After much thought, I believe I have an alternative that could not only help many, but may be cheaper as well. This alternative can be used freely by any Representative or Senator in the event that Congress is not able come to terms with their own plans. I will also allow them to take complete credit for this idea, so long as they send me a thanks and a reminder to vote for them come the next election.
The Numbers
According to the Census Bureau, there are approximately 308 million residents in the U.S. Of the 308 million, there are 46 million residents without health insurance coverage. This gives you roughly 15 percent of the population without insurance. For the sake of argument, we will say that the 46 million residents are indeed legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
Of the 46 million, there are approximately nine million children (or approximately three percent of the population) who are currently uninsured and five million (or approximately two percent of the population) who are considered uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. Kaiser estimates that at least 43 percent of the uninsured have the means to pay, but choose not to. That counts for approximately 14 million Americans (or approximately four percent.
Do it for the Children
In many cases, children who were once eligible for Medicaid have been denied eligibility for one of three reasons: parents failing to submit documentation, parents’ income is too high for eligibility, or the parent(s) committed fraud. If we wish to reduce the number of uninsured children, we can implement the following:
Every state has eligibility requirements to show proof of eligibility for Medicaid. These requirements include proof of citizenship, state residence, income and in some states, available resources. These requirements are regulated state by state, in accordance to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Think of the CFR as a massive Chinese buffet, and each state (after selecting the basic items needed to run the operation) can pick the extras needed to operate the Medicaid program to suit their needs without getting “stuffed” with the extra goodies. These “extras” can be changed at any time if the states do not like the taste.
Each state regulates the income guidelines based on the needs of the people and the availability to pay for these programs. The guidelines are based on the Federal Poverty Level, (or FPL) and “percentage multiples of the guidelines” (as quoted by the Health and Human Services website). This allows each state to determine the types of Medicaid eligibility qualified applicants are eligible for. For example, based on the income and household size, a child can be eligible for Medicaid or CHIPS (which would require a monthly premium to be paid as well as potential deductibles). To enroll more children into the Medicaid programs, each state can increase the maximum income allowed for each Medicaid program that the state allows for children.
For citizenship requirements, many children were taken off Medicaid because parents were not able to produce birth certificates, mostly due to costs of obtaining duplicate certificates. There is a solution for this. Each state has the option to utilize a program through Social Security to determine citizenship if the parent is applying for Medicaid assistance in the same state that the child was born. The problem that arises is when parents move to another state and apply for assistance. Currently, there is no known process that allows for other states to verify proof of birth, unless they are applying for federal assistance. This can be fixed a couple of ways. Social Security and each state can work on interlinking their state process of proving citizenship to allow cross-state access, or establish a process where verification can be made via phone.
As for proof of income to determine eligibility, there are cases where parents are not able to produce documentation of income. There is a way around this. The internet is a unique beast. Not only can we go to sites and read up on current and past events, but we also do other things like purchase items. Charges made on your credit or debit cards transactions are moving through the internet through secured pathways. Store credit cards and promotional cards all contain information about you and what you buy. Roll up all this information (and other information) and companies can determine your approximate income is. Although it appears snarky, it is perfectly legal. States can utilize this to help the children when no other alternative available. By working these processes into the current methods used, one can estimate that most of the nice million children would be enrolled to an eligible Medicaid program.
The Remaining
As for the uninsurable and the remaining 10 percent of the uninsured Americans, we will group them into this possible solution. I am not a believer in mandating health care to the citizens of the U.S. I understand the premise that the government is using when reviewing U.S. v Butler and the New Deal plans. However, I like Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, believe that there are things that should be handled at the “local” level; local level being the state. If the federal government wishes to enter the issue of healthcare reform, their involvement will be described in my view.
In the recent discussions concerning healthcare reform, President Obama told Congress that he believed in reduction of tort litigation concerning medical malpractice. This was due to previous meetings with leaders in the insurance industry who stated that insurance rates are high, primarily due to insurance fees imposed on doctors to keep practicing. The view is if you drop or reduce certain aspects involving rates, then the cost of insurance would go down and more people would be able to buy insurance through their employer or through insurance agents. Additionally, companies would be able to afford health insurance for their employees and either start providing health insurance to their employees or find insurance that not only benefit them but their employees as well.
