Being a part of a presidential committee to restructure the Affordable Care Act would not be enough to fix the problem. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in health care. People will cite the "general welfare" clause as permission, however, unless there is a specific responsibility spelled out, it is left up to the States and/or to the People. With this being said, there are still many issues with the ACA that I would try to fix, despite my opposition to the involvement of the Federal government.
Health care and other benefits of employment were mostly unheard until Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing wages sometime during the Depression. The law of unintended consequences kicked in and …show more content…
The majority of this pool is healthy and hardly ever gets sick, hence these people don’t pay much. A small minority are not healthy and pay a lot. Some cannot be insured. If you do stupid stuff, you pay more. If you have a dangerous job, you pay more. If you have a very dangerous job, you cannot be insured.
The ACA is a program, but it’s not insurance. It works by spreading out the cost of non-necessary procedures, hence its unconstitutionality. It runs on the basis that people who can afford to pay the most are required to pay the most. Other people who cannot afford to pay get treatment anyway. This sounds like a good idea, but these people were getting care anyway from ERs, as it was the law. No one can afford to pay any more. Premiums have skyrocketed for families and there’s nothing “affordable” about …show more content…
In a strictly monetary sense, preventative care saves millions of dollars each year by catching diseases at earlier stages or avoiding them altogether. A comprehensive health risk assessment does not only give a patient information about his/her health, but it also provides a map as to what could go wrong. As I’ve stated before, primary and preventative care should be covered for everyone, regardless of previous or pre-existing conditions. For example, an individual with type 1 diabetes should have their medication covered, or the least expensive available covered. Should they want something different, they would pay a premium but still have affordable access to what best suits their lives. With proper medication and checkups, they are much less likely to develop a complication of the disease, saving their health and money. There could be different types of plans for individuals with or without pre-existing conditions, but again, this should be left up to the states and insurance
Health care and other benefits of employment were mostly unheard until Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing wages sometime during the Depression. The law of unintended consequences kicked in and …show more content…
The majority of this pool is healthy and hardly ever gets sick, hence these people don’t pay much. A small minority are not healthy and pay a lot. Some cannot be insured. If you do stupid stuff, you pay more. If you have a dangerous job, you pay more. If you have a very dangerous job, you cannot be insured.
The ACA is a program, but it’s not insurance. It works by spreading out the cost of non-necessary procedures, hence its unconstitutionality. It runs on the basis that people who can afford to pay the most are required to pay the most. Other people who cannot afford to pay get treatment anyway. This sounds like a good idea, but these people were getting care anyway from ERs, as it was the law. No one can afford to pay any more. Premiums have skyrocketed for families and there’s nothing “affordable” about …show more content…
In a strictly monetary sense, preventative care saves millions of dollars each year by catching diseases at earlier stages or avoiding them altogether. A comprehensive health risk assessment does not only give a patient information about his/her health, but it also provides a map as to what could go wrong. As I’ve stated before, primary and preventative care should be covered for everyone, regardless of previous or pre-existing conditions. For example, an individual with type 1 diabetes should have their medication covered, or the least expensive available covered. Should they want something different, they would pay a premium but still have affordable access to what best suits their lives. With proper medication and checkups, they are much less likely to develop a complication of the disease, saving their health and money. There could be different types of plans for individuals with or without pre-existing conditions, but again, this should be left up to the states and insurance