Major concerns about a universal healthcare still unclear:

 

President Obama in one of his town hall meeting has responded by outlining how he planned to fund the program, by eliminating medical-practice waste and insurance expenses, to cover two-thirds, and one-third by taxing those who make over $250,000 a year. Noting that he is in the higher-income bracket, Obama said, "There’s nothing wrong with me paying a little more to help people with less."

 

But it is important to note that “Massachusetts’s universal health plan, long discussed as a possible model for the nation, is getting a $115 million haircut. Faced with lower revenues and a growing number of citizens who lost their jobs and their health insurance… Because of all of these new unexpected variables added the state didn’t have enough money to pay for insurance subsidies for needy residents under the current plan. Higher health care costs fueled a combined $9 billion gap in the state’s 2009 and 2010 budgets that had to be closed last month, leaving less for education, public safety, the environment and other services.” (USA-Today, Richard Wolf)

 

Having clarified this if Massachusetts a state of 6.5 millions residents needed to cover a total of 680 000 uninsured were able to offer health insurance to 439,000 leaving 2.6% of the total population of the state or 115K without insurance. “As of June 30, 2008, the estimated number of uninsured had dropped to 2.6%. 115000 still uninsured” (Boston.com). In reality, Massachusetts needed to cover 680K and they were able to cover 439K which is only 65%of the uninsured. Additionally this has led a deficit in the budget by billions.  My next question would be how would the government be able to cover currently 46 millions uninsured? Let us imagine they match Massachusetts performance because as we are all aware it is simply unlikely especially during the first years to cover all uninsured. It is fair to state by implementing the new universal system they will be leaving out of the 46 millions still 16 millions uninsured. Then will this be a failure or success? My biggest concern will still be the deficit that we are already facing which on top of this adding more deficit because of high unemployment, foreclosure rates, house values decreasing, the easy answer seems to be taxing citizens with a salary more than 250K but the money seems simply not to be there or not enough, to cover all of these new costs where you really will NOT be able to cover all of the uninsured especially in the first decade.

 

We also fail to notice that the cost of Insurance will increase with time, a fast growing population, unemployment rising, what is decreasing is the number of jobs, Revenue of companies decreasing, more debts, government bailing out large companies, stimulus packages, fighting 2 wars, global warning. We cannot simply continue printing money or we will be hit by inflation. These are the expected variables, usually you still have unexpected variables after taking into account all of these variables.

 

 

“The president was clear during the campaign about his commitment on not raising taxes on middle-class families," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday afternoon. "I don’t think any economist would believe that, in the environment that we’re in, that raising taxes on middle-class families would make any sense. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday that they could no longer guarantee that the middle class will be spared a tax increase.”(cnn.com, Ed Hornick, Aug 4 2009) These statements were stated before any health care reform debate, now adding on the new expenses of Health care I really question if taxing citizens with salary higher than 250K will be enough. The top economists chosen by President Obama and heading his economical budget don’t think so. So yes I am concerned about the cost and from where they will get the money!!

 

 

“Members of the medical community identify the leading cause of the waste of money is too many tests, costing the system at least $210 billion a year, according to the report. (cnnmoney.com) As a result, in the new universal health plan they propose to cut all of these costs because it is believed that doctors have been using excessive utilization and medical testing even if their benefits are slim.  

 

These independent doctors that is currently treating me and that I have chosen under my own insurance plan are requesting that I perform these tests event if it just a slim chance that this could be the cause of the sickness, because they need to rule out any slim chances and cover their liability if it turns out that it can find the root cause of my sickness even if slim. Hence my second concern is that I will not be able to have as much medical testing perform under the new plan compared to my current plan which will lower the quality of care that I currently receive and in some instances it will not find the root cause until it is too late.  Instead of addressing the distorted financial incentives that influence these kinds of routine tests and treatments, the Universal Health care new policy seek to directly regulate doctors and their decisions. I personally trust my doctor and his medical judgments because of his close relationship between doctor and patient rather than having an independent medical committee that has never treated me deciding if these tests are viable or not.

 

 

My third concern is do we have enough hospitals, medical and non-medical staff to be able to cover all of these new uninsured? Usually humans when it is free  tend to over use the resources, can we cover all of this sudden influx of new patients. In Massachusetts “Quality has been an issue, too. Because more people have insurance, some doctors and safety-net hospitals are overwhelmed. A study by the non-partisan Urban Institute found one in five adults in the state have been turned away by a doctor’s office or clinic.” (USA-Today, Richard Wolf) Are we ready at a national level to cover all of these new resources? How is it currently addressed in the bill? If we have difficulties at the state level how can we achieve this at a national level?

 

We all would like to have the perfect health care system. My wish is for everyone to be covered. As a side note it is possible that Europeans has a higher expected life expectancy compared to Americans because more people are covered medically. But for the residents that have access to medical testing in the US, they receive premium and the best medical treatments. A simple example, all of the elites and leaders around the world treat themselves in the US. We also have the best medical equipments, best education because we do currently have the resources. What needs to be pursued is not a new health care plan since all of the data point that it will affect the cost and current quality of the treatments that we receive. We cannot afford it (or it is unclear to say the least), we do not have the medical resources and it may also lower the quality of treatments that one receive. What I propose is working on what we currently have, cut costs on bureaucracy, increase resources, giving more grants, cutting cost on extra forms and unnecessary money being spent, or even let the states decide on what is best for their health care plan with more assistance from the federal government and then after tackling all of these issues we can decide what the best health care system. Yes we need improvement, but we clearly need to have a plan that has been researched extensively and studied carefully. Currently, we do not know the best answer, improving on what we have will help us better implement a universal health care if it is still needed in the future or let the state control their health care system. But what we do not need is another Auto industry, where we have decided to bail them out then after 3 month leaving them going bankrupt under chapter 11, if this was really the best solution why did we bail them out? Or have 3 different stimulus packages throughout the year or bailing out the same company (banks, insurance) 2 or 3 time. Let us do it once but in a good way. Yes there were improvements and more accountability but accountability and improvement is not enough. What really needs to be added is a well analyzed and studied plan. We should not rush on such major decision that can have devastating results. Even the new suggestion of the administration creating co-ops should NOT be the solution. What we should concentrate is take on the budget, cut health cost bureacracy forms anything that is waste then decide if co-ops or anything else is the best solution. First Let us tackle the issue.