Still another group of politicians promote a national health insurance program to replace the mixed federal, state, and

[answerhappygod]

Still Another Group Of Politicians Promote A National Health Insurance Program To Replace The Mixed Federal State And 1 (62.16 KiB) Viewed 44 times

Still Another Group Of Politicians Promote A National Health Insurance Program To Replace The Mixed Federal State And 2 (62.16 KiB) Viewed 44 times

Still Another Group Of Politicians Promote A National Health Insurance Program To Replace The Mixed Federal State And 3 (62.16 KiB) Viewed 44 times

Still Another Group Of Politicians Promote A National Health Insurance Program To Replace The Mixed Federal State And 4 (51.81 KiB) Viewed 44 times

Still Another Group Of Politicians Promote A National Health Insurance Program To Replace The Mixed Federal State And 5 (51.81 KiB) Viewed 44 times

Still another group of politicians promote a national health insurance program to replace the mixed federal, state, and private insurance system in place after the end of the PPACA. Under this proposal, the entire healthcare system would look essentially like Medicare except bigger. Unlike other national insurance/universal healthcare programs in some other countries, health care providers and facilities WILL NOT be employed or owned by the federal government unless they already are, such as VA facilities and providers. This system will function much like Medicare currently does, with providers and facilities billing the federal insurer for services being provided. States will continue to license healthcare providers and facilities, including through Certificates of Need, but states will no longer regulate health insurance because private health insurance will no longer exist In this option, every person residing in the US will be automatically enrolled. The system will be paid for through a special tax assessed on individuals and employers, and the tax will be based on number of employees for employers and income level for individuals. What modifications do you think would make the proposal you chose better? Which proposal would most likely expand access to health care, and which would most likely decrease access? WHY?
1. Some politicians are pushing to ONLY prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions in health insurance policies, meaning that even if a person has previously or still has a health condition or disease coverage cannot be denied (this was one of the more popular provisions of the now-defunct PPACA). This proposal does NOT expand government support of insurance payments, meaning that private health insurance market remains largely paid for by individuals or employers. 2. Other politicians support allowing individuals to buy into Medicare and the reduced insurance rates included in this program. For individuals whose income is below a certain threshold, but above that required to enroll in Medicaid, the federal government will pay for all or a portion of premiums based on a sliding scale. Individuals would be able to enroll in Medicare Part A (hospital insurance), Part B (physician insurance, outpatient care, medical devices etc.), AND Part D (prescription drug insurance), but Part D coverage will require a higher premium than Parts A and B. In neither option 1 nor option 2 would individuals be REQUIRED to obtain health insurance (e.g. no "individual mandate").