The
Affordable Care Act and its reform are causing confusion. Here’s
what we know.
It
covers more people than did the free market system and changes some
of the terms of insurance policies, but it does not abolish the
market.
Conservatives
dislike it because they believe it substitutes government for the
free market, costs too much and requires participation.
Progressives
like it because it partly substitutes government for the free market,
which did not cover millions of people.
Everybody
agrees it needs to be fixed.
There
are fundamentally only two ways to provide health care insurance to
people.
In
the U.S., the traditional approach was insurance sold by private
carriers. People could choose among policies the companies offered,
choose not to be insured, or simply couldn’t afford insurance.
Competition among insurers would supposedly control prices. The
system was mainly financed by insurance premiums.
In
other developed countries, government is the insurer, providing
coverage to virtually all people. Government, the “single payer,”
pays the bills. As the only customer, the government can control
prices and costs. The system is financed by taxes, which replace
insurance premiums.
The
American system includes elements of single payer: Medicare for older
people and the Veterans Administration.
The
traditional American system left too many people without coverage,
but the single payer system approach was widely considered to give
too much power to the government while destroying a key element of
free enterprise – competition.
By
2010, Congress included enough Democrats and President Obama to move
away from a pure market system, but not to a single payer. Congress
would not allow government even to provide a nonprofit competitor in
the market. The result was a compromise that shows the defects of a
hybrid.
In
2017, Congress includes enough Republicans and President Trump to
restore some or much of the market system, allowing competition to
attract people to insurance rather than a government requirement.
Some elements of the ACA might be allowed to survive.
The
ACA imposed some new costs resulting from the inclusion of tens of
millions of previously uninsured people and required additional
features, like guaranteeing coverage for pre-existing conditions.
It
does not control drug or hospital costs, which to continue to rise,
though at a slower rate. The new ACA costs are financed by new
taxes, mainly levied on the wealthiest taxpayers. Republicans would
repeal those taxes.
Rising
costs, accompanied by limits on what insurers can charge despite
higher premiums, are causing insurers to leave some markets. Trump
and GOP critics say that shows the coming collapse of the ACA.
Strong
right-wingers don’t want reform; they want repeal. Outright repeal
now may be impossible because the program is established, and many
previously uninsured people are not only becoming accustomed to it,
but find they like it.
Like
Social Security, which was once similarly challenged, it may become
an integral part of American life. If the ACA cannot be killed now,
strong conservatives reckon, it will never be ended.
One
element of the ACA that gets much attention is the financial aid
offered to states, allowing them to expand Medicaid to include many
more low-income people. States could turn this money down, but even
many Republican-led states accepted it to provide help to their
low-income uninsured.
In
Maine, Gov. LePage has thus far successfully blocked the state from
accepting more federal Medicaid funds. This year, a referendum could
allow Maine voters to expand Medicaid, known as MaineCare, without
the governor’s agreement.
As
Congress considers the ACA, a conflict exists between those who favor
repealing as much as possible and others whose constituents have come
to rely on it. Sen. Susan Collins has tried to lead Republicans
toward a state-by-state compromise that serves both sides, but it
seems to have no chance.
Neither
she nor Sen. Angus King is inclined to agree to a deal that strips
Maine people of coverage.
Health
care costs are increasing and with them insurance premiums from
Medicare, the ACA and insurers. Unless costs are controlled, the
health care tab will become impossible to pay under the free market,
single payer, or anywhere in between.
As
a start, when government gives drugs a monopoly, it should be
possible for government to impose price controls on greedy
pharmaceutical companies. That would be a huge reform in itself.
Whatever
happens in Washington, states may adopt their own health care
insurance programs. After all, Massachusetts adopted a program in
2006 that became the basis of the ACA. That state now has the lowest
rate of uninsured in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment