Thursday January 9, 2025
| |||
SNc Channels: HomeNews by DateSportsVideo ReportsWeatherBusiness NewsMilitary NewsRoad ReportCannabis NewsCommentsADVERTISEStaffCompany StoreCONTACT USRSS Subscribe Search About Salem-News.com
Salem-News.com is an Independent Online Newsgroup in the United States, setting the standard for the future of News. Publisher: Bonnie King CONTACT: Newsroom@Salem-news.com Advertising: Adsales@Salem-news.com ~Truth~ ~Justice~ ~Peace~ TJP |
Jun-30-2009 16:11TweetFollow @OregonNews Affordability Is Key to Real Health Care ReformCommentary by Janet Bauer for Salem-News.comMaking health care truly affordable for all may not be politically easy, but failure to do so would be disastrous.
(SILVERTON, Ore. OCPP) - History is unfolding before our eyes as Congress overhauls our health care system so that, at long last, it covers all Americans. Maybe. While there's a good chance that Congress will enact some type of health care reform this year, all will be for naught if the new system leaves the cost of care out of reach for many Americans. If affordability is not adequately addressed, the prognosis for the nation will be poor. There's no great medical mystery as to why millions of Americans today lack health coverage. They can't afford it. To address the problem of affordability, Congress is rightly exploring a system that would base the cost of health care on people's ability to pay. Creating a sliding-scale subsidy to help lower-income Americans afford the cost of health insurance is essential. A sliding scale recognizes the great disparities of income in today's America. Except for the wealthiest of households, American families are finding it increasingly difficult to afford health care. For some, paying for health insurance means not saving for retirement or for their kids' college education. And for others, health care at today's prices is simply out of reach. The key question in implementing a sliding scale is how to calibrate it. How much should families at different income levels be expected to pay for premiums and other costs of care? If moderate- and low-income families are asked to pay more than they can afford, the reform effort will fail. We'll be back at square one, with millions of Americans uninsured and the economy still hampered by a costly health care system. For low-income families, Congress should set the scale at a low enough level so they can still meet other basic needs from their modest paychecks. And for moderate-income families, the cost of health care should also be much lower than it is today. To get there, Congress must address the cost of monthly premiums. Right now, for a family of four earning $77,000 without employment-based health care, the typical health care premium in the private insurance market costs over $12,600 a year - about 16 percent of their income. From a practical standpoint, that's unaffordable. A reasonable amount for such a family to spend on premiums is no more than about 8 percent of their income. That's the level Congress should set for middle-income families. Securing reasonably priced insurance, however, is only half the cure. Health reform legislation must also limit deductibles and co-payments, which can deter people from getting the care they need. And health plans must provide a basic level of comprehensive coverage to ensure true access. Too often people with inadequate coverage find themselves facing exorbitant hospital bills or even bankruptcy when they contract an illness or condition that their insurance doesn't cover. Just as when you buy a car you know it comes with an engine, four wheels and safety belts, Americans need to know that their health plans come with all the basics. That's something that real health care reform must ensure. Making health care truly affordable for all may not be politically easy, but failure to do so would be disastrous. Should Congress fail to seize this historic opportunity to enact real reform, the cost of health care will continue to debilitate the health and finances of millions of families and our economy. Janet Bauer is a policy analyst with the Oregon Center for Public Policy. Articles for June 29, 2009 | Articles for June 30, 2009 | Articles for July 1, 2009 | googlec507860f6901db00.html Quick Links
DININGWillamette UniversityGoudy Commons Cafe Dine on the Queen Willamette Queen Sternwheeler MUST SEE SALEMOregon Capitol ToursCapitol History Gateway Willamette River Ride Willamette Queen Sternwheeler Historic Home Tours: Deepwood Museum The Bush House Gaiety Hollow Garden AUCTIONS - APPRAISALSAuction Masters & AppraisalsCONSTRUCTION SERVICESRoofing and ContractingSheridan, Ore. ONLINE SHOPPINGSpecial Occasion DressesAdvertise with Salem-NewsContact:AdSales@Salem-News.com | |
Contact: adsales@salem-news.com | Copyright © 2025 Salem-News.com | news tips & press releases: newsroom@salem-news.com.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy |
All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.
Chris Sullivan July 1, 2009 9:13 am (Pacific time)
I have family back in Boston and they all have mixed feelings about that states health care program. No matter what, if we allow the government to get involved we need to make sure they know how to do it right. Their track record for efficiency has been horrible as it is in most other countries, especially England and Canada. The below survey shows 37% of that ststes population are unsure if it works, now that's an impressive number. "Twenty-six percent (26%) of Massachusetts voters say their state’s health care reform effort has been a success. A new telephone survey in the state finds that 37% say the reform effort has been a failure, while another 37% are not sure. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/massachusetts/massachusetts_26_consider_state_s_health_care_reform_a_success
Mike V. June 30, 2009 11:10 pm (Pacific time)
Your right! This will not be easy and may prove to be the Hydra of the twenty-first century. I do agree with you here: Providing affordable healthcare to ALL people, so that they may live a dignified life, is the first step to true prosperity.
Jake Ranger June 30, 2009 6:30 pm (Pacific time)
Go get 'em Janet, tell those greedy morons how it is. The world has been pillaged by greedy little white men with no shame.
HSR0601 June 30, 2009 5:39 pm (Pacific time)
I think, given the fact that health insurance premiums have doubled over the last decade at an unsustainable rate three times faster than wages, the status more than 97% of all Massachusetts residents,the highest in the U.S., are now covered could be touted as success model, which features 'mandating insurance' and an option to purchase coverage through the "Connector," a program in which private insurers are required to offer coverage to those who can't get other insurance, regardless of age or health status. But the Massachusetts model has a problem with costs control, because it relies exclusively on private insurers as Massachusetts' insurers implemented average premium increases of 8% to 12% only in 2008. And it highlights the necessity of having a publicly financed insurance option To be sure, in case the president's proposal with respect to the strong public option, medical IT, increased efforts in prevention, and a broader array of cost-saving plans and beyond adds to the Massachusetts Plan with the provision of employer mandate and an individual mandate and a exchange program, the cost containment does not matter at all. And most importantly, the promising stem cell research is making its way. Human health, in a sense, may precede all the other basic human rights as everything means nothing for someone without it. As far as my common sense goes, the major role of government will be to protect basic rights of the public from any threat. That is why all of the industrialized countries have public policy in place, I guess. Under this premise, the strong public option needs to be cited as a part of 'PROTECTION' like anti-trust law rather than intervention. The intention to introduce the public choice would be to protect the uninsured, economy and keep the medical industry honest, not be to drive it out. Hopefully, the health industry can provide reasonable prices and quality service via tireless innovations like most of the EUROPE, otherwise the potential start-ups will likely fill in the blanks with competitive deals over the long term.
[Return to Top]©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.