National Health Care … Kinda
In what is doubtless a move to preempt moves by the new Obama administration to enact some form of national health care, a consortium of health care insurers have kindly offered to accept all applications for health care coverage. The price of this largess would be a Congressional mandate requiring everyone to purchase health care coverage.
Even critics of “socialized” health care systems should be able to detect the trick here — the health care industry is seeking to maintain the ability to set prices and is hoping that the government will step in to pay the potentially high rates that would be charged to those with pre-existing health problems or high risk behaviors. On the other hand, the proposal would provide coverage for those who cannot receive it now as well as providing flexibility for those caught in “job lock” where they dare not change jobs lest they lose their existing health coverage and are unable to obtain new coverage.
Of course, the alternative of maintaining a health care system where costs are elevated by uninsured people who delay seeking health care until the problem is so severe as to require emergency room treatment is not viable either. A government limitations on the cost threaten to stifle equipment and research investments much as similar mandates have done in countries like Canada.
There are no easy solutions to the health care dilemma. Demogogues on the left will continue to decry the obscene costs of modern health care and lament the plight of the uninsured while ignoring the problems of research and equipment costs. Demogogues on the right will continue to cry “socialism” to object to any national system while ignoring the elevation of costs charged to the government after the uninsured seek emergency treatment. The countervailing demogogury results in stasis where both sides receive political benefits from the issue, but don’t actually do much to address it.
The Health insurance industry’s request that there be a universal Mandate is consistent with the “model” that everyone is now using: the Mass. plan. Frankly, I’m surprised that Obama has included that part of the Mass plan in his plan.
Now if we go that route we should pay close attention to the Mass experience. And so far:
1) many fewer uninsured
2) Much higher costs
Greeeaaat. Include a string that they know will never be passed and isn’t even part of Obama’s plan. They sure changed up the status quo on that one.
Meanwhile, for people like me who have two chronic conditions, it’ll be more difficult to find insurance. Luckily I’m eligible in three months at work.
Cant really comment on this too much as i am not from the states. But i think that here in the UK national healthcare on the whole is very good.
However, it has its flaws. My ideal would be 50% of this insurance and private system and 50% national.
No offence, but the 50% private should be for people who have inflicted there ill health themselves, like obesity, sti’s, smokeing and stupid accidents due to drugs or alcohol.
Just my two cents worth.
Nice read though, gave me a little insight to a little more of the system and its proposals
@jeff@Beauty tips
I agree that it is not ideal for the public to have to pay for the bad choices of individuals, and that’s one of my main problems with Obama’s plan to force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions at the same rate (although the current system is very flawed as well–perhaps more-so). But the solution to that problem is very difficult to get right. For example, you mentioned that you would make smokers pay extra. What about the person that used to smoke (possibly even before it was well known that it was bad for you), but quit, and then got lung cancer later? Or what about the obese person who is obese partially because of genetics, or other medical problems that makes it difficult for them to exercise? There are countless examples of cases where it’s no clear if the medical condition is self-inflicted. It would be nice, though, if we could charge people based on behavior rather than pre-existing conditions. But it’s hard to see how that would work without over-representing things that are easy to measure (ie. smoking).