We don’t need government-run healthcare to get affordable, universal coverage – Washington Post

A very interesting opinion piece (that dovetails with the last post of mine discussing that a large amount of lobbyists are out to kill the idea of Medicare for All). I don’t think that Third Way is a lobbying arm of the healthcare industry, but I would love to get some feedback by my readers as to what they think of this proposal. It does merit a good debate, I believe. It might even be possible to get a great many Americans on board with this, since they get to keep their doctor, it doesn’t put every medical professional into having to accept the uneconomic reimbursal rates of Medicare/medicaid, it eliminates medical bankruptcies, and it covers everyone in a way that is easy to implement. Thoughts? Am I missing something here?

From the article:

America can insure everyone without changing anyone’s existing health coverage. It won’t require replacing Obamacare with a single-payer, government-run system. Instead, we can build upon Obamacare with two simple, game-changing features: a universal cap on premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, and an automatic coverage system that places the uninsured in a plan they can depend on and afford.

UPDATE: After thinking about it, here’s my, and a medical friend’s thoughts:

A missing element in this is that it doesn’t change the issue that not everyone with insurance gets the coverage they need. Some providers don’t take more than one or two of the ACA options. Some don’t take any. Many things docs want to do arent covered by Obamacare, Medicare or independent insurers. If your doc says you need an MRI, and the ACA people say no, what then? Why is an insurance bureaucrat more knowledgeable about your care than your doctor? The devil is in the details in the current ACA & in this one too. In Canada, everyone who walks in the clinics or hospitals gets the same care. This proposal at least in the article, does not achieve that. Reimbursements in the ACA often barely cover the cost of treatment. That’s why some docs won’t take them. What about the caps? Meaning some programs only allow you to see a doc 4 or 5 times a year, then you are out of luck and out of pocket. Will it cover all needed coverage? So much missing in this article. Would love to have the authors point us to more indepth overviews of this. Interesting to read some of the comments, which seem to say that Third Way is a tool of the Right, some say it’s a tool of the Left. Wonder what the reality is? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/19/we-dont-need-government-run-health-care-get-affordable-universal-coverage/

One thought on “We don’t need government-run healthcare to get affordable, universal coverage – Washington Post

  1. El, one of the affected by picked up from these links is finally on number of those who remain uninsured yet eligible for ACA. I’ve been trying to get that number for sometime and have suspicions about Washington claiming that 90% of our residents are insured II the 2nd that you’ve emphasized in previous blogs is the minimalizing reimbursements for providers under both Medicaid and Medicare. I didn’t see anything but maybe I missed it. Otherwise this enhanced ACA plan sounds doable and may reach the electorate.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s