Students debate health care

By Josh Rutenberg     3/18/10 7:00pm

Student debates were just what the doctor ordered. On Saturday evening, Hanszen College senior Sean Sessel and Ted Wieber (Hanszen '09) faced off against Hanszen sophomore Myles Bugbee and Jones College sophomore Kevin Bush to discuss the merits and drawbacks of healthcare reform in the United States. The debate, a collaboration of the Baker Institute Student Forum and Rice Young Democrats, and moderated by BISF President Robert Meister, paralleled ongoing congressional debates concerning federally mandated healthcare. The clubs asked for donations at the event to support the South Texas Colonia Initiative, Inc., an organization that provides medical aid to impoverished communities along the Texas-Mexico border.

To assess the winning side, and to track shifts over time, the audience voted by secret ballot both prior to and following the debates. Of 37 initial voters, those for reforms outnumbered those against them by a vote of 19 to six in favor of government mandated healthcare, with 12 undecided voters. However, the opposition caught up by the end of the night, with a final tally of 26 in favor to 26 against, with 11 undecided. Several students arrived after the initial vote had been taken, contributing to the hike in voter number. Bugbee estimated that more than 70 students attended the event.

Bugbee and Bush, who represented the pro-reform argument, proposed a three-pronged plan that would cut premium costs by requiring U.S. citizens to buy health insurance, banning health insurers from rejecting clients based on preexisting conditions and providing for government subsidies and insurance exchanges.

---

---

"Last year, medical expenses were the leading cause of 62 percent of personal bankruptcies," Bugbee said. "Our health insurance system is fundamentally broken, because health insurers are putting profits before patients."

Sessel and Wieber gave the anti-reform, countering the government mandate by questioning the coverage and cost of the plan.

"We have to give people a better understanding of how much it costs to take care of them," Wieber said.

Sessel and Wieber posited their own solutions, starting with replacing the current employer-based healthcare market with an individualized market. The pair also supported replacing the existing employer tax exemption with a personal tax credit and allowing insurers to sell plans along state lines.

Wieber stressed that, although the two sides both want a better healthcare system, their fundamental differences arise with the implementation of their plans.

Bush argued that there must be at least some form of government intervention to provide a check on health insurance companies.

"There is no purely free-market solution to a social problem caused by the free market," Bush said.

He also discussed the adverse selection problem, in which insurance companies ask questions in order to reject potentially risky candidates who would be more expensive to cover.

Sessel asserted innovation works more efficiently through market-based incentives. He cited Massachusetts and New York as helming successful state-mandated healthcare, particularly in their effects on the state deficit.

"We need to let [the market] work," Sessel said.

After presenting their respective proposals, the sides cross-examined one another. Bush asked the anti-reform side if they believed the United States could retain the world's largest economy with the largest healthcare burden. In return, Wieber questioned the reform side about how a bill that taxes U.S. citizens could also be considered budget-neutral.

Following the cross-examination, the audience was invited to ask questions.

Baker College sophomore Audra Herrera said she thought both teams did a great job in conveying their stances.

"Everyone walked away from the debate knowing a little more than they did walking in," Herrera said. "All the speakers were passionate about the issue, which made the debate both entertaining and informative.

---