Hillary Clinton started the debate on Universal Health Care in the early to mid 90's. Along the way she realized that the health care system in the United States was too vast for a simple solution to the issues. While she wanted a welfare health insurance state paid for by the government, she had to address prescription drugs, health insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and finally consumers (the American people) when dealing with this issue. She had hoped that the only people who would matter in this debate were the public. But it isn't the public who will lose the most with government controlled Universal Health care.
Here is an article which discusses her views on Universal Health Care as it stands today. She points out that the current system just needs to be fixed instead of changed. Her liberal competitors for president have all come out with their own plan, and essentially said that they would have to raise taxes for it to work. It used to be political suicide if you told voters you would raise their taxes if you elected them. Now I guess it's the best thing some candidates can think to propose.
Here is the article.
I don't believe that Clinton has the answer. Why don't I believe that? Because if she did, we'd have already heard about it. She knows what won't work which is why she's allowing her competitors to propose programs that she knows won't work. Health care is not a right. The system needs to be fixed, but only a little bit. The problem with our system is how much it costs. The problem is not that our health care system is bad.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Dennis Kucinich on Universal Health Care
While I disagree with a lot of what Kucinich says on the social political stage, I pretty much agree with where he stands on the debate on Universal Health Care for all Americans. He states that it should be done with a "Medicare for all" system through non-profit insurers administrating it. Kucinich believes that Health Care is a right and not a privilege which is where this writer disagrees with his premise.
However if Universal Health Care were to become a reality, the non-profit model would be the best blend between the government system and corporate system that we currently have. Kucinich points out that there are many places in our health care system where money is lost without giving any health care benefit. One of the big areas is the insurance companies. The profit that is built into the health care system is a large amount of our health care dollar that could be used to reduce costs and improve the system. Kucinich claims that 31% of health care dollars go to insurance company profits.
Insurance companies pay a lot of health care dollars in advertising and marketing so that their competitor does not get the profit that they want. The advertising and competition in this case does not grant a more efficient system because the insurance companies do not add value to the health care experience. Insurance companies merely provide a service through which health care dollars are distributed for services.
Insurance companies can make more or less money through negotiations with the health care providers such as doctors or hospitals. They do not have to make money by raising premiums, but they can raise rates without blame because they will just say that "the rising cost of health care" made them raise the premiums. The insurance companies will never say "we want more profit so we are raising rates", even though that is a primary motivation they consider when setting rates.
A non-profit system would take the profit incentive out of the system. There would be no share holders to demand profit, there would be no board members or executives with expensive contracts. There would be operating expenses and costs, but no extra profit. Our country has had a non-profit model that people know as the "Blue Cross Blue Shield" system. Across the country and one by one, these companies have been abandoning their non-profit mission so that they could squeeze more money out of the system. As a non-profit, Blue Cross has served the country well through quality plans at affordable prices. Over the last 10 years, many states have decided to allow Blue Cross to convert to for profit which goes against their mission.
A non-profit system would allow the insurance company a competitive edge in that they would not have to pay taxes. The HSA system that congress approved was designed to address health care costs through tax breaks. The non-profit system is a tax break across the board from a company with government regulation.
Back to Kucinich on health care. He believes that we can expand medicare for everyone. I think that is a great idea because I know that medicare is a fantastic vehicle for providing health care. I look forward to the day that I can get on medicare because I'll have better coverage than I do now and it will cost me much less. However I do not know how the system could handle so many more people on it, or how much it would cost. Cost is the major factor when considering new plans. Availability and access to care is the second biggest factor.
Of all the plans available, I believe that Kucinich's plan of using the non-profit model which brings Medicare for everyone under a single payer system is the best. This is only a part of the health care model that would be necessary for a government based system, but this would be the big part. A non-profit system would ensure that more dollars go toward health care. Once that system is in place, the second vampire of the health care dollar is the prescription drug companies. I will address the role of the prescription drug companies to the health care dollar in a later post.
However if Universal Health Care were to become a reality, the non-profit model would be the best blend between the government system and corporate system that we currently have. Kucinich points out that there are many places in our health care system where money is lost without giving any health care benefit. One of the big areas is the insurance companies. The profit that is built into the health care system is a large amount of our health care dollar that could be used to reduce costs and improve the system. Kucinich claims that 31% of health care dollars go to insurance company profits.
Insurance companies pay a lot of health care dollars in advertising and marketing so that their competitor does not get the profit that they want. The advertising and competition in this case does not grant a more efficient system because the insurance companies do not add value to the health care experience. Insurance companies merely provide a service through which health care dollars are distributed for services.
Insurance companies can make more or less money through negotiations with the health care providers such as doctors or hospitals. They do not have to make money by raising premiums, but they can raise rates without blame because they will just say that "the rising cost of health care" made them raise the premiums. The insurance companies will never say "we want more profit so we are raising rates", even though that is a primary motivation they consider when setting rates.
A non-profit system would take the profit incentive out of the system. There would be no share holders to demand profit, there would be no board members or executives with expensive contracts. There would be operating expenses and costs, but no extra profit. Our country has had a non-profit model that people know as the "Blue Cross Blue Shield" system. Across the country and one by one, these companies have been abandoning their non-profit mission so that they could squeeze more money out of the system. As a non-profit, Blue Cross has served the country well through quality plans at affordable prices. Over the last 10 years, many states have decided to allow Blue Cross to convert to for profit which goes against their mission.
A non-profit system would allow the insurance company a competitive edge in that they would not have to pay taxes. The HSA system that congress approved was designed to address health care costs through tax breaks. The non-profit system is a tax break across the board from a company with government regulation.
Back to Kucinich on health care. He believes that we can expand medicare for everyone. I think that is a great idea because I know that medicare is a fantastic vehicle for providing health care. I look forward to the day that I can get on medicare because I'll have better coverage than I do now and it will cost me much less. However I do not know how the system could handle so many more people on it, or how much it would cost. Cost is the major factor when considering new plans. Availability and access to care is the second biggest factor.
Of all the plans available, I believe that Kucinich's plan of using the non-profit model which brings Medicare for everyone under a single payer system is the best. This is only a part of the health care model that would be necessary for a government based system, but this would be the big part. A non-profit system would ensure that more dollars go toward health care. Once that system is in place, the second vampire of the health care dollar is the prescription drug companies. I will address the role of the prescription drug companies to the health care dollar in a later post.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Pros & Cons of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance Program
I came across this article when I was surfing the web. It goes over the very first state mandated health insurance program in Massachusetts. This program will first take effect in July 2007 and there are several questions about its feasibility. However if this program is a success, Mitt Romney would certainly gain credibility and take it away from Hillary Clinton as a candidate that has a solution on the health care crisis.
I personally am still skeptical that the government can do both a good and efficient job with health care. It seems the author of this article would agree. There are very few Pros and many Cons in her article. It is well thought out and I feel priveledged to share it. Do you think the Massachusetts program will work? And if it does should it be a model for the entire country? Enjoy the article:
Pros & Cons of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance Program
From Deborah White,
Your Guide to Liberal Politics: U.S..
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Pros
The overwhelming positive of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health-Insurance program is that all state residents will have health care insurance and services, regardless of household income levels. Health insurance for all will cause an appreciable increase in the quality of life in Massachusetts, including an increase in life expectancy and decrease in infant mortality.
Public health betterment is commonly associated with a corresponding increase in work productivity for adults and increased school attendance for children.
The other major positive of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health-Insurance program is the groundswell of popular and broad political support for this innovative initiative. Both liberals and conservatives found that the merits of the program outweighed negative elements, and voted to pass this major legislative reform. Additionally, Governor Romney wisely enlisted a bipartisan coalition from the worlds of business, academia and government to craft the legislation. Thus, goals and concerns from various constituencies were integrated in the design of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance program.
Cons
This is a brief list of important concerns about Massachusetts' new Mandatory Health Insurance program.
-- Looming questions remain about the long-term financial viability of the plan.
-- The program grants enormous power to special interest groups to collect health care data on all citizens, and imposes stiff fines on health care providers who fail to fully share "confidential" patient data. It's unclear with whom patient data may be shared or who holds legal ownership of the data.
-- The program ensures public access to basic health care, but it doesn't grant equal access to high-quality health care. Inevitably under any "personal payment" plan, the wealthy will obtain higher quality and timelier health care services, and will have access to a broader range of services and tests.
-- As health costs rise, services for the poor under this plan could be cut, and for those paying the partially-subsidized premiums, costs and deductibles could significantly rise .
