Access Versus Coverage

The ideological and philosophical differences over America healthcare got clearer yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office scorecard report on the GOP “replace” healthcare plan.  Hmmm.

Access means if you have enough money an American should be able to get coverage.

Secretary of HHS, Tom Price readily confirmed that those who do not want coverage should not be forced by Government to have healthcare insurance. Hmmm.

Price was a little less clear on the future for those Americans who cannot afford the new, reduced subsidies (in the form of tax credits). The best he could say was the CBO numbers were wrong. Other law makers pointed out that when Federal Medicaid support went away, States could pick up the tab. Hmmm.

The GOP’s animosity towards the individual mandate while clear is never the less hard to understand. These insurance deniers are plain and simply “free loaders”, playing the system for their personal advantage. How Republicans can line up and staunchly defend an individuals right to NOT purchase insurance is difficult to comprehend. Similar arguments has been waged around motorcycle helmets and auto insurance and the side of reason has prevailed. When someone without insurance gets sick or injured, it the rest of us who foot the bill for the free loader’s medical costs.

As in most political rhetoric, even the most disingenuous, there is often a thread of truth. Republicans have pointed out cases where Americans (some) purchase healthcare insurance and find that the deductible or co-pay are so high that it makes use of the insurance very limited and not helpful in providing basic, preventative healthcare.

Republicans have also pointed out that in some areas, individuals with Medicaid coverage find doctors have refused to accept Medicaid because the reimbursement amount is too low. Hmmm.

Both of these are straight forward fixable if one was sincere about providing real access to healthcare (both affordable and with dignity). Hmmm.

The current healthcare debate is about the “fringe”. Most Americans obtain their healthcare insurance through their employer or through Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA.

Prohibiting the immoral and unethical practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions or other discriminatory practices which price people out of the market potentially could apply to everyone but in practice apply only to about 10-15% of Americans. So, why should anyone worry about this current debate?

I wonder whether this Republican argument could be applied to Medicare, Medicaid (pre-obamacare expansion roles), and Social Security? I wonder whether Republicans are thinking seniors, low income Americans and retirees actually need government assistance (that in theory Americans have paid for through wage taxes) or would they be better off investing in the private sector? I wonder whether “access” through subscription to investment plans during ones working life would obscure the need for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security?

I wonder.

Explore posts in the same categories: Barack Obama, congress, Democratic Party, Donald Trump, GOP, health insurance companies, Healthcare, Politics, Republican Party, Uncategorized


You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: