~ Universal Healthcare ~
“Decent Treatment of Each Citizen is not Socialism.”
Opposition to any form of universal health coverage for the citizens enforce the elite status of specific sectors of the United States population.
In their resistance to include the less affluent, they cite the increase of taxes to cover costs, as well as bureaucracy. They discount the overwhelming cost already placed on the people for coverage through private insurance, hospitals and clinics – stating such institutions have the right to make profits.
Profits at the expense of health of all citizens?
Too few of our politicians are interested in ensuring each and every U. S. citizen is treated with dignity and care to ensure decent health?
As for tax cost, let’s first consider the cost of ‘employer controlled health benefits.’
Upfront, there is the monthly fee for the benefit, a cost that accumulates to well over a couple grand a year for most employees – often considerably more. If they have a family, additional fees are at least double – easily bringing the annual premium in excess of $6,000 for the family.
That’s only the premiums through ‘employer controlled health benefits.’ Maintaining separate coverage from employers can be even higher. Self-employed people have considerable costs for health coverage, making entrepreneurship a harder route for many to consider, creating an unwarranted burden set by society.
Now let’s consider deductibles. Except for a few exceptions, the benefactor has to pay a minimum balance before insurance will start covering the expenses of healthcare. This alone has caused many people and families to struggle with economic strife, followed by collapse and bankruptcy.
Each policy has its own deduction rate based on premiums. In the spectrum, the benefactor is either paying a higher monthly premium to shave a couple thousand from the deductible, or have a lower premium and hope they don’t face a higher deductible. That decision is usually based on how affluent the person/family is, and healthcare needs – a hard decision for most people.
If a person is having ongoing ailments, those costs are considerable and many companies won't consider enlisting such high risk citizens of the nation.
On top of premiums and deductions, there are often copay. Granted – this is a means to help balance the cost, as well as prevent frivolous claims. However, this is an another expense on top of premiums and deductions, and a further burden on people and families. Considering various ailments, this is a compounding expense that adds to the considerable costs of health care for the person or family.
It is harsh enough for individuals, though add in the rest of a family, and it’s even more so – especially with the premium and deduction costs.
Furthermore, virtually every policy has caps of coverage. After shoveling considerable expenses for premiums, deductions and copay, insurance companies have limits on how much they will cover. Considering how much hospitals and clinics charge, this limit is reached fairly quickly by many and the coverage ends.
After considerable expenses by people, families and the insurance companies, those insurance companies give up and let the benefactor suffer – often perishing from lack of assistance.
Let’s return to a health condition prior to catastrophic end of the United States citizen, going to a time when they are still being drained of any funding that once had been for the family's well-being.
Related to copay in many ways, there is the percentage of coverage. Where copay are usually a set amount, the percentage of coverage is considerably more in most all cases.
Depending on the policy, these percentages the patient is responsible for can be quite substantial, leaving the ailing person and their family responsible for the care of the inflicted. This amount has often bankrupt families and the bankruptcy becomes a burden on the society and businesses as a whole.
The cost of bankruptcies must be part of the conversation when discussing healthcare costs – especially when discounting universal healthcare of all the citizens of the United States. Other articles on bankruptcies for shall be pursued at another time.
On top of the expenses already discussed, insurance companies have another trick to sideslip from covering people’s ailments in the form of catering to policyholders needs.
The catering to specific needs of policyholders is a deceptive means to place obstacles within the policies, allowing insurers to build benefactors for more comprehensive coverage. For each individual and the families, the benefactor has to ensure that they fulfill all the needs they have, or be denied coverage for ailments that come as a surprise.
The catering only works for insurance companies and restricts actual coverage for the policies. For those who criticize a broader sense of coverage will say, ‘Why should I pay for someone else’s problems.’ This is often presented from masles when related to the ailments of women.
A great many men have the view of discounting the spreading of costs through the entire population, and insurance companies play into that limiting view.
To further sidestep from coverage, insurance companies do the same for cancers and other ailments. It is not just a matter of gender specific ailments – though much of that is part of their reasoning.
So in the end, the cost of ‘employer-based coverage’ is considerable and the companies are bleeding people for exorbitant profits.
On top of all that, employers use the ‘benefit’ as a means to entrap employees into extorted servitude with the threat of losing such benefits.
For those feeling universal health coverage is a slippery slope to communistic-socialistic control, know that the Arinora-Cascadia solution does not agree with the ‘single-payer’ option of healthcare.
Soon to come on this site is a dual level health coverage that includes universal coverage through governance to ensure all citizens of the nation is treated with decency, having a strong private element that is to remain separate, though having supportive elements for the population. Due to the layers of fluency with in the nation – levels that are understandable, though skewed dramatically – there’s a route that can be achieved if people stop blaming others for hardships and costs.
It comes down to people being decent to each other.
BCW-JZ
~ Universal-Distributed Healthcare ~
“Universal-Distributed Health does not have to Exclude Private Insurers."
However; Private Insurers must do more for the public, not just for profits.
Health Insurance Companies want the ‘Pick-and-Choose’ element of coverage. In having patchwork coverage, insurers are able to deny coverage on grounds of that people lack coverage.
Those insurance companies are also able to charge extra for each and every part of coverage. This had been a means for all insurance companies of any type to gain considerable profits for mediocre coverage. Health industry has built obscene profits on such behavior – billions of dollars in profits.
Expenses people have to present for Premiums and Deductibles, as well as higher and higher Copay, is a great burden on the less affluent. Then there are Caps applied to coverage. All of this becomes a greater burden for those less affluent – and the number of less affluent peoples in society is growing every day.
With Single-Rate Payment—a set rate applied to each and every person, no matter their income—those with lower income have a greater burden than the more affluent. With a more Balanced Payment-Copay—ratings based on income—the cost distribution of coverage would be more equitable for all the peoples.
The concept of Balance Payment-Copay appears to be objectionable to many, though distinctions between the affluent and less affluent is becoming more of a disruption to the society; and those more affluent are not taking responsibility for their social position, feeling it unfair they have to contribute more because they make more.
Attitudes presented by most of the affluent class within the modern societies concerning Single-Rate Payments creates a selfish elitism. This attitude differs from the noble elites of the past, where nobility had the responsibility of taking care of those in their protection. Though many nobles take a selfish-elitism view, the principles of chivalry were clear.
In these modern days, allowing higher affluent to have considerably less burden than the lower affluent in healthcare is a considerable strain on peoples and societies.
When it comes to assistance of the less-affluent, people fanned their hands to charities, as though that is the answer to healthcare coverage for the less affluent. Problems with that view involves concepts of ‘Thresholds’ and ‘Profitability of Charitable Organizations.’
When it comes to charities assisting the less-affluent, those just above acceptable threshold of assistance become the new disadvantaged. Those below the threshold are generally fully covered, and those higher in affluency are able to afford more. This creates a problem for those who are considered more in the ‘Middle-Class’ category of modern societies.
The problem of charitable thresholds is a problem that needs to be addressed, and Balanced Payment-Copays would go far to make this possible. Also, removal of corporate-personal deductibles (loopholes) would prevent companies and higher income persons from avoiding paying levy-taxes that support governance and broader healthcare.
Then there is the ‘Profitability of Charitable Organizations.’ Even though they claim ‘nonprofit’ status, the organizers, owners and higher staff are paid considerable amount of income and bonuses. Stipends and bonuses are means to balance the books at the end of the year to maintain the nonprofit status, giving staffers – especially those at the top – notably heightened income.
The problems of our healthcare continues.
Remarks are made about ‘One-Size Fits All’ approach to healthcare by Insurance Companies, as well as those less inclined to balance healthcare across societies. This view allows Insurance Companies to criticize Universal-Distributed Healthcare and an increase of advertisements are pressuring this view.
Though insurers criticize ‘One-Size Fits All,’ they understand the distribution of coverage to compensate for those having higher-cost conditions. They rate premiums, copays and deductibles based on that distribution of cost.
Women specifically are victimized when the cost is not distributed across the entire population. The biology of femellas is considerably more complicated, and being so, have higher cost needs. A balance is needed to ensure those with higher needs are not excessively burdened because of their biology.
Even though Insurance Companies may declare a customizing policy, enabling persons to ‘Pick What Is Right for Them,’ actual rates involves risk factoring across the entire collection of persons they ensure. Then, as stated before, there is the ‘Pick-and-Choose’ aspect of policies – and what is or is not covered when a person experiences catastrophic ailments. These policies allow insurers to avoid coverage.
In openly declaring Universal-Distributed Healthcare, we are saying that all persons shall be covered fully, no matter their affluency. Having reasonable Copay helps curtail people from abusing full coverage without personal liability, though that rate will never push people into bankruptcy or force them to sell assets just because they developed in ailment.
Yet, people still fight to prevent everyone from having healthcare and problems with healthcare continues.
A lot of discussion is paid to pre-existing conditions, and insurance uses this as a means to deny coverage, or worse, heighten the costs that further burdens those with such conditions.
Payment Caps and limitation of coverage allows Insurance Companies to gain considerable profits, leaving people and families in jeopardy, often leading to bankruptcy.
Those of higher affluency will criticize those unable to afford healthcare, saying that they must sell off all their assets and resources in order to gain costly treatments and medication.
Besides crushing stability of those with less income – disallowing them to pass on legacy by forcing liquidation of their entire life because of a medical condition – creates a vulnerable situation for those people and their families.
This is appalling, and yet Insurance Companies gain obscene profits at the expense of others – billions of dollars in profits.
In holding to their profits, Insurance Companies promote the ‘Pick-and-Choose’ elements that create those high profits.
The distribution of healthcare is how insurers spread the risk of covering policyholders. Those Insurance Companies must be accountable and cover needs of the peoples, and governance need to provide means to ensure each and every person in the nation has coverage.
If that is not accomplished, the equitable treatment of people remains a myth. History has shown all too clearly the inequalities applied – and such inequalities continue.
The problem is not just with Insurance Companies.
There’s the discussion of corporate supported health plans. Most all companies only offer one or two health plans to employee-hirelings. Showing an inequitable separation between management and general staff-laborers, higher echelon personnel are usually offered additional health plans that is not afforded to underlings.
As for cost; check what each City, County and State covers – adding those considerable amounts to the conversation of federal contribution – and we all would see considerable spending already taking place for obscene profits observed by Insurance Companies – billions of dollars in profits.
We must all look to balanced, equitable treatment of all peoples, including the coverage of healthcare. Healthcare Insurance Companies must never have a stranglehold on the health of people. Governance must ensure that all peoples have equitable, decent and comprehensive coverage that will not burden them into bankruptcy.
BCW-JZ
Related Articles; Universal Healthcare. >>[to Healthcare page]
More about the Decency of Healthcare
As for tax cost, let’s first consider the cost of ‘employer controlled health benefits.’
Upfront, there is the monthly fee for the benefit, a cost that accumulates to well over a couple grand a year for most employees – often considerably more. If they have a family, additional fees are at least double – easily bringing the annual premium in excess of $6,000 for the family.
That’s only the premiums through the ‘employer controlled health benefits.’ Maintaining separate coverage from employers can be even higher. Self-employed people have considerable costs for health coverage, making entrepreneurship a harder route for many to consider, creating an unwarranted burden set by society.
~ For more about the decency of Healthcare, see related article. >>[Healthcare page]