Approach back when, the headlines talked regarding the need for health care reform. We were told that 48 million Americans had no coverage, creating the US the worst of the industrialized nations in terms of taking care of its people. Of course, this number was grossly overstated. It included people who were young, in good health and selected not to get insurance; illegal residents; and people between jobs with short-term insurance lapses. The practical number is but [*fr1] this total, but that's still unacceptable.
The key concern is to possess children and those with pre-existing conditions covered. However this will be accomplished while not tearing down the complete health care system. Keep in mind, those living in other countries where universal health care is obtainable often come back here for treatment, if they have the money, as a result of our health care is considered to be higher quality than they'll get at home. Thus how do we tend to:
1) cover everybody,
two) maintain quality and
3) not raise taxes?
The answer is easy; we tend to will't. Decide any 2, but you can't have all three.
Medicare is already targeted for cuts of more than $500 billion. Proponents claim this will be accomplished through the reduction of waste, fraud and abuse; however most seniors believe it can mean a discount in benefits. Otherwise, why didn't the govt. do one thing about the issues once they discovered them? Or, was this simply another political move to require from one group so as to relinquish to another, more deserving, group?
Have our representatives forgotten that there are about 40 million people sixty five and over and that the aging boomers can be swelling this numbers in the years ahead? Are they saying to us that we don't deserve quality health care through the doctors we have a tendency to select and receive the tests, medication and treatments these medical professionals prescribe -- a portion of that is paid for by the supplemental insurance we tend to purchase? Do not they notice we have a tendency to paid our taxes and supported the system all our working lives and therefore earned the right to correct health care as the aging method continues?
The thought of states having the correct to opt-out of the govt option if they wish is ridiculous. It's uncertain a governor or state assembly will vote to opt-out when the residents apprehend they're being taxed for it whether or not it's being offered or not. This selection is supposed to lower costs by being competitive to personal insurers. On the surface this option sounds smart, but it will seemingly reduce competition and everyone can end up paying the worth for such insurance through higher taxes as the govt. choice becomes the only option. And which means no options at all.
Don Potter, a Philadelphia native, was born in 1936 and could be a 50 year veteran of the advertising agency business. Currently living in Los Angeles, he has written two novels in retirement, frequently writes on marketing problems, and includes a blog dedicated to pre-boomers (those born between 1930 and 1945).
Author Resource:-
Link :
Joshua Green has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Home Health Care, you can also check out his latest website about:
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/feed-icon.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites