Can "Medicare for All" Work? Also, Tough Questions on Health Care Reform, and Rising Health Insurance Premiums
Welcome to this installment of the Weekly Health Insurance News Roundup. This week we will take a look as three articles, all of which discuss health care reform, and why it's so terribly needed in this country. Our first article comes to us from Counterpunch.org and is entitled, "Single-Payer Health Care Reform." In this article, author Daniel Wirt M.D. looks at how, in his opinion, only a single-payer, "Medicare-for-all" system of health care and health insurance is the best way to lower health care costs in the long run and make the system more efficient.
According to the author, about half of personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, and it is statistics likes these that are making people afraid that they can't afford to get sick at all. Due to the high cost of health insurance and health care, according to the author, many Americans are faced with the choice of somehow paying for health care, or paying for food and housing. The article states that a majority of physicians and Americans support a single-payer system.
The author is also very critical of private insurance companies due to their high administrative costs and the complexity and fragmentation of all of their plans. Administrative overhead, according to the article, consumed thirty-one percent of the health care dollars spent in this country, and most of that went to private insurance companies. While incremental fixes are being proposed, according to the author these will do little to control costs and provide universal access. The author then goes on to say that national health insurance isn't "socialized medicine," as many have called it. We already have a national system in Medicare, and the author states more people are happier with Medicare than with private insurance, since doctors get paid easier and costs have been kept down.
The author goes onto state that Medicare should be expanded not only to cover seniors, but to cover everyone. This would provide more choice for the consumer, less wasteful spending and overhead and a more efficient health care system in general, according to the author. The article has quite a bit more to say on the subject, more than we can get into here, but suffice it to say, the author makes a compelling argument. Whether we will see any of what's said in this article come to fruition, however, is anyone's guess.
Our next article comes from The Wall Street Journal and is entitled, "Tough Questions Dog Health-Care Overhaul." This article discusses many of the challenges faced by the Obama administration in terms of bringing about change to the health care system, including different views between political parties as well as health insurance companies. Some of these questions include: Should large businesses be required to offer workers coverage?; Should individuals be required to buy insurance?; Should a public plan be created to compete with private insurers?; and so on.
The article gives its own short answers to some of these questions, but they remain vague, and with good reasons. These are tricky questions that need to be sufficiently answered in order to make the public and the health care industry more open to embracing a new health care system. The article does seem a little negative on the notion that this will happen at all, which isn't unexpected given that former administrations have tried to reform health care and failed. Again, time will only tell how any health care reform comes to fruition, but these are important questions that will need to be dealt with.
The final article comes to us from The Business Journal of Milwaukee and is entitled, "Health insurance premiums could jump without reform." This article takes a look at how, without any change or reform to health care, health insurance premiums could jump eighty-three percent by 2016, and cost more than $24,000. Citing a report called, "The Cost of Doing Nothing: Wisconsin," the article cites a dramatic increase in health insurance premiums over the next several years, eventually costing forty-five percent of a median household's income. The article stated that Wisconsin lost $1.9 billion due to poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured, which equates to $4,200 per uninsured Wisconsin resident.
While this is only one state, it does serve to show that there is a larger problem at work here. Without significant change to our health care system, the problem of cost and the uninsured will just get worse and worse, driving up costs for those who do have insurance to scary levels. I hope you've enjoyed this installment of the Weekly Health Insurance News Roundup, and until next time, have a happy and healthy day.
