The Healthy American Act intends to move from the traditional insurance contribution scheme that has both employers and employees contribute to the latter’s health insurance. The current scheme has employees’ salaries being deducted from insurance premiums. In addition, employers deduct their share of contribution from employees’ wages before presenting checks or payslips. This new bill does away with government agencies that currently handle employee insurance contributions. Inefficiencies that characterize the current system are expected to go away. Fact that the bill is taunted to be the most agreeable between the country’s political divide increases the chances of its adoption.
According to Bill sponsors, Americans would be contributing to private personal insurance schemes like the way it happens with auto insurance. This means that it would be individuals’ responsibility to choose companies handling their health insurance contributions. In addition, it would be possible for Americans to change switch between providers as they wish. The greatest advantage of the proposed scheme over the current arrangement is that of personal responsibility, which means that failure to contribute would result in a lack of health coverage. The current system has the burden of contribution falling solely on employers. However, it is the former that faces the biggest burden; reason: employers are the ones that submit employee contributions to the relevant government agency or insurance company.
Impact in Terms of Cost
Fact that the Healthy American Act will eradicate federal and state bureaucracies that deal with healthcare contribution would be the biggest cost saver (Wyden 2008). This is because of the heavy administration costs that characterize operations in their day-to-day operations. These agencies have actually been overwhelmed by the number of accounts they have to handle, which has resulted in greater compromise on quality. Indeed, it is common to hear Americans complaining of these agencies’ slow pace when dealing with client queries. It is further estimated that moving to private schemes would save the country an estimated US$ 4.8billion during the inaugural year and about US$ 1.48 trillion within the next ten years of use (Klein 2008).
The act is also taunted to have the capacity of influencing Americans to develop the use of preventative disease control measures because they are the ones to face health costs (Trinward 2006). This is contrary to the current scheme that produces moral hazards on Americans. Reason: people do not feel the pain of contributing to the scheme because, as mentioned earlier, employers deduct health insurance premiums before handing over paychecks or payslips. Having individual Americans contribute from their salaries will therefore inflict responsibility tendencies in them, just like the way car owners take care of their automobiles. Failure to take such measures would result in unfriendly actions from insurance companies.
Impact in Terms of Cost Quality
Feeling the pain of contributing to the scheme will lead to Americans demanding services worth premiums paid (Klein 2008), failure to which hospitals could be blacklisted by the affected insurance companies and patients. Healthcare facilities would thus be forced to improve their services in line with patients’ demands. The current system has resulted in a situation where health facilities have been shielded from consumer demands by layers of bureaucracies that policyholders have to go through. Should the act become law, healthcare facilities would no longer be shielded from their current position. It is likely that insurance companies would be recommending hospitals of good repute to their clients. Therefore, facilities that would not be providing quality services would just be edged out of the market.
Healthcare facilities are also more likely to provide high-quality services because they will be assured of being paid. This is contrary to the current system where they have to go through layers of government bureaucracies to ensure to get remunerated for their services. Fact that Americans would be required by the law to make a private contribution would also make the hospital more assured of being paid. Patient stories of how government agencies would later necessitate payments would become things of the past. Any failure to have a health policy, which would come with different premium amounts (depending on individuals’ income), will be considered illegal—would entice Americans into enrolling into the system.
Supporters
Employers in the country are among the leading supporters of this act. This is mainly caused by the reason that employers face the hugest cost in the current system. As it is today, employers have to establish employee accounts with the designated insurance company or government agency. In addition, they have to maintain records and make regular premium contributions among other responsibilities. Being relieved of this burden is something that every employer in the country is yearning for. Indeed, it could be argued that the current system has made Americans fail to take health responsibilities, and can only be rectified through a framework such as the one to be developed through the Healthy American Act.
American progressives constitute one of the largest supporters of this act, which is caused by their political beliefs. Other than progressives, the Act has been receiving greater bipartisan support from the country’s divided political arena (US Congress 2008). Indeed, legislatures from both sides of the legislature have had good things to say about the bill. Though the Act has bigger support from Democrats, it was brought to the house by drafters constituting the two major political parties. Having such bipartisan support could help attract more Americans into pushing their legislators into following suit. That would indeed be a great thing about the bill.
Opponents
This being an election year, Republicans might fail to support the Act on purely political grounds. Supporting the bill drafted by opponents and seen to go against the economic ideologies of the party could also contribute to this phenomenon (Marcus A17). In addition, the greater number of Americans would be wary of rushing into approving an Act with policies that have not been proven to work. Americans’ failure to support the Act could also come from resistance to change from the old system, just as some of the fear about changing from the current social security framework. It remains to be seen whether the Act can jump both of these hurdles. Despite the differences, Americans agree that their healthcare system is inefficient and needs to be overhauled. That is the beginning premise that should guide them into enacting long-lasting healthcare policies. Healthy American Act seems to be making a step in that direction and should therefore be scrutinized, improved, and supported by legislators from both sides of the country’s political divide.
Works Cited
Klein, Ezra. Healthy American Act. 2006. New Prospect. Web.
Marcus, Ruth. “Universal Coverage Mavericks.” Washington Post. Wednesday, 2008; Page A17.
US Congress. Press Release. 2007. US Congress. Web.
Trinward, Steve. Healthy American Act. National Review. 2008. Web.
Widen, Ron. Healthy American Act. 2007. The Hill. Web.