Suit on Health Law Puts Focus on Funding Powers, Article Review Example

 The New York Times article, Suit on Health Law Puts Focus on Funding Powers, discusses the battle between Congress and President Obama to find common ground in the health insurance war. Congress has filed a lawsuit against the President because they believe he has broken a constitutional law. Members of Congress feel the President is using money from other funds to support his health care bill; according to the constitution this is unlawful. However, the President asked Congress to appropriate money for the health insurance purpose, but Congress never did vote or allot the money for that purpose.

I believe that Congress needs to be more willing to work with President Obama on this issue because there are too many people dying from health related issues that can be minimized if adequate health insurance was available. So many people are unable to afford healthcare. Those people who are on fixed incomes may find it difficult to pay insurance premiums. According to the article, the prices can be very high: “Under a standard insurance policy, for example, consumers might have to paya deductible of $2,500 before the health plan starts to pay. But with cost-sharingsubsidies, the deductible could be reduced to $750 or just $100. And the copaymentfor a doctor’s office visit could be cut to $15 from $45”. Although the President may be taking money from a fund that was not set aside for that purpose, Congress has given him no choice because they would not allot money for that purpose. For example, in the article it states:“Congress has not, and never has,appropriated any funds” for the cost-sharing reductions. With this being said, I believe the President is justified in his actions.

The article What Medicare Will Cover Even if You Are Not Likely to Get Better discuses the how the Medicare program will begin paying for services on patients who will unlikely get better. According to the article, people suffering from Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease would unlikely benefit from services such as physical therapy. Advocates for the families of these patients are requiring and pleading for their loved ones to receive fair and prescribed treatment. For example, advocates stated: Medicare is supposed to pay for reasonable treatment of an illness or injury as long as a doctor hasprescribed it. For the sort of in-home care that this week’s settlement may affect the most, a doctormust have certified that you are, in fact, homebound and have prescribed treatment that only askilled practitioner can provide. (The “skilled practitioner” rule keeps Medicare from paying forassistance with everyday activities like bathing and dressing.)” Yet, those who believe the patients will not benefit from the service feel it is a waste of tax payer’s money.

I believe that all patients should receive proper care within reason. Patients who will likely benefit from the services provided by physical therapist and occupational therapists, should receive the services. However, the problem becomes who will decide if the patient will benefit from the services. Essentially, the patients’ parents are always going to advocate that their loved one needs the services. So, to ensure that all patients receive proper care, rules and regulations must be in place to determine if the patient will benefit from the services. For example, “For people with cerebral palsy, physical therapy to maintain muscle mass is one possibility. For multiple sclerosis patients, there may be more approval for treatments for spasticity and gait training to prevent falls”. In cases where the patient has the potential for improvement from therapy, the patient should receive it. In some cases, doctors do not prescribe certain therapies because they know that Medicare will not pay for the services. Yet, there has been research that suggests that physical therapy does slow the progression of cerebral palsy and other degenerative disease.