Search
Advertisement
November 2019
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
Search
HealthInsurance.com Homepage
TopOfBlogs

Posts Tagged ‘Reform’

The Senate’s Power to Prevent Reform

The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense. Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company.

But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit. As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of health care provision. Yet when you look at the media (which is controlled by big business), all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines.

But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage. The Republican senators may only represent 36% of the population, but they represent nearly 50% of the children without any health insurance and 42% of the adult population with no insurance. Despite the fact that half the uninsured children in the US are represented by the Republicans, their opposition to any reform that would give the children coverage could not be more aggressive. If we assume the outcome of the reform would be cheap health insurance for almost all US citizens, the Republicans are against it. Their policy is to keep the profits rolling in for the health insurance industry and, if the majority of the people who live in their states have no insurance, that’s just their bad luck. The US is genuinely a strange place. Despite the recession, it’s one of the richest countries in the world yet it has a political party determined to prevent its citizens from enjoying cheap health insurance. Sadly this party with the minority of votes in the Senate could get their way.

About Author
Find Robert Smith’s other contributions at http://www.tophealthinsurers.com/articles/senates-power.html where he gladly shares his opinion on many different subjects and helps people around the globe find a better understanding of the things they’re interested in.

The Health Care Reform And Impacts

Americans are concerned with insurance and healthcare more than they ever have been. Statistics display that when deciding whether or not to accept a job the most vital factor that individuals consider is what if any type of policies benefits are offered. This is more important than how much the job pays, or how much vacation time is offered. The recession has forced some small corporations as well as some bigger corporations to make drastic cuts in expenses. They have to opt between laying off an employee, and dropping their health benefits.

Some small businesses owners have even had to drop their own benefits as well. However neither decision is a good one. One would even consider it like selecting between the lesser of the two evils. If a firm selects to lay off some of their employees go in order to cut expenses that will increase the work load of the remaining workers. Statistics indicate that increased work load will hire the stress lever, and lower the quality of work which increases the chance of getting hurt on the job.

However, if the agency drops the workers insurance, then the employee can either have to take their chances and hope never to get sick, or pay for their own personal coverage which is extremely expensive. With the new health reform, business and businesses are now being offer substantial tax breaks if they continue to pay for coverage coverage for their professionals. This has decreased the number of companies dropping their policies, and cutting jobs.

About The Impacts of The Health Care Reform

In March 2010, the United States Congress succeeded in an attempt to pass a reformation of healthcare. It was an unparalleled success compared to it predecessors. However, the legislation continues to cause concern as to whether healthcare reform will provide improvements to the heath care system.

Most individuals living in developed countries support improvements within any healthcare system. People with certain conditions find healthcare insurance difficult and often impossible to obtain. This is a reflection of the high cost for medical treatments. Health insurance is a product designed to protect some individuals and is paid by all others insured. That is the purpose. Very few individuals in the middle and lower class can afford the high cost of medical treatment especially long-term hospital care. Healthy people will cover the cost of expensive treatments through insurance premiums.

One positive outcome of healthcare reform would be coverage for people with serious medical conditions incapable of receiving insurance. People with inherited diseases, for example, would not be penalized for heredity conditions or denied coverage. Healthcare reform brings certain fairness to the system.

However, the negative effects should not be denied. Healthcare reform that adds millions of people to the insurance industry will have associated costs. It is difficult to imagine reform being budget-neutral. Time will be the key factor in determination of success for reform. Some aspects have proven successful in other countries as well as complications associated with universal health care. Governments could mediate not control the healthcare system. It is wise to look for places of improvement without sacrificing quality.

The Senate’s Power to Prevent Reform

The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense. Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company.

But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit. As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of health care provision. Yet when you look at the media (which is controlled by big business), all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines.

But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage. The Republican senators may only represent 36% of the population, but they represent nearly 50% of the children without any health insurance and 42% of the adult population with no insurance. Despite the fact that half the uninsured children in the US are represented by the Republicans, their opposition to any reform that would give the children coverage could not be more aggressive. If we assume the outcome of the reform would be cheap health insurance for almost all US citizens, the Republicans are against it. Their policy is to keep the profits rolling in for the health insurance industry and, if the majority of the people who live in their states have no insurance, that’s just their bad luck. The US is genuinely a strange place. Despite the recession, it’s one of the richest countries in the world yet it has a political party determined to prevent its citizens from enjoying cheap health insurance. Sadly this party with the minority of votes in the Senate could get their way.

About Author
Find Robert Smith’s other contributions at http://www.tophealthinsurers.com/articles/senates-power.html where he gladly shares his opinion on many different subjects and helps people around the globe find a better understanding of the things they’re interested in.

The Senate’s Power to Prevent Reform

The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense. Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company.

But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit. As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of health care provision. Yet when you look at the media (which is controlled by big business), all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines.

But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage. The Republican senators may only represent 36% of the population, but they represent nearly 50% of the children without any health insurance and 42% of the adult population with no insurance. Despite the fact that half the uninsured children in the US are represented by the Republicans, their opposition to any reform that would give the children coverage could not be more aggressive. If we assume the outcome of the reform would be cheap health insurance for almost all US citizens, the Republicans are against it. Their policy is to keep the profits rolling in for the health insurance industry and, if the majority of the people who live in their states have no insurance, that’s just their bad luck. The US is genuinely a strange place. Despite the recession, it’s one of the richest countries in the world yet it has a political party determined to prevent its citizens from enjoying cheap health insurance. Sadly this party with the minority of votes in the Senate could get their way.

About Author
Find Robert Smith’s other contributions at http://www.tophealthinsurers.com/articles/senates-power.html where he gladly shares his opinion on many different subjects and helps people around the globe find a better understanding of the things they’re interested in.

Health Care Reform Summit 2010

Health Care Reform

Over the past year, there has been a lot of commotion on Capitol Hill regarding healthcare and how it’s going to affect innumerable groups such as working Americans and middle class, small business owners and entrepreneurs, big businesses and insurance companies, the medical field, the underinsured, Medicare and Medicaid, the private sector and the federal budget, senior citizens and children, and many more. The outcome of this will no doubt be historical and change healthcare radically. For better or for worse is the concern, however. Everyone agrees healthcare reform is necessary, but there is yet to be any middle ground.

To highlight an example of how messy this situation is, here is an example: The Medicare program is expected to begin operating at a loss by 2015, for lack of funds. The government will no longer be able to afford the program. One proposed point in the new reform would actually cut the program by 500 billion dollars, to “strengthen” and “reform” the program. Nothing in government is that simple, and many political commentators are already in arms over this, as they believe this will only lead to the creation of new offices and programs, burdening the system further. A related but separate proposition would add millions to the program. This isn’t going to work, clearly.

The president, who has been working on this bill with both houses of congress for nearly a year, wants to see these changes :

* Tax credits to the middle class for healthcare, the largest ever to be seen in this country. It would provide an affordable option to over thirty million citizens, who are currently underinsured or not insured at all.
* More competition between insurance providers, driving costs down. Equivalent coverage being stressed, he wants individuals to receive the same coverage options that congressmen and congresswomen have.
* More accountability and responsibility for the medical field, preventing insurance fraud and exploitation. Theoretically, this would also drive down premiums.
* Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage or charge outlandish premiums for people with pre-existing conditions.
* A 10-year plan to reduce the deficit by nearly one hundred billion dollars over the next decade, and a trillion dollars over the following decade.

* Eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid;
* Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap;
* Strengthening the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families;
* Strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid;
* Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans;
* Improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans

Bob Truog PhotoAbout Author
Article by Cory Ellerd, Marketing Medbanner.comPermanent Hospitalist Job, Permanent Emergency Medicine Job and Permanent Pediatrics Job.

Passionate Debate About Healthcare Reform

Watching politics is a fascinating way to pass the time. People always find new ways to repackage the same basic debates in ever different forms. The media float above the fray, supposedly with a dispassionate eye. The code of the professional journalist preserves a neutral position, identifying the key facts and giving both sides of the debate a fair hearing. Unfortunately, the arrival of Fox News and the rise of the Right Wing Jocks has produced an opinion-based approach to reporting the news. This is not simply skewing the coverage. It is actually introducing new levels of venom into the debate itself, raising the profile of news reporters and commentators as demagogues, and personalising the attacks made on government. No other issue has raised the heat of passion in the debate as the proposal to reform the provision of healthcare in the US. Many on the right of the political spectrum see these proposals as a direct attack on their individual liberties and as promoting big government. They approve the rise of activism that has seen groups around the US protesting in the Town Hall Meetings run during the summer and in the so-called Tea Party protests which focus on the rise of big government and the redistribution of wealth through alleged socialist measures. As a momentary aside, let us make a politically incorrect observation of fact.

The membership of the Republican Party is, with the exception of the tokens like Michael Steele, mainly a party of white people. Similarly, the vast majority of the protesters in the events organized in 2009 are white. It is just a coincidence that the primary focus of their anger is Barack Obama. That said, the key measure in the reform package is some change to the current system of insurance. The supporters of reform argue in favor of mandatory insurance. As it is, a significant percentage of the young and healthy do not buy insurance. This forces a sharing of the cost of healthcare among a smaller and older group of people. If all adults were required to hold a policy, it would share the cost of care out among a larger group and so reduce the premiums for everyone. But the suggestion of a mandate to buy insurance is a red flag to the Republicans. The Fund for Personal Liberty has formally promised action if such a bill is signed into law. It will claim the law is unconstitutional, breaching Article 1, Section 8. For those of you uncertain of Section 8, it lists the powers of Congress but does not include mandates to interfere with the purchasing decisions made by citizens. The Fund will argue that the list is exclusive and this use of legislation is therefore unconstitutional. In a sense, it does not matter who is proved right in the courts.

What is clear is the passion on both sides of the debate about how the health insurance industry should be reformed, if at all. For those of who who need to get on with our lives with some insurance in place, spending time online is essential to find as many health insurance quotes as possible. We need to shop around to get the best deal. Selfishly, we would all hope for the premiums to fall. If it takes a mandate to force everyone to carry insurance, that seems a small price to pay.

About Author
With people around the world thanking him for his professional approach of discussing the topic, Vasia is a frequent writer for http://www.health-insurance-mate.com/passionate-debate.html and is happy to share his vision with you there.

Dental care industry cuts teeth on reform. : An article from: San Diego Business Journal

Product Description
This digital document is an article from San Diego Business Journal, published by CBJ, L.P. on January 24, 1994. The length of the article is 1185 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Dental care industry cuts … More >>

Dental care industry cuts teeth on reform. : An article from: San Diego Business Journal

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.