Here is a question I’d love to see candidates answer before the election.
Source: NY Times |
Does the continuing activity around the implementation of the Affordable Care Act signal the collapse of American capitalism – at least as it pertains to health and health care?
The myth of American capitalism is so powerful that I imagine they won’t touch this one with a ten foot pole – or even a ten-foot long poll! In the politics of our $2.6 trillion healthcare economy, however, capitalism takes a back seat.
The recent activities of the Connecticut health exchange board explain why capitalism in health care is about as relevant as a Democratic voter in Utah.
Connecticut is one of the dozen or so states embracing ACA, and is making an impressive effort to implement its health insurance exchange on time in 2014. By contrast, more than half the states have yet to even declare their intentions, even though the deadline for doing so is mid-November.
According to a recent, well-written article in CT News Junkie, its health exchange board, tasked with the job of approving the “essential benefits package” for the state, did so last week. The essential benefits package will become the standard in each state for what must be offered by insurers after the law takes effect.
The board voted to base Connecticut’s essential benefits package on one of its most popular health insurance plans. The plan is offered by ConnectiCare, an HMO. ConnectiCare has offered good health insurance packages for many years – I was insured by ConnectiCare for many years when I was a resident of Connecticut.
So far, so good.
But here’s the ironic twist that makes you wonder if capitalism can survive health care, and if health care can survive capitalism.
The one member of the board voting against the package was the former CEO of ConnectiCare. His reason was that the plan will provide to be too rich for many small businesses and individuals to afford.
He was quoted as saying that small businesses would have to drop insurance. According to the report, here is how he put it: The essential benefits were supposed to set a floor for insurers “but it’s like we’ve taken an elevator to the 12th floor.”
Think about it.
If an insurance plan that provides fair coverage for emergency services, mental health services, prescription drugs, pediatric services, pregnancy services, and rehabilitation has become too rich for all the people who need those services the most to afford – even with thousands of dollars in tax credit subsidies – then what kind of an insurance market is that?
And if Connecticut’s comprehensive, but essential, benefits cost too much, then what’s your alternative?
As a Florida Congressman once got in political trouble for asking, “dying quickly?”
If the ACA essential benefits approach doesn’t work then there are really only two options left to consider.
The first is to regulate the price of healthcare as aggressively as you can.
The second is to create a Medicare-for-all system with the leverage and muscle to decide how much it will pay for healthcare services no matter what a provider wants to charge.
Both require significant governmental intervention. And neither is an endorsement of the kind of market-driven capitalism favored by some candidates this year.
So why can’t all this still be part of our national campaign dialogue about health care? Is the myth of capitalism and “free” enterprise so strong that politicians can’t even talk about how important the role of the government is in subsidizing our care and regulating and managing the marketplace?
I’m just asking.
No comments:
Post a Comment