There have been numerous proposals across the political spectrum for different plans of health care reform. All of these proposals, which differ mainly when considering the details, are usually split in to two categories. One group wants the see health care reform by incremental adjustments and the other would like to see universal coverage, ( in other words health care for all citizens of the U.S.) Supporters of the latter think that in order to ensure equal access for all citizens to medical care, the government needs to take control of the money side of the nation's health care system. These supporters suggest the Medicare and Medicaid are the top fire flamers to the increase in medical costs. These programs, they argue, have failed to support the unisured. Since the baby boom is starting to age, these programs will not be able to run much longer with their heads above the water. If health care was univeral, the federal government would become a single purchaser which would be able to force medical care providers to keep costs low. Another proposal concerning universal care would offer tax credits or money to the poor that would allow them to purchase the insurance that they need. Lastly, a hybrid systyem proposal would include government funded vouchers for insurance to all citizens but would also offer choices of upgrade which would allow competition to still play a role in the decision process of choosing the type of health insurance that a particular person might want. In this case, basic health insurance would be universal but everyone would be able to choose from a variety of plans and also purchase additonal coverage. Those opposing the idea of universal health care and promoting its change by incriments, don't oppose the idea of health care for all but they don't agree with the way the univeral health care plans achieve that goal. Their main argument concerns the decrease of competition between health care providers that would ultimately result in poor service. For example: long waiting periods for surgeries. They also argue that health care is a large and important part of the economy here in America and that government sponsored health care would cause thousands of medical industry workers and insurance workes without jobs. Although all these critics have done a lot more than oppose universal health care, they have made proposals for change as well. They propose that small changes such as enhancing Health Savings Accounts, offering tax deductions, and making consumers pay more of their health care insurance out of their pocket, will in turn reduce our debt and help reform health care. Basically, they would like to better inform consumers with the information on medical quality and costs. With these changes in place these policymakers believe that health care will naturally reform itself.
I definatley think that universal health care is the only way that this health care problem will completely be solved. Incremental adjustments may solve problems that present themselves in the near future, but in the long run, they won't be sufficient enough so save the country a large sum of money. Also, little changes will keep having to be made to keep up with the times, which will only elongate the reform of health care. Also, the proposal that consumers should pay greater shares of health care and medical expenses out of their pocket, supported by those whom oppose universal health, just doesn't make sense to me. Isn't that the problem in the first place? One of the main reasons that people aren't purchasing health insurance is because they don't want or have the money to pay for the inflated prices of these items, not to mention those whom are denied converage by companies because of preexisting health conditions. By requiring universal health care, insurance companies would have to keep their prices low because of restrictions set by the government. The only thing that I have to say to people that are concerned with the competition of the insurance companies suffering is that they should stop and think for a moment, about whether or not money or the saftey and concern for all human beings is more important. If the answer isn't the latter, theyhave some serious greed and selfishness issues. Although I think that universal heath care is the answer to this long drawn out battle against health care reform, I do realize that the health care industry is a large part of our economy and by having the government be a single purchaser could cause some problems. That's why I believe that the plan involving the hybrid system. This way, everyone would at least have basic coverage, but people who want or need more can purchase it from competing companies similar to how they purchase health insurance now. Another reason I think that universal health care is the answer is because Medicare and Medicaid have been driving America into debt. With the baby boom aging, these companies, especially Medicare, are not going to survive. There will be too many people who use Medicare with not enough people to pay taxes for it. I do think that another plan in addition to universal care has to be activated before these companies fall under or else doctors will not recieve the supplies they need and elderly people won't recieve the proper care they need. In conclusion, health care is a definate and serious problem. Our country is falling farther into debt with every second. I think that Obama is doing a good job trying to comprimise a universal health care plan with incremenatl changes. Of course not everyone is going to get what they want, but just like the Federalists and Anti-Federalits, if both sides of this argument give a little, then I think that a solid health care reform plan can be reached.
For further reading Kate's blog dicusses issue number three concerning food bourne illness and Erin Takle discusses issue number two: Ensuring Quality Care for Medicare Patients.
