Health insurance is not a universal health care solution

Global Health Insurance

Health insurance is not a universal health care solution

The health care debate is moving to the left. But if the progressive does not start to sweat, we will fail again.

Ithin’s broad democratic coalition, which is clear that the health care debate has shifted to the left. Mainstream figures, such as Kirsten Gillibrand, a potential presidential candidate in 2020, are embracing a single payer. John Conyers represents the universal health care act, which currently has 115 democratic co-sponsors in parliament. And the senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, recently said that a single payer is now “on the stage”. Let’s say that we have free and fair elections in the future, and the Democrats have restored power at some point, which is very good news for advocates of a single payer.

But the impetus is that there are so many energetic radicals left, and most of them fail to address the difficulty of switching to a single-payer system. A common view is that with every advanced country has a single payer system, the system’s advantages are quite obvious, the only obstacle is the lack of imagination, or recalcitrant Democrats and their donors. But the reality is more complex.

First, there is a near-consensus around the use of Medicare to achieve single-payer health care, but Medicare is not what people normally think of as a single-payer system. This year, about a third of participants bought private plans under Medicare Advantage. These private policies are becoming more and more popular each year, in part because the field is already at odds with traditional government management plans. For example, medicare advantage programs must have a cost cap for self-funded projects, while public programs do not. About a quarter of the health insurance participants also buy some sort of “Medigap” policy to cover their own expenses and what the program does not include, then public and private prescription drug programs.

A series of choices can be confusing – a far cry from the simplicity of the single-payer system’s promise.

Meanwhile, health insurance is truly political wisdom. Medicare is not only popular, it’s also familiar. Many of us have parents or grandparents who participate in the program. Polls show that the vast majority of americans now believe that the government has a responsibility to provide health insurance for all.

But from a policy point of view, health insurance is probably the most difficult way. In fact, some experts who preach the single-payer system say that the “universal health care plan” currently on the table may be almost impossible to implement. Timing alone can have a serious impact on the system. The Conyers’ House bill will transfer almost everyone in the country to Medicare within a year. We don’t know what Bernie sanders is going to suggest in the senate, but his 2013 American health security bill has a two-year transition period. In such a short time, it is almost as if the economy is trying to stop a cruise ship.

Public health at the university of Chicago researcher and liberals generally reported Harold Pollack (Harold Pollack) said: “there is no a detailed single-payer act to transitional problems on how to get there from here. We’ve never seen one before. Even if you believe that everyone will say cost savings, there’s still a lot of detail about how to finance this problem, how to handle the impact of the system, and so on.

Achieving universal coverage – if we take the details seriously, coverage is good, and not just “go into” emergency care – it’s a battle that can be won. If we don’t, we just set ourselves up for failure.

C entrusted Democrats will undoubtedly become an obstacle to universal coverage, but a more fundamental problem is that force the whole population into the medical insurance, especially in a relatively short period of time, will cause a huge backlash.

The most important thing about the recent reshaping of our healthcare system is that “loss aversion” may be a central force in health politics. This is what people value, they have more than anything they can get, if they give up. This is a big reason why Democrats have been devastated by the passage of the affordable care act (ACA) in 2010, and republicans are now learning the double way of fear of loss.

“Remember how much trouble President Obama is having, and he says if you like your insurance, can you keep it?” “Asked pollack. “For 1.6 million people, this commitment becomes very difficult to maintain. This creates a storm, “the 1.6 million people in less than 1% of the proportion of older people mouth, most of them lost the unqualified Michael pollan, if sick, they are vulnerable. ACA’s coverage expanded to almost tenfold, but the people who lost their policies became the core of the law. Trump and other republicans are still talking about the “victims” of obamacare.

According to the current “universal health care plan, we will force more than 70% of the adult population, including tens of millions from the employer or trade union, or the veterans administration or the federal employee health benefits plan – to give up their current medical insurance. Many employers offer more policies than health insurance, so many people miss out on deals.

Some big companies skip the middleman, self-insurance for employees, and many offer powerful benefits. We will kill this form of reporting. If we are to turn medicare into a single plan, as some advocate ideas, then we will ask a third of the height of the old people give up their choice to buy subsidized health insurance program. Only consider the political implications of this move. And because some doctor would refuse to attend a single payment mechanism, and the mechanism under the health insurance reimbursement rates can reduce a lot, otherwise we can’t promise, even if you like your doctor, you can continue to look at him or her.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here