|
 |
Health Insurance
Serving Individuals, Families,
Businesses & Groups Nationwide.
|
|
Health Insurance
|
Home
| Will Health Insurance Plans be Taxed? »
| Will Medicare Expansion, Cuts, Lead to More Medica... »
| Loss of Cobra Leaves Unemployed in Search of Indiv... »
| Michigan Health Insurance and Obama's Plan »
| "Botax" for Affordable Health Insurance »
| Trauma Patients Dying for Affordable Health Insura... »
| Savings Billions on Health Care? Try Making Indivi... »
| Affordable Health Insurance Key to Diabetes Treatm... »
| Health Coverage Legislation: How Will it Impact Me... »
| Senators Ask Key Questions About Small Business He... »
One key aspect of the current debate over health care legislation and affordable health insurance for all Americans appears to have finally been resolved this week. According to the LA Times, House Democrats have finally agreed upon a health care bill that would provide affordable health insurance for millions of uninsured Americans right now. Their bill, which will be passed to the Senate and then melded with theirs, offers a few key details that have been in and out of the news for weeks. It includes a law that would require all Americans purchase health coverage. This would force those who don't think they need health insurance - namely the young and healthy - to pay for coverage. Their premiums would then offset those of the less healthy, effectively lowering all national health care costs, much as group health insurance plans do on a smaller scale. It also offers a public option, which has been hotly contested by Republicans, as well as insurance companies who feel that the competition would drive them out of business. There would also exist non-profit health cooperatives designed to help people find coverage they need, at a price they can afford. And insurance companies would no longer be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. While this bill would provide affordable health insurance to most of the millions of uninsured in America, some still argue about the costs. It isn't clear whether or not it would exceed the $900 billion dollar benchmark set by President Obama, with some saying it would and others saying it won't. But, as this bill heads towards the Senate, it isn't expected to be subject to a vote until the end of the year. How it looks and what it retains at that point remains to be seen.
A group health insurance plan on a nationwide level has been touted in the news and in recent legislation as the answer to rising health care costs. The notion is, that if everyone is legally required to purchase medical coverage, costs will go down much as they do for coverage purchased by big companies. It's the law of averages - the good health of most people balances out the bad health of others. If everyone had to purchase coverage as they do in a group health insurance setting, the the premiums paid by the healthy would offset the costs of the unhealthy. But is this really a move that will help consumers? According to the Los Angeles Times, the legislation going through the House and Senate right now might force everyone to purchase coverage, but it doesn't place limits on how much insurance companies can charge. This means that while we would all need to find some type of medical coverage, it still might cost more than we can pay. The article states that this move has been carefully planned by health insurance agencies since 2006, who were aware that one day Americans wouldn't stand for the same plans we've been overpaying for. The group health insurance plan could lower health care costs, but if the LA Times is correct, we might not benefit from it. So will health insurance companies get the last laugh? Maybe not. They strongly oppose the public option, since it would provide competition and force insurance companies to lower their costs. And, recent attacks on their exemption from antitrust laws have many insurance companies on the defensive. It's not clear yet how legislation will play out, and we have no idea what type of coverage we'll end up with. It's likely that America will function like one great group health insurance plan, but whether or not the public actually benefits from that remains to be seen.
A recent medical study finds that black men are twice as likely die of prostate cancer than white men. Why the disparity? The answer is really socioeconomic in nature, and essentially comes down to a lack of affordable health insurance for those men who are lower on the economic ladder. At myrtlebeachonline.com, the study from the Journal of Cancer reveals that raising awareness of the disease just hasn't been enough to combat this problem. More than 8% of black men report having no health insurance, compared to only 3% of white men. When prostate cancer strikes, as it will do for thousands of men every year, this leaves black men without options for treatment that will save the lives of white men who are insured. The article states that, "it is well established that uninsured patients, regardless of race, delay getting needed care. And once they do seek medical attention, uninsured patients often receive less aggressive treatment than patients with health insurance." So, men who cannot afford health insurance not only take longer to get care for prostate cancer, they're also not likely to get the best kind of treatment anyway. As premiums go up, more and more men will suffer the same consequences. In this tough economic climate, it isn't just those lower on the economic scale that can't find affordable health insurance, many middle class men and women can't keep up with the rising costs of health care either. With cancer deaths predicted to double in the upcoming decades, we will have to do something soon to make health insurance, and life-saving care, available to all Americans who suffer from prostate cancer, or any disease at all.
Recent polls released by the Washington Post reveal that public opinion regarding current health care legislation has rebounded quite a bit, including a more favorable response to the public option, and to mandates that would inspire nationwide costs and coverage similar to what workers get with group health insurance. According to the article, 57% of polled Americans now support the idea of a public option for health care, especially if it's restricted to those who can't afford individual health insurance. And a surprising 71% support the notion of a health care mandate that would control costs much like group health insurance plans do today. Group health insurance has historically been less expensive and easier to get because the larger numbers of insured people offset the costs for the insurance company. To simplify things a bit, the premiums paid by the healthy pay for the costs accrued by those who aren't healthy. If everyone in the U.S. had to purchase insurance, similar rules would apply. In fact, one of the major reasons that health care costs have become so high is that young and healthy people often don't purchase insurance until they get sick. This means that insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping those with pre-existing conditions out of the ranks of the insured. Of course, there's also much concern over the definition of "pre-existing conditions" according to insurance companies. Many of them see simple procedures, minor illnesses, and even pregnancy as a "pre-existing condition," and punish buyers accordingly. This is why government oversight is also important in terms of health care legislation. Having a nationwide group health insurance plan would be a great way to lower costs, but only so long as insurance companies aren't allowed to unfairly reject those Americans who need coverage the most.
It appears that health care coverage isn't dead yet. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Senate Finance Committee has come to a tentative agreement regarding a health care coverage bill that features group health insurance cooperatives instead of a publicly funded government plan. The bill still needs to be adjusted to suit the entire Senate, and who knows how long that could take. But in the mean time, a year of "congressional wrangling" has finally come to an end. The more popularly supported group health insurance cooperatives would bring down insurance costs by allowing people to buy into plans served by nonprofit entities. And with a legal requirement to purchase health care coverage, the higher number of healthy people forced to purchase insurance would offset the costs of the less healthy, leading to lower premiums and out of pocket costs. Hopefully there would also be an end to the practice of denying people based on "pre-existing conditions." Of course, Democrats and Republicans are still finding a way to argue about it. Democrats don't like that the bill doesn't offer a universal health insurance option, while Republicans complain that the bill could cost too much without adding enough coverage for the 48 million Americans who can't afford insurance right now. Historically, group health insurance plans have cost less than the individual health insurance market, so for those who have been struggling in the individual market this could mean a huge boost. And for those who have no coverage at all, even a little bit of help is better than going without health care at all.
The New York Times is calling it the "Travelocity" version of health care coverage - the health care "exchange" idea, which has garnered a lot of support from Senate members. But business owners are still worried - would such exchanges make small business health insurance any easier to afford? The idea would be that should such a plan pass, consumers would be able to choose from a variety of medical health coverage plans. But opponents are arguing that just because the options are easier to understand doesn't mean that they'll cost any less. Small business health insurance rates are notoriously high, and choices are limited since in many states the majority of insurance is offered by only a few big carriers. Like it says in the article, "small business owners frequently complain they when they have limited choice among insurers, they have little bargaining clout." The result? For many employers small business health insurance plans have gone up as much as 29% in a single year. The hope in Washington, of course, is that the millions of new health insurance customers will drive down costs, and lead to a more competitive market. But the truth is that many people don't buy insurance because they think they don't need it. This brings the "legal mandate" issue into the equation - should the government require all American citizens to purchase health insurance, or face a legal penalty? The legal mandate issue has fewer fans than the health insurance exchange does, but unless everyone is forced to purchase health care coverage, it isn't likely that small business health insurance is going to get any cheaper any time soon.
|
|
