It seems like the big difficulty Americans have, if they have any, with the Health Care Reform Act of 2010 is that they will be required to buy health insurance. That's their big beef.
Sure, it stinks. I'm not crazy about it, either, but they're trying to work within this insane system we have so that's what they came up with and the fact is that there is a great deal in the reform that is good for America and Americans.
No benefits to this reform?
Right. Because apparently you don't have a pre-existing condition that the insurance agencies can--or have--thrown you and your policy out on. Since it doesn't effect you, you don't recognize that one, significant benefit. That alone was/is pretty monumental but it certainly doesn't stop there.
The GAO recognized that it benefits the US, nationally, fiscally:
The GAO states that the new health care legislation could provide “notable improvement” to our economic outlook.
From the GAO report: “The federal government faces long-term fiscal pressures that predate the economic downturn and are driven on the spending side largely by rising health care costs and an aging population. GAO’s simulations show continually increasing levels of debt that are unsustainable over the long-term. Under the Alternative simulation, debt held by the public as a share of GDP would exceed the historical high reached in the aftermath of World War II by 2020. Both of these simulations incorporate effects of health care legislation enacted in March 2010, which includes a number of provisions to control the growth of federal health care spending. There is a notable improvement in the long-term outlook under the Baseline Extended simulation, which assumes full implementation and effectiveness of cost control provisions, although some–including the Trustees, CBO and the CMS Actuary–have raised questions about the sustainability of certain of these cost controls.”
Link to source, including link to GAO report: http://www.dirtandseeds.com/gao-finds-fiscal-notable-improvement-in-obamacare-republicans-hate-it/
Then there are these, additional benefits for Americans:
--Pre-existing conditions are covered (which was obscene on the insurance companies' part they weren't covered up to now);
--There are small business tax credits for health care;
--Lifetime caps on how much the insurance agencies will pay for your health care are eliminated (no benefits for you, you say?);
--Seniors get a "donut hole" rebate (see link below for explanation);
--More young adults are covered by their parent's health care plans whereas before they had no insurance;
--"Recissions" are ended so you don't get dumped from your coverage once you do get sick even though you've been paying premiums for years (again, HUGE improvement for Americans and it wouldn't have happened without this administration's work);
--New insurance plans must include coverage for preventative care, too (which only makes good sense both for our own health and for the fiscal health of the country);
--Insurers must now, with this legislation, reveal how much money they spend on overhead so there's far more transaparency in the industry and we can see how they're ripping us off AND how much they're making on us and on us getting and being sick;
--There is now, with this reform, a customer appeals process that didn't exist before so you aren't automatically screwed because you're the "little guy" and they're the big, powerful corporation that just tells us what we get, take it or leave it;
--New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste;
--There will be medicare expansion to rural areas, too, because, after all, they're Americans, too and they need health care;
--Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits;
--Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items so we can make better choices in what we eat and so, stay healthier;
--The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage;
--The Secretary of HHS will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses;
--A two‐year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatement of diseases which is good for businesses, research AND the American public;
And these are just the first, immediate benefits of the HCRA of 2010. There are more in years to come.
So please don't say this health care reform doesn't help you or it doesn't help Americans or that there's nothing good in it for us. There is, there is a great deal of good in it for us and it is long, long overdue.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/health-reform-bill-summary_n_508315.html#s75147&title=undefined
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
--Pre-existing conditions are covered (which was obscene on the insurance companies' part they weren't covered up to now);
Should pre-existing car accidents be covered? Exact same logic. Well meaning, but simply cannot work economically in the long term. It might work as a transitional step as the choice of whether or not to be insured is taken away.
-There are small business tax credits for health care;
Health care should not be linked to employment, it is a significant factor to how we got into the mess we are in.
--Lifetime caps on how much the insurance agencies will pay for your health care are eliminated (no benefits for you, you say?);
What does that cost? What do we do when unlimited benefits winds up costing more than people's annual income? It's bound to happen, unless there's limits--either on available treatments, or on overall benefits. How much should we spend to extend a dying person's life by 2 weeks? Nasty question, but it needs to be answered. Maybe I want to retire a year early, instead of paying to cover the chance that my medical bills will be over the limit.
--New insurance plans must include coverage for preventative care, too (which only makes good sense both for our own health and for the fiscal health of the country);
Depends on definitions here. My biggest problem is that it appears to eliminate high deductible policies with Health Savings Accounts, which is one of the best ways of balancing cost with coverage.
Insurers must now, with this legislation, reveal how much money they spend on overhead so there's far more transaparency in the industry and we can see how they're ripping us off AND how much they're making on us and on us getting and being sick;
Fine. It isn't going to be as much as you think--there are enough companies that if one companies profit margins are too high, some other company will undercut them.
--New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste;
Imaginary, else the insurance companies would already be doing it.
Once again, a comparison--this time, the rest of the world, not just Europe vs. the US: everywhere else it would be unimaginable to not cover "pre-existing conditions" but here it's common practice. It's only unworkable here, in our sick, strictly profit-driven system.
--but health care IS linked, directly, unfortunately, to employment and that's the system we have to work with for now;
--First, I don't believe we're now at "unlimited benefits" and second, there you go again, all concerned about the corporation's costs but not concerned about the "man on the street". You really were born to nearly unlimited money, weren't you?
--"Health Savings Accounts". What a joke. That's great if you're in the upper class, economically, but if you're middle- or lower-class, again, economically, you won't have that option. What a luxury;
--Go Google the incomes of the top 5 or 10 health insurance companies and see if they don't have both plenty of profit--obscene, in fact--but see the paychecks their CEO's get, too;
--No fraud and waste in health care in the US? You haven't heard of unnecessary procedures being done just to bring in more cash for the doctor/hospital? Please.
Health Savings Accounts combined with a high deductible policy is a fairly recent way of doing health care--it is what I'm doing now through my employer. My deductible is 3,000 per year, my employer pays a bit under $1000 per year into a Health Savings Account (I may have terminology slightly wrong, there are a couple different related versions) and I can contribute pre-tax. The account can be used for virtually any medical procedure, drugs--even nonprescription drugs. There's enough to cover preventative care, some preventative care is covered before the deductible, but there's also incentive to be conservative with health expenses--the HSA money rolls over, and can be spent on voluntary medical care that would not be ordinarily covered--like plastic surgery or Lasik.
Covering pre-existing is only financially possible if coverage is universal--at which point it is redundant. If pre-existing conditions are forced to be covered, what prevents me from only paying premiums when I have an expensive injury or illness? What happens when only sick people buy insurance?
If you don't force people to buy insurance, but do force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, then lots of people will do just that, and insurance companies will either have to raise rates or go bankrupt.
Do you understand that if an insurance company is spending an average of $5,000 per year on its customers, they will have to charge at least an average of $5,000 per year? There's only so much that can come from profit.
I'm familiar with the recent development that is an HSA.
Since insurance coverage is mandated by this reform, the mandatory coverage is taken care of, as we both know.
How would one not understand about $5000.00/$5000.00 out? That's far from a concern at present, for sure and by a long shot, with and for the insurance agencies.
How would one not understand about $5000.00/$5000.00 out? That's far from a concern at present, for sure and by a long shot, with and for the insurance agencies.
You keep calling the insurance companies names because they currently won't let you wait until you get very sick before you buy insurance from them--I don't see how anyone can't understand that any company that did would have no choice but to go bankrupt after a very short time of running like that.
What names have I called the insurance companies, for starters?
And secondly, if I disparage them--and of course I do--it's because they are strangling us all, individually and collectively, as a nation, by their demands for ever more money in premiums for our health care insurance. They're strangling our health care system with their outrageously high costs and far lower payouts.
You've said you weren't born to money. If that's the case--and I believe you--then you must work for an insurance agency. I can't understand why you defend them otherwise, other than the fact that you nearly totally blindly defend Capitalism and "free markets". You seem to defend Capitalism like it's democracy, which it's patently not. It seems to be a rather patriotic thing with you.
Sevesteen,
You're going to love my post on guns later today. Trust me on this.
mr
I'm sure that most large corporations are more interested in profit than the well-being of their customers--whether it is insurance or any other industry. The big difference here is that the current system removes choice from the consumer, and shifts it to the employer. When it is hard to switch providers, service suffers--whether talking about the local cable company, the pre-breakup phone company, or health care.
With true competition, an insurance company that treated its customers the way most currently do would lose business to one that treated customers right. If they didn't change, they would lose ALL their business. Not to say we shouldn't regulate them, but it should mostly be on forcing them to honor contracts, and not obfuscate the contract terms to the detriment of consumers.
I don't believe that payouts are lower--care is astoundingly expensive, and hospitals hire people to maximize the bill, while remaining within insurance company guidelines.
The choices are removed from our health care system, too, because a) again, the system is so expensive and b) it benefits the insurance companies.
The "public option" was to give the insurance companies true competition, instead of the whole industry colluding to keep costs--and so, their profits--so obscenely high.
Dude, payouts are lower. Read about it. The insurance companies have been denying care, denying certain procedures, etc., for years. Surely you've heard, read or seen that somewhere, at some time, in the media.
I work part time, and do not offer insurance to part-time workers ... Yes, my children have Medicaid, but when something happens to us, we need to go sit at the county hospital for eight hours and then get a big bill six months later that we can not pay...
Clearly the system needs fixing. We absolutely need even just this health care reform, at minimum.
Post a Comment