Category Archives: ObamaCare

Obamacare Is Still Divisive

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Obama administration’s healthcare reform legislation is still sparking a variety of opinions. The organization, which tends to be sympathetic to the law, recently released its final poll before the November midterm elections. It consists of 1,200 adults surveyed in early October.

What were their findings? As expected, opinions continue to be divided. However, the figures have flip-flopped. This is interesting, since the bulk of the law has yet to be implemented. The few features that came into effect in late September (i.e. forbidding health insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions) are generally popular with the American public. The ramping up of political campaigns may be to blame.

Highlights of the poll:

  • 44 percent of the respondents are opposed to the law. This is an increase from 40 percent last month.
  • 42 percent support the legislation, down from 49 percent in September.
  • Just 10 percent of the respondents consider health insurance reform to be the most important issue in the November 2nd elections–jobs and the economy are more pressing concerns for the majority.

However, the most likely voters polled by Kaiser are leaning towards having negative views. Still, they were not found to be significantly likely to base their votes for Congress solely on that issue.

Those against the law have several reasons for their opposition:

  • The federal government recieves too much control over health care.
  • The law costs too much and will add to the budget deficit.
  • It is unfair to the middle class, in favor of the poor.

Supporters have their own view.   According to them, the most significant benefits are:

  • That health insurance plan reform will make coverage more affordable.
  • It is an improvement over the current system.
  • Previously uninsured people will be able to get health coverage.

The last Kaiser Health Tracking poll prior to the close of the 2010 election season proves that the battle over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not end soon.

- The HIC Group executive team

Obamacare Should Begin With Medicare

The president spoke about healthcare reform again yesterday. The president seems to enjoy reciting the same talking points repeatedly, especially the innocuous platitudes everyone agrees with. We all agree healthcare is a huge problem and a major stumbling block for our economic recovery and long term prosperity. We all agree something needs to be done. We all agree reform will not occur unless we take action. The president added a factoid I had not heard before that, without reform, in 30 years $ 1 out of every $ 3 our economy produces will go to pay healthcare costs. (Within a decade it will be $ 1 out of $ 5.)

The president says he wants healthcare insurance for everyone in America, dispensed through a system that will allow everyone to select their own doctors and their own care, while saving taxpayers boat loads of money over the long term. How can anyone argue with those goals? However, is such a healthcare insurance plan possible? If the president thinks so, he needs to start showing us exactly how it would work. It is not obvious how his plan can add nearly 50 million of the currently uninsured to a reformed system that will maintain quality and availability of healthcare while saving taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reforming healthcare will increase our budget deficit more than $ 1 trillion over the next decade, and speculates that it will ultimately be paid for with $ 600 billion from raised taxes and approximately $ 400 billion in cost savings from cuts to Medicare. Raising taxes makes no sense in this economy and Medicare cost savings will likely reduce the quality and availability of care for seniors.

The president denies allegations that he is seeking a single-payer insurance program sponsored by government, and claims his plan will enable us to keep our current insurance programs, if we so choose. However, some democrats and some republicans are skeptical, but for different reasons. Some democrats are betting that no one will want to keep their current insurance once they see the superiority of a government-sponsored plan. They believe the American public will abandon its current insurance plans and opt into the government plan. The republicans expect the government to artificially under price their plan until they drive private profit-making concerns out of business. Either way, America will end up with a single-payer insurance program, sponsored by the government. It will be the government’s way or the highway.

The obvious prototype for a new government-sponsored insurance plan is unfortunately Medicare, which continues to be a huge financial drain on our government and taxpayers. By the way, some believe that the availability of private insurance to supplement Medicare is the main reason Medicare works as well as it does. What happens if those private supplemental plans disappear?

Prudence and common sense should suggest that the president should do his best to fix Medicare before embarking on his ridiculously ambitious plan to overhaul our entire healthcare system. It should occur to him that if he is successful in demonstrating that he can devise a better and more cost effective Medicare program for our seniors, we would be far more confident in his plan to reform healthcare for the rest of us.

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

How Will Obamacare Effect the Self Employed?

A growing demographic that may benefit from affordable health insurance reform is the self-employed. Whether by choice or circumstance, millions of Americans are now working for themselves and freelancing. Self employment offers far more freedom and flexibility than working for a company. The downside is that it does not come with benefits. Therefore, self employed individuals are usually responsible for buying their own health insurance.

