Expanded and strengthened state private insurance companies are to be expected since more younger Texans enter the market thanks to the premium support. Texas can expect savings through more proper use of medical care, lower numbers in Medicaid, and savings from increased recipient cost sharing. Texas must refuse to comply with the new high-risk pools. There are many reasons Texas should not comply but the main reason is poor design. Currently, eighteen states have decided not to participate in these pools, Texas is undecided. Any person with a pre-existing medical disorder whom has been without insurance for six month will qualify. The law gave the Department of Health discretion in determining with conditions qualifies. Theoretically, the Department of Health could say the flu is a pre existing medical condition. If Texas does not refuse to comply with these pools it is only a matter of time before the demand will exceed the supply. A huge concern is when the funding is gone what do the state politicians do. I see two options. One, state officials will end the coverage all together and pull the plug. Two, continue to allow the program to run with the use of state tax dollars. The federal uniform health care system should be based on Texas not the other way around. With a universal rate system that will soon be implemented the government is forcing insurance companies to sell their health part of the company just to exit the market. Texas must oppose Obamacare by enacting our own alterations that will increase health insurance competition and thus driving down cost. Texas officials need to lower market entry to start up health insurance companies to help promote competition. A uniform healthcare system might be priced lower bu... ... middle of paper ... ...he federal government and the Texas government if Obamacare got implemented. Under Obamacare, Texas would be an ordinary constitute of the federal government, carrying out the schedule of the United States Department of Health. The major pieces of the Afforadable Care Act do not become active for a few years but Texas must do everything it can to redesign, abolish or dismantle it. Texas officials must also realize that we are not a messenger for the federal government. We are a powerful, self-sufficient state with the power to control our own healthcare system. There is entirely nothing that forces Texas to help force us to use this foolish legislation. Quite frankly, Texas needs to make the most of opportunities to use its authority to create better solutions than a one size fits all federal mandated healthcare. Texas must do what is right for the people of Texas.
Due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law on March 23rd, 2010; health care in the US is presently in a state of much needed transition. As of 2008, 46 Million residents (15% of the population) were uninsured and 60% of residents had coverage from private insurers. 55% of those covered by private insurers received it through their employer and 5% paid for it directly. Federal programs covered 24% of Americans; 13% under Medicare and10% under Medicaid. (Squires, 2010)
The Hunger Games was a critically acclaimed movie when it came out; however, some critics would argue that the movie can be sometimes too violent for its intended audience. In this essay I would dissert Brian Bethune’s essay “Dystopia Now” in order to find its weaknesses and compare the movie Battle Royale with his essay.
The Affordable Care Act introduced a plan that would allow Americans with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance without the hassle of being turned down or fear of being charged higher premiums. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan was effective as of July 1, 2010. It allowed patient access to affordable healthcare in which they were previously denied due to their pre-existing condition (Affordable Care Act Summary, n.d.). Patients were required to be uninsured for at least six months before they obtained this form of health insurance. In January 2014, the PCIP plans no longer exist due to funding issues so Amer...
One of the most controversial topics in the United States in recent years has been the route which should be undertaken in overhauling the healthcare system for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. It is important to note that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to make healthcare affordable; it provides low-cost, government-subsidized insurance options through the State Health Insurance Marketplace (Amadeo 1). Our current president, Barack Obama, made it one of his goals to bring healthcare to all Americans through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This plan, which has been termed “Obamacare”, has come under scrutiny from many Americans, but has also received a large amount of support in turn for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include a decrease in insurance discrimination on the basis of health or gender and affordable healthcare coverage for the millions of uninsured. The opposition to this act has cited increased costs and debt accumulation, a reduction in employer healthcare coverage options, as well as a penalization of those already using private healthcare insurance.
A major complaint of many against public health insurance for illegal immigrants is emergency Medicaid. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986, hospitals must provide emergency, life-saving service to those who come in regardless of citizenship status or money. If the patient does not have insurance or money to pay for medical treatment and they fulfill all of the requirements of Medicaid except citizenship, the government will pay for their healthcare (“Em...
There is an ongoing debate on the topic of how to fix the health care system in America. Some believe that there should be a Single Payer system that ensures all health care costs are covered by the government, and the people that want a Public Option system believe that there should be no government interference with paying for individual’s health care costs. In 1993, President Bill Clinton introduced the Health Security Act. Its goal was to provide universal health care for America. There was a lot of controversy throughout the nation whether this Act was going in the right direction, and in 1994, the Act died. Since then there have been multiple other attempts to fix the health care situation, but those attempts have not succeeded. The Affordable Care Act was passed in the senate on December 24, 2009, and passed in the house on March 21, 2010. President Obama signed it into law on March 23 (Obamacare Facts). This indeed was a step forward to end the debate about health care, and began to establish the middle ground for people in America. In order for America to stay on track to rebuild the health care system, we need to keep going in the same direction and expand our horizons by keeping and adding on to the Affordable Care Act so every citizen is content.
