Jackie Lu
KhashZesmaa
Patient pension and Affordable Healthcare Act
Introduction
Healthcare is one of the most crucial and controversial topics in society today. Since no one knows what will happen to them from day to day, everyone needs a sense of security about their wellbeing. Healthcare is an issue that is difficult to reach a consensus on; if we were to force a universal health insurance mandate onto individuals, some mightopt out of healthcare due to personal or political objections. We as a society have built up a notion that healthcare is expensive and ineffective. For people who purchase employer-sponsored health insurance, the benefits of that insurance are often not apparent—yet its significance comes to light when major sicknesses or disabilities surface. Most Americans do not realize how expensive procedures or check-ups can be until they are faced with them, and therefore do not realize the importance of an individual healthcare mandate.
The individual mandate is the most controversial element in the new healthcare law. There are more disadvantages than advantages, however, to eliminating this mandate. The auto-enrollment insurance coverage would cover only 24 million people, whereas 32 million people would be covered under a mandate. Additionally, the premium for young people in the non-group market would rise by 11 percent without an individual mandate. And most importantly, government costs would not fall at all with the elimination of an individual mandate, contrary to what some might believe about increased government budgets with universal healthcare. Every statistic shows that it is not a wise decision to opt out of the individual mandate. Instead, we should combine more flexible options into the individual mandate, such as mandatory enrollment for certain wage groups, auto-enrollment (as described in the article), subsidies people who seek healthcare directly from the doctor, and/or complete overhaul of the healthcare system.
Mandatory healthcare for low income people would help those who are most at risk of health issues. A certain wage group refers to low income people who would not be able to afford healthcare in the first place. For example, a low income family would be able to get free health care, a middle class family would pay for certain check-ups or minor procedures and a wealthier family would be able to pay for all of the above. This segregation of income brackets might raise issues of fairness, but in reality is no different from auto insurance, where premiums are determined by age groups. Healthcare is something that is universally necessary and a right of all individuals.Illness is something that is inevitable; we need to realize that as a society, we should not hold those who fall ill responsible for events out of their control.
In 2012, if the mandatory enrollment in ACT is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Then we project to lose about half of the newly insured individuals and nearly all non-group insurance premiums will increase. Professor Gruber estimates that the participation rate will drop by 50 percent yet the government will be only saving 25 to 30 percent in expenditure. Thus, the auto-enrollment plan is an auspicious alternative that would at least raise the enrollment around 70 percent. This thesis is bolstered by several studying conducted by the mutual fund company Fidelity. Their studies showed that the lack of participation in pension was due to lack of inattention. Therefore, by auto-enrolling individuals directly had increased pension participation from 53 to 81 percent. We think this alternative is better path but with minor adjustments. Once individual opt out then they must pay higher premium to opt back into the program to offset foregone earnings by the government. As discussed above the government gets fewer bangs for the bucks when people leave the system.
We all know that the cost of insurance in America depends on many factors but a huge bundle comes from the overhead cost of filing insurance claims, document, etc. There is an emergence of an alternative system where the patient pays directly to the doctor for routine and minor check up rather than through the doctor. This alternative cuts down expenditures on overhead significantly because there is no longer a bridge (insurance company) between you and the doctor. Logically, the doctor must keep you healthy as possible because it will increase their profits by not having to treat you later. These alternative practices have surged over the years and we think the government should subsidize individual who are not elderly. Alternative practices such as these are much more cost efficient way to provide minor healthcare.
Conclusion
If ACT is deemed unconstitutional when our best bet at providing insurance for all is through auto-enrollment. However, no matter what kind of policies the government imposes, we still need to re-form our healthcare system. America spends more than any other country on healthcare yet do we have a better service? The lobbying groups for insurers, device makers, drug companies, doctors and hospitals have succeeded, so far, in keeping big, systemic changes out of the bills. Thus, no matter how much coverage we have, our expenditure on healthcare would exceed our return.