The facts seem to indicate reasonable health care reform is in line. Neil Crosby, California Association for Health Underwriters, VP Public Affairs, speaker and authority on Health Care Reform issues, presented the following during his lecture on September 24, 2009.
So what is Health Care Reform all about?
- Reducing health care costs,
- Increase access,
- Provide coverage for everyone,
- Help the “under insured”,
- Reduce the number of un-insured,
The un-insured is the number one issue driving reform.
The California un-insured problem looks similar to other states according to www.coverageforall.org. California has 6.7 million un-insured residents of which the latest data show:
- 32% or 2.1 million already qualify for a government subsidy plan that is free or available at a very low cost, yet they have not enrolled.
- 33% or 2.2 million make enough to pay for insurance but choose not to.
- 15% or 1 million are on short term insurance (i.e., in-between jobs, etc.) but are still counted as un-insured.
Bottom Line: 20% or 1.4 million people (3.8% of the California population) are truly un-insured – this is the true magnitude of the problem.
Why are so many un-insured?
- Some can not access insurance – they are declined due to pre-existing conditions – this needs to be fixed.
- Rates are too high and can not afford insurance.
- Many do not know what insurance is available to them.
- Others just don’t care.
Current Reform Ideas Being Reviewed
- Expand financial subsidy guidelines; California already raised the minimum limits to qualify for government plans in January 2009 – Good idea.
- Guaranteed issue of insurance (same as small group insurance has been for years) – Good idea and will be coming for sure! The question is how it will be done.
- Portability (take the plan with you from job to job) – Good idea.
- Electronic media health records – Good idea.
- Transparency of health care costs. For example, in Florida residents can type in their zip to find the stores closest to them with lowest cost medications.
- New national public option – Depends on what the option ends up being.
Government Run Health Care has been tried and failed in California
Mr. Crosby further added that California had state run health care that began in 1992. The 1992 Public Option was called the Health Insurance Plan of California (HIPC). Sales were so poor that brokers were asked to sell it. The state could not compete with private industry due to the bureaucracy involved. The State run health care then morphed into a Not for Profit ‘Co-Op’ called PacAdvantage which still costed 30% more than the private sector insurance products.
See my other blogs:
Why Is Health Care So Expensive?
Can a Single Payer Health Care System Work In America?
Can Consumers Save Healthcare?
Evolution of Health Insurance In America
Health Reform Update (Dec 17, 2009)
October 12, 2009 at 6:11 am |
That’s a good discussion of the current situation. I agree that among the major problems is the number of uninsured and the lack transferability. The administration seems to be focused on the disparity between “rich” employer-sponsored plans and the cost of privately-purchased plans. But rather than punish the company-sponsored plans by taxing the benefit as income (discouraging them) why not ENCOURAGE participation at all levels by making all health care costs deductible. Now, only employers can deduct the cost of health insurance. Let’s go one step further – at present, high-income people would reap larger benefits than low-income people because they are in a higher tax bracket. A given policy would be LESS EXPENSIVE for the higher-income person. That’s backwards. Instead of making it a tax deduction, let’s make it a tax credit of a fixed percentage, say 25%. That way, a rich person would pay at least as much as a poor person for the same product. Even a poor person that pays no income tax would get the benefit.
Now, let’s go one step further yet – since the tax credit would be uniform and apply all, the credit can be paid directly to the provider, rather than to the consumer The benefit to the the health care consumer would be the same, but the provider is much more capable of administering the program. The same thing is done today with the collection of sales tax revenue – it is done by the seller, not the consumer.
October 16, 2009 at 10:21 am |
Regarding the comment on transparancy of health care costs above, those on HSA compatible health plans especially may want to shop for the best rates on their medications. The site http://www.pillbot.com can be used to find the lowest cost prescription medications. It is a third party source so I can not vouch 100% on its accuracy, but have heard nothing but good results from the people who use it.
December 7, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
A major problem with the present system is that the insurance company is a middleman. Their only interest is to maximize their profits at the expense of the providers and the insured. They do not care if the proper service is provided or if the insured receives the proper value.
I believe that health care is a basic right. The money for the whole health care system is supplied by the consumers. The government should establish one set of basic rules for everyone. Extra insurance can be purchased by consumers as needed or wanted. Contracts should be issued by the government to private companies to administer the policy rules. Companies that are more efficient will earn more money.
December 29, 2009 at 11:08 am |
Letting the state governments have a role in health-care legislation risks capture or veto by the industry, yet consolidation at the US level is inconsistent with a Union that stretches over a continent. There is a way out of this dilemma. See http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/the-health-care-industry-dominating-the-states-federalism-as-capture/