Why “Forcible” Rape is Redundant

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, proposed by Representative Chris Smith in late January, is controversial for more than just its standpoint on abortion. The bill specifically advocated for the limitation of funds for government-sponsored abortions to the victims of “forcible” rape.

“Forcible” rape, as defined in the act, does not include statutory rape, date rape, rape while mentally incapacitated or rape while under the influence of drugs.

The concept of “forcible” rape being separate from rape itself is disturbing and inaccurate. All rape is forcible. To argue otherwise is to demean the experience and the pain that many victims have gone through. Just because a woman is unable to fight back does not mean that the rape was any less traumatizing or harmful.

The intent of the language of the bill, according to supporters, was to minimize the legal loophole involving the use of taxpayer money in abortions. However, regardless of one’s stance on the abortion issue, the idea of labeling some forms of rape as worse or more forcible than others is just inherently wrong. Tackling the use of federal dollars for abortions is one issue, but attempting to reclassify rape into “forcible” and non-forcible is a completely different topic that goes beyond what is necessary.

Many also see this bill as a detriment to women’s rights. By arguing that some forms of rape are not “forcible” or as severe, it implies that those who have suffered from date rape or from one of the other excluded forms of rape are less important. No matter what type of rape one suffers from, one should have access to the same options and health coverage as other victims.

While the clause in the bill has since been rescinded, the mentality behind such a narrow-minded belief is worrisome. It is difficult to understand how anyone could see a form of rape as not being a “forcible” act, much less discriminate against those who have had to deal with such trauma.

Rape victims have the right to health care. If they choose to use it towards abortion, that is a currently legal course of action. If the goal is to eliminate all funding for abortions, then members of Congress should write legislation addressing that issue; otherwise, they should refrain from stating that only victims of certain kinds of rape are worthy of receiving federal aid.

Health Care Justice for All

Currently, 30 million Americans are without access to medical care. This creates a social injustice, violating the American principle of equality. Reliable coverage should be available for all, not simply for the healthiest individuals or the wealthiest sectors of society. Obama’s proposed plan is the best way to achieve this.

                As individuals lacking medical care visit emergency rooms to receive treatment, tax payers end up footing the bill, not the insurance companies. According to President Obama, these charges average at $1,000 per year. We, the people, pay the price for the inadequacies of the healthcare program. Healthcare costs are still on the rise as those uninsured often fall into bankruptcy in the midst of requiring urgent care. According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were related to medical expenses. Even those families with health insurance are paying extraordinarily high prices, forced to pay out of pocket expenses for prescription drugs. Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the insurance companies to cover the full extent of an individual’s medical needs?

                Echoing President Obama’s plea, we must act quickly, ignoring the countless scare tactics, fictitious rumors and demonization of the current administration. This plan will reinforce the basic principle of healthcare that has been so recently overlooked, the importance of protecting the social fabric of society.

The currently proposed plan will not get rid of existing programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. It will simply regulate the power of the insurance companies and their governing policies. They will no longer be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, drop an individual’s coverage in the event of an illness and cap the amount of coverage an individual can rightfully obtain. Out of pocket expenses will also be limited.

This is not a government takeover of the healthcare system; it is a needed reformation to the current system. Obama has included an insurance exchange component which will place control and opportunity in the hands of the people. Individuals and small business owners will be able to select a healthcare plan best suited to their needs. Although small business owners may change their health insurance, the basic healthcare plan will remain the same, providing individuals with the same benefits as senators and other government officials. This healthcare plan will not provide sub-par coverage, but will ameliorate current healthcare management.

This exchange program will create competition among insurance companies, resulting in the development of a just, thriving industry. Currently, a few select insurance companies monopolize the market. In 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance industry is controlled by less than five companies. Insurance companies are able to charge higher premiums, as there are few available coverage options for state residents. Companies are able to treat the American people poorly and with minimal repercussions.

The system is unjust, running at the expense of the American people. By reforming healthcare, much of the injustices can be adequately addressed. The money allocated to healthcare can be re-apportioned in order to pay for universal coverage, a basic plan for all. As Ted Kennedy wrote, “What we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

Health Care Update

In the health care debate, everyone can agree on only one thing: that reform needs to be made to the current system.  The question is: how much reform is necessary,  who will be covered and at what cost?  In the past two months Congress, as well as the public, has been bombarded with dozens of different proposals, most of which have been extremely partisan.

