Insuring Resources Commentary:
Health Savings Accounts give individuals who buy insurance a tax deduction for money they set aside for a high-deductible plan. Since tax deductions are worth more to people in higher tax brackets, and since high-deductible plans appeal more to those with lower medical expenses, the plans attract the rich and healthy, leaving the poor and sick behind. This is why the Republican's plan is not workable for most Americans.
Singapore does it by setting affordable pricing benchmarks with which private providers compete. Supply-side rules that favor training new family doctors over pricey specialists are more extensive.
-------------------- -------------------
An article on Singapore's very effec tive health care insurance system....
by Matt Miller at the Washington Post 3/3/10
The only rich nation that boasts universal coverage with health outcomes better than ours while spending one-fifth as much per person on health care. Introducing (drum roll please): Singapore.
Yes, it's an island city-state of just 5 million people. Yes, it's more or less a benevolent dictatorship. And, yes, until recently, bringing chewing gum into Singapore could land you in jail. But Singapore, a poor country a few decades ago, now boasts a higher per capita income (when adjusted for local purchasing power) than the United States. And here's the astonishing fact: Singapore spends less than 4 percent of its GDP on health care. We spend 17 percent (and Singapore's somewhat younger population doesn't begin to explain the difference). Matching Singapore's performance in our $15 trillion economy would free up $2 trillion a year for other public and private purposes.
Do I have I your attention?
Today we can't find cash to recruit a new generation of great teachers, rebuild our roads and bridges, pay down the national debt, or invest in better airports, high-speed rail, a clean energy revolution or any of a hundred other things sensible patriots know we should do to renew the country. We can't do these things in large part because the Medical Industrial Complex vacuums up every spare dollar in sight. It's only slightly melodramatic to assert that if we could run our health-care system as efficiently as Singapore's, we could solve most of our other problems.
So how does Singapore do it?
In health circles it's always conservatives who bring up Singapore, because of the primacy it places on personal responsibility. According to Phua Kai Hong of the National University of Singapore, roughly one-third of health spending in Singapore is paid directly by individuals (who typically buy catastrophic coverage as well); in the United States, by contrast, nearly 90 percent is picked up by third-party insurers, employers and governments. Singaporeans make these payments out of earnings as well as from health savings accounts. The system is chock-full of incentives for thrift. If you want a private hospital room, for example, you pay through the nose; most people choose less expensive wards.
Conservatives are right: Singaporeans have the kind of "skin in the game" that promotes prudence.
But that's only half the story. There's also a massive public role. For starters, adequate savings for retirement and health expenses are mandated by government (employees must sock away 20 percent of earnings each year, to which employers add 13 percent). Public hospitals provide 80 percent of the acute care, setting affordable pricing benchmarks with which private providers compete. Supply-side rules that favor training new family doctors over pricey specialists are more extensive than similar notions Hillary Clinton pushed in the '90s. And in Singapore, if a child is obese, they don't get Rose Garden exhortations from the first lady. They get no lunch and mandatory exercise periods during school.
There's more (including an ample safety net for the poor), but you get the gist: Singapore achieves world-class results thanks to a bold, unconventional synthesis of liberal and conservative approaches. It's further to the left and further to the right than what President Obama or his foes now seek. The island's real ideology is pragmatic problem-solving. It works thanks to cultural traditions that let this eclectic blend flourish. The system is nurtured by talented, highly paid officials who have the luxury of governing for the long-term without being buffeted much by politics.
We obviously can't transplant Singapore's approach wholesale to the United States. But the reason we can't emulate even some of Singapore's success has to do with that iron law of health-care politics: Every dollar of health-care "waste" is somebody's dollar of income. As a stable advanced democracy, we're so overrun by groups with stakes in today's waste that real efficiency gains are perennially blocked.
Any hope for something better starts with tallying the price of today's paralysis. Think about that $2 trillion the next time you see states, citing budget woes, shut the door to college on tens of thousands of poor American students. Or when the next firm moves jobs overseas because health costs here are soaring. Or when the next bridge collapses. Thanks, Medical Industrial Complex!
We return now to our regularly scheduled political battle, which (no matter the outcome, according to some projections) will leave health costs headed to more than 20 percent of GDP by 2019.
Showing posts with label HSAs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HSAs. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of the (Health Care Reform) Union
Insuring Resources Commentary:
There is no clear path forward, especially since our President displayed an astounding lack of leadership, saying only "I will not quit", and Congress needs to pass health care reform, but providing no actual direction. The next steps Thursday and Friday of this week will be very telling.
In particular I want readers to pay special attention to the health care reform comments by Gov. McConnell in the Republican response after the President's speech.
Please see below and I'll analyze his 3 main points here:
1)Most (Americans) "do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government."
