Socialized health care has not worked in England, France, or Canada. Why would anyone believe it will work here? Our health care services will go down the drain if we allow this to happen. Can you imagine going to the emergency room and having to take a number (it doesn't matter how much pain you are in), and then having to sit for hours until your number is called? Sound far fetched? Sound impossible? It's not. This is what happens in the U.K. and Canada everyday under socialized medicine.
I am not against finding ways to help more people find affordable and efficient health care coverage. I am all for that. I am against the federal government gaining too much power in this. Here's why - increase federal coverage and involvement and you increase spending very significantly! Our government is in enough mess without having to foot another bill.
My other concern is that by mandating reform, we the public get stuck with one pre-defined plan that will not suit individual families. This means that we lose the choice to find a suitable and affordable plan. Loss of choice means the government decides what is more important for you and forcibly steals your freedom of choice right out from under you.
I am supporting the AMA plan because it has three "pillars" for its foundation that I think are necessary for reform:
Subsidies for those who most need financial assistance obtaining health insurance. This assistance could take the form of tax credits or vouchers, should be more generous at lower income levels, and should be earmarked for health insurance coverage. It is important to note that the government already gives people financial assistance to buy private health insurance—well over $125 billion each year—with an employee income tax break on job-based insurance that is hidden from public view. This tax break gives more assistance to those in higher tax brackets, and gives no assistance to those without employee health benefits. Shifting some or all of this assistance to tax credits or vouchers for lower-income people would reduce the number of uninsured and improve fairness in the health care system.
Choice for individuals and families in what health plan to join. Today people are effectively locked into the health plans their employers offer, often just one or two plans, which are subject to change from year to year. A change in employment typically means a change in insurance coverage. In contrast, under the AMA plan, people could use tax credits or vouchers to help pay for premiums of any available insurance, whether offered through a job, another arrangement or the open market. As with job-based insurance today, health plans would still have to meet federal guidelines for covered benefits, but people would have greater say in what types of benefits and plan features they value. Coupled with individual choice, tax credits benefit recipients directly, and everyone indirectly, by stimulating the market for health insurance. If enough people have enough purchasing power—and enough say over how that purchasing power is used—insurers will be compelled to offer better, more affordable coverage options.
Fair rules of the game that include protections for high-risk patients and greater individual responsibility. For markets to function properly, it is important to establish fair ground rules. A proliferation of state and federal health insurance market regulations has made it more difficult and expensive for insurers to do business in many markets. The AMA proposes streamlined, more uniform health insurance market regulations. Regulations should permit market experimentation to find the most attractive combinations of plan benefits, cost-sharing and premiums. It is also important that market regulations reward, not penalize, insurers for taking all types of patients. People should have a guarantee that they will not lose coverage or be singled out for premium hikes due to changes in health status. Market regulations intended to protect people who have high health risks typically have backfired, sometimes disastrously, by driving up premiums for younger, healthier people and leading them to drop coverage.
To help high-risk people obtain coverage without paying astronomical premiums, additional targeted government subsidies are needed for high-risk people that would allow insurers to keep premiums down in the regular market. Individuals also need to be encouraged to play fairly by taking responsibility for obtaining health insurance without waiting until illness strikes or medical attention is needed. People who are uninsured despite being able to afford coverage should face tax implications.
By providing better competition, employees and other individuals will not have to pay for "packages" that are designed to fit particular "type" persons rather than providing plans that enable people to get the best coverage for their family at the most affordable price.
I am not an expert in health care, that is why I look to the health care industry to help provide answers. You can also look at the ideas from the American Heritage Foundation for more discussions.
I don't want to be just a parrot who calls out what he hears. I am looking into viable options. My wife and I had to make new choices in health coverage this past year because our provider was being forced out of the choice we had. We were given a choice between only two companies who would give us "options". The process was a pain-in-the-neck but we decided on a company and are now trying to reconcile with that decision as new medical situations arise.
I also have a family member paying $1000 a month for insurance. I understand the need for more affordable insurance plans. But without options, we will drown in our spittle. We should not let our uninsured depend on the federal government when we can provide better options (and SCHIP also has too many problems).
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Tim 5:8 (NKJV)
Even Christians understand the necessity of providing care for those who need it. We need to act but not on impulse. I don't know why we do not try different answers in different areas to see which one is most effective. Trial and error makes more sense than firing without aiming.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment