I do not think about the health insurance reform legislation in these terms. I think about the costs to the individual subscriber and whether the uninsured will be able to get health care. A high risk pool is scheduled to go into effect earlier than the formation of the exanges. The problem is that the high risk pool will be available to those who cannot obtain insurance because of a pre-existing condition. It doesn't solve the problem for the people who don't have health insurance because they can't afford the rates. I think the high risk pool still allows a 4:1 ratio between the premiums of older and younger subscribers, which essentially preserves higher rates for people waiting for Medicare to begin. When the exchange goes into effect, people will be mandated to purcuase insurance, and in order to meet the legal requirements, some people will have to purchase cheaper plans with higher deductibles and copayments. Then they won't be able to afford the deductibles and there will still be a donut hole. I also believe that the government is underestimating the degree to which it will be flooded with hardship applications. When I read the comments in the Seattle Times I saw many comments from people who were worried about how they could afford the premiums, not harboring philosophical opposition to the legislation. Given that 25% of all jobs last less than one year, the government will be flooded with people needing to have their rates changed every time their income level changes. I believe that it is a very big flaw in the legislation that there was no public option with open enrollment in order to maintain competition and provide people with more stability. As for keeping costs down, one of the best ways of doing this is for Americans to change their dietary habits. 20% of the cost of Medicare arises from diabetes. Dr. Christiane Northrup has written that high glycemic carbohydrates are related to heart disease as well as diabetes. The excessive consumption of sugar and high glycemic index carbohydres is in part responsible for the high cost of health care in this country. This is one reason why I support taxes on soft drinks and high glycemic index foods, because we are all paying for the cost of the maintenance of such poor eating habits. We also have to get all of this junk food out of the K-12 schools. Just as society has taken a step back from smoking, it is also necessary to step back from excessively sweetened foods and processed grains.
Do you think that people who believe that they don't need health insurance will sign up? What is the incentive for a perfectly healthy 20-year old to sign up? Sure, they'll have to pay the penalty if they don't sign up, but they can also reduce the penalty by not hiring Americans when they start a business, and instead hiring Chinese, Romanians or Indians.
I'm suprised by the belief that the legeslation will increase costs in a way that will affect hiring. For smaller business, it will decrease costs because part of the legislation provide long-term care, which is one less thing the employer has to provide. For larger companies with retirees, perhaps it will appear to increase costs (only because the companies can no longer deduct the government subsidy in addition to the money they spend on pharmaceticals) because of the effect of medicare part D. But actually, the businesses cost will not change.
I am a Chinese, the United States do not understand
But appreciation of Obama's reform
employers will oppose in Short-term
Long-term support will be all,
Because of social stability,
business will long-term development
so support Obama