CongressionalBudgetOfficeprojectthatby2027,fivemillionAmericanswouldloseindividualcoverage;anotherfivemillion,Medicaidcoverage;andthreemillionmore,
That would mean 13 million Americans will lose health coverage under this repeal. Despite not being penalized for not being insured that is 13 million people out of insurance.
onlyabouthalfofpooradultswerecoveredbyMed-icaidandalmost30%ofboththepoorandnear-poorunderage65lackedanycoverageatall
Before ACA many Americans lacked insurance coverage because it was not a requirement, however in many high-income countries people would could not afford healthcare got it regardless unlike america and that was until ACA.
Asfarbackasthe1950sthosewithpre-existingillnessesgen-erallyfoundindividualinsurancepoliciesunaffordablebecauseinsurerscouldchargehigherpremiumstothosewithahistoryofillness.TheACAincreasedindividualcoverageby:prohibit-inginsurancecompaniesfromexcludingpeopleorchargingmoreforpre-existingconditions;mandatingthatallindividualsobtaininsurance;andbyhelpingindividualspayforthisthroughincome-basedpremiumsubsidies.
Before ACA if private insures knew someone had an illness they would raise prices forcing them to pay more if they wanted insurance. Under ACA making someone pay more because of illness is prohibited under ACA.
UntilthemajorprovisionsoftheACAwentintoeffectinJanuary2014,healthinsurancecoveragewasalwaysvoluntary.About30%ofthepopulationwascoveredthroughthetwomajor
Before ACA (Affordable Health Care Act) health care was voluntary meaning you could have coverage or you could not. No penalties since it was your choice.
CongressionalleaderscouldnotmusterenoughvotesinlargemeasurebecauseCongress’ownbudgetofficereportedthatrepealwouldresultin23millionAmericanslosingtheircoverage
If the repeal had went through 23 million people would be losing health care coverage in doing so.
His planwould finance the national insurance program through a combination of payroll and income taxes, and it would replace private and employer-sponsored health insurance and existing government health programs—including Medicare itself.
Does this mean that private and employer sponsdered health isurance workers would be jobless?
Creating medicare for all while putting people out of jobs?
Advocates claim that administrative costs would be much lower in a Medicare-like system than under a system dominated by private insurance.
Cost would drastically drop under this new plan opposed to private insurance compaines.
Under the Sanders proposal, for example, cost control is secured by a global budget and by imposing Medicare payment rates. Blahous, a former Medicare trustee, estimates that under the Sanders proposal, provider payments would be cut by an estimated 40 percent
Under Sanders plan cost would drop by an estimated 40%.
The tax burden would be enormous, roughly doubling the current tax obligations for today’s taxpayers.
So does this mean that lowering cost on the single payer health care would ultimately higher taxes than what it already is?
The bottom line: Compared to what most Americans pay for health care today, a fully funded program—as envisioned by Sanders—would cost more for 71 percent of the nation’s working families, including low-income families, according to Thorpe.
So making a fully one funded program would hurt rather than help healtth care and its providers?
exacerbated.
Exacerbated means making a problem worse than it already is. The problem here is that there is already social inequalities throughout health care and being able to recive health care.
Single-payer would control costs by capping the amount spent on health care through a global budget,
Health care cost would be covered by a global budget.
Using Medicare payment rates throughout the entire American health care economy would hurt patients.
This is ultimatley making things worse. Yes health care for all is the goal but payment rates would hurt patients more than help them.