In a handful of states, self employed individuals are considered a “group of one” and allowed to purchase group health insurance, which is often less expensive and less restrictive in terms of eligibility. Currently, the rest of them must make do in the individual health insurance market. The situation is not ideal for those who are self-employed with pre-existing conditions. Most health insurance plans won’t take them, because they are not considered profitable enough.

If they are accepted, the guaranteed issue insurance plans they qualify for often come with very expensive premiums.

Healthcare reform seeks to change all that. Immediately after passage, health insurance companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage based on an applicant’s health status. With the exception of fraud, insurers will no longer be allowed to cancel an existing policy, either. Further changes will take effect in 2014. The most important among them is the establishment of a health insurance exchange market: a national exchange of insurance options with various coverage and pricing options. The federal government will have more power to regulate these individual health insurance plans because it will fully or partially subsidize their purchase. Insurers will create plans that qualify for inclusion in order to take advantage of the increased revenue from millions of new customers.

As for the subsidies, they will be given to millions of eligible lower- and middle-income Americans in the form of tax credits. This will allow them to fulfill the health insurance mandate with a lower burden on their income. Self-employed individuals and families with higher incomes will see less benefit from that aspect of reform. However, they will still be allowed to participate in the exchanges, which are based on the health benefits system used by Congress and other federal employees.


Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

Oklahoma Joins The Fight Against Obamacare

In early January of 2011, the State of Oklahoma decided to join the fight against Obamacare and join the more than twenty other states in the Florida lawsuit filing as plaintiff against the new regulations. Prior to this time, the former governor of the state was against efforts to sue the federal government and had blocked all attempts made by the Attorney General. With the incoming of a new Governor, the Attorney General is now free to join forces with the other states and move forward with litigation.

The Attorney General of Oklahoma is basing his decision to file suit upon the passage of Oklahoma State Question 756. This question, also known as the Oklahoma Health Care Freedom Amendment, states that under the state Constitution, residents of the state cannot be “forced to purchase insurance”. This means that Obama care legislation is in direct violation of the state laws in place. Typically, federal law would preempt state law, but not in the case that it is considered to be unconstitutional.

Oklahoma believes strongly that the best way to protect their citizens and their constitutional rights is to file a suit and defend their laws in a federal court.
The Attorney General has been very clear in his desire to sue the federal government if only to repeal the requirement that Oklahomans must purchase insurance products or be fined or penalized under the current guidelines set forth in the Obamacare package.

Oklahoma’s Attorney General believes that by joining forces with the other states at this stage of the lawsuit, he can learn from their petitions and present a strong, more concise argument to win for the people who placed him in office.

Not only will Oklahoma be taking a stand for its citizens against Obama care, it will also be adding another state to the official argument, further challenging the constitutionality of the bill.

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

Obamacare “Stealing” from Health Insurance Brokers?

An article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows the myriad inconsistencies and irrationalities of the new health insurance overhaul law — dubbed “health care reform” — and spells out how the federal government is paving the way for the demise of the health insurance broker.

below are some quotes taken directly from the story, and I added some “colorful” comments. I apologize ahead of time for my ranting but this is obviously a touchy subject.  : )

“The process of creating this new way to shop for health insurance will be costly and enormously complicated.” — Duh, they want to reinvent the wheel…of course it’s going to be expensive and cumbersome! Imagine, if you will, the federal government requiring the states to come up with a plan to create a new distribution system for consumers to buy food products, even though we already have  a system called “the grocery store.” A daunting task? You bet! And frankly, not necessary.

“States that take on the task of running an exchange will have a significant amount of discretion that will determine the level of competition, the amount of choices for consumers and ultimately whether market forces work to help control insurance costs, as the law intends.” — So, the Obama Administration and Congress believe that the states should control competition among privately owned businesses, and also allow them to determine whether or not to allow the market to control costs. Yeah, show me any state or federal agency that allows the American public to determine how much taxes are taken and what is spent by the government, and I will show you a pit bull that prefers bon bons over raw meat. The states will determine whether or not the market should dictate costs? Which way do you think they will go with that…set the costs themselves, or allow the market to do it?

“Anybody who shops on the Web today for products where they can go up there and put in preferences and pull up a set of choices that are relevant to those preferences, for a hotel or an airline or whatever, that is the vision of the exchange for health care,” said Joel Ario, director of the Office of Health Insurance Exchanges at the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. — OK, if that isn’t seen as an overt indication that the Obama Administration and its operatives consider the broker to be completely irrelevant in the health insurance distribution process, then I don’t know what does. It is reminiscent of earlier this year, when a staff blogger at USA Today wrote that the health exchange system originally proposed by the House would imitate Travelocity, since the fed would control the entire thing, which the Senate version (closer to what we now have) would allow the states to manage it. It appears, however, that Mr. Ario, a onetime Pennsylvania insurance commissioner who worked directly with carriers and brokers, has swallowed the Kool-Aid and seems to think that providing health care coverage is as easy as reserving a room at Motel 6.

“Most employees of large companies should expect to continue to get their coverage at work, experts said. But some small and medium-size employers could end up dropping their coverage and shifting their workers to the exchange. How many companies might do that is a big unknown.” — speaking as an experienced journalist who seeks to back up blanket statements with facts, I have to say that this is one of the most irresponsible and egregious acts of unprofessional journalism I have seen in recent memory, and also one of the biggest misconceptions if not outright lies proffered by those in favor of state-run health insurance. What facts does the writer use to back up her assertion that “most employees of large companies” will continue with employer-sponsored coverage? Did she quote any employers, to at least show anecdotally that employers will keep employees covered? Or is she relying simply on unnamed “experts,” whose affiliations are conveniently omitted from the story? And “some” small and mid-size companies could put workers on the exchange? Is this again from the “experts?” Or is this complete conjecture? It appears to be. At least the writer is being upfront when she states that it is a “big unknown,” but making such concrete statements such as “most” and “some” and then admitting that it is really unknown, is poor form. In reality, we might see a majority of American workers form both large and small firms pushed onto the exchanges, where they will not only have to find their own insurance (required by law), but pay for it out of their own pockets, at rates that will likely be higher than what the employer was paying in the first place. Nice.

“The way the law is written, some employers will be penalized for failing to offer coverage. But paying the penalty might be more cost-effective than providing the coverage.” — Strike the word “might” and replace it with “will,” and this statement will be accurate. Employers will drop coverage and the employees will be forced to go onto the exchange. And brokers are out of that mix entirely.

Georgia’s governor, governor-elect and attorney general are all against the federal law and trying to thwart it, but are working within the law to ensure that at the state level, at least, it matches to the best of their ability a free market exchange.

Without getting into a big Constitutional question (which, actually, is at the heart of the lawsuits instituted by the states against the law), it is incredible that the top elected officials of our country would enact legislation to force states to do something that they neither want to do nor have the resources to do, and take what some say is a disjointed system of state-based insurance regulation, and turn it into a black hole of regulation and uncertainties that could prove disastrous.

Right now, the broker community is the navigator holding the compass and telescope on the ship, “USS Purchasing Health Insurance.” The federal government has decided that it can do a better job for the crew and passengers, and is putting the broker on a life raft and pushing it out to sea, while telling the passengers that the ride will now be smoother and easier.

The only thing that is missing is Gilligan and the Skipper.

But there’s HOPE for all Health Insurance Brokers – DO NOT let Obamacare impact your income.  The HIC Group has a product offering that will boost your revenue.  Visit our website for more info – CLICK HERE

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

Healthcare Reform – Start by Reforming Yourself!

Stop for a minute and think. What is health insurance? Really. Ideally, it’s protection against the cost of being sick. That’s what we’re paying for. We spend millions of dollars insuring that if we get sick someone else will foot the bill.

Why don’t we take care of ourselves? If you eat properly, drink enough water, get up off the couch, go outside, breathe fresh air, stop smoking, stop taking over the counter drugs, cook our own food, hug your family, and get a good night’s sleep. Would you still need health insurance? Probably. But let’s break this down a little more.

Eat properly, drink water and cook your own food. Sounds easy, right? Our bodies are complex machines that run on a specific but basic diet. Whole, balanced foods with fresh, natural ingredients. No processed food, no modified food starch, artificial ingredients, chemicals you can’t spell or pronounce. What would happen if you put oil in your gasoline tank and gasoline in the oil tank? Your car would blow up! That’s what we’re doing to ourselves. If you continue to put the wrong fuel in your body – you get cancer, high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure – all manner of fuel related diseases. Next time you go to the grocery store only buy foods on the perimeter. If it has an ingredient label – you don’t need it. If you read the label (and it makes sense to you) has 5 ingredients that you can readily identify, okay. Other than that – warning! Red flag! Our bodies consist of more water than anything else – why would you replenish it with soda? Oh, you only drink diet soda? Oh, did I miss where chemical sugar is pure? Be informed. You’ll lose weight, your skin will clear up, you’ll be a regular bathroom visitor and you’ll have more energy to cook your own food. Save money – eat at home.

Get up off that couch, go outside and do something! Do you remember in school when you first saw that picture in a text book of the human bodies muscular system? All those tendons, criss-crossing across your skeleton with those bug eyes. Scared me! Now conjure up that image again. Add 80 lbs, a beer gut, sagging, atrophied, muscles – all loose. That should scare you now. Raise your arms out to the side move them back and forth. What’s that jiggle? That’s what I thought – get outside! Bike, walk, garden, wash your car, hang the laundry out. Bet you sleep better too!

We spend money on everything but our health. Taking care of your machine, your engine, your body should be paramount! Your body is a temple – you’ve heard that before, but what does your temple look like? Candy wrappers, cigarette butts, a video game system, a recliner, a TV-remote, dirty laundry and a box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese?

Work on reforming your health. It will add years to your life!

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

Dark Secrets About Healthcare Reform

Health care has reached a crisis point in our country. Rising insurance costs are placing untenable burdens on workers and employers alike. Millions of Americans can’t afford any health insurance. Poor Americans receive Medicaid, but too many of them experience inferior medical care. Also, many of the health care providers and doctors don’t want to accept Medicaid payments, which attempts to place limits on medical charges.

Retired Americans depend upon Medicare to meet medical needs, but there are serious gaps and limitations in the coverage. Middle class retired citizens can’t afford to pay for the care available in Nursing Homes or Long Term Care Facilities.

Many of our hospitals are poorly run, have high mortality and infection rates, and are in fact terrible places in which to die. The quality of our health care in this nation seems to be totally dependent on one’s ability to pay. But prescription costs, doctor visits, mental health services, and surgical care are starting to place a huge financial burden on all of us.

The rich are well cared for, the middle class experiences inconsistent care, and the poor have mostly inadequate care-based upon what they get in our emergency rooms.

Unfortunately, too many doctors and hospitals have become so busy that human emotions, compassion, and sensitivity have become lost in the shuffle. Too often, pills, computers, and specialized machines have become substitutes for the health care professional’s time and attitude of tender loving care. It is time that we do something positive to reform are whole health care system.

Let’s stop approaching health care from the point of view of one’s ability to pay or as some simple commodity at the whims of our market economy. Health care should become a basic human right.

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

The Projected Cost of ObamaCare

Since the last elections, the continuing political story has been about the deficit. The more strictly conservative representatives have come to Washington with what they claim is a mandate to slash government spending so that the deficit can be reduced. This is producing an unhelpful form of brinkmanship in which the parties and the President decide whether to compromise or close down the government. It seems the main political players prefer to put their own doctrinaire beliefs ahead of the interests of the electorate since it helps no one if the government does in fact shut down.

While all this posturing has been going on, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has produced a revised estimate of how much the “Affordable” Care Act is to cost. The first guess of just over one trillion dollars spent in the first ten years was produced twelve months ago. It now seems it will cost an additional $ 40 billion. It should not surprise us that the costs are projected to rise. The Senate Economic Committee published a report in 2009 charting Washington’s track record in estimating how much different projects would cost. As an example, the House Committee of Ways and Means guessed the cost of Medicare would rise to about $ 12 billion in 1990. The reality was rather different with the cost being $ 110 billion. There have been other examples where estimates have been out by multiples of up to twenty. This is not evidence of incompetence or malpractice. It simply reflects the difficulty of assessing what will be involved when the real work begins.

It’s surprising the CBO’s latest estimate has not received more coverage. The politicians are grandstanding over whether Obamacare should be repealed without worrying how much it’s going to cost to implement and run it.

This is a short-sighted approach. None of the cases working their way through the courts will arrive at the Supreme Court this year. Until there’s a positive ruling Obamacare is unconstitutional, whether in whole or part, the law is in force. Hence, both federal government and the individual states are already spending money to implement the provisions.

Given the preoccupation with the deficit, the GOP’s plan to throw away every dollar being spent on implementation when the Supreme Court rules is unhelpful. We should ensure every dollar spent by Washington is spent to good purpose no matter what happens in the Supreme Court. We need the best value for money out of the law as it stands. It’s a shame that politics so often has nothing to do with common sense, but everything to do with emotion even though that might produce absurd results. When so many people in America live without the benefit of an active health insurance policy, we should all be working on ways to change that for the better. Particularly when so many children and young adults are without cover, and the general level of health is declining, everything possible should be done to bring the estimated 50 million people without health insurance into a program that will offer preventative medicine and improved standards of care at an early stage in the development of a disease or disorder. Waiting for an emergency makes it worse for everyone.

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

Individual Health Insurance & ObamaCare

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as the health reform bill will impact almost every American. One of the most important ways it will affect individual health insurance is that insurance companies will not be permitted to deny insurance to those with preexisting illnesses. Another important affect is that all Americans will be required to hold insurance. Insurance companies will be prohibited from placing annual and lifetime limits on coverage. Group health exchanges may also help to reduce the cost of insurance plans, giving individuals the buying power of large companies. You will be able to purchase insurance through a state exchange from 2014. The exchanges have yet to be formed, but the intended goal is to provide more affordable and subsidized individual plans. The Obama effects on individual health insurance addresses the biggest weaknesses in the individual health insurance market. Easy To Insure Me

As the reform bill was passed policy rates were climbing. A report revealed that members of the middle class were losing health insurance faster than any other income group. Those who missed the Government provided safety net because of their income were thrown on the mercies of the individual market. Here, insurers have been denied coverage based on preexisting conditions and are vulnerable to charges of high and ever increasing premiums.

The limits insurers placed on who gets coverage is one of the three major problems that needed to be addressed in the individual market. The other two are the affordability and whether the policy would pay for what is needed when the insured gets sick. A study found that excluded conditions varied by insurer.

In a 2001 study by the Georgetown Health Policy Institute, researchers 37 percent of applications were rejected. There were insurers who would turn you down if you had hay fever. The public thus was a victim of a roulette insurance market. How easy is it for individuals to wade their way through the market to insurers who would cover them is a question. Although federal law requires insurers to sell policies to certain people who lose group coverage, including those who lost their jobs due to lay offs; but places no limits on what an insurer can charge. In February 2010, Connecticut announced that health premiums for individual medical plans rose in price by 20 percent over in 2009. In this void have stepped some states in varying degrees. Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont required insurers to sell individual policies to everyone, irrespective of their health. Washington state required insurers to take individuals with some health problems. While, Iowa required insurers to cover preexisting conditions in new applicants, if they had insurance previously for those conditions and did not let the insurance lapse.

Of those who do buy their own insurance the health insurance market works well for some; but, not for others. In the individual market prior to the reform bill, in order to lower their risks insurers preferred the healthiest applicants. In most states, insurers may consider the health history of the applicant in deciding coverage and its cost. Unlike group plans offered by employers which provide coverage to everyone, there is no guarantee in most states individuals can obtain insurance. It has been realized that solving problems in the individual market would improve the health care crisis. In California, Connecticut and several other states regulators have taken actions against insurers who revoked individual coverage after policyholders fell ill. Before the President won the election Senators Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Bob Bennett, a Republican from Utah were supporting a bill that would shift workers getting coverage through employers to purchase their own insurance. The intention of their proposal was to break the link between employment and insurance. The two supporters of the bill believed this would let people keep their coverage even when they lost or switched their job. The proposal would have required everyone to have coverage and insurers to sell insurance to all applicants. The health reform bill has addressed these failings. Both presidential candidates had expressed the desire to improve options for people who buy their own coverage. Candidate Obama wanted to allow individuals and small firms to have the bargaining leverage and purchasing power of latge firms by creating ways for individuals to buy insurance in groups. Advisors to candidate McCain had acknowledged the current system was broken. Douglas Holtz Eakin, who was a senior policy adviser noted that he did not want to give the impression the individual or small group market is a good place to be, as it was not

The public hospitals have been at the vanguard of the victims of inadequate and absent coverage. They have provided for the uninsured and those under insured by Medicaid, that reimburses them at below cost. They are also unable to compete with private and nonprofit hospitals for patents with private health insurance coverage. Yet, the cost of providing care to the uninsured and under insured has climbed and taxpayer support remained static.

Currently employers are looking to shift more burdens to their employees due to rise in the cost of health insurance. A Reuters research team in analyzing claim data has discovered that smaller employers saw costs rise the most. According to a report released in March 2010, the cost for an employer to offer individual plans to workers increased by 43 percent over a eight-year period. The amount employees paid for the single plans increased over 64 percent.

Large corporate employees have enjoyed the most secure and highest quality coverage in the nation during their employment. They have not been victimized during their employment with revocation or denial due to preexisting conditions. Nevertheless, a recently released annual survey by the National Business Group on Health has indicated that the impact of rising costs means this island of safety is about to be buffeted. This surveyed large employers indicated they were considering shifting more of the cost on their employees.

Harvard researchers looking into what portion of bankruptcy filers filed for medical reasons found some enlightening information. They found that illness caused the majority of filings. The study looked at a year that preceded the housing bust; but reveals what is the general scenario absenting this reason. The larger segment of filers were covered by insurance they lost or proved to be inadequate. Majority of these were middle class homeowners who had college degrees. The study revealed the vulnerability of Americans who were literally one major illness from bankruptcy. There are big Obama effects on individual health insurance coverage. Certainly there are due to be major Obama effects on individual health insurance.

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team

Making Sense Of Healthcare Reform

Healthcare reform and the talk of establishing a universal system in the United States has become a very hot topic among government officials and the American people. There is a common opinion among a great majority that the country’s healthcare system has been in trouble and not functioning properly for a good while, but as far as fixing the problem goes, there is little suggestion.

There is difficulty in deciding how exactly to adjust the situation, because of the way that our system is set up. Those individuals that can afford benefits and medical care are mainly the ones that keep hospitals and the system running.

Worries have arose regarding whether or not the entire system would crash if everyone was allowed some kind of medical care, no matter what income level or type of care they do or do not have. Universal healthcare is not entirely included when talking about reform, but it has been suggested as a means to change the already established organization.

There are, no doubt, many problems that currently exist in the United States when it comes to medical treatment. One of the most concentrated issues is the type and quality of attendance that patience are given according to the amount that visiting a doctor or hospital costs.

Some feel those who are unable to pay for high-end care do not receive as much help and treatment as those who are willing and able to spend more of their money on health. The United States of America has some of the finest doctors that are available in the entire world.

In fact, individuals often come from other countries just for a chance to be treated by a professional in America. However, there are many citizens of our own country who are unable to receive this help because the balance between the cost of the care and its accessibility is low.

Those who are uninsured or have limited access to care usually cannot be treated by these doctors because the amount that it would take, even with the help of some kind of insurance, is too much. Therefore, there are all of these talented individuals who can provide assistance to those that are sick and in need but cannot do so because of monetary reasons and the patients’ inabilities pay.

This is one reason why some believe that a privatized system that is controlled and maintained by the government that offers almost everyone the same type of assistance is needed. Other things that have been noted as problems within the United States are the balance of time and the quality of assistance that are available and patient safety.

Most doctors have to balance their time very well if they are going to stay afloat and receive the amount of patients that they need to keep their practice. However, hurrying through appointments and not taking the time to fully examine those that are sick can result in misdiagnosis.

When time is short, mistakes can be made as far as diagnosing and prescribing medications goes. The patients are the ones that suffer because of the doctor or surgeon’s lack of adequate time for them.

There are many aspects of healthcare reform that can be scary to individuals in the United States that are already able to receive medical assistance without problems. Many worry that the availability of care will cheapen it and make it harder to find the best doctors.

When healthcare is given to all universally, it can have a reduction in the salaries of professionals which can then make that career choice less appealing. Going through the process of becoming a surgeon or doctor is very tedious and expensive, and if those professionals are unable to pay back their student loans and debts that they incurred through medical school, there is less of a chance that individuals will want to go that route.

Differences in care are one issue that has arose; should those that are not able to afford healthcare be able to receive the same level of treatment as individuals who can? Will the guidelines change from state to state or be all-encompassing for the entire country?

Unfortunately, many of these questions have still gone unanswered by the United States government because there is really no set prediction on how well a universal system would work. It is the citizens’ duty to pay attention to this subject and voice their opinion in elections to make change or keep the same organization that has been established.

Thank you for visiting our Blog.  If what you read was helpful or if you have any questions, please leave a comment and we will be sure to respond in a timely manner.

- The HIC Group executive team