-- The program is administered by a "health-care quality and cost council" composed entirely of unelected bureaucrats and political appointments. The council does not answer to the state Health & Human Services department.
-- Libertarians, who are usually fiscal and political conservatives but social moderates, balk at government mandates that override individual decision-making freedoms.
Where it Stands
Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance program will become effective on July 1, 2007. Hundreds of program details remain to be worked before then. Experts believe that the long-term effectiveness of the program depends on continued affordability of insurance premiums, and adequacy of health care services and benefits included under policy coverages.
Many states have tried and failed to implement statewide comprehensive health care packages, most notably California, which has been unsuccessful in three attempts over 14 years. The Massachusetts program has considerable bipartisan support, though, which will help it to prosper where others have failed.
Experts also question whether the concepts behind the Massachusetts Mandatory Health Insurance program are transferable to other states. This small northeastern state possesses certain unique conditions, including a significantly lower-than -average percentage of residents without insurance, and an established $1 billion pool to fund the program.
The New York Times summarized it well in an April 15, 2006 editorial, "Lots of details must still be worked out, and there are already concerns that the financial underpinnings of the plan are shaky.
But Massachusetts deserves credit for tackling a problem that Washington is failing to address."
I personally am still skeptical that the government can do both a good and efficient job with health care. It seems the author of this article would agree. There are very few Pros and many Cons in her article. It is well thought out and I feel priveledged to share it. Do you think the Massachusetts program will work? And if it does should it be a model for the entire country? Enjoy the article:
Pros & Cons of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance Program
From Deborah White,
Your Guide to Liberal Politics: U.S..
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Pros
The overwhelming positive of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health-Insurance program is that all state residents will have health care insurance and services, regardless of household income levels. Health insurance for all will cause an appreciable increase in the quality of life in Massachusetts, including an increase in life expectancy and decrease in infant mortality.
Public health betterment is commonly associated with a corresponding increase in work productivity for adults and increased school attendance for children.
The other major positive of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health-Insurance program is the groundswell of popular and broad political support for this innovative initiative. Both liberals and conservatives found that the merits of the program outweighed negative elements, and voted to pass this major legislative reform. Additionally, Governor Romney wisely enlisted a bipartisan coalition from the worlds of business, academia and government to craft the legislation. Thus, goals and concerns from various constituencies were integrated in the design of Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance program.
Cons
This is a brief list of important concerns about Massachusetts' new Mandatory Health Insurance program.
-- Looming questions remain about the long-term financial viability of the plan.
-- The program grants enormous power to special interest groups to collect health care data on all citizens, and imposes stiff fines on health care providers who fail to fully share "confidential" patient data. It's unclear with whom patient data may be shared or who holds legal ownership of the data.
-- The program ensures public access to basic health care, but it doesn't grant equal access to high-quality health care. Inevitably under any "personal payment" plan, the wealthy will obtain higher quality and timelier health care services, and will have access to a broader range of services and tests.
-- As health costs rise, services for the poor under this plan could be cut, and for those paying the partially-subsidized premiums, costs and deductibles could significantly rise .
-- The program is administered by a "health-care quality and cost council" composed entirely of unelected bureaucrats and political appointments. The council does not answer to the state Health & Human Services department.
-- Libertarians, who are usually fiscal and political conservatives but social moderates, balk at government mandates that override individual decision-making freedoms.
Where it Stands
Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance program will become effective on July 1, 2007. Hundreds of program details remain to be worked before then. Experts believe that the long-term effectiveness of the program depends on continued affordability of insurance premiums, and adequacy of health care services and benefits included under policy coverages.
Many states have tried and failed to implement statewide comprehensive health care packages, most notably California, which has been unsuccessful in three attempts over 14 years. The Massachusetts program has considerable bipartisan support, though, which will help it to prosper where others have failed.
Experts also question whether the concepts behind the Massachusetts Mandatory Health Insurance program are transferable to other states. This small northeastern state possesses certain unique conditions, including a significantly lower-than -average percentage of residents without insurance, and an established $1 billion pool to fund the program.
The New York Times summarized it well in an April 15, 2006 editorial, "Lots of details must still be worked out, and there are already concerns that the financial underpinnings of the plan are shaky.
But Massachusetts deserves credit for tackling a problem that Washington is failing to address."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)