The year 2009 is very interesting. Struggles to get out from the economic crisis dominate the news more than anything else. A change indeed happens just like President Obama promised. The issue of universal healthcare has never been out from the top of national hot topic list since Obama took office. It surely deserves a post in this blog.
Background: many disheartening stories in the national news about those chronical and critical ill patients the insurance companies refused to pay for the treatments or for some the rejections came even earlier during the submission of the applications. In U.S., the insurer is allowed to reject the applications based on the pre-existing health condition. Or, in some other cases, the insurance, through their lawyers probably, tries to find the loop holes in the application to avoid payment. Under the Obama's universal healthcare, the companies are not allowed to use pre-existing health condition to reject applications nor to charge different premiums. The government also mandates everybody to get a healthcare insurance, and provides subsidy for those whose income are considered inadequate.
In the most simplistic version, the universal healthcare reform package would consist of these three points:
1. insurance companies couldn't use pre-existing health situation as the deciding factor to reject or to accept the applications.
2. they also are not allowed to charge different premiums, again, based on the health condition, but based on something more abroad like gender or age.
3. the government mandates everybody to take insurance. Otherwise, only those who are sick show up in the insurance offices and caused the insurance an enourmous loss before they are out of the market. This problem is known as the adverse selection.
Pros: This universal healthcare is believed to eliminate the cases of people died because they don't have money to receive proper treatments due to insurance's rejection to cover. The insurance companies will also set an average premium that would be celebrated by those who need regular expensive treatments. The pro-s are also aware that this also means the premiums for some people will increase, especially those who don't have any health problem history. The consolation for those people would be "hey, I know you are paying a higher premium now, but knowing that it will help other people who really need expensive treatments regularly should comfort you. We shouldn't put any money value on human lives, right?"
Cons: Thus, those who are perfectly healthy and young have to purchase the same insurance coverage as those who are sick. It means the government forces to spend some part of income for unnecessary goods. It means those who are already struggling to manage their income to pay for school tuition, foods, apartment rents, or any other necessity goods and perfectly health are having a tough luck. Alright, one more "it means" sentence and I promise to move on. It means, according to government, some people are allocating too few of their income on healthcare and too much on other goods. Is it true?
My stand: while I disagree that the government decides how I should manage my income, I also have an empathy to those who struggle to save the lives whom they love so dearly but got their hands tied due to financial problems. I am also aware that at any point in time everybody could switch places between those two roles (to be those who feel they overpay the insurance, and to be those who really are thankful to be covered by insurance), well, of course exception for those who died suddenly before receiving any treatment. The other side of the coin, those who already struggle just to get the necessity things available but perfectly healthy will feel that their fights for the today's survival are opposed unfairly. So, in conclusion, I have to say I don't know or have no opinion, let alone solutions to the existing problems regarding the universal healthcare, at least until I get more facts to put into consideration.
