Healthcare reform for dummies

July 27, 7:45 PMLA Healthcare Policy ExaminerMelissa Chadburn

What is Obama’s healthcare reform plan asking for?

Quality, affordable healthcare for all.

That’s great but what does that mean/ what is this bill called?

            There is no specific bill right now  that is being proposed but several different types of plans. Obama has simply asked that the bill he signs have a couple of specific policies in place and they are:

            -choice, meaning if you like your current service provider if you keep them (that means both private and public option)

            -eliminates practice of denying people benefits who have been diagnosed with a pre-existing condition

            -affordable and available to all

What is a public option?

Public option means that employers can either provide private health insurance or medical coverage that is paid for by the government, that is set at an affordable rate based on income.

What is single-payer?

A single payer program is what is often referred to as “Universal Healthcare.”  It basically means there will be one entity footing the bill, namely the government, so this is government subsidized/provided healthcare and often Kaiser is used as the example model of what this program might look like, or Medi-care rather than Medi-Cal, (the one for seniors not low income).

What do the current proposed healthcare plans look like?

• The "Trigger" Plan: Olympia Snowe is pushing this compromise, as are some conservative Democrats. The basic idea is that the public plan would act as an invisible threat: It would be "triggered" into existence if the private insurance market was unable to offer, say, enough options in a particular region, or enough cost control. In addition, the public plan would only come into existence in this or that region, or this or that state. It would be effectively useless as an insurer. It could potentially have some competitive effect in that private insurers would still work to avoid its existence. Some have argued, however, that the conditions being mentioned in the "trigger" proposals have already been met.

• The Weak Public Plan: This is what people are talking about when they refer to a "level-playing field." This incarnation of the public plan -- first proposed by Len Nichols at the New America Foundation and later echoed by Peter Harbage and Karen Davenport at the Center for American Progress -- would have no special advantages over private insurers. It couldn't use the low rates that Medicare sets or access taxpayer subsidies. It couldn't force its way into networks. It would simply be another insurer, albeit with different incentives than traditional insurers.

• The Strong Public Plan: This would be like Medicare for the rest of us. It could throw the federal government's weight around. It could negotiate deep discounts with providers. It could muscle its way into networks. Outside groups like the Commonwealth Fund estimate that it would save the average consumer 20 percent to 30 percent. That would give it a massive competitive advantage over private insurers, and would probably result in tens of millions of Americans dropping their current coverage and entering the public plan to save money. A variant of this was in the draft of Ted Kennedy's bill that was leaked last week.

As someone who thinks cost control and efficiency are important in health reform, I'm most interested in the strong public plan. Folks who are more interested in preserving something that looks like the current private insurance market tend to fall behind the trigger public plan, largely under the theory that it would be pretty much the same as no public plan at all.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_care_reform_for_beginne_3.html

What is the controversy?

Some fear they will loose their fancy private healthcare provider if a public plan is provided.  This is a myth with the public option one can keep their current provider.

People fear that the public option will look janky and offer poor low level services, however currently congress receives government subsidized healthcare and it looks great, to this I reiterate President Obama’s words, “We need to stop equating expensive healthcare with good healthcare.”

Some are against the concept of the public option funding abortions. This is agreeably a controversial topics but I would review current public healthcare plans and see what services it provides in terms of reproductive healthcare. I would hate for other complications to arise as a result of people seeking unqualified assistance in acquiring abortions.

Some are against healthcare being provided to illegal immigrants. It is still unclear as to how we are defining “all” in quality affordable healthcare for all. However, I would argue one way we got into the healthcare crisis we did today was not accounting for our entire population as a whole. When people get upset about paying for those that are here illegally I often wonder who is paying for those that go to the hospital without coverage today? That’s right. We are. Also this plan would allow prevention and in effect would in the longer run reduce costs. Lastly, currently 80% of our working population is without healthcare and 1 in 5 people who have foreclosed on their homes did so secondary to debt accrued through medical bills.

Lastly Republicans are concerned about raising taxes.

To that I can just say what’s new?