The impassioned debate continues in the US on the 2 health care bills in Congress. The article on the Wall Street Journal by Jeff Flier points to the Massachusetts example of a failed attempt at health care reform which cost the state more than anticipated. The piece also states that health care reform bills stifle any real health care innovation, pointing to the over-regulation of the intermediaries rather than reforming how patients use health care. The real concern in the article points to the opinion that the current health care reform bill is just a step in the direction of greater reform. The electorate should know the public policy decisions being made for "what happens next" if the bill is signed into law, the author points out.
John Geyman writes in Tikkun Magazine that the risks of the current reform bills outweigh the benefits by a great margin, and that the bills will not do enough to fix what ails health care. Dr. Geyman states that the bill is "too little, too late" and won't address the needs of many Americans for many years to come due to various loopholes and complexities in timing of services. In the final analysis Dr Geyman points to a single payer system as being a much easier to implement and explain, even with a $400 billion dollar cost savings built in.
Goldman Sachs has also published fascinating investor profiles of the health insurance companies. Specifically Goldman Sachs positions the Senate-passed health care bill (the most likely to pass go forward according to GS) in 4 potential outcomes with "no reform" being the most attractive to Wall Street and he health care insurance companies:
- No reform (by far the best possible scenario, according to
Wall Street). Insurance earnings are projected to increase by 10% from
2010-2019 while stocks rise an additional 59%;
- The “base” scenario deemed most likely to pass by Goldman execs: a
version similar to the Senate Finance Bill (no public option).
Insurance earnings are projected to increase by 5% from 2010-2019;
- The “bull” scenario (no public option): a more “optimistic”
projection “for reform implementation, which might result from
moderation of provisions in the current SFC plan, or result from
changes prior to the major implementation in 2013.” Earnings are
projected to increase by 9.5%;
- The “bear” scenario: a health care reform bill similar to the House
version with strict regulations and a public option. Earnings are
projected to decrease by 1%.
So, it's kind of a case of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. If this bill opens the door to future reform and at least creates urgency in the minds of Americans, then it has done its job in the minimal. And from a health care insurance perspective the worst they can do is a plateau of their earnings even with a full public option. This author doesn't fully expect the bill in its current form to be implemented 100% due to the long timeline of implementation. Many things can change in 10 years. So, moving on health care reform can only be seen as a positive. Doing nothing at this point in the process is not an option, lest our children have to bear the brunt of ridiculously expensive and unattainable insurance.
Recent Comments