The Democrats proposals do not even come close to "turning the best (actually its #33 in the world) health care system over to the federal gov't." 'Gov't takeover'- its amazing they're still getting way with that rhetoric.
The House plan does include a public plan option.... for about 10% of the market!
2) McConnell- "Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform health care, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes."
Yes he's right, it does those things, BUT it would change access to health insurance through tax credits and the plans are high deductible health plans with HSAs. Eventually most Americans would have $5,000 deductibles and pay for most of their care themselves with little if any help from their employers purchasing power reducing risk.
3) "let families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines".
The reason why we have state regulated insurance plans is because the public demanded and WANTED mandates like mammograms, birth control coverage, 48-hour minimum hospital stay after giving birth, chiropractic care, and others.
If we allow interstate purchase its going to be a race to the bottom with pared down coverage competing to be the cheapest. That's what's good for business owners, not consumers. Plans sold and barely regulated by the likes of Alabama will pervade the market. Alabama doesn't regulate insurance, they rubber stamp the weakest coverage possible. Where do you want your employer to buy YOUR health insurance.... Alabama... or Wisconsin?
---------------- -------------------------
Here's what the President had to say on health care reform earlier tonight in the State of the Union address: Video link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/01/27/sotu.sot.obama.healthcare.cnn?hpt=C2
Here's what he had to say on Health Care Reform: Obama apologized for not making the case clearer to the public for health care reform and noted that the back room deals involved tarnished the public's view but he concluded by saying, "I will not walk away."
Yesterday the New York Times reported the following:
With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” Mr. Reid said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.”
And now for the Republican response to Obama's address on health care reform from Gov. McConnell of Virginia:
"While Americans agree that an affordable, high-quality health care system is needed, most of them "do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government."
"Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform health care, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes," he said. "We will do that by implementing common-sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your health care."
There is no clear path forward, especially since our President displayed an astounding lack of leadership, saying only "I will not quit", and Congress needs to pass health care reform, but providing no actual direction. The next steps Thursday and Friday of this week will be very telling.
In particular I want readers to pay special attention to the health care reform comments by Gov. McConnell in the Republican response after the President's speech.
Please see below and I'll analyze his 3 main points here:
1)Most (Americans) "do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government."
The Democrats proposals do not even come close to "turning the best (actually its #33 in the world) health care system over to the federal gov't." 'Gov't takeover'- its amazing they're still getting way with that rhetoric.
The House plan does include a public plan option.... for about 10% of the market!
2) McConnell- "Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform health care, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes."
Yes he's right, it does those things, BUT it would change access to health insurance through tax credits and the plans are high deductible health plans with HSAs. Eventually most Americans would have $5,000 deductibles and pay for most of their care themselves with little if any help from their employers purchasing power reducing risk.
3) "let families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines".
The reason why we have state regulated insurance plans is because the public demanded and WANTED mandates like mammograms, birth control coverage, 48-hour minimum hospital stay after giving birth, chiropractic care, and others.
If we allow interstate purchase its going to be a race to the bottom with pared down coverage competing to be the cheapest. That's what's good for business owners, not consumers. Plans sold and barely regulated by the likes of Alabama will pervade the market. Alabama doesn't regulate insurance, they rubber stamp the weakest coverage possible. Where do you want your employer to buy YOUR health insurance.... Alabama... or Wisconsin?
---------------- -------------------------
Here's what the President had to say on health care reform earlier tonight in the State of the Union address: Video link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/01/27/sotu.sot.obama.healthcare.cnn?hpt=C2
Here's what he had to say on Health Care Reform: Obama apologized for not making the case clearer to the public for health care reform and noted that the back room deals involved tarnished the public's view but he concluded by saying, "I will not walk away."
Yesterday the New York Times reported the following:
With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” Mr. Reid said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.”
And now for the Republican response to Obama's address on health care reform from Gov. McConnell of Virginia:
"While Americans agree that an affordable, high-quality health care system is needed, most of them "do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government."
"Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform health care, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes," he said. "We will do that by implementing common-sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your health care."
Thursday, November 5, 2009
They call this "Reform"
Insuring Resources Commentary
Details on the Republican's "Health care reform" bill. I put that in quotes because calling this reform is a slam on the english language.
The assessment from the Cngressional Budget Office conculdes that the proposal would barely dent the ranks of the uninsured.
The measure would cover 3 million additional people at a cost of $60billion through 2019, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Democrats' bill, by comparison, would cover far more -- 36million additional Americans -- at a much higher cost -- $1.055 trillion through 2019, the CBO has said, while adding nothing to the deficit.
The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.
Instead, Cong. Boehner, the bills author, said the Republicans would encourage creation of insurance pools for high-risk individuals and take other steps to ease their access to coverage. By the way, on average those pools charge premiums equal to 130% in the individual market. Gee thanks, Cong. Boehner that'll help!
Many of the most respected health care voices in the GOP have historically treated the idea of eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions as an obvious plank in any reform effort. Apparently there's a little dissension on this issue. Here aere three examples:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who is widely regarded as one of the sharpest health care policy wonks in Republican circles, told MSNBC back in May that consumers needed to have "access to affordable coverage, regardless of [their] pre-existing condition." Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich), meanwhile, has insisted that Republicans "must address" the issue of pre-existing conditions. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has called for the creation of a "straightforward national plan that covers pre-existing conditions."
Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines.
By enhancing HSAs the GOP is putting more health care costs on the backs of its citizens. Since the bill is still in hiding and not viewable by the public its hard to assess the details.
**** This material was compiled from several sources including CNN, the AP, the Huffington Post and others.****
Details on the Republican's "Health care reform" bill. I put that in quotes because calling this reform is a slam on the english language.
The assessment from the Cngressional Budget Office conculdes that the proposal would barely dent the ranks of the uninsured.
The measure would cover 3 million additional people at a cost of $60billion through 2019, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Democrats' bill, by comparison, would cover far more -- 36million additional Americans -- at a much higher cost -- $1.055 trillion through 2019, the CBO has said, while adding nothing to the deficit.
The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.
Instead, Cong. Boehner, the bills author, said the Republicans would encourage creation of insurance pools for high-risk individuals and take other steps to ease their access to coverage. By the way, on average those pools charge premiums equal to 130% in the individual market. Gee thanks, Cong. Boehner that'll help!
Many of the most respected health care voices in the GOP have historically treated the idea of eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions as an obvious plank in any reform effort. Apparently there's a little dissension on this issue. Here aere three examples:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who is widely regarded as one of the sharpest health care policy wonks in Republican circles, told MSNBC back in May that consumers needed to have "access to affordable coverage, regardless of [their] pre-existing condition." Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich), meanwhile, has insisted that Republicans "must address" the issue of pre-existing conditions. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has called for the creation of a "straightforward national plan that covers pre-existing conditions."
Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines.
By enhancing HSAs the GOP is putting more health care costs on the backs of its citizens. Since the bill is still in hiding and not viewable by the public its hard to assess the details.
**** This material was compiled from several sources including CNN, the AP, the Huffington Post and others.****
Monday, October 5, 2009
Some Conservative Ideas on Health Care Reform- Analysis
Conservative Case for Reform- Bobby Jindal
Washington Post - Oct. 5th
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal doesn’t like what’s happening within the healthcare debate. He says Democrats are over-reaching and reform will lead to huge deficits and major problems but he also says the Republicans have to engage in the debate and start proposing ideas and changes.
I enjoy analyzing these health care proposals and showing their difficulties. My comments are in bold/ italics. So far Jindal and other conservatives have offered virtually nothing that is helpful.
---------------------- -------------------- -----------------------------
Mr. Jindal-
A majority of so-called Republican strategists believe that health care is a Democratic issue. They are wrong; health care is an American issue, and the Republican Party has an opportunity to demonstrate that conservative principles work when applied to real-world problems.
But memo to Washington: The debate on health care has moved on. Democratic plans for a government takeover are passé. The people don't want it. Believe the polls, the town halls, the voters. Only Democrats in Washington would propose new taxes on businesses and families in the middle of a recession, $900 billion in new spending at a time of record deficits, and increased taxes on health insurance and products to reduce health-care costs.
Washington is the only place in the country that doesn't realize that this debate is over. Democrats may march forward anyway, but they will do so without the people, and at their own peril.
Yet hope for meaningful reform need not be lost. Only two things need to happen. First, Democrats have to give up on their grand experiment and get serious about bipartisan solutions. Second, Republicans have to join the battle of ideas.
To be clear, the Republicans in Congress who have led the opposition to the Obama-Pelosi vision of health-care reform have done the right thing for our country. If they had rolled over, the results could have been devastating for our health-care system and our nation's budget.
But Republicans must shift gears. Conservatives should seize the mantle of reform and lead. Conservatives either genuinely believe that conservative principles will work to solve real-world problems such as health care or they don't. I believe they will.
The people do not want Republicans to offer their own thousand-page plan to overhaul health care, and that is not what the nation needs.
So here are 10 ideas to increase the affordability and quality of health care. Some of these are buried within various Republican and Democratic plans that have been floated. They offer a path forward toward significant bipartisan reform. These proposals would require insurance companies to do their jobs and spread risk over large populations, restore patients' power to make their own health-care decisions, and focus our system on quality instead of activity.
1-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
This is included in the Dems plans
-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
If health plans are portable across state lines this may strip state mandates from plans and water down essential coverage protections- i.e. mammography and birth control for women, chiropractic care and others. Portability is good as long as the individual state rules apply.
-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.
