A national healthcare reform primer - Los Angeles Times

A national healthcare reform primer - Los Angeles Times

The cost of covering the uninsured ultimately will depend on the number of people included, the specific benefits they receive, and the amount of financial help the taxpayers would provide. The only agreement among economists who study the issue is that the tab would be a big one:* $200 billion to $250 billion a year, says Joe Antos of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.* $150 billion to $175 billion a year, says Len M. Nichols of the liberal New America Foundation.

According to CMS, we spent $2.1 Trillion on all of health care with costs rising rapidly. So even using AEI’s numbers, this only represents a 10% increase to cover all Americans.

Regardless of what happens, will I be able to keep the insurance I have now?

LA Times answers: “Almost certainly” and “Further, most people get their coverage at work, and this would continue.”

Which is too bad. Given the choice between keeping my $15 K a year policy and buying into a public policy (Medicare – like, if not Medicare) at lower cost, with less red tape, no pre-approvals, fighting for benefits and on and on, I believe most would choose the public option after it has shown its stuff. But if a public option is put out there, it allows the transition to begin away from bloated private insurers as they will have to compete with public policies.


If I don't have health insurance, would I have to buy it if an agreement on reform is reached?

This is the tricky mandate issue. Advocates say you can't cover everyone unless you make everyone buy a policy.Although nobody from the administration is using the "M" word these days -- a mandate would represent a big expansion of government authority -- many believe it is the logical way to go. So do Democratic leaders in Congress.Before such a mandate could become law, however, Congress would have to decide the amount of financial subsidies to help people pay for their coverage. Most people without health insurance work full-time and earn less than $30,000 a year. Meanwhile, the average policy for a family of four under job-based coverage cost $12,680 last year, with the employer paying $9,325, according to figures compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Coverage for an individual through work cost $4,704, with the employer paying $3,983.A decision on a mandate would also involve intense negotiations between the government and the insurance industry over the terms and details of coverage.

The industry has indicated it's willing to deliver "guaranteed issue" (nobody gets turned down) in return for a law requiring mandatory purchase of insurance.The National Assn of Insurance Commissioners has proposed a model act for the states as a way to control costs. It says that the highest rates for any age group should be no more than 400% of the lowest rate charged to any group.

This would be reduced to 300% two years after the law is passed, then to 200% after five years. That would mean a 63-year-old living in San Diego, for example, could not be charged more than double the rate paid by a 25-year-old in Santa Monica.Price differences and subsidies are crucial. It would be meaningless to have the guaranteed right to buy health insurance if you make $30,000 a year, have high blood pressure and diabetes, and a policy would cost you $10,000.

Well explained. I don’t think it is “tricky,” as there must be guaranteed insurance for all and none can be left out or much savings gained by easy access to primary care is lost.


If I have a business, would I have to buy coverage for my workers?

The answer to this question may determine the success or failure of health reform efforts.

I’m a de-linker in the sense I don’t think insurance should be linked to income and, if you like the deep economics of it, ALL benefits are from wages anyway, so if you want to do like Germny and others,you could use a payroll tax specifically for this purpose. This will cause lots of sturm and drang, however.

Would there be some help for older workers who don't have coverage on the job and can't afford an individual policy?

Perhaps.

Again, if we don’t get everyone in, it is not very “universal”, is it? I don’t know enough about the mind set of Congress to make a prediction, but how would the people who are just beginnning to enter their health care using years not be central to the solution?

Might there be a public health insurance plan?

This idea, backed by the president, would create for the first time a public insurance plan to compete with the myriad plans offered by private-industry insurers. The plan would be designed to provide a benchmark for quality coverage, with a basic package of comprehensive benefits. The Obama health plan issued during the presidential election campaign envisioned that millions of the 47 million uninsured would move into a public plan.

To quote Helen Hunt in, “As Good As It Gets,” “I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope.”

How can the country pay for a reworking of its health insurance system?

A nice discussion of some potential savings. This will cause a lots of discussion, but I would go back to the top of the article and point out that even the AEI’s estimates (which I admittedly have not read) which I expect are all worst case scenarios, estimates only a 10% or so increase in costs. I happen to be one who believes that the waste in our system is at least 30% and that in perhaps 5 years we will begin to see those savings. But, even if it costs more, it is the right thing to do.

Their bottom line:

If Obama can figure out a way to persuade Congress to expand coverage to millions of uninsured people, while keeping those with coverage happy, it will be a feat of political magic that has eluded presidents for decades.

I agree. It is up to us to make not doing the right thing a very unattractive option.

Cheers,

Sphere: Related Content