For now, we, at the Weill Cornell Community Clinic, proudly provide a safety net for those in need of healthcare in New York City. We hope some day a person’s income or current employment status will not determine the quality of their health and that no one will have to wait to go to the doctor because they are afraid of being unable to pay.

To improve healthcare in developing nations, we not only need funding, but organization and coordination.

In the days following the passage of health care reform, a few of my friends asked me how the bill would affect them. Many were wondering: What does this mean for the average college student? Well, if you go to Cornell, not much.

With the election of Scott Brown to Congress, meaningful healthcare reform seems a lot less likely than it did a few months ago. The issue is so divisive that without a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate, most political commentators just don’t think reform is possible at all. Yet, beneath the intractable debate between the parties over things like single-payer systems, public options and end-of-life counseling, there is actually a lot of common ground.

For example, not many in Washington would tell you that insurance companies should be able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. Furthermore, all would agree that minimizing the costs of administering any sort of reform measure must be a priority given the already out of control national debt. There are also real implementation issues, as well as federalism and states-rights concerns associated with a large, national health insurance program.

The compelling thing about all this is that it is quite possible — with the closing of a minor loophole — to achieve real progress on many of the issues which Republicans and Democrats share common ground on.

As the health care debate nears its climax, it’s only natural to look ahead to the next big political showdown in D.C. — energy reform. It’s an issue with far reaching environmental implications, and one that contemporary society seems hard-pressed to tackle head-on.

Whatever legislation emerges from the Senate, it’s a good bet it will be watered down and ineffectual, owing to the ubiquity of the energy lobby in our nation’s capital. Which begs the question: What can realistically be done to combat the growing carbon specter? Distinguished University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt wondered as much himself, and set out to get some answers.

Last night, in a rare address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama issued yet another appeal to Congress and the American public regarding his highly controversial healthcare reform. Despite his “excellent” delivery, several Cornell professors expressed reservations on the actual impact of the speech.

In his remarks, the president emphasized the importance and timeliness of healthcare reform since “health care represents one-sixth of our economy.”

He began by outlining some of the current problems facing our healthcare system, including the concern that “if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance.”

Some of the most contended issues in the nation — concepts of healthcare, medical care access and coverage — were debated yesterday evening in Goldwin Smith Hall at an interactive discussion led by Dr. Arthur Garson, executive vice president and provost of the University of Virginia.

Garson previously served as the dean of UVA’s School of Medicine. A cardiologist and author of Health Care Half Truths: Too Many Myths, Not Enough Reality, Garson dissected many “myths” surrounding the institution of healthcare providers.

President Barack Obama made health reform a pillar of his campaign and he has issued some broad guidelines as to how he might proceed. In a surprising moment of specificity, however, President Obama made a statement regarding a specific policy he might like to implement. This policy entails third-party billing for veterans’ healthcare. This is common practice for conditions unrelated to military service, but now President Obama is considering allowing the VA to bill third-party, private insurers for services resulting from injuries received as a result of combat.

During the presidential election the domestic policy of most concern to voters, other than the economy, was healthcare. President Obama ran on a campaign of implementing sweeping healthcare reform aimed at improving both efficiency and access. House Majority Whip James Clyburn has been quoted as saying it is better for reform to occur, “incrementally, than to go out and just bite something you can't chew,” to which Speaker Pelosi had to rebut. While the current financial crisis may offer an opportunity to move towards universal coverage and an overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system, it is more likely that Obama’s first term (at least the first fiscal year) will be witness to incremental reform.

Short-term profits, irrespective of potential long-term catastrophes, have pushed the U.S. economy into recession and the financial markets in to a standstill. In response, the Obama administration along with the 111th U.S. Congress is designing a stimulus package in the amount of $800 billion. While the nearsightedness of the financial industry has caused this mess, the Obama administration must not be so quick as to forget this lesson. Spending on healthcare as a whole is currently 16.2 percent of GDP, while Medicare alone is approximately 3.2 percent of GDP. As the economy slows, however, expenditures on healthcare seem to consume an ever-increasing percentage.