I loved going to the optometrist when I was younger, and my favorite part of the trip was when I got to choose a pair of new frames. The doctor’s office I visited has a store attached where people can purchase brand name frames or contacts. There was one year though, where I was gently directed away from the shiny, sleek, brand name frames and asked to choose from a much smaller, boring selection. That was the year I had Medicare.
At the time, I was sulky about having what I thought was an uncool health plan. But, now that I’m uninsured and waiting to sign onto a plan that will cut away half of my paycheck each month, I wouldn’t mind any plan that is more affordable. Boring frames or not.
It was mentioned in last night’s presidential debate that 45 million Americans don’t have health insurance. (The figure was around 47 million in 2007, according to NCHC). I think that this is a serious problem. Hospital bills are horrendous even when one has insurance, so what about those who don’t? What do you do if you’re on a budget and the thirty pills you need each month to control high blood pressure costs more than a hundred dollars?
Senators Obama and McCain both suggest health care reform. They discussed their plans in last night’s debate. I understood one of the basic differences in their plans to be that McCain wants to give families a $5000 tax credit for them to spend on the insurance plan of their choice, and Obama wants to offer a new type of health insurance for those without, which he hopes will be more affordable.
But how are they going to allocate the money needed for reform? This article asks this question. And in the debate, Obama admitted that the new system will cost money at the outset but should pay off in the long run.
Can the government afford to reform health insurance policies at the moment? Should it have more control over the health insurance system?
[On a lighter note, check out these views on health care that The Onion attaches to the candidates who are or were running in this election. Despite the fictional nature of the views, I think this article highlights how candidates can propose vastly different, opposing solutions for just one issue.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First of all thank you for bringing up this topic. My second essay is about health care. To tell you my personal opinion right away, neither candidates offer any favorable plan.
It is shame for the richest country the world to let its citizens suffer without universal health care. It will increase people's tax they say, that is quite a nonsense American's already pay one of the highest taxes.
Instead of spending over a half trillion dollars and killing many innocent people in middle east and at the same time loosing its own citizens that money should have been enough to provide free health care for everyone for at least two years.
It is all about priorities. If Americans demanded that universal health care is must, no should. It would have happened long time ago. If any politician in other western countries wants to privatize health care system, they would probably be assassinated.
Hopefully in 2012 we might have a better luck
Reading the candidate's health plans is particularly frustrating, I've found, the only striking difference being that McCain promises a $2,500 to $5,000 tax credit to each family while Obama says that American families can save "up to" $2,500 under his plan.
I wondering the same thing as you, Masuma: How are they going to bring this about? Even though McCain titles one of his sections A Specific Plan of Action," clearly an implicit criticism of Obama's plan, I found no trail by which to follow the money.
I know less about this issue than others, but what I do find to question in McCain's plan is that he wants to allow families to "choose" beteen insurance plans, using the tax credits as they will. What happens when inflation makes these tax credits even less ineffective than they already are? If insurance plans are not challenged by a government plan, as in Obama's policy, what motivation does that give them to lower their costs? Both candidates talk about increasing the "competition" between insurance plans, but McCain sounds like he wants health insurance to continue to operate as a capitalist market, while Obama wants to identify health insurance as one of the fundamental duties of a government. To continue to speak in broad terms.
I do not think that the government should worry about health care right now. Yes, it is HUGE problem. But, I think that if the economy was fixed, and more jobs were available, then more people could afford healthcare.
Ah, universal healthcare...it sounds totally Utopian to me. This is due to the fact that the United States has always been a free market, capitalist society and probably always will be. Based on this system, there will always be options for different types of healthcare through different types of providers thus competing for consumers like you and me.
The main issue that is brought up in this blog is how either of the healthcare plans raised by the Presidential candidates will be funded. Personally, I believe it will be funded by some sort of tax (like McCain's income tax) or we will risk going to into more debt (like at the onset of Obama's plan). Based on my experiences with healthcare, I think that they should work on making insurance through jobs more affordable and making access to lower income insurance, such as Medicaid, easier.
For example, when I was younger and just out of high school, something happened and my family was forced to go on Medicaid. We certainly were qualified for it but it seemed like the forms were endless and the procedures and rules boundless. By the time we were approved and had gotten our cards, I had been sick twice and my parents had had to pay out of pocket for me to go to the emergency room and for my medicine. This is why I think that the process for plans like Medicaid should be easier and more understandable in order to avoid people not having insurance or having to pay out of pocket when they don't need to.
Later on, I was able to get on insurance through my job and was totally happy with my coverage and the results. Even though I didn't get to always choose who my provider was, I got to choose which plan I wanted and had the cost taken off before taxes. Unfortunately, I found out that Accounting wasn't for me so I quit my job and went back to college.
So here I am, self-insured, and paying one of the biggest premiums I could ever imagine. I have the basic plan with a provider that I chose and every six months they have raised the plan cost almost a $100 a month. In addition to this, once I hit a certain age bracket, they raised it an additional $50 a month because I had reached a "higher" risk bracket. Seriously? I am in my 20's here people!!! With my earlier insurance through my job, the extra cost was distributed among the employees and if there was an increase, it was spread out among the company and it wasn't just up to me to carry the premium. This is why I think they should give businesses a break when it comes to insurance costs in order to keep it low and affordable.
Now I know that there are unemployed people, even with pre-existing conditions, that can't afford their own healthcare. Even I can barely afford the over priced one I have right now, but is it truly the governments responsibility to make sure that I am covered? I think that it is their job to make sure that it is a possibility for everyone to be covered but not their responsibility to make sure everyone has healthcare. Here in the United States, everything costs something and healthcare definitely falls into this category.
To leech off of pretty much everyone's comments, I'd like to pile on and say neither candidate offers a favorable outlook on health care. Also, both candidates are quite eager to do something about it and offer some sort of universal plan, but, besides from the number dropping, their plans both seem bleak.
Like Masuma asked, how will they make these plans happen? The candidates' plans for coverage both seem weak when they mention the amount of money involved, but what happens if these plans are put into action and American citizens find out either a) how little money they have to spend, or b) how much more they have to spend the credit on.
It's a shame that taxes will be what pays for either of these plans, but what can we do except wait? It should be an embarassment to talk about raising taxes and then going out and throwing money around like its nothing (e.g. Obama buying the first 30 minutes of air time for Game 6 of the World Series [game one is excellent, by the way]).
Post a Comment