 |
 |
|
||||
|
||||||
|
|
Featured Listener Comments Section: Contents List |
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Listener: Don
Category: General
Date: 06 Apr 2010
Time: 13:51:56 -0700
Remote Name: 68.89.241.253
Robert,
Below is a comparison of Conservative vs. Progressive solutions.
Most people can agree on what is wrong with healthcare in America. The possible solutions to these problems are where the disagreements exist. Without trying to fathom the motives of the opposing sides, lets just look at some of the problems and the suggested solutions. For clarity I will call the small government, market-oriented side the Conservatives and the big government, command and control side the Progressives.
First, both sides agree that there is unequal, and therefore unfair, tax treatment for employer-sponsored healthcare plans compared to plans bought by individuals. The Conservatives would keep the tax breaks for the employers while extending tax breaks, through various mechanisms, to those who purchase their own health insurance. The Progressives, on the other hand, would remove the tax breaks, thereby increasing taxes on all businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. The differences in results are clear. The first solution creates more freedom for individuals, leaving them with more of their own money to control themselves. The other solution increases costs for businesses, negatively affecting employment, wages, and the availability of company-sponsored health insurance.
Another area of agreement is the need to cover those who don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it. The Conservatives promote the idea of allowing individuals to shop for insurance across state lines so they can find the best coverage and price that meets their needs. Progressives have recently embraced this idea, but then rendered it ineffective by insisting on high minimum benefits for all insurance plans, effectively eliminating any competition based on flexible coverage.
Conservatives also encourage use of high deductible, low premium catastrophic care insurance coupled with Health Savings Accounts. These are especially advantageous for young, healthy people and others with low healthcare costs. Encouraging the use of, and increasing the size of contributions to Health Savings Accounts is one way that Conservatives allow individuals control and responsibility over their own healthcare decisions. Again, Progressives move in the opposite direction, wanting to limit the size of contributions and the flexibility of the coverage. In fact, by mandating higher minimum benefits for all insurance plans, they may do away with high deductible plans completely.
Conservatives encourage insurance companies to expand the range of coverage available and would encourage those companies that provide insurance for their employees to offer a range of plans rather than the one-size-fits-all plan that is customary today. This would give employees the ability to choose coverage in line with their life style and health risks. Progressives want to mandate high minimum benefits in all health insurance plans. This merely drives up the cost of the plans while forcing people to purchase benefits they don’t want and may not ever need.
Most people agree that it is wrong for insurance companies to deny coverage and drop people when they get sick. An insurance policy with a paid up premium should be considered an enforceable contract. An insurance company should inspect claims to make sure that it is responsible for paying the benefits. That is just good business. But each state should have a mechanism, whether a review board, ombudsman, or court that has the power to review and reverse, if appropriate, adverse decisions by insurance companies to ensure that they are adhering to the conditions of the policy/contract.
And finally, one of the most important ways that Conservatives would reduce the cost of healthcare is tort reform. Certainly malpractice exits, and patients are injured, sometimes in spite of receiving proper medical care. Each state should establish a medical court in which medical experts in the relevant fields can review every aspect of a case to determine whether a patient has been harmed, who is responsible, and the amount of damages that should be awarded. Our current process is a travesty of justice, established primarily to guarantee multi-million dollar paydays for high-pressure lawyers. There is nothing just about a clever lawyer manipulating the emotions of an inexpert jury, hyping the evil intentions and incompetence of a doctor to drive up the award for his own benefit. Progressives are not concerned with tort reform; trial lawyers are their biggest supporters.
All insurance works by using shared-risk pools. In general, the larger the number of people in the risk pool, the more the risks are shared and the lower the costs for each individual in the pool. The Progressives have guaranteed the largest pool possible by mandating that all legal residents of the U.S. buy health insurance. Constitutional questions aside, there is more to cost control than merely the size of the pool. Requiring that all insurance companies offer only high minimum benefit plans and cover all pre-existing conditions, can only result in higher costs. Conservatives would establish high-risk insurance pools for those with pre-existing conditions and subsidize them to make the costs affordable. This would have the effect of stabilizing the larger pool, allowing costs to decrease.
By making insurance more affordable and encouraging self-responsibility, more
people will become insured. For those who simply cannot afford to purchase
insurance, subsidies like Medicaid and S-CHIP will still be offered though the
states. This will not get everyone covered because many of those who do not have
coverage today are simply too irresponsible to take care of themselves and their
families. This is a human condition that will not change, but these conservative
solutions will make it more affordable for millions of responsible individuals
and families to get health insurance. Progressives oppose all of the above
solutions or regulate them out of usefulness, opting instead for government
control over everyone’s healthcare decisions.
Don
|
|
Join our Listener
Club here. |
||
|