This is a no-brainer.
-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
Ditto- a no-brainer.
-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
I'm glad he gets this, but quality outcomes and care should also be incentivized within payment reform.
-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
Yup, a no-brainer again. So far I'm not real impressed.
-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
This is a very slippery slope. HSAs are not the be-all, end-all answer the GOP hopes, but instead provide cost-savings for a niche market. Conservatives think HSA's are a savior but if you think reform is good if it means everyone has a $5,000 annual deductible while docs are not encouraged to increase quality and efficiency then we'd all be in for a wild ride to poor health.
-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
Good idea, cost-share incentives could be included for those who test in the highest percentages of health.
-- Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools -- helping to lower premiums for everyone.
This is a good proposal, but often young people cannot afford the coverage in the first job's out of college because they make too little. I presume Mr. Jindal is thinking of only those with no access.
-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
Tax credits are the GOP solution that makes no sense. Reducing individuals taxable income by $5,000 does virtually nothing for their ABILITY to buy health insurance. I use dependent care reimbursement to get reimbursed for my daughter's daycare. The tax savings I enjoy from this amounts to about $1,000. My daughter's day care expenses are about $10,000 per year. This does so little to help its laughable. Health care is even worse.
Washington Post - Oct. 5th
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal doesn’t like what’s happening within the healthcare debate. He says Democrats are over-reaching and reform will lead to huge deficits and major problems but he also says the Republicans have to engage in the debate and start proposing ideas and changes.
I enjoy analyzing these health care proposals and showing their difficulties. My comments are in bold/ italics. So far Jindal and other conservatives have offered virtually nothing that is helpful.
---------------------- -------------------- -----------------------------
Mr. Jindal-
A majority of so-called Republican strategists believe that health care is a Democratic issue. They are wrong; health care is an American issue, and the Republican Party has an opportunity to demonstrate that conservative principles work when applied to real-world problems.
But memo to Washington: The debate on health care has moved on. Democratic plans for a government takeover are passé. The people don't want it. Believe the polls, the town halls, the voters. Only Democrats in Washington would propose new taxes on businesses and families in the middle of a recession, $900 billion in new spending at a time of record deficits, and increased taxes on health insurance and products to reduce health-care costs.
Washington is the only place in the country that doesn't realize that this debate is over. Democrats may march forward anyway, but they will do so without the people, and at their own peril.
Yet hope for meaningful reform need not be lost. Only two things need to happen. First, Democrats have to give up on their grand experiment and get serious about bipartisan solutions. Second, Republicans have to join the battle of ideas.
To be clear, the Republicans in Congress who have led the opposition to the Obama-Pelosi vision of health-care reform have done the right thing for our country. If they had rolled over, the results could have been devastating for our health-care system and our nation's budget.
But Republicans must shift gears. Conservatives should seize the mantle of reform and lead. Conservatives either genuinely believe that conservative principles will work to solve real-world problems such as health care or they don't. I believe they will.
The people do not want Republicans to offer their own thousand-page plan to overhaul health care, and that is not what the nation needs.
So here are 10 ideas to increase the affordability and quality of health care. Some of these are buried within various Republican and Democratic plans that have been floated. They offer a path forward toward significant bipartisan reform. These proposals would require insurance companies to do their jobs and spread risk over large populations, restore patients' power to make their own health-care decisions, and focus our system on quality instead of activity.
1-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
This is included in the Dems plans
-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
If health plans are portable across state lines this may strip state mandates from plans and water down essential coverage protections- i.e. mammography and birth control for women, chiropractic care and others. Portability is good as long as the individual state rules apply.
-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.
This is a no-brainer.
-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
Ditto- a no-brainer.
-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
I'm glad he gets this, but quality outcomes and care should also be incentivized within payment reform.
-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
Yup, a no-brainer again. So far I'm not real impressed.
-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
This is a very slippery slope. HSAs are not the be-all, end-all answer the GOP hopes, but instead provide cost-savings for a niche market. Conservatives think HSA's are a savior but if you think reform is good if it means everyone has a $5,000 annual deductible while docs are not encouraged to increase quality and efficiency then we'd all be in for a wild ride to poor health.
-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
Good idea, cost-share incentives could be included for those who test in the highest percentages of health.
-- Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools -- helping to lower premiums for everyone.
This is a good proposal, but often young people cannot afford the coverage in the first job's out of college because they make too little. I presume Mr. Jindal is thinking of only those with no access.
-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
Tax credits are the GOP solution that makes no sense. Reducing individuals taxable income by $5,000 does virtually nothing for their ABILITY to buy health insurance. I use dependent care reimbursement to get reimbursed for my daughter's daycare. The tax savings I enjoy from this amounts to about $1,000. My daughter's day care expenses are about $10,000 per year. This does so little to help its laughable. Health care is even worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
