A Two Payer System That Can Work (Not Obamacare)
If lower income people are placed on Medicaid and they have a private policy that covers most of what Medicaid doesn't, that is necessary, that's good.
If the costs of the policy is less because of the Medicaid coverage, the policy is affordable to the working people who have lower paying jobs. No one is cut back or laid off.
Medicaid is alleviated financially by the policies paying some on the care. This is good.
Pre- existing conditions can be met.
Policies can be kept.
As the income or financial circumstance of the family or individual improves, more can be transferred to the private policy.
Partial Insurance Coverage( With Medicaid) - Verses Obamacare
Contributions into the insurance pool funds is better than no contributions into the insurance funds.
With Obamacare, the people who are placed into Medicaid coverage are not contributing to the pool. This puts pressure onto the other policies , regardless of how you politically spin it. (The facts.)
It is better to have most of the people who are working at lower wages, to contribute by having extra coverage on private policies. The policies in this case, compliment their Medicaid coverage.
It is also more economically feasible to have those with partial coverage, phase into full coverage, over a period of time.
I was saying that partial coverage (with private sector policies) would be far less expensive to the working poor and others, because of Medicaid coverage. And vice versa.
Partial Medicaid with partial insurance coverage would be the best way to cover the uninsured.
There would be far less pressure on other policies, with respect to cost transference.
The main costs with Medicaid is subsidies paid out. The actual payout would be less, to a possibly greater degree, with partial coverage on policies from insurance companies that cover enough to alleviate a good deal of the burden on Medicaid.
A less expensive policy is possible with a partial coverage policy. This could also cover areas that Medicaid does not cover. Taking into consideration the necessary modifications on Minimum Coverage that is mandated by Obamacare.
The coverage that was actually necessary was once again left out and more money was to be spent on what was called Mental Healthcare, which was actually just testing and medical tests after assessments on substance abuse.
Keep it in mind, that, the testing that can be mandated after assessments, that are not done by professionals, can be expensive. In that case, also possibly unnecessary.
Two Payer System- (First Problem Solved) -Groundwork.
Technically, Obamacare is a one payer system. One payer on Medicaid. And one payer on exchange policy.
Looking at the huge problem associated with the voluntary part of the one payer on exchanges, where the healthy dollars are not showing up, in order to compensate for the needy in the insurance money pool; it is predictable, that, a lack of interest will cause a short fall of usable capitol. This will lead to sharp increases in the cost of related policies. This cause and effect is called cost transference. Spreading the cost out evenly, so to speak.
It is better to use Medicaid as a support on coverage, for young people and working healthy people (at lower income levels), who will purchase policies for half the cost in the private sector. The split on Medicaid and insurance policies makes lower costs possible. This keeps more money flowing into the pool for insurance coverage, without driving up costs for other policy holders. (First problem solved.)
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.