But because the reform debate can never be resolved, Senate Democrats now want to expand Medicare for older Americans over 55 years, giving people a decade an option to crack original public.
So now the debate is back on. Of course, proponents argue it will guarantee health insurance coverage for people who might otherwise be uninsurable by the private market, while critics say it is just another way of trying to sneak universal health care payer in the US
the experts are quick to point out that expanding Medicare is a vital compromise for those who strongly support the public option.
Really, this seems like a back-up pre-meditated plan of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid if the public option was killed.
So what are the experts saying? Here are some insightful arguments for and against, courtesy of The New York Times
J. Michael McWilliams of Harvard Medical School
" Near -couverture universal health insurance is also associated with reduced mortality rates for hospitalized patients and reducing racial disparities and socioeconomic in the control of blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol. These distinctive health benefits suggest that the expansion of coverage for uninsured adults near seniors can not cost as much as previously thought, as these adults enter traditional Medicare eligibility at age 65 with less risk of costly complications. "
Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation:
" [M] all or most of these eyes for a buy-in would be eligible for coverage and subsidies under the new exchanges. So why put Medicare in the picture - unless your real goal is simply to expand coverage sponsored by the government "
0 Komentar