|
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE - - - - CUT THROUGH THE
HYPE
***********************************************************
"...if we get a government/insurance hybrid like the Medicare
Part D prescription plan that came out of the Bush
administration , and passed by a Republican Congress, prepare
for confusion and higher costs." (read article)
by Robert Fassbach, Editor,
www.SeniorArk.com
Summer
2009 - Barack Obama, and many
others, are determined that 2009 will be the year all
Americans will have access to quality healthcare. And it is
long overdue. We are the only developed nation in the world
that does not afford universal healthcare in some form. Our
life expectancy is 43rd on the list of nations - - on a par
with Cuba. The USA has an infant
mortality rate of 5 per 1,000, the same as Poland, Hungary,
Slovakia and Malta. Of 33 developed countries, America is just
above Latvia, the bottom of the group. Something is wrong with
this abysmal picture. We are a nation of wealth, but not good
health.
Excellent care IS available in America,
but not in all places, and not to everyone, and not at a
reasonable price. Estimates are that
over 50,000,000 Americans are uninsured, and have very limited
ability to obtain healthcare. A serious illness for an adult
or a child in
this group may mean total family bankruptcy, or death. Good
"FAMILY VALUES" cannot allow this situation to continue.
How one feels about a new universal
health coverage depends on one's perspective.
* Clearly, those with no health
insurance should rejoice. The dark cloud of fear that has
hung over their families will be removed. Those who have not
been able to afford, or to obtain health insurance, will now
have access to it. Workers may be emboldened to move to an
innovative small company that offers no health insurance.
The creative may now risk starting their own business. Those
with pre-existing conditions, and uninsurable in today's
market, should find relief. From the day an American child is
brought into the world he or she will have coverage. All can
take a deep breath, and live healthier.
* For some professionals in a good
jobs, with lush health insurance policies, things feel just
fine as they are. Why risk higher taxation, or higher
premiums, so "those people" can get healthcare. As a
well-off friend of mine once said, with regards to the Clinton
healthcare plan, "They want us all to be the same ( in
healthcare)." He felt a sense of entitlement to something
better than "those". He inherited his money fair and square. I
have news for this group; when "those people" go to the
emergency room for basic health care, taxes pay the bills
anyway. Universal healthcare could SAVE the taxpayer money.
* For businesses, universal
healthcare is a bonanza. Healthcare burdens would largely be
shifted to the individual, or the government. And employees of
companies that offer no insurance would now be covered, giving
them a healthier workforce. Small businesses that cannot
attract talent because of health insurance issues, now face a
more level playing field when competing with the large
corporations.
* Insurance companies may, or may
not, support universal healthcare. If we get a single
payer---Medicare type program, insurance companies may not be
in the picture. If we get some type of hybrid, with a
government/insurance company alliance, they may be happier.
But if we get a government/insurance hybrid like the Medicare Part D prescription
plan that came out of the Bush administration , and passed by
a Republican Congress, prepare for confusion and higher costs.
Insurance companies have realized record profits since Part D
was handed to them. The government has paid them sweet
subsidies, and allowed them to confuse, and often deceive
seniors. This hybrid is a messy failure. A part D program, or
a universal healthcare program, that operates like traditional
Medicare, with a single government payer, would be cheaper and
far less confusing. You are already seeing those ads on
TV saying something like "WHO WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE MAKING
DECISIONS ON YOUR HEALTHCARE, YOUR DOCTOR OR A GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRAT?" This is the wrong question. Ask your doctor. Your
doctor will tell you that today he is hamstrung by an
INSURANCE BUREAUCRAT bent on making a profit for his company,
while providing as little care for you as possible. You and
your doctor are making the decisions, only if you are paying
from your personal assets. Don't be fooled by the hype.
* Doctors have opinions too. They
resent the restrictions and paperwork requirements put
upon them by a myriad of insurance companies---all with
different coverage, policies, time frames, and reporting
codes. But, at the same time there is serious resistance to
turning the healthcare decisions over to the government. We
suspect they have less concern that healthcare coverage will
be diminished, than concern that FEES may be diminished. We
know that many doctors are not motivated primarily by the
dollar, and that some do not make high six figure or seven
figure incomes. But the nicest million dollar homes in our
area are often owned by our doctors, and the cars in the
garage are not gas-efficient Chevy's. And I have seen the
doctors' homes and cars in England, a country with
single-payer, government-run healthcare. They are doing quite
well, thank you. So settle down.
I recently saw my orthopedic surgeon. We
got into the universal healthcare discussion. He said, "You
need an MRI. In Canada, with their government-run program, you
might have to wait 4 months for that." Really? His assistant
set one up for me in Pennsylvania to be done in one hour. And
it was arranged, in five minutes, through a government
run, universal senior healthcare plan! It's called Medicare.
Cut through the hype.
Read all you can on this subject as it is
being considered. But when you hear a very strong position
being taken, ask yourself: "Who is saying this, and how will
it affect them?" Then let your elected representatives know
what you think. Cut through the hype.
|