Here is where the federal government could step in and help in this matter; hold the insurance companies to the fire. If insurance companies can provide health insurance at a reduced cost to the American citizen, then create legislation to reduce malpractice suits. I would imagine that there would be other requests made by insurance companies and these items could be settled between them and Congress.
In return for this, insurance companies could work with the individual states to enter and provide their services to the businesses of the state. I would recommend a minimum of three insurance companies for each state to reduce any notion of collusion between the insurance companies to raise rates or prevent capitalism from working at its best. The states would determine which companies offer the best plans for their people (both the uninsured and the uninsurable) and work with the insurance companies to provide the best of its residents under the spirit of the general welfare clause. If there is an issue with the insurance companies because they cannot “play nice” with the states, the federal government can step in and deal with the insurance company from a legal standpoint.
In its purest form, this would be a situation where the federal government would become involved when needed. This would be example of the parent stepping in when their son or daughter is on their own and they need help with a major problem. My premise is that in order for capitalism to work properly, the states should be able to work with the powers given to them by the federal government and allow the states to do what is best for their own and ask for help only when needed. Obviously, if there is an issue that needs to be resolved, then the federal government needs to address this with the individual state.
With this group of Americans, we also have an alternative that relates to Medicaid eligibility. Adult parents of eligible children are also eligible for Medicaid coverage based on income. As mentioned earlier, by increasing the income guidelines to meet state needs, more children would be covered. The same can apply for the adults who were once eligible for this program, but were removed due to income or proof of citizenship. By increasing the income guidelines, based on state requirements or needs, more adults would have medical coverage. Based on numbers provided by Kaiser, 12.6 million adults could be eligible for insurance if changes are made in this area (or four percent of the population).
Conclusion
Under the proposals written here, we can cover up to seven percent of the uninsured through changes in Medicaid policy. Of the remaining eight percent, by providing easier access to health insurance through a process of state and private industry cooperation, we can add an additional four percent of those who have an option to enroll for insurance either through their employer or through private means. By doing the math, we could potentially reduce the uninsured rate from 15 percent to a whopping four percent. This, of course would depend on an individual’s desire to have coverage and not be mandated by the government, either state or federal. The bottom line is that we as individuals should decide what would be best for us based on what the government provides us. Civil liberty is one privilege that we cannot mess with, even with the choice of general welfare.
http://www.newspapertree.com/opinion/4339-health-care-an-alternative-plan
The Numbers
According to the Census Bureau, there are approximately 308 million residents in the U.S. Of the 308 million, there are 46 million residents without health insurance coverage. This gives you roughly 15 percent of the population without insurance. For the sake of argument, we will say that the 46 million residents are indeed legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
Of the 46 million, there are approximately nine million children (or approximately three percent of the population) who are currently uninsured and five million (or approximately two percent of the population) who are considered uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. Kaiser estimates that at least 43 percent of the uninsured have the means to pay, but choose not to. That counts for approximately 14 million Americans (or approximately four percent.
Do it for the Children
In many cases, children who were once eligible for Medicaid have been denied eligibility for one of three reasons: parents failing to submit documentation, parents’ income is too high for eligibility, or the parent(s) committed fraud. If we wish to reduce the number of uninsured children, we can implement the following:
Every state has eligibility requirements to show proof of eligibility for Medicaid. These requirements include proof of citizenship, state residence, income and in some states, available resources. These requirements are regulated state by state, in accordance to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Think of the CFR as a massive Chinese buffet, and each state (after selecting the basic items needed to run the operation) can pick the extras needed to operate the Medicaid program to suit their needs without getting “stuffed” with the extra goodies. These “extras” can be changed at any time if the states do not like the taste.
Each state regulates the income guidelines based on the needs of the people and the availability to pay for these programs. The guidelines are based on the Federal Poverty Level, (or FPL) and “percentage multiples of the guidelines” (as quoted by the Health and Human Services website). This allows each state to determine the types of Medicaid eligibility qualified applicants are eligible for. For example, based on the income and household size, a child can be eligible for Medicaid or CHIPS (which would require a monthly premium to be paid as well as potential deductibles). To enroll more children into the Medicaid programs, each state can increase the maximum income allowed for each Medicaid program that the state allows for children.
