee had requested information from fifty state insurance commissioners and three health insurance companies that offer individual health insurance policies: Assurant Health, WellPoint, and UnitedHealth Group. With 116,000 pages of documents and interviews with numerous policyholders who had had their coverage terminated or "rescinded" after they became sick, the committee let the world see a glimpse of the abuse.

An Illinois man diagnosed with lymphoma had his health insurance policy terminated because he failed to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him. The company denied him chemotherapy and a life-saving stem cell transplant. After direct intervention from the Illinois Attorney General's Office, his insurance was reinstated and he continued with treatment.

A Texas woman diagnosed with a lump in her breast had her health insurance cut off when the company investigated the patient's medical history and found that she did not disclose that she had been diagnosed previously with unrelated osteoporosis and bone density loss. The company rescinded her policy and refused to pay for medical care for the breast lump.

Americans are already benefiting from the law. Insurers agreed to stop denying coverage to children with preexisting medical conditions. People who are sick have no lifetime limits on benefits. Children can stay on their parents' family plan until age twenty-six. Insurance plans must offer preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charge. Women can go to obstetricians and gynecologists without a referral from another doctor.

Beginning in 2014, insurers agreed to stop canceling policies when policyholders become ill. They will stop denying insurance to adults with preexisting medical conditions and charging higher rates because of poor health.

Most Americans like these commonsense protections. Seventy-five percent of people say they favor the prohibition against insurance companies denying coverage because of preexisting medical conditions. Two-thirds favor allowing children up to age twenty-six to stay on their parents' policies, and most believe the elimination of lifetime caps on insurance coverage is a good idea.

As the health insurance companies agreed to these concessions, another story was playing out behind the scenes.

GOOD-BYE PUBLIC OPTION

One of the most controversial ideas in the health care reform debate was the public option. Here's how it was supposed to work. Uninsured Americans could choose a new public health insurance plan similar to Medicare. The public plan would be less expensive than private insurance because it would incur no marketing costs, profit margins, or high salaries that are characteristic of private insurance companies.

An outspoken proponent of the public option, former Vermont governor and physician Howard Dean, made the case for it this way: "I don't think we ought to dump $60 billion a year" onto the insurance industry because it would be pouring money into a broken system.

The idea was to give Americans a choice between a public option and private insurance. "If they think the private sector is great, they will stay in the private sector—if they like insurance that can be taken away if they get sick," said Dean. "Or you can try what everyone over sixty-five in this country has had.... [Medicare] can't be taken away; it can't be denied to you." With competition from a public option, the insurance companies would have to clean up their act and treat their customers better, he said.

The public option met with fierce resistance. John Boehner, who was House Minority Leader for the Republicans at the time, said the public option was "about as unpopular as a garlic milkshake." Conservatives decried it as a government takeover of health care.

In raucous town hall meetings during the August 2009 congressional recess, members of Congress heard from people opposed to health care reform. The insurance industry orchestrated a plan for thousands of its employees to voice opposition to the public option. Competition with a public option would be a death knell for the insurers because they could not compete successfully with a public plan. The firestorm compelled President Obama to step back from the public option, saying it was "just one sliver" of reform.

To smash up the whole health care reform process, insurance companies funneled millions of dollars to the US Chamber of Commerce for television ads blasting the bills in Congress. Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint reportedly chipped in to pay for the ads.

At the same time, Karen Ignagni, the chief lobbyist for the insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), wrote a letter published in the Washington Post saying, "Let me be clear and direct. Health plans continue to strongly support reform." Yes, they wanted reform, but it had to be on their terms.

To salvage a health care overhaul, President Obama unveiled a new plan in February 2010 that left out the public option. Instead, it included a requirement that everyone buy private health insurance, a flashpoint in the health care reform drama.

