The creation of the public health insurance market for people under the age of 65 has become the source of the controversy between different interest groups in the United States. This especially concerns the private health insurance, which will be adversely affected by this program. Over the past several months the issue has attracted much interest in the White House and among democrats in the Congress. The issue initially emerged as part of the president campaign as one of President Osamas health proposals. Its main intention according to President Obama is to put pressure on the private health insurance market to invoke completion, which will make private insures efficiently and effectively control health costs.
Looking at the proposal from a non-partisan point of view the implementation will lead to certain benefits as well as shortcomings. It would surely savage huge amounts of cash for health providers, since it would eliminate the high expenses caused by private health plans for them to do business. These are costs that private insurances generate in order to pay taxes to the state as well as to insurance agents and brokers, not to mention the securing profits for themselves. In addition to this, the size of remuneration for the providers would be the same, as they pay for Medicaid and Medicare, probably, 20 less than what they receive from private plans. This would mean that the reimbursement for doctors and hospitals that waste their resources paying for unnecessary treatment would be reduced by around 20. This reduction of providers contributions across the board will, therefore, cut the insurance cost by making it 20 less (Leonard, 2007).
On the other hand, the government controlled insurance plan would result in a two tiered Medicare for the targeted group. According to present statistics, approximately 85 of people under the age of 65 receive first class insurance health covers, since they are insured. Assuming that the proposed government controlled plan were put into action, it would result in the totally opposite trend to the current one. Two thirds of the population in the private plan would shift to the government controlled plan. The first class, or tier, created by the government plan would consist of poor people, who opt for this plan, which follows Medicares footsteps in cutting providers reimbursements to cater for its needs in meeting its federal budget.
The other tier would consist of those, who are rich and capable of paying higher premiums in private plans for a better reimbursement. The private plan will, therefore, do its best to maintain its clients by giving them high quality Medicare for their premiums. This would create two classes of medical care provision, which is what the Democrats fear, because the maintenance of a solid Medicare plan would be utterly impossible, with the poor people and the rich adhering to different plans. This will only portray the lack of political will in a democratic government (Thompson, 2001).
Based on this line of argument, the government plan does not, therefore, provide any permanent solution, which would bring the cost of long-term Medicare under control, but would rather turn things from bad to worse. This, therefore, makes the termination of the wastage in Medicare provision a force to reckon with politically. It is quite easy to get convinced that the creation of a government controlled Medicare plan would create real savings, while, on the other hand, blinding ourselves concerning the fact that a two tiered health care system will be created. This would only be avoiding the real tragedy. The plan would also ruin chances for those private health providers, who are genuinely good, which is utterly unjust.
Looking at the proposal from a non-partisan point of view the implementation will lead to certain benefits as well as shortcomings. It would surely savage huge amounts of cash for health providers, since it would eliminate the high expenses caused by private health plans for them to do business. These are costs that private insurances generate in order to pay taxes to the state as well as to insurance agents and brokers, not to mention the securing profits for themselves. In addition to this, the size of remuneration for the providers would be the same, as they pay for Medicaid and Medicare, probably, 20 less than what they receive from private plans. This would mean that the reimbursement for doctors and hospitals that waste their resources paying for unnecessary treatment would be reduced by around 20. This reduction of providers contributions across the board will, therefore, cut the insurance cost by making it 20 less (Leonard, 2007).
On the other hand, the government controlled insurance plan would result in a two tiered Medicare for the targeted group. According to present statistics, approximately 85 of people under the age of 65 receive first class insurance health covers, since they are insured. Assuming that the proposed government controlled plan were put into action, it would result in the totally opposite trend to the current one. Two thirds of the population in the private plan would shift to the government controlled plan. The first class, or tier, created by the government plan would consist of poor people, who opt for this plan, which follows Medicares footsteps in cutting providers reimbursements to cater for its needs in meeting its federal budget.
The other tier would consist of those, who are rich and capable of paying higher premiums in private plans for a better reimbursement. The private plan will, therefore, do its best to maintain its clients by giving them high quality Medicare for their premiums. This would create two classes of medical care provision, which is what the Democrats fear, because the maintenance of a solid Medicare plan would be utterly impossible, with the poor people and the rich adhering to different plans. This will only portray the lack of political will in a democratic government (Thompson, 2001).
Based on this line of argument, the government plan does not, therefore, provide any permanent solution, which would bring the cost of long-term Medicare under control, but would rather turn things from bad to worse. This, therefore, makes the termination of the wastage in Medicare provision a force to reckon with politically. It is quite easy to get convinced that the creation of a government controlled Medicare plan would create real savings, while, on the other hand, blinding ourselves concerning the fact that a two tiered health care system will be created. This would only be avoiding the real tragedy. The plan would also ruin chances for those private health providers, who are genuinely good, which is utterly unjust.
No comments:
Post a Comment