For citizenship requirements, many children were taken off Medicaid because parents were not able to produce birth certificates, mostly due to costs of obtaining duplicate certificates. There is a solution for this. Each state has the option to utilize a program through Social Security to determine citizenship if the parent is applying for Medicaid assistance in the same state that the child was born. The problem that arises is when parents move to another state and apply for assistance. Currently, there is no known process that allows for other states to verify proof of birth, unless they are applying for federal assistance. This can be fixed a couple of ways. Social Security and each state can work on interlinking their state process of proving citizenship to allow cross-state access, or establish a process where verification can be made via phone.
As for proof of income to determine eligibility, there are cases where parents are not able to produce documentation of income. There is a way around this. The internet is a unique beast. Not only can we go to sites and read up on current and past events, but we also do other things like purchase items. Charges made on your credit or debit cards transactions are moving through the internet through secured pathways. Store credit cards and promotional cards all contain information about you and what you buy. Roll up all this information (and other information) and companies can determine your approximate income is. Although it appears snarky, it is perfectly legal. States can utilize this to help the children when no other alternative available. By working these processes into the current methods used, one can estimate that most of the nice million children would be enrolled to an eligible Medicaid program.
The Remaining
As for the uninsurable and the remaining 10 percent of the uninsured Americans, we will group them into this possible solution. I am not a believer in mandating health care to the citizens of the U.S. I understand the premise that the government is using when reviewing U.S. v Butler and the New Deal plans. However, I like Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, believe that there are things that should be handled at the “local” level; local level being the state. If the federal government wishes to enter the issue of healthcare reform, their involvement will be described in my view.
In the recent discussions concerning healthcare reform, President Obama told Congress that he believed in reduction of tort litigation concerning medical malpractice. This was due to previous meetings with leaders in the insurance industry who stated that insurance rates are high, primarily due to insurance fees imposed on doctors to keep practicing. The view is if you drop or reduce certain aspects involving rates, then the cost of insurance would go down and more people would be able to buy insurance through their employer or through insurance agents. Additionally, companies would be able to afford health insurance for their employees and either start providing health insurance to their employees or find insurance that not only benefit them but their employees as well.
Here is where the federal government could step in and help in this matter; hold the insurance companies to the fire. If insurance companies can provide health insurance at a reduced cost to the American citizen, then create legislation to reduce malpractice suits. I would imagine that there would be other requests made by insurance companies and these items could be settled between them and Congress.
In return for this, insurance companies could work with the individual states to enter and provide their services to the businesses of the state. I would recommend a minimum of three insurance companies for each state to reduce any notion of collusion between the insurance companies to raise rates or prevent capitalism from working at its best. The states would determine which companies offer the best plans for their people (both the uninsured and the uninsurable) and work with the insurance companies to provide the best of its residents under the spirit of the general welfare clause. If there is an issue with the insurance companies because they cannot “play nice” with the states, the federal government can step in and deal with the insurance company from a legal standpoint.
In its purest form, this would be a situation where the federal government would become involved when needed. This would be example of the parent stepping in when their son or daughter is on their own and they need help with a major problem. My premise is that in order for capitalism to work properly, the states should be able to work with the powers given to them by the federal government and allow the states to do what is best for their own and ask for help only when needed. Obviously, if there is an issue that needs to be resolved, then the federal government needs to address this with the individual state.
With this group of Americans, we also have an alternative that relates to Medicaid eligibility. Adult parents of eligible children are also eligible for Medicaid coverage based on income. As mentioned earlier, by increasing the income guidelines to meet state needs, more children would be covered. The same can apply for the adults who were once eligible for this program, but were removed due to income or proof of citizenship. By increasing the income guidelines, based on state requirements or needs, more adults would have medical coverage. Based on numbers provided by Kaiser, 12.6 million adults could be eligible for insurance if changes are made in this area (or four percent of the population).
Conclusion
Under the proposals written here, we can cover up to seven percent of the uninsured through changes in Medicaid policy. Of the remaining eight percent, by providing easier access to health insurance through a process of state and private industry cooperation, we can add an additional four percent of those who have an option to enroll for insurance either through their employer or through private means. By doing the math, we could potentially reduce the uninsured rate from 15 percent to a whopping four percent. This, of course would depend on an individual’s desire to have coverage and not be mandated by the government, either state or federal. The bottom line is that we as individuals should decide what would be best for us based on what the government provides us. Civil liberty is one privilege that we cannot mess with, even with the choice of general welfare.
http://www.newspapertree.com/opinion/4339-health-care-an-alternative-plan
0 comments:
Post a Comment