Question

What do you think about the new health care law? What are the justifications on either side? What are the scenarios that you can think of that either justifies or negates the reasons for the bill?

Answer 1

ANSWER:-

This bill amends the Act on Public Health Care by allowing the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to provide state vouchers to high risk health insurance pools. The laws of a state appointed by the health insurance company control individual health coverage.

Positive side justification:

Health care advocates argue that it would extend insurance coverage to reach more Americans and increase medical inflation. On Satuarday, before the House passed the bill for legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the measure would mean 32 million more people in 2019. For the same year, the extension of coverage will cost the State an additional $172 billion, the CBO said. The greater part of this increase is attributed to a raise in Medicaid eligibility or vouchers in oeder to help families meet a new health coverage requirement if they do not.

Supporters argue the increased caverage is a bargain if you take the broader context of the legislation into account, including limits on medicare spending growth. In 2019, after the main provisions of the legislation have completely come into force, total health care costs in the country will only amount to 25 billion USD, relative to the average of a health bill.

Indeed, the program will cover more people for around 4.7 trillion dollars this year at the same amount, Richard Foster, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief actor, reports this amount.

The plan, with federal health spending offset by either tax increases or medication cuts, was expected to be "debt neutral" by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. For those who do not have an employer-sponsored scheme, the CBO estimates at late last year that the cost of a certain insurance package could drop by 10 to 30 percent due to reforms. The department, a non-partisan official, presumably said that the benefits in employer-based programs would not change a lot for people.

Meanwhile, the study of Mr.Foster did not see any significant improvement in the rate of out-of-pocket insurances charged by families relative to what they would pay without the legislation.

Negative side justification:

Critics of Mr. Obama argue that his proposal follows a common trend since Medicare was implemented in the 1960s: add a new benefit without a consistent framework for cost control and the result is a expenditure that exceeds expectations.

"Right" may not be the right word in this situation. But the government must extend Medicaid to millions of households just below the poverty line to help millions more meet their insurance obligation. Also impartial observators have raised concerns as to whether Obama's expected savings from Medicare-crucial to the legitimacy of his program - would materialize.

Reform advocates have cited the CBO analysis as evidence that, for example, reforms will significantly reduce federal budgetary deficits in the decade starting in 2020. Nevertheless, CBO itself is attentive to its prediction.

Another great mystery is the number of employers who chose to pay a premium instead of providing workplace benefit benefits. The more companies do so, the more consumers look to the government to subsidize a new insurance system for the services that they receive.

Reason of the bill: The goal was to reduce the cost of healthcare. He also decided to improve the quality of life for those without health insurance.

THANK YOU, if any queries please leave your valuable comment on comment box..........

If possible then rate the answer as well