The idea of a mandate was not new. During the 2008 presidential campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, Ignagni visited Obama's health advisors and proposed the idea. In return, the industry agreed to stop dropping coverage for people when they were sick and discriminating against those with preexisting medical conditions.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama was not enamored with the idea of a mandate but warmed up to it later. He said, "When I ran in the Democratic primary, I was opposed to the mandate.... My theory was ... people don't have health insurance ... because they just can't afford it. So I was dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that I arrived at, which is that it makes sense to have everybody purchase insurance. ... This is not a Democratic idea. There are number of Republicans ... who have supported the idea of an individual mandate."

The health insurance industry saw the writing on the wall. A growing number of middle-class Americans and employers can no longer afford to buy health insurance because it is too expensive. The public option would accelerate the decline of private health insurance in America.

Insurers saw opportunity in health care reform to obtain more market share. They had their sights set on a never-ending federal stimulus that would bolster their bottom line in perpetuity.

THREE WISHES

The health insurance industry had staked out its position early in the 2008 presidential campaign when Barack Obama made health care reform a priority. After the November 2008 election, it issued a public statement with its "must-haves" in a reformed health care system. The industry sought to convince the White House and congressional leaders to subsidize people who purchased private health insurance. This strategy would halt the erosion in private insurance and expand the industry's customer base. It was a shrewd strategy.

According to the industry's script, insurers would agree to stop their most egregious practices. In return, they insisted that everyone be brought into the system and participate in obtaining coverage. The insurers signaled the individual mandate as a "must-have." They realized that many Americans would buy insurance only if they were forced to do so. "Achieving this objective will require specific attention to the mechanisms for making the mandate enforceable," they said in a public statement. In other words, the health insurers wanted the government to impose penalties to force people to buy their products.

Insurers were granted their first wish. The Obama administration included the individual mandate to buy private insurance in its February 2010 salvage plan along with penalties for failure to comply. The Republicans excoriated the individual mandate and its Democratic party supporters when, in fact, the mandate was a centerpiece of the health insurance industry's strategy.

The industry wanted more. Insurers proposed that the federal government help small businesses provide coverage for their employees. They wanted tax-code incentives or other types of assistance to encourage small businesses to offer or contribute to coverage. The insurers were specific. Small firms with lower-wage workers should receive taxpayer-funded subsidies.

The industry was granted this second wish. The White House plan included tax credits for small employers with lower-wage workers.

Finally, the industry scored the biggest win of them all. Insurance companies wanted American families who earn less than $88,000 a year to receive taxpayer subsidies to help them buy their products. The White House agreed to the federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income families.

With the stroke of a pen, the insurance industry gained sixteen million new customers beginning in 2014. Most of the new customers will qualify for federal subsidies that will shield them from the financial impact of the individual mandate.

In return, the health insurance industry agreed to stop its worst abuses: preventing sick people from buying insurance, increasing premiums for people who have the misfortune of being sick, charging higher premiums because of a policyholder's gender or occupation, and imposing lifetime and annual coverage caps on benefits. The health care overhaul identifies essential benefits that must be covered by insurance plans and requires a fair grievance and appeal process.

These concessions were a down payment made by health insurers on a very lucrative investment. The "mortgage" on this investment will be paid by Americans through premiums and taxpayer-funded subsidies that will balloon in years to come as health care costs continue to rise out of control.

For consumers, health care reform is like an adjustable-rate mortgage. It begins with attractive, low-cost introductory teasers—the new features that so many people favor such as no limits on lifetime benefits. Eventually, ballooning premiums will be too high for the federal government to subsidize at levels stipulated in the health care reform law.

In the end, the health care reform law richly rewarded health insurance companies in return for a commitment to change their practices. Will they really change?

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: PRINCIPLE, POLITICS, AND POCKETBOOKS

The battle over health care continues. Opponents of the individual mandate want it to go away. For some, it is a matter of principle. For others, it is about politics. For those required to buy insurance, the mandate is a matter of their pocketbook.

Virginia was the first state to fire a shot in the battle over the mandate. In a preemptive strike in early March 2010 before Congress voted on the White House makeover plan, the Virginia House of Delegates voted eighty to seventeen in favor of a new law saying that no resident of the commonwealth should be required to obtain or maintain individual health insurance coverage.

The bill's sponsor, Republican Robert G. Marshall, quipped to a reporter, "Mobsters used to offer 'protection' to business owners, so when Congress says that if individuals don't become customers of businesses that contribute to them, to me that crosses the line.... For me, it is hard to distinguish what is going on in Washington, D.C., from criminal activity." Republican Governor Bob McDonnell signed the bill into law.

In special ballot initiatives during the midterm elections in November 2010, Arizona and Oklahoma residents voted against the individual mandate. Colorado voted in favor of it. These results came on the heels of a Missouri vote in August in which 70 percent of voters disapproved of the individual mandate.

In the fall of 2010, the battleground shifted to the federal district courts, where state governments, conservative stalwarts, businesses, and others filed separate legal challenges to the reform law, and many were about the individual mandate.

Five decisions were handed down by federal district courts from October 2010 through February 2011. They are proof that health care reform is as partisan as it can be.

Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents upheld the individual mandate. US District Court Judge George Steeh in Michigan, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the individual mandate is constitutional. Steeh wrote in his opinion that it acknowledges the reality that most people will get sick someday and will need a means to pay for it.

The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market.... The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses—through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of cost-shifting is what makes the health care market unique.... Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants.

Shortly after Judge Steeh's ruling, a federal judge in Lynchburg, Virginia, also rejected a legal challenge to the mandate. US District Court Judge Norman Moon, another Clinton appointee, penned an opinion that resonated with a similar theme:

I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.... Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.

In February 2011, Judge Gladys Kessler of the US District Court in Washington, DC, dismissed a lawsuit against the individual mandate brought by three people who said that they did not intend to use medical services for the rest of their lives for religious reasons and two others who said they use holistic healing practices that health insurance does not cover. Judge Kessler rejected their arguments saying that Congress can regulate health insurance under the Constitution's commerce clause, and that individuals can pay the penalty prescribed in the law if they decide not to purchase insurance.

Two federal judges appointed by Republicans had their turn and ruled against the mandate. US District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, was the first federal judge to strike down the individual mandate and rule that Congress exceeded its powers by requiring individuals to have health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government. An appointee of President George W. Bush, Judge Hudson declared that the provision overstepped the bounds of authority granted in the Constitution: "Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.... At its core, the dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

Judge Hudson also disagreed with the Obama Administration's argument that federal tax law allows the government to require individuals to pay a penalty if they fail to purchase insurance, stating that the penalty is not intended to raise revenue.

US District Court Judge Roger Vinson from Pensacola, Florida, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, said that if Americans can be forced to have health insurance because everyone needs health care, that logic can be used to force people to buy groceries or clothes.

(Continues...)



Excerpted from The Battle Over Health Care by Rosemary Gibson Janardan Prasad Singh Copyright © 2012 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. Excerpted by permission of ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Introduction
Part I: Deal Makers, Deal Breakers
Health Insurers: What Did They Get?
The Drug Deal of the Century
Hospitals and Doctors: Their Take-Away
Who Pays for Trillion Dollar Health Reform?
Part II: How Health Care Reform Did Not Reform Health Care
How the AMA Killed the Family Doctor
The Real Reason Hospitals Don’t Stop Harming Patients
Hospitals: Do This, Not That
How Health Care Caught the Wall Street Fever
Too Big to Fail Just Got Bigger
If Only They Were IPhones
Part IV: Until Debt Do Us Part
Good-bye Busboys
Promises Made, Promises Broken
Government By Default
Part V: Privatize the Gains, Privatize the Losses
The Real Medical Malpractice Fix
Health Care Fraud: Follow the Money
10 Steps to More Affordable Health Care
References
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 3
( 1 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(1)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 16, 2013

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)