The Basic Health Program being considered by California lawmakers would put insurance within reach of more of the working poor.
Quote:
August 29, 2011
To bring health insurance to more Americans, the federal healthcare reform law calls for billions of dollars in subsidies for lower-income households. The law gives states an option, though, that could cut costs while also making the coverage more affordable. Called a Basic Health Program, it would serve as a transitional step between Medicaid and the private insurance plans. A bill by state Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) to create such an option in California is pending. Lawmakers should approve it.
The program would give low-income families an alternative to the insurance exchange that California is creating for consumers not covered by employer-sponsored plans or MediCal. Although Washington will subsidize policies sold at the exchange to those earning up to four times the federal poverty level, they may still cost too much for some of the working poor. For example, a single mother making $600 a week in Los Angeles may be hard-pressed to afford the $90 in monthly premiums and co-payments that the exchange's entry-level plans are expected to cost.
The Basic Health Program created by Hernandez's bill (SB 703) would bring monthly costs down to about $30 for those earning less than twice the federal poverty level. At the same time, the coverage provided by the bill, which relies solely on federal funds, would cost taxpayers less than the subsidized private insurance plans at the exchange. That's because the Basic Health Program would pay doctors and hospitals less for their services than private insurers do. Those payments would still be higher than the notoriously low ones offered by MediCal, which should prompt more doctors and hospitals to participate and provide better access to care than MediCal.
Some state officials have suggested that the new program could undermine the exchange by reducing the total amount of premiums it collects and, potentially, leave it with older and costlier customers. But with an estimated 1.8 million people still under its purview, the exchange's risks and costs would be spread across one of the largest groups of customers in the country. Two new studies also suggest that the Basic Health Program wouldn't leave the exchange with a group that's costlier to insure. But if lawmakers want more certainty, they can require insurers to combine both groups into a single risk pool when calculating premiums.
When poor people without insurance require medical care, they tend to receive it in the least efficient and most expensive ways, with the costs borne by everyone else. That's one of the reasons it's important to extend coverage to as many people as possible. The Basic Health Program and the state's new insurance exchange share that goal, but the former would put insurance within reach of more of the working poor. That makes it an important part of the evolving healthcare system, and a good deal for taxpayers.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
True Claims
"Although there are a lot of people who feel the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world, according to the Center for Disease Control, the United States actually ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality."
-- Jonathan Walker, M.D.
Quote:
The U.S. spends about twice as much on health care per person compared to all other developed countries. Yet our life expectancy is lower, our infant mortality higher, and our overall health poorer. More than 45,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance. Currently, 31% of every healthcare dollar is spent on costs that have nothing to do with health care. We strongly believe that it is morally wrong to allow other Americans to suffer or die because they cannot afford to pay for health care.
Single payer, an improved "Medicare for All", is publicly funded and privately delivered health care. It is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid from government funds. Patients are free to choose their health care practitioner, hospital or clinic.
Everything can be done more efficiently and at less cost without for-profit health insurance companies. Over 90% of Americans would pay far less with a single payer system. Estimates on savings range from $350 billion to $400 billion per year. That's more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to everyone without paying any more into health care than we already do.
Learn more about the Single Payer Movement!
Medicare Pays for More than Health Care for the Elderly. It pays for
1. The sickest Americans: the elderly and the disabled
2. Most medical residencies
3. Most durable equipment for many hospitals
For-profit health insurance companies do NOT pay for any of this.
Wendell Potter expects a massive PR compaign funded by the for-profit health insurance industry
to privatize Medicare when Rep. Ryan's budget proposal is introduced. Ryan's GOP proposal
balances the budget in part by changing Medicare to a "voucher" program.
The Commonwealth Fund found Medicare Advantage plans cost more but don't deliver.
In Texas, 1 in 4 people are uninsured and almost 1 in 3 adults between the ages of 19 and 64 are uninsured. Less than 33% of small businesses offer health insurance. Fewer than half of all Texans get their insurance through an employer
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