The most recent plan was proposed by Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., who claims that his proposal was created by a bipartisan effort in the Finance Committee and is labeled a “common sense” plan.  Although this plan has commonalities with President Obama’s plan, the Baucus plan, or America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, is a moderate proposal intended to appeal to as many Democrats and Republicans as possible.

The major difference between Obama’s plan and the Baucus plan is what’s called the “public option.”  The public option is an essentially government-run insurance option that a person can choose over an employer or private insurer.  A government-run option would be cheaper because it would be non-profit.

The public option tore Congress apart; those opposed to Obama’s plan claimed that private insurers would not be able to compete with non-profit health care and that the proposal would cause a huge deficit and an eventual government takeover of health care.

To replace the public option, Baucus proposed a Consumer Operated and Oriented Program (CO-OP), in which federal funds would be given to non-profit health care programs that meet certain requirements.  In his speech, Obama said that although he strongly supports and urges the public option, he would be willing to drop his contention and sign a bill without if it was necessary to unite the Democrats and pass the bill by the end of the year.

In order to better regulate the system, certain restrictions and motivations would be set up specifically aimed at consumers, employers, and insurers in the Baucus Plans.

Effect on Consumers

The major contention of debate in this field is the mandate to have a health insurance plan in both the Obama and Baucus plans; this is similar to mandatory auto insurance.  If a person does not have health insurance by 2013, they will be fined according to their income, unless it is deemed unable to pay by the government or a person is a Native American.

To be deemed unaffordable, people must make half of the poverty line which is currently at $10,991 for individuals and $22,025 for a family of four.  Those people who make 100 to 300 percent of the poverty line will be charged $750 to $1500, depending on how many people are in the family.

If a person makes above 300 percent of poverty and does not wish to purchase health care, they will be charged between $950 and $3800 per year.  Opponents claim that those who don’t want health care but can afford it should be allowed to continue without coverage.

Furthermore, even with the $464 billion in credits that would be offered to help people pay for insurance, a family of four that makes $63,000 per year  will still have to pay $7,110 out of pocket to pay for health care.  A family whose income is $90,000 or higher will receive no credits.  The mandate that everyone buy health care puts a restriction on how people can spend their money because a certain portion of it is tied to health insurance costs.

Though the goal of the health care overhaul is to provide everyone with affordable health care coverage, a report released from the Congressional Budget Office on October 8 says that 17 million legal American residents will not have coverage after the plan is fully enacted in 2019.

Effect on Employers and Health Industry

Although all employers will not be forced to provide coverage, those with 50 or more employees must provide affordable coverage or be fined $400 multiplied by the total number employees in the firm. Because the fine would still be cheaper than providing insurance, small businesses would receive $24 billion in credits as an inducement to offer insurance.

The main source of revenue for the $756 billion plan is a 35 percent excise tax on high cost insurance plans of $8,000 dollars for singles and $21,000 for families.  The concern of opponents is that as insurance increases in the years to come, more people will have high cost private plans on which the insurance providers will be taxed.  Economists predict that insurance providers will inevitably make up for the tax through employers, leading to further strain on businesses or no longer offer premium plans.  Furthermore, family is not defined by a certain number of people within the bill. Bigger families, who must have higher costing plans in order to pay for basic health insurance for all family members, will fall into the threshold of taxable plans.

The plan will also be paid for through fees from various markets within the health industry and eliminations of unnecessary programs within Medicare.  The fees include $6 billion from the health insurance provider market, pharmaceutical manufacturing companies would pay $2.3 billion, medical device manufacturers and clinical laboratories would pay a total of $4.75 billion annually.

There are currently several hundred points of contention in the Baucus bill.  Although this is significantly less than in other partisan plans, it is cause for much bickering in Congress which has slowed health care reform thus far.

Originally the President set a deadline for a bill before the August recess.  Since this did not happen, a bill is expected before the end of this year.  Hopefully by the time New Year’s comes around, the United States will have an added cause for celebration: a reformed health care system.