In 2007, reforming the nation’s system for financing health care emerged in the political spectrum and all levels of government. Proposals from several state governors, the Bush administration, and contenders for the 2008 presidential race headlined the news. Experts characterized the proposals into two ways: comprehensive changes focusing on universal coverage and incremental adjustment to expand existing programs to reduce the uninsured.
People supporting universal health care argue that overhauling the financing of the nation’s health care system it the best way for equal access to medical care. Medicare and Medicaid have fueled the increase of medical costs, created a wasteful bureaucracy, and didn’t provide a safety net for the uninsured. Comprehensive reform of health care will be necessary when these programs become unsustainable. Many people say that the federal government could be a single purchaser acting for all the patients. That way the government could make health care providers rein in charges and be held accountable for the quality of care. Another proposal relies on mandating government subsidies so that the poor receive tax credits/money that enables them to get insurance. Some favor a system of vouchers that include government funding for the basics, plus choice and competition. Basic care would be universal and no means-testing for eligibility. The participants could choose competing plans or to purchase additional coverage.
Critics don’t oppose health care for all, but they disagree with the ways to achieve that goal. They think that a government-sponsored medical program would create less competition and ultimately produce poor care. They also think that the government oversight would add to bureaucracy, inefficiency, and soaring costs. People argue that the state-sponsored health care would leave thousands of insurance and medical industry workers unemployed. These people favor making incremental changes, like enhancing tax-free health savings accounts and tax deductions for those that buy their health insurance. By having consumers pay more for health care and medical expenses, policymakers believe the market will rein in medical costs.
I believe that everyone should have or be able to receive health care. Comprehensive health care reform, I think, is the way to go. I think this because we could make the choice from competing plans or additional coverage. It is our choice on what we do. Because of programs like Medicare and Medicaid our medical costs are down and we don’t have that safety net for the uninsured. I think that with the governments help we could get the providers of health care to change charges and have them accountable for the quality of the care we receive. As people of the United States we need to think about us all and with universal coverage everyone can gain access to the medical care that they need. The President is someone who is very committed to passing the comprehensive health reform in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee doctor choice, and affordable health care for all Americans.
Issue #2 - Ensuring Quality Care For Medicare Patients - Sarah's Blog
Issue #3 - Safe to Eat? - Cody's Blog
People supporting universal health care argue that overhauling the financing of the nation’s health care system it the best way for equal access to medical care. Medicare and Medicaid have fueled the increase of medical costs, created a wasteful bureaucracy, and didn’t provide a safety net for the uninsured. Comprehensive reform of health care will be necessary when these programs become unsustainable. Many people say that the federal government could be a single purchaser acting for all the patients. That way the government could make health care providers rein in charges and be held accountable for the quality of care. Another proposal relies on mandating government subsidies so that the poor receive tax credits/money that enables them to get insurance. Some favor a system of vouchers that include government funding for the basics, plus choice and competition. Basic care would be universal and no means-testing for eligibility. The participants could choose competing plans or to purchase additional coverage.
Critics don’t oppose health care for all, but they disagree with the ways to achieve that goal. They think that a government-sponsored medical program would create less competition and ultimately produce poor care. They also think that the government oversight would add to bureaucracy, inefficiency, and soaring costs. People argue that the state-sponsored health care would leave thousands of insurance and medical industry workers unemployed. These people favor making incremental changes, like enhancing tax-free health savings accounts and tax deductions for those that buy their health insurance. By having consumers pay more for health care and medical expenses, policymakers believe the market will rein in medical costs.
I believe that everyone should have or be able to receive health care. Comprehensive health care reform, I think, is the way to go. I think this because we could make the choice from competing plans or additional coverage. It is our choice on what we do. Because of programs like Medicare and Medicaid our medical costs are down and we don’t have that safety net for the uninsured. I think that with the governments help we could get the providers of health care to change charges and have them accountable for the quality of the care we receive. As people of the United States we need to think about us all and with universal coverage everyone can gain access to the medical care that they need. The President is someone who is very committed to passing the comprehensive health reform in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee doctor choice, and affordable health care for all Americans.
Issue #2 - Ensuring Quality Care For Medicare Patients - Sarah's Blog
Issue #3 - Safe to Eat? - Cody's Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment