Landmark: The Inside Story of America's New Health-Care Law-The Affordable Care Act-And What It Means for Us All

by The Washington Post and Washington Post Staff

Book Overview

The Washington Post's must-read guide to the health care overhaul

What now? Despite the rancorous, divisive, year-long debate in Washington, many Americans still don't understand what the historic overhaul of the health care system will -- or won't -- mean. In Landmark, the national reporting staff of The Washington Post pierces through the confusion, examining the new law's likely impact on us all: our families,...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1586489348
• ISBN13: 9781586489342
• Release Date: April 2010
• Publisher: PublicAffairs
• Length: 288 Pages
• Weight: 0.70 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.5" x 8.2"

Customer Reviews

Great Research and Expanation of the New Health Care Law

This book gives the history of the work put into the passing of the new health care bill. Then it goes into explanations of how the new law works and tells the good and bad of each segment. Each writter put their own knowledge and research into their part of the book. It made me look at the new law with a more open and optimistic mind.

Comprehensive Overview of the Healthcare Bill

I'm a family physician that has followed the healthcare reform debate closely, dating well back into the Democratic primary season when Hillary and Obama were duking it out, dating even as far back as the failed Bill and Hillary Clinton first attempt during Bill Clinton's presidency. I found Landmark: The Inside Story of America's New Health Care Law to give a much richer historical perspective, and to give a much better analysis of the actual impact that the bill is likely to have, than was available from the fragmented and sensational mainstream media coverage. The book is a collection of essays written by Washington Post reporters, followed by the actual text of the bill. The essays in the book are far more analytical and informative than what was typically available throughout the somewhat histrionic coverage of Republican and Democratic maneuvering to respectively block or pass the eventual bill. One could have been left with the impression, when it was all over but the shouting, that the resulting bill was weakened to the point of being inconsequential from the point of view of reform, and enormous regarding eventual cost. Read Landmark, and you'll have a different opinion on both those points. What was useful in the book? The many failed historical efforts to provide some form of national healthcare coverage go back over 100 years, a battle that until this last month stymied many presidents (including Teddy Roosevelt). The historical review alone made the book a worthwhile read for me. Secondly, the authors make a convincing case that, much in contrast to the typical media coverage, this bill represents a deep and broad change in the American approach to healthcare for its citizens, far more so than the Medicare and Medicaid legislation. After reading the essays, and even more powerfully after reading the actual legislation, I'm convinced that the authors are correct. Why? Though it is true that the bill is corrupted in places by special interests, and weakened by the deletions forced by political compromise, it also becomes clear that through a combination of fiat and incentive the new healthcare law will, for better or for worse, markedly change the way doctors/providers do business, and how their patients/clients experience their healthcare. Fiats? No exclusion for pre-existing conditions, no excisions from insurance because you actually USE what you've purchased, no lifetime limits on coverage just because you actually got sick. Incentives? Buried in the legislation itself is a long list of encouragements to do what amounts to serious R & D (research and development) in methods to improve American health, and to treat American illness. In a country where 85% of health related research is done by notoriously biased private industry (the reverse of the ratio in Europe), creating conditions more amenable to less biased scientific research is a welcome and little discussed part of bill. Creating incentives for physici