This essay will discuss four aspects of the recently passed health care reform bill. This national health care bill has a number of different changes that affect all age groups. This essay will discuss those aspects that will affect older Americans. The Isabella County Commission on Aging has reproduced an article that was originally written by the National Council on Aging. The article is called “Five Facts on Health Reform and Older Adults.” This article is propaganda. These claimed facts would be much more believable if they had some sort of solid information backing these claims. Each “fact” sounds like a speech trying to persuade someone to believe them by providing all the desired results without any real basis or plan of action. The common question that can be asked with each of these “facts” is HOW? How are all these wonderful new facts going to become reality? Either way, if these facts do or do not become real this essay will still discuss the claims made.
The first claim that this article outlines is that millions of uninsured Americans will now be covered and people who already have insurance will be better covered. This statement of supposed facts provides no clear proof of this but only goes on to mention more good things about the bill and what it will do. This bill will guarantee that insurance companies cannot deny coverage of pre-existing conditions and cannot refuse to insure people who have rightfully paid for their insurance. This apparent fact is more of a legal issue rather than a health care reform policy. It’s basically saying that you are guaranteed to get the services that you pay for. And the last statement is another general one without including context. “Future health costs for millions of families will be reduced.” How is this fact? The article does not explain. If health costs are going to be reduced for millions of families, does that just mean that taxes will be increased for millions of families?
The second claim of fact is that the law will not cut any benefits provided under Medicare but these benefits will improve. This fact claims that Medicare part D will be improved to reduce the “donut hole” which is the gap between Medicare coverage of prescriptions. In this gap the beneficiary must pay a certain portion of their expenses out of pocket. This will no longer be the case as this “donut hole” will be reduced to half price for prescription coverage. This fact claims to reduce cost for chronic care. It claims to redirect funds to community health teams, or government health care. This fact also claims to improve preventive care by providing free (to the consumer) annual wellness visits. This also claims to reduce out-of-pocket cost for cancer and diabetes screenings.
Claim number 3 is this new bill will “help you find and afford long-term care at home.” This is claiming that they will not force people to spend down their assets to receive Medicaid. This is mind boggling as Medicaid is designed to help the less fortunate who are in need of care. This will no longer be a program for those that need it rather the government is going to give this welfare money to people who can afford it. They will also implement a program for government sponsored long-term care insurance. A payroll tax deduction would fund this program giving a person in need $75 per day cash.
The 4th claim is that is labeled as a fact is that the new legislation will improve care in general. Keep in mind this article is still making very positive, seemingly unrealistic claims that it will combat elderly abuse, improve workforce caring for seniors, improve quality of nursing homes, and reduce insurance premiums for Americans 55-65. First and foremost this article refuses to back up all these radically wonderful sounding claims with any sort of explanation. These are all things that need to happen but how?
This is article is terribly manipulating and taking advantage of seniors votes. This article would sound like a god sent piece of legislation to many aging seniors who may be struggling with health care finances. The motivation to print this article in the Commission on Aging news letter is that this bill will provide for a bigger budget and be able to serve a larger market. It is not a secret that government run services are the most inefficient way of providing ANY service. The money doesn’t belong to anyone; nobody has the opportunity to profit so nobody cares where the money goes. Even at the top, usually would be responsible to an investor who is looking for gains. But with government institutions there is no investor just the government that wants to see that the operation is within its budget. These are things that would be much likelier to happen if the private sector was running them and the government merely regulated.
