Essay and/or background: Our current hybrid system suffers from skyrocketing costs and piecemeal coverage. Both Democratic candidates have proposed expanding programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid and imposing more stringent regulations on private insurers. Will such steps lead to improvements in the efficiency and quality of health care in America, or will they backfire and make an already struggling system worse?
This debate is the latest in an ongoing series of multi-blog discussions hosted by Swords Crossed, and background essays are posted at that site. If you write (or recently wrote) something on this topic, please let me know and I'll add it to the list of resources.
Cruxes...
The top point in support right now is, "Expanding Medicaid will provide people who cannot afford coverage with access to health care. It will increase preventative care, saving on ER costs. "
The top counterargument is, "SCHIP and Medicaid already cover their target populations; there is no need for expensive expansions to subsidize people who can afford to pay for themselves. "
Medicaid runs on a combination of state and federal funds. Expanding Medicaid means expecting financially strapped states to find more money, not just the federal government.
Medicaid reimbursements are already an issue for physicians in many states. Expanding the program only pushes the government further into that area of skewing the market.
Expanding SCHIP and mandating coverage for children will provide all children with access to health care. Costs can be covered by rolling back the top bracket Bush tax cuts.
Preventing insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of prior illnesses will allow people in high-risk groups to obtain affordable coverage.
There are lifestyle causes for some conditions, however in a specific case which was the causal factor is not confirmed. So people will pay extra for others choices, Fair? No.