...s quite a smart idea for us to having something as a backup plan because who knows what could potentially happen if we don’t have it where can lead to a serious turmoil. But let’s be real clear on this every American needs Health Insurance Despite the circumstances of what it can have on everyone we should have it reguardless.If the Companies are willing to provide a less expensive one then what’s the reason to overcharge us for it.in all honestly The Healthcare companies want individuals to choose what they feel is best for them and what it can offer for support in giving them the right benefits to obtain for their life. Why should American settle for less when they can settle better to have the best.as individuals we need to understand that its healthcare Companies is not based on the name it’s all about what you’re able to afford and how much can it cover in orde
...ts to cover their mistakes. This is the exact opposite of what the country needs. Why should costs go up because of denied treatment? The big concern is whether or not government really understands the great difficulty in trying to control HMO’s and other health care programs without a nationalized program. Since there are some 6 million people using Medicare in HMO’s something needs to be done to ensure these patients the treatment that they need.
As part of the Affordable Care Act, beginning this year Medicaid will expand eligibility to include all uninsured individuals under the age of 65 whose incomes fall at or below 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, or about $32,500 for a family of four. However, the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law also allowed states more flexibility concerning what parts of the ACA they can implement and said that those same states would not lose federal funding for their existing programs. This result would leave the decision to opt out of the law's provision into the hands of state legislators. While twenty-six states have chosen to expand healthcare coverage, twenty-one states have not and four have yet to make a decision. The state of Florida is among those not seeking to expand coverage and that decision alone could cost Florida millions of dollars a year in tax penalties. As conservative and liberal state lawmakers square off into a maelstrom of debate over whether Medicaid should cover more people, thousands of uninsured Floridians will be caught in the crossfire.
The author also believes that the Medicaid expansion extends beyond the politics, and has an aim to impact the life, health, and financial stability for the state and individuals. Medicaid expansion can be beneficial to many countries that have a large proportion of low-income people that are uninsured and or with disabilities. This can aid in saving the state money because much of the cost is provided and covered by the federal government, that encourages healthier behavior and results to a reduction in chronic disease due to lower health care costs. Although Texas opted out in adopting the expansion, legislators should decide on the advantage and disadvantage of participating in the Medicaid expansion to improve the welfare of the state. The expansion of Medicaid coverage will give low-income pregnant women the chance to reduce the rate in infant mortality and provide an opportunity for those that were unable to get coverage to be
During the Great Depression, while the competitors were cutting costs and reusing outdated designs, Kress was expanding and building more elaborate stores than their previous ones. The architecture was referred to as an “emporium” evoking an elegant atmosphere more suited to a fine cloth or furniture store in New York rather than the five & dime stores dotting small town America. Many wonder what the driving force was behind these design decisions, especially during a national time of economic recession. Perhaps simply to outpace the competition, but perhaps more importantly Samuel Kress was an avid art collector and a proponent of public art enhancing a community. In this way the Kress legacy of the brand became more than a retail business, it became a symbol of small town civic pride.
One of Obamacare's main selling points during the health care reform debate was the need to establish insurance coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Beginning 2014, Obamacare will implement a policy called "guaranteed issue" which prohibits insurance providers from excluding individuals with pre-existing medical conditions from coverage (Senger, 2013). Because this may cause incentive for people to wait until they become ill to perchance purchase insurance, Obamacare includes the "disliked individual" mandate which forces all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. Considering 1 out of every 2 Americans have a health condition that qualifies as a pre-existing condition, Obamacare doing away with pre-existing conditions is a huge deal.
Under the Affordable Care Act one of the most important provisions is to expand health care to low income families through Medicaid. This could have an effect on over eight million people who do not have access to health care currently. However 25 states have decided against expanding Medicaid benefits, leaving 13.5 million people less likely to receive basic health care and preventative ...
In deciding whether to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), governors and state legislatures face a complex, politically and fiscally challenging choice. The decision on Medicaid eligibility expansion is already a hot topic in state capitals and state election campaigns. The politics and policy of Medicaid reached a fever pitch during the November elections IN 2016. In this essay, I will outline arguments for state to opt for Affordable Care Act Medicaid eligibility expansion. The ACA went into effect in January 2014, the ACA originally expanded Medicaid eligibility to most adults between age 18 and 64 with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL).
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) legislation passed in 2010 supported changes to private and public market places for patients, providers and health insurers most noticeably through expanded health insurance availability. A key piece of the legislation included a significant expansion to the Medicaid program to include all individuals with incomes below 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (Hahn & Sheingold, 2013). Initially, if accepted within the state, the expansion is fully paid for by the federal government and progressively through 2020, 10 percent of the Medicaid spending is a responsibility for the state to fund. As part of continuing to receive any federal