After eight months of grueling debate, health care reform looked stymied in January after the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts gave Senate Republicans enough votes to filibuster the bill. But then President Obama revived the bill by seizing on news of sharp premium hikes on individual customers by Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.
CEO Angela Braly was dragged before a congressional committee, and Democrats regrouped to push the bill into law. Obama signed it March 23.
WellPoint was later blasted by critics of the law for its ham-handed public and government relations—things that were touted as Braly’s skills when she was named CEO in 2007.
“It’s been a disaster,” said Bob Laszewski, an insurance consultant in Alexandria, Va. “It’s hard to believe retrospectively in her expertise in public policy.”
WellPoint officials said Obama and his administration had “targeted and villainized” the company to rally support for health insurance reform.
The law itself is a mixed bag for WellPoint and its peers. On one hand, the law requires all Americans to have health insurance and will pay more than $40 billion a year in subsidies to help an extra 16 million Americans to buy coverage.
Already, however, WellPoint and its peers face many new regulations on their businesses. They can no longer reject customers because they’re sick and cannot cap customers’ benefits via lifetime maximum provisions.
Also, health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect—and 85 percent for large-employer accounts—on medical care, potentially limiting their profits.
Lower profits and more complex regulations will lead many smaller insurers to sell to larger ones, and WellPoint executives say they expect to be active in acquisitions in the next few years.
Having an estimated 32 million new Americans with insurance coverage drew support for the law from Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. and the pharmaceutical industry. But new industry fees, larger Medicaid rebates and other provisions now have analysts expecting it to trim pharma profits.
The law also approved new methods of paying doctors and hospitals, which has accelerated a trend of doctor-hospital mergers.•
For more Information please go to http://www.govfundedhealthcare.com/
http://www.governmentfundedheathcare.com/
http://www.govfundedhealthcare.com/
Saturday 25 December 2010
Tuesday 29 June 2010
Healthcare
Healthcare
Current figures estimate that spending on health care in the U.S. is about 16% of its GDP.[20][21] In 2007, an estimated $2.26 trillion was spent on health care in the United States, or $7,439 per capita.[22] Health care costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and the health share of GDP is expected to continue its upward trend, reaching 19.5% of GDP by 2017.[20]In fact, government health care spending in the United States is consistently greater, as a portion of GDP, than in Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and Japan (countries that have predominantly public health care).[23] And an even larger portion is paid by private insurance and individuals themselves. A recent study found that medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 62% of personal bankruptcies in the United States during 2007.[24]
The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation.[6] It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Japan, Germany or France. In 2004, the U.S. spent $6,102 per capita on health care, 92.7% more than any other G7 country, and 19.9% more than Luxembourg, which, after the U.S., had the highest spending in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[25]
Although the U.S. Medicare coverage of prescription drugs began in 2006, most patented prescription drugs are more costly in the U.S. than in most other countries. Factors involved are the absence of government price controls, enforcement of intellectual property rights limiting the availability of generic drugs until after patent expiration, and the monopsony purchasing power seen in national single-payer systems.[26] Some U.S. citizens obtain their medications, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources, to take advantage of lower prices.
A study of international health care spending levels in the year 2000, published in the health policy journal Health Affairs, found that while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median. The authors of the study concluded that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.[7]
The Government Accountability Office reported that the unfunded liability facing Medicare as of January 2007 was $32.1 trillion, which is the present value of the program deficits expected for the next 75 years in the absence of reform.[28] According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, spending on Medicare will grow from approximately $500 billion during 2009 to $930 billion by 2018. Without changes, the system is guaranteed “to basically break the federal budget,” Obama said at a White House news conference July 22.[29]
A new study (published December 15, 2009 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) from authors at Duke University, National Council of Spinal Cord Injury Association, Brigham Young University, and North Carolina State University shows that it might be more accurate to think of health care spending as an investment that can spur economic growth. The study also shows that government projections of health care costs and financing may be unduly pessimistic.[30]
[edit] Prescription drug prices
Main article: Prescription drug prices in the United States
During the 1990s, the price of prescription drugs became a major issue in American politics as the prices of many new patented drugs increased sharply, and many citizens discovered that neither the government nor their insurer would pay the monopoly price of such drugs. In absolute currency, the U.S. spends the most on pharmaceuticals per capita in the world. However, national expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for only 12.9% of total health care costs, compared to an OECD average of 17.7% (2003 figures).[31] Some 23% of out-of-pocket health spending by individuals is for prescription drugs.[32][edit] Impact on U.S. economic productivity
On March 1, 2010, billionaire Warren Buffett (who is considered one of the world’s most savvy investors[33]) said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees’ health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, “that kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.”[34][edit] Quality of care
Average Life expectancy in the United States is 78.11 years, lower than in some other countries.[35] For 2006-2010, the U.S. life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most developed nations, lagging last of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K., U.S.) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[36]The U.S. also has a worse infant mortality rate, 6.26 per 1000 live births compared to 5.72 for the European Union.[37] The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that higher rates of infant mortality in the U.S. are "due in large part to disparities which continue to exist among various racial and ethnic groups in this country, particularly African Americans".[38] Some studies claim the data collected regarding infant mortality and life expectancy do not lend themselves to fair comparison, as there may be differences in whether patients seek help, their ethnic background, diet, lifestyle, and the specific legal definition of a live birth.[39]
In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in overall performance, right next to Slovenia, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[40][41] The WHO study has been criticized by the free market advocate David Gratzer because "fairness in financial contribution" was used as an assessment factor, marking down countries with high per-capita private or fee-paying health treatment.[42] One study found that there was little correlation between the WHO rankings for health systems and the satisfaction of citizens using those systems.[43]
Some countries, such as Italy and Spain, which were given the highest ratings by WHO were ranked poorly by their citizens while other countries, such as Denmark and Finland, were given low scores by WHO but had the highest percentages of citizens reporting satisfaction with their health care systems.[43] WHO staff, however, say that the WHO analysis does reflect system "responsiveness" and argue that this is a superior measure to consumer satisfaction, which is influenced by expectations.[44]
Another metric used to compare the quality of health care across countries is Years of potential life lost (YPLL). By this measure, the United States comes third to last in the OECD for women (ahead of only Mexico and Hungary) and fifth to last for men (ahead of Poland and Slovakia additionally), according to OECD data. Yet another measure is Disability-adjusted life year (DALY). According to Jonathan Cohn, health care scholars prefer these more "finely tuned" statistical measures for international comparisons in place of the relatively "crude" infant mortality and life expectancy.[45]
The U.S. system is often compared with that of its northern neighbor, Canada. Canada's system is largely publicly funded. In 2006, Americans spent an estimated $6,714 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,678.[46] This amounted to 15.3% of U.S. GDP in that year, while Canada spent 10.0% of GDP on health care. The Canadian system has been criticized regarding long wait times — 5.5 weeks for oncology and 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery — and provincial health ministers announced a plan to reduce these to four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer and 26 weeks for hip replacement surgery.[47] A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the U.S. found that the quality of care in Canada is at least as good as that in the U.S.[48]
Health care reform in the United States
The debate over health care reform in the United States centers on questions about
According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage".[8] Americans are divided along party lines in their views regarding the role of government in the health economy and especially whether a new public health plan should be created and administered by the federal government.[9] Those in favor of universal health care argue that the large number of uninsured Americans creates direct and hidden costs shared by all, and that extending coverage to all would lower costs and improve quality.[10] Opponents of laws requiring people to have health insurance argue that they would impinge on personal freedom[11] and would not contain health care costs.[12] Both sides of the political spectrum have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether people have a fundamental right to have health care which needs to be protected by their government.[13][14]
Recent reform efforts under the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress and President Barack Obama have focused on two bills: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as the "Senate bill"), which became law on March 23, 2010[15][16] and was shortly thereafter amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872) (which became law on March 30). No Republicans supported either bill.[17]
Reuters and CNN summarized the March 2010 reforms and the year in which they take effect.[18][19]
- whether there is a fundamental right to health care,
- who should have access to health care and under what circumstances,
- who should be required to contribute toward the costs of providing health care in a society,[1][2]
- whether the government should support health care commerce by forcing citizens to buy insurance or pay a tax,[1][2][3]
- the quality achieved for the sums spent,
- the sustainability of expenditures that have been rising faster than the level of general inflation and the growth in the economy,
- the role of the federal government in bringing about such change
- concerns over unfunded liabilities.
According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage".[8] Americans are divided along party lines in their views regarding the role of government in the health economy and especially whether a new public health plan should be created and administered by the federal government.[9] Those in favor of universal health care argue that the large number of uninsured Americans creates direct and hidden costs shared by all, and that extending coverage to all would lower costs and improve quality.[10] Opponents of laws requiring people to have health insurance argue that they would impinge on personal freedom[11] and would not contain health care costs.[12] Both sides of the political spectrum have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether people have a fundamental right to have health care which needs to be protected by their government.[13][14]
Recent reform efforts under the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress and President Barack Obama have focused on two bills: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as the "Senate bill"), which became law on March 23, 2010[15][16] and was shortly thereafter amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872) (which became law on March 30). No Republicans supported either bill.[17]
Reuters and CNN summarized the March 2010 reforms and the year in which they take effect.[18][19]
Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary, answers questions
Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary, answers questions from the About.com community on the Health Care Affordability Act.
Senator Snowe has concerns about tax in Wall Street bill
Senator Snowe has concerns about tax in Wall Street bill
"I'm still looking at the legislation ... I would have preferred the bank tax not to be included," Snowe said.
(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; Editing by Andrew Hay)
Dr. Bihari Goes to Washington
Dr. Bihari Goes to Washington - Healthcare Reform, Unintended Consequences?
Tuesday June 29, 2010
Last week I shared our exciting news that Dr. Michael Bihari, About.com's Guide to Health Insurance, had been invited for a sit-down at the White House with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to ask questions about patients rights and healthcare reform, the Affordable Care Act (a title which doesn't seem to inflame people as much as 'healthcare reform' does.)
If you missed it -- you can watch the entire 12 minutes of the conversation -- which was really quite informative. Dr. Mike has written a follow up, too in which he outlines the Secretary's answers to the questions About.com visitors had submitted ahead of time.
Among the many good answers Secy Sebelius provided, were two worth sharing here. Following her answers, I'll share a few concerns:
1. Lifetime limits on health insurance coverage. You probably have no idea if your current health insurance plan provides a limit over which it will no longer pay for your healthcare. Most people don't have any idea until they reach that limit, until, after a horrible accident or a diagnosis of a debilitating disease, they are told that they have hit that ceiling and -- sorry -- their insurance has run out.
Run out? Most never knew that was a possibility. In particular, those people who have individual insurance that feel like they found some great deal on the monthly premiums -- until they find out the hard way that the limit is reached much quicker than they ever imagined.
However! The Affordable Care Act has put the kibosh on that limit - plus the annual limit, too. Like other aspects of the Act, none of that kicks in until September of this year. Once you renew or choose a new healthplan for 2011, you'll no longer have to worry about those annual caps, nor a lifetime cap.
2. Another of the big points, one which we heard President Obama repeat many times, is that you will be able to choose any doctor you want to, as long as that doctor accepts your insurance plan. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," the President reminded us, many times, as did Secretary Sebelius remind Dr. Mike.
So those are the two points I wanted to share from the conversation between Secy Sebelius and Dr. Mike...
Ahhh.... but sometimes we have to take a look at Newton's Laws of Healthcare Motion -- AKA -- "every action has an equal and opposite reaction," as they apply to healthcare reform.
When I am thinking with my purest heart, I am so happy to see that these concerns have been addressed. Many of you, my blog readers, know that I supported Healthcare Reform as a concept. I still do, and I am happy that we are at least on the road to a far fairer system than we have had to this point.
But my internal warning bells begin ringing on occasion, too. Those potential unintended consequences continue to rear their ugly heads - and I worry.
1. Not that I don't think it's a good idea from the patient-wallet point of view, but I worry that removing any potential caps from health plans will drive up everyone's premiums and other health insurance costs. As it is, when we all learn what our insurance is going to cost beginning in 2011, we're all going to be upset! Removing caps? Somebody's going to pay. We're going to share it.
2. Yes - we will all have the opportunity to choose any doctors who are on our health plan. But that's the key -- doctors who are on our health plan. Most of us have had the experience of learning that a doctor we liked and trusted is no longer accepting the insurance plan we have. And I suspect that we will begin to see some major shifts in which doctors are accepting which plans when we begin getting our paperwork and choices for 2011 next Fall. Health plans are going to cut their reimbursements to doctors, and that looming Medicare cut is due to be reviewed again come November. Bottom line -- yes, to the letter of the law, we'll be able to choose any doctor who is on our health plan. We just don't know which doctors will still be working with which health plans...
Which is why it will be more important than ever, come next Fall when you are asked to re-up on your health insurance plan, that you take some time to look on their doctor lists, or to phone your doctor's office, to be sure your doctors are included on the plan you hope to choose.
Thanks to Dr. Mike for his great preparation for his meeting with Secy Sebelius. We'll keep our fingers crossed that he'll be invited again for another round of Q&A.
• Read Dr. Mike's summary of his question and answer session about patients' rights and the Affordable Care Act with Secy. Sebelius
• Read Dr. Mike's article about healthcare reform and patient safety, too.
Friday 14 May 2010
Funded Health Care
Looking for Content for the Following Websites, looking for developement
http://www.fundedhealthcare.com
http://www.governmentfundedheathcare.com
http://www.govfundedhealthcare.com
http://www.govgrantsfundsloans.com
http://www.govgrantsloansfunds.com
http://www.fundedhealthcare.com
http://www.governmentfundedheathcare.com
http://www.govfundedhealthcare.com
http://www.govgrantsfundsloans.com
http://www.govgrantsloansfunds.com
Wednesday 12 May 2010
Wanted NHS Health Care Stories
Hello Everyone,
I want to know what you think of the NHS? Has it been good to you? Bad to you?
I read a story on the weekend of a woman who lost her children because she complained about a Doctor, he went to Child Services and they took her children because she had "problems in dealing with professionals"
Some of the doctors I have met shouldn't be doctors, how about you?
Post your comments here..
I want to know what you think of the NHS? Has it been good to you? Bad to you?
I read a story on the weekend of a woman who lost her children because she complained about a Doctor, he went to Child Services and they took her children because she had "problems in dealing with professionals"
Some of the doctors I have met shouldn't be doctors, how about you?
Post your comments here..
I want to Explain the Basics...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
Jump to: navigation, search
Universal health care is a system of organized health-care systems built around the principle of universal coverage for almost all members of society, combining mechanisms for health financing and service provision.[1] There is no precise definition of the term "universal" to indicate what percentage comprises "universal" though the number is probably lower than 100% and higher than 95% based on usage of the term.[citation needed]
The World Health Organization regards access to primary care as fundamental to achieving universal health care.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Implementation and comparisons
2.1 Americas
2.1.1 Argentina
2.1.2 Brazil
2.1.3 Canada
2.1.4 Colombia
2.1.5 Greenland
2.1.6 Mexico
2.1.7 Peru
2.1.8 Trinidad and Tobago
2.1.9 United States
2.2 Asia
2.2.1 Bhutan
2.2.2 Hong Kong
2.2.3 India
2.2.4 Israel
2.2.5 Macau
2.2.6 People's Republic of China
2.2.7 Singapore
2.2.8 Taiwan (R.O.C.)
2.2.9 Thailand
2.3 Europe
2.3.1 Denmark
2.3.2 Finland
2.3.3 Germany
2.3.4 Ireland
2.3.5 Italy
2.3.6 Netherlands
2.3.7 Russia
2.3.8 United Kingdom
2.3.8.1 England
2.3.8.2 Northern Ireland
2.3.8.3 Scotland
2.3.8.4 Wales
2.4 Oceania
2.4.1 Australia
2.4.2 New Zealand
2.5 Africa
3 Economics
3.1 Funding models
3.1.1 Single payer
3.1.2 Public
3.1.3 Compulsory insurance
3.1.4 Private insurance
4 See also
5 Notes
6 External links
[edit] History
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. In Britain, the National Insurance Act 1911 marked the first steps there towards universal health care, covering most employed persons and their financial dependents and all persons who had been continuous contributors to the scheme for at least five years whether they were working or not. This system of health insurance continued in force until the creation of the National Health Service in 1948 which extended health care security to all legal residents. Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of deliberate health care reform, intended to make health care available to all, in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, signed by every country doing so. The US did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.[3]
[edit] Implementation and comparisons
See also: Health care system
Universal health care systems vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care and/or health insurance. In some countries, such as the UK, Spain, Italy and the Nordic countries, the government has a high degree of involvement in the commissioning or delivery of health care services and access is based on residence rights not on the purchase of insurance. Others have a much more pluralistic delivery system based on obligatory health with contributory insurance rates related to salaries or income, and usually funded by employers and beneficiaries jointly. Sometimes the health funds are derived from a mixture of insurance premiums, salary related mandatory contributions by employees and/or employers to regulated sickness funds, and by government taxes. These insurance based systems tend to reimburse private or public medical providers, often at heavily regulated rates, through mutual or publicly owned medical insurers. A few countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland operate via privately owned but heavily regulated private insurers that are not allowed to make a profit from the mandatory element of insurance but can profit by selling supplemental insurance. The compulsory insurance systems of central and eastern Europe typically fail to provide truly universal coverage, leaving up to 3% of their population without coverage.[citation needed]They often operate as two-tier systems and often fail to guarantee fee reimbursement due to means testing of sickness funds, in the case of private insurance.[citation needed]
Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues. In others tax revenues are used either to fund insurance for the very poor or for those needing long term chronic care. The UK government's National Audit Office in 2003 published an international comparison of ten different health care systems in ten developed countries, nine universal systems against one non-universal system (the U.S.), and their relative costs and key health outcomes.[4] A wider international comparison of 16 countries, each with universal health care, was published by the World Health Organization in 2004 [5] In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.
[edit] Americas
Argentina, Brazil (see below), Canada (see below), Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico (see below), Panama, Peru (see below), Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela all have public universal health care provided.
[edit] Argentina
Main article: Health care in Argentina
Health care is provided through a combination of employer and labor union-sponsored plans (Obras Sociales), government insurance plans, public hospitals and clinics and through private health insurance plans. It costs almost 10% of GPD and is available to anyone regardless of ideology, beliefs, race or nationality.
[edit] Brazil
Main article: Health care in Brazil
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime's rule. However, free health care was available many years before, in some cities, once the #27 amend to the 1969 Constitution impose to the municipalities the duty of applying 6% of their income in healthcare.[6]
[edit] Canada
Main article: Health care in Canada
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[7]
The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[8] About 29% of Canadians' health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals.[9] This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care.[10] Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.[11]
The Canada Health Act of 1984 "does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services," but provides financial disincentives for doing so. "Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed," according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[12][13] The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that "the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies which favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system.
[edit] Colombia
Main article: Health in Colombia
In 1993 a reform transformed the health care system in Colombia, trying to provide a better, sustainable, health care system and to reach every Colombian citizen.
[edit] Greenland
Greenland has a free medical service funded by taxation.[14] There is a hospital in all towns, and in the settlements there is usually a nursing clinic. In the event of an acute illness, treatment is free of charge even to foreign visitors to Greenland.[15]
[edit] Mexico
Further information: Health care in Mexico
Public health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Public care is either fully or partially subsidized by the federal government, depending on the person's (Spanish: derechohabiente's) employment status. All Mexican citizens are eligible for subsidized health care regardless of their work status via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency. Employed citizens and their dependents, however, are further eligible to use the health care program administered and operated by the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) (English: Mexican Social Security Institute). The IMSS health care program is a tripartite system funded equally by the employee, its private employer, and the federal government. The IMSS does not provide service to employees of the public sector. Employees in the public sector are serviced by the Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE) (English: Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers), which attends to the health and social care needs of government employees. This includes local, state, and federal government employees. The government of the states in Mexico also provide health services independently of those services provided by the federal government programs. In most states, the state government has established free or subsidized healthcare to all their citizens.
On December 1, 2006 the Mexican government created the Health Insurance for a New Generation also known as "life insurance for babies".[16][17][18]
On May 28, 2009 Mexico announced Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women.[19]
[edit] Peru
Further information: es:Aseguramiento Universal en Salud
On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS).[20][21]
On April 2, 2010 President Alan Garcia Perez on Friday signed a supreme ordinance approving the regulations for the framework law on the Universal Health Insurance, which seeks to provide access to quality health care for all Peruvian citizens.
Peru’s Universal Health Insurance law aims to increase access to timely and quality health care services, emphasizes maternal and child health promotion, and provides the poor with protection from financial ruin due to illness.
The regulation states that membership of the Universal Health Insurance (AUS for its Spanish acronym) is compulsory for the entire population living in the country. To that end, the Ministry of Health will approve, by supreme ordinance, the mechanisms leading to compulsory membership, as well as escalation and implementation.[22]
[edit] Trinidad and Tobago
Main article: Health care in Trinidad and Tobago
A universal health care system is used in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the population seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens.
[edit] United States
See also: Health care reform in the United States and Health care in the United States
Health care reform in the United States
General
Healthcare Reform in USA
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Healthcare Bill (PPACA): Provisions
Debate over reform
History
Public opinion
Rationing
Uninsured
[show]More Information
Legislation
Lead Proposals
Proposed system changes
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Senate bill - H.R. 3590)
Superseded Proposals
America's Healthy Future Act (Baucus bill - S. 1796)
Healthy Americans Act (Wyden-Bennett Bill - S. 391)
United States National Health Care Act (Conyers bill, single payer - H.R. 676)
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Tri-Comm. Bill - H.R. 3200)
Affordable Health Care for America Act (House bill - H.R. 3962)
Systems
Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems
Free-market health care
Health insurance exchange
National health insurance
Publicly-funded health care
Single-payer health care
Two-tier health care
Universal health care
Reform advocacy groups
American Medical Student Association
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee
Democracy for America
Health Care for America NOW!
Healthcare-NOW!
National Physicians Alliance
Physicians for a National Health Program
Health care in the United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This box: view • talk • edit
Universal Health Insurance legislation (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC)(Pub. L. No. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) provides for federally mandated health insurance to be implemented in the United States during the 2010-2019 decade with the Federal government subsidizing all peoples with income up to 400% of FPL.[23] Starting June 2010 adults with pre-existing conditions will be eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool.[24], although that is a very minor aspect of the 2010 legislation.
However, universal health insurance is not the same as universal health care. For example the United States, will have a policy of federally mandated health insurance to be implemented during the 2010-2019 decade. On the other hand, guaranteed access to health care has been the custom in the U.S. for decades and has been the law since the 1980s. The World Health Organization regards access to primary care as fundamental to achieving universal health care.[25]
The Federal insurance mandate will in many cases override state laws. Each US state has its own rules and regulations in terms of requiring, administering and regulating insurance of all types, including health care insurance. Many US states began instituting health care insurance laws beginning in the early years of the 20th century. Hawaii has, since 1974, required employers to provide employees working more than 20 hours per week with a comprehensive health insurance plan.[26] The Commonwealth of Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health care system by mandating that uninsured residents purchase health insurance from a private insurer by July 1, 2007.[27] About 97% of residents participate as of an October 2009 report of the Mass Health Connector, an independent state agency involved in health care.
Historically most Americans have purchased health care insurance through their employers and employers often subsidized the premiums as an employment benefit. This was particularly true during the Second World War and at other times when wage freezes were in place. However, this often left those in retirement without insurance so health care insurance for those over 65 was instituted on a federal-government basis in the 1960s, a program popularly called Medicare. Medicare is funded by a payroll tax on all workers and by premiums paid by those over 65.
The US also has a medical insurance program to help the poor or disabled people called Medicaid.[28][29] It will be expanded after 2014 to include individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for Medicaid coverage, even if they do not have dependents.[30][23] In 2016, the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.[31]
Premium cap for maximum "out-of-pocket" pay will be established for people with incomes up to 400% of FPL starting 2014.[23][31][32] Section 1401 of PPACA explains that the subsidy will be provided as a advanceable, refundable tax credit[33] and gives a formula for its calculation[34]. A Refundable tax credit is a way to provide government benefits to people even with no tax liability[35] (example: Child Tax Credit). According to White House and Congressional Budget Office the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for the "silver" healthcare plan premium would vary depending on their income relative to the federal poverty level(FPL), as follows:[36][31] for families with income 133–150% of FPL will be 4-4.7% of income, for families with income 150–200% of FPL will be 4.7-6.5% of income, for families with income 200–250% of FPL will be 6.5-8.4% of income, for families with income 250-300% of FPL will be 8.4-10.2% of income, for families with income from 300-400% of FPL will be 10.2% of income. In 2016,the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.[31] See Subsidy Calculator for specific dollar amount.[37]
Via Medicare, Medicaid, employer-supported insurance and insurance purchased directly by the self-employed, more than 80% of Americans and legal aliens of all ages were insured as of the beginning of 2010, based on varying estimates by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) starting with its 2007 Health Insurance Simulation Model.
Under the PPAC, all Americans and legal aliens in the United States will be required to carry healthcare insurance. They can do that through employers' plans, purchase it from insurance brokers, or purchase it directly from insurance companies. Special brokerages called "health insurance exchanges" will be set up by each US state (e.g., Massachusetts already has one). Those citizens or legal aliens that can find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income[38], but choose not to purchase one will be assessed a penalty imposed by the IRS and collected as part of the US government tax collection process[38]. Those citizens or legal aliens that cannot afford a health insurance policy will have the premium to be paid to the private insurer subsidized primarily by re-allocating money raised for Medicare, by taxation on medical device sales, and by revenue raised by a US higher education student loan program, as explained in the CBO analysis in March 2010 of the PPAC as finally passed (including the companion reconciliation legislation).[31]
It was estimated by the PPAC's proponents that about 5% of the target US population will be exempted from having to carry healthcare insurance because it will not be affordable even with the subsidy or for other reasons. This is based on CBO correspondence to proponents during the PPAC debate in 2009-2010; the percentage varies according to the proponent's assumptions (e.g., whether or not a public option is included). Another percentage of US residents will likely not carry insurance even though they will have to pay the tax penalty. Therefore in addition to its lack of other universal health care characteristics, it is hard to include the US on a list of countries having universal health care based on the fact that everyone will not be included; that is, the PPAC by definition is not universal.
Healthcare insurance trends in the US should not be confused with healthcare delivery practices. Healthcare has always been universally available in the US both based on law and healthcare practitioner ethics and customs. However the geographic breadth of the country makes it more available in or near large cities where most healthcare practitioners are trained.
[edit] Asia
Bhutan, Brunei, China, Hong Kong SAR, Macau, North Korea, Mongolia[39], Kazakhstan[40], Tajikistan[41], Turkmenistan[42], Azerbaijan[43], India[citation needed], Kuwait[citation needed], Qatar[citation needed], UAE[citation needed], Saudi Arabia[citation needed], Israel,[44] Japan, Malaysia[citation needed], South Korea, Seychelles[citation needed], Sri Lanka,[45] Taiwan(R.O.C.),[46], Turkey[47], Iran[48],Syria[49], Pakistan[citation needed], Jordan[50] and Thailand[citation needed], Oman[51][52] have universal health care.
[edit] Bhutan
Main article: Health in Bhutan
The Royal Government of Bhutan maintains a policy of free and universal access to primary health care. As hospital facilities in the country are limited, patients with diseases that cannot be treated in Bhutan, such as cancer, are normally referred to hospitals in India for treatment. Such referral treatment is also carried out at the cost of the Royal Government.[53]
[edit] Hong Kong
Main article: Healthcare in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.[54] Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, Hongkongers enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for males,[55] which is the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.[56][57]
There are two medical schools in Hong Kong, and several schools offering courses in traditional Chinese medicine. The Hospital Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages all public hospitals. Hong Kong has high standards of medical practice. It has contributed to the development of liver transplantation, being the first in the world to carry out an adult to adult live donor liver transplant in 1993.[58]
[edit] India
Main article: Healthcare in India
India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial), governments. The government hospitals, some of which are among the best hospitals in India, provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Most essential drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.
Government hospitals provide treatment either free or at minimal charges. For example, an outpatient card at AIIMS (one of the best hospitals in India) costs a one time fee of rupees 10 (Around 20 cents US) and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free. In-hospital treatment costs depend on financial condition of the patient and facilities utilized by him but are usually much less than the private sector. For instance, a patient is waived treatment costs if he is below poverty line. Another patient may seek for an air-conditioned room if he is willing to pay extra for it. The charges for basic in-hospital treatment and investigations are much less compared to the private sector. The cost for these subsidies comes from annual allocations from the central and state governments.
Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres (PHCs). These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses.[citation needed] Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).[citation needed] However, the fact that the government sector is understaffed and underfinanced and poor services at state run hospitals forces many people to visit private medical practitioners.
Now organizations like Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotional Trust and other private organizations have started creating hospitals and clinics in India, which also provide free or subsidized health care and subsidized insurance plans.[citation needed]
Jump to: navigation, search
Universal health care is a system of organized health-care systems built around the principle of universal coverage for almost all members of society, combining mechanisms for health financing and service provision.[1] There is no precise definition of the term "universal" to indicate what percentage comprises "universal" though the number is probably lower than 100% and higher than 95% based on usage of the term.[citation needed]
The World Health Organization regards access to primary care as fundamental to achieving universal health care.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Implementation and comparisons
2.1 Americas
2.1.1 Argentina
2.1.2 Brazil
2.1.3 Canada
2.1.4 Colombia
2.1.5 Greenland
2.1.6 Mexico
2.1.7 Peru
2.1.8 Trinidad and Tobago
2.1.9 United States
2.2 Asia
2.2.1 Bhutan
2.2.2 Hong Kong
2.2.3 India
2.2.4 Israel
2.2.5 Macau
2.2.6 People's Republic of China
2.2.7 Singapore
2.2.8 Taiwan (R.O.C.)
2.2.9 Thailand
2.3 Europe
2.3.1 Denmark
2.3.2 Finland
2.3.3 Germany
2.3.4 Ireland
2.3.5 Italy
2.3.6 Netherlands
2.3.7 Russia
2.3.8 United Kingdom
2.3.8.1 England
2.3.8.2 Northern Ireland
2.3.8.3 Scotland
2.3.8.4 Wales
2.4 Oceania
2.4.1 Australia
2.4.2 New Zealand
2.5 Africa
3 Economics
3.1 Funding models
3.1.1 Single payer
3.1.2 Public
3.1.3 Compulsory insurance
3.1.4 Private insurance
4 See also
5 Notes
6 External links
[edit] History
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. In Britain, the National Insurance Act 1911 marked the first steps there towards universal health care, covering most employed persons and their financial dependents and all persons who had been continuous contributors to the scheme for at least five years whether they were working or not. This system of health insurance continued in force until the creation of the National Health Service in 1948 which extended health care security to all legal residents. Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of deliberate health care reform, intended to make health care available to all, in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, signed by every country doing so. The US did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.[3]
[edit] Implementation and comparisons
See also: Health care system
Universal health care systems vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care and/or health insurance. In some countries, such as the UK, Spain, Italy and the Nordic countries, the government has a high degree of involvement in the commissioning or delivery of health care services and access is based on residence rights not on the purchase of insurance. Others have a much more pluralistic delivery system based on obligatory health with contributory insurance rates related to salaries or income, and usually funded by employers and beneficiaries jointly. Sometimes the health funds are derived from a mixture of insurance premiums, salary related mandatory contributions by employees and/or employers to regulated sickness funds, and by government taxes. These insurance based systems tend to reimburse private or public medical providers, often at heavily regulated rates, through mutual or publicly owned medical insurers. A few countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland operate via privately owned but heavily regulated private insurers that are not allowed to make a profit from the mandatory element of insurance but can profit by selling supplemental insurance. The compulsory insurance systems of central and eastern Europe typically fail to provide truly universal coverage, leaving up to 3% of their population without coverage.[citation needed]They often operate as two-tier systems and often fail to guarantee fee reimbursement due to means testing of sickness funds, in the case of private insurance.[citation needed]
Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues. In others tax revenues are used either to fund insurance for the very poor or for those needing long term chronic care. The UK government's National Audit Office in 2003 published an international comparison of ten different health care systems in ten developed countries, nine universal systems against one non-universal system (the U.S.), and their relative costs and key health outcomes.[4] A wider international comparison of 16 countries, each with universal health care, was published by the World Health Organization in 2004 [5] In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.
[edit] Americas
Argentina, Brazil (see below), Canada (see below), Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico (see below), Panama, Peru (see below), Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela all have public universal health care provided.
[edit] Argentina
Main article: Health care in Argentina
Health care is provided through a combination of employer and labor union-sponsored plans (Obras Sociales), government insurance plans, public hospitals and clinics and through private health insurance plans. It costs almost 10% of GPD and is available to anyone regardless of ideology, beliefs, race or nationality.
[edit] Brazil
Main article: Health care in Brazil
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime's rule. However, free health care was available many years before, in some cities, once the #27 amend to the 1969 Constitution impose to the municipalities the duty of applying 6% of their income in healthcare.[6]
[edit] Canada
Main article: Health care in Canada
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."[7]
The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[8] About 29% of Canadians' health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals.[9] This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care.[10] Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.[11]
The Canada Health Act of 1984 "does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services," but provides financial disincentives for doing so. "Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed," according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[12][13] The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that "the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies which favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system.
[edit] Colombia
Main article: Health in Colombia
In 1993 a reform transformed the health care system in Colombia, trying to provide a better, sustainable, health care system and to reach every Colombian citizen.
[edit] Greenland
Greenland has a free medical service funded by taxation.[14] There is a hospital in all towns, and in the settlements there is usually a nursing clinic. In the event of an acute illness, treatment is free of charge even to foreign visitors to Greenland.[15]
[edit] Mexico
Further information: Health care in Mexico
Public health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Public care is either fully or partially subsidized by the federal government, depending on the person's (Spanish: derechohabiente's) employment status. All Mexican citizens are eligible for subsidized health care regardless of their work status via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency. Employed citizens and their dependents, however, are further eligible to use the health care program administered and operated by the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) (English: Mexican Social Security Institute). The IMSS health care program is a tripartite system funded equally by the employee, its private employer, and the federal government. The IMSS does not provide service to employees of the public sector. Employees in the public sector are serviced by the Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE) (English: Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers), which attends to the health and social care needs of government employees. This includes local, state, and federal government employees. The government of the states in Mexico also provide health services independently of those services provided by the federal government programs. In most states, the state government has established free or subsidized healthcare to all their citizens.
On December 1, 2006 the Mexican government created the Health Insurance for a New Generation also known as "life insurance for babies".[16][17][18]
On May 28, 2009 Mexico announced Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women.[19]
[edit] Peru
Further information: es:Aseguramiento Universal en Salud
On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS).[20][21]
On April 2, 2010 President Alan Garcia Perez on Friday signed a supreme ordinance approving the regulations for the framework law on the Universal Health Insurance, which seeks to provide access to quality health care for all Peruvian citizens.
Peru’s Universal Health Insurance law aims to increase access to timely and quality health care services, emphasizes maternal and child health promotion, and provides the poor with protection from financial ruin due to illness.
The regulation states that membership of the Universal Health Insurance (AUS for its Spanish acronym) is compulsory for the entire population living in the country. To that end, the Ministry of Health will approve, by supreme ordinance, the mechanisms leading to compulsory membership, as well as escalation and implementation.[22]
[edit] Trinidad and Tobago
Main article: Health care in Trinidad and Tobago
A universal health care system is used in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the population seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens.
[edit] United States
See also: Health care reform in the United States and Health care in the United States
Health care reform in the United States
General
Healthcare Reform in USA
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Healthcare Bill (PPACA): Provisions
Debate over reform
History
Public opinion
Rationing
Uninsured
[show]More Information
Legislation
Lead Proposals
Proposed system changes
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Senate bill - H.R. 3590)
Superseded Proposals
America's Healthy Future Act (Baucus bill - S. 1796)
Healthy Americans Act (Wyden-Bennett Bill - S. 391)
United States National Health Care Act (Conyers bill, single payer - H.R. 676)
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Tri-Comm. Bill - H.R. 3200)
Affordable Health Care for America Act (House bill - H.R. 3962)
Systems
Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems
Free-market health care
Health insurance exchange
National health insurance
Publicly-funded health care
Single-payer health care
Two-tier health care
Universal health care
Reform advocacy groups
American Medical Student Association
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee
Democracy for America
Health Care for America NOW!
Healthcare-NOW!
National Physicians Alliance
Physicians for a National Health Program
Health care in the United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This box: view • talk • edit
Universal Health Insurance legislation (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC)(Pub. L. No. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) provides for federally mandated health insurance to be implemented in the United States during the 2010-2019 decade with the Federal government subsidizing all peoples with income up to 400% of FPL.[23] Starting June 2010 adults with pre-existing conditions will be eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool.[24], although that is a very minor aspect of the 2010 legislation.
However, universal health insurance is not the same as universal health care. For example the United States, will have a policy of federally mandated health insurance to be implemented during the 2010-2019 decade. On the other hand, guaranteed access to health care has been the custom in the U.S. for decades and has been the law since the 1980s. The World Health Organization regards access to primary care as fundamental to achieving universal health care.[25]
The Federal insurance mandate will in many cases override state laws. Each US state has its own rules and regulations in terms of requiring, administering and regulating insurance of all types, including health care insurance. Many US states began instituting health care insurance laws beginning in the early years of the 20th century. Hawaii has, since 1974, required employers to provide employees working more than 20 hours per week with a comprehensive health insurance plan.[26] The Commonwealth of Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health care system by mandating that uninsured residents purchase health insurance from a private insurer by July 1, 2007.[27] About 97% of residents participate as of an October 2009 report of the Mass Health Connector, an independent state agency involved in health care.
Historically most Americans have purchased health care insurance through their employers and employers often subsidized the premiums as an employment benefit. This was particularly true during the Second World War and at other times when wage freezes were in place. However, this often left those in retirement without insurance so health care insurance for those over 65 was instituted on a federal-government basis in the 1960s, a program popularly called Medicare. Medicare is funded by a payroll tax on all workers and by premiums paid by those over 65.
The US also has a medical insurance program to help the poor or disabled people called Medicaid.[28][29] It will be expanded after 2014 to include individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for Medicaid coverage, even if they do not have dependents.[30][23] In 2016, the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.[31]
Premium cap for maximum "out-of-pocket" pay will be established for people with incomes up to 400% of FPL starting 2014.[23][31][32] Section 1401 of PPACA explains that the subsidy will be provided as a advanceable, refundable tax credit[33] and gives a formula for its calculation[34]. A Refundable tax credit is a way to provide government benefits to people even with no tax liability[35] (example: Child Tax Credit). According to White House and Congressional Budget Office the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for the "silver" healthcare plan premium would vary depending on their income relative to the federal poverty level(FPL), as follows:[36][31] for families with income 133–150% of FPL will be 4-4.7% of income, for families with income 150–200% of FPL will be 4.7-6.5% of income, for families with income 200–250% of FPL will be 6.5-8.4% of income, for families with income 250-300% of FPL will be 8.4-10.2% of income, for families with income from 300-400% of FPL will be 10.2% of income. In 2016,the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.[31] See Subsidy Calculator for specific dollar amount.[37]
Via Medicare, Medicaid, employer-supported insurance and insurance purchased directly by the self-employed, more than 80% of Americans and legal aliens of all ages were insured as of the beginning of 2010, based on varying estimates by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) starting with its 2007 Health Insurance Simulation Model.
Under the PPAC, all Americans and legal aliens in the United States will be required to carry healthcare insurance. They can do that through employers' plans, purchase it from insurance brokers, or purchase it directly from insurance companies. Special brokerages called "health insurance exchanges" will be set up by each US state (e.g., Massachusetts already has one). Those citizens or legal aliens that can find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income[38], but choose not to purchase one will be assessed a penalty imposed by the IRS and collected as part of the US government tax collection process[38]. Those citizens or legal aliens that cannot afford a health insurance policy will have the premium to be paid to the private insurer subsidized primarily by re-allocating money raised for Medicare, by taxation on medical device sales, and by revenue raised by a US higher education student loan program, as explained in the CBