P
Phil_Stone
Guest
The Health Care Insurance reform program is structured to try to get everyone to buy their own insurance, so the government and the non-profits that run most of the hospitals dont have to pick up the uncovered costs and/or pass them along to others. By getting earlier and more appropriate care, fewer people will die, and fewer people will need more drastic care.
The states already have Medicaid to cover the indigent, but there are many people working in jobs that have no health benefits, and health insurance is priced beyond their reach. Part of the goal of the program is to make it possible for these people to afford insurance.
Health Insurance provided by for profit Corporations will aim to serve the most profitable, and avoid the least profitable. For various reasons, poorer people are less profitable than wealthier people. The reason that we have Medicare is that the elderly were seen as not particularly profitable, and so as a class were poorly served by the market. (We didn’t just “socialize” the costs of care for the elderly, but developed an insurance plan that they pay premiums into. Not unlike the current suggestions for general reform.) This is a simple problem of economics which nearly every other civilized country has recognized, and tried to deal with in a humane manner. We on the other hand have rapidly increasing health care costs, and increasing numbers of people having their insurance cancelled.
The idea that " if you dont work you dont eat" has any application here is ludicrous. Most of the people we are talking about expanding coverage to are working, but cannot afford a product which has to meet Wall Street’s standards for profitabilty. And many are veterans of military service. In most other countries, sending profits from Health Insurance to Wall Street, draining resources away from health care, is a crime.
Generally reported numbers say Medicare, our government run health insurance, costs between 5 and 7% of paid claims to function, whereas private health insurance companies costs from 10 to 15%. One can further argue that the profits drain is a cost which people who cannot afford coverage likewise cannot afford.
And of course the best times for the growth of the middle class in this country were the times of Eisenhower when the progerssive tax rates were really progressive. Americans made money, many from union jobs, and so they had money to spend and to save. As taxes have become less progressive, the median wage stalled, the rich have gotten far richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class is fading. (Along the way, our industrial firms have been warning us that they cannot compete internationally when every other competitor has significantly lower health care costs to factor into their prices.) And we can expect Health Insurance companies to follow that trend, focusing on those who can afford its product. The question for society is if we are to treat Health Insurance as a luxury good, and allow health insurance, and timely access to health care, to become exclusive the province of the wealthy. Will we allow The Market to control our health care system, or will we use The Law to structure our markets? Will we take reponsibility for our country, or abandon it to those who are only interested in their own profits?
The states already have Medicaid to cover the indigent, but there are many people working in jobs that have no health benefits, and health insurance is priced beyond their reach. Part of the goal of the program is to make it possible for these people to afford insurance.
Health Insurance provided by for profit Corporations will aim to serve the most profitable, and avoid the least profitable. For various reasons, poorer people are less profitable than wealthier people. The reason that we have Medicare is that the elderly were seen as not particularly profitable, and so as a class were poorly served by the market. (We didn’t just “socialize” the costs of care for the elderly, but developed an insurance plan that they pay premiums into. Not unlike the current suggestions for general reform.) This is a simple problem of economics which nearly every other civilized country has recognized, and tried to deal with in a humane manner. We on the other hand have rapidly increasing health care costs, and increasing numbers of people having their insurance cancelled.
The idea that " if you dont work you dont eat" has any application here is ludicrous. Most of the people we are talking about expanding coverage to are working, but cannot afford a product which has to meet Wall Street’s standards for profitabilty. And many are veterans of military service. In most other countries, sending profits from Health Insurance to Wall Street, draining resources away from health care, is a crime.
Generally reported numbers say Medicare, our government run health insurance, costs between 5 and 7% of paid claims to function, whereas private health insurance companies costs from 10 to 15%. One can further argue that the profits drain is a cost which people who cannot afford coverage likewise cannot afford.
And of course the best times for the growth of the middle class in this country were the times of Eisenhower when the progerssive tax rates were really progressive. Americans made money, many from union jobs, and so they had money to spend and to save. As taxes have become less progressive, the median wage stalled, the rich have gotten far richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class is fading. (Along the way, our industrial firms have been warning us that they cannot compete internationally when every other competitor has significantly lower health care costs to factor into their prices.) And we can expect Health Insurance companies to follow that trend, focusing on those who can afford its product. The question for society is if we are to treat Health Insurance as a luxury good, and allow health insurance, and timely access to health care, to become exclusive the province of the wealthy. Will we allow The Market to control our health care system, or will we use The Law to structure our markets? Will we take reponsibility for our country, or abandon it to those who are only interested in their own profits?
