I mean this in a partisan manner, but it's really embarrassing to this New York Times article about Republican plans parts read recent health care using the appropriation powers of the House to break into account. I say this because of unintended consequences arising, if you are successful in this approach. Let me give an example.
I think one of the most important aspects of the law is "problem guarantee" health insurance: insurance companies will be no longer allowed, use pre-existing medical conditions as a bar to coverage.A guaranteed problem causes the individual mandate, the requirement that all people health insurance kaufen.Warum?
Left on your own insurer is types of restrictions imposed on pre existing conditions, because you the insurance are the moral hazard aspect.Healthy people offer an actuarial balance for sick people.People buy only insurance, if you need care, the risk profile will swings of the insured population rapidly, disturb the actuarial calculations that if these restrictions prohibited are verwendet.Also, establishing premiums, everyone in the risk pool must have sein.Dementsprechend to ban voluntary insurance.
Said Republican legislators, for example, that you propose to the money, and the staff at the internal revenue limit service, so that the Agency could not aggressively enforce provisions, people to help health insurance and employer to pay for it need to get.
I think the Republicans know that guaranteed problem is popular with Americans and not directly to this provision of the new law aufzuheben.Aber what happens when healthy people start getting opt-out insurance, only to return if you fall ill? the system is quickly out of balance out.This will only lead ironically, to collect bonuses.I do not understand why the Republicans would want that to happen, and I don't understand a strategic political advantage arising from the result.
This makes me wonder whether you have fully considered this and if you understand the unintended consequences of their proposed actions.
Paul is the President and CEO of Beth Israel Deconess Medical Center in Boston.Paul was infection rates in his clinic, despite the fact that to Massachusetts law he is not yet required to do so to publish for the last three years he has blogged about his experience in an online journal focuses on who decided much media attention, as he recently, run a hospital, one of the few blogs we maintained by a senior Hospital Executive.
This is an age-old tactic.
The HIPAA law contains, for example, a universal patient IDWährend this would simplify IT health and systemic costs lower, has explicitly by budgets de-funded was because the law was passed.
My guess is that full knowledge most legislators pass with the ACA, the selective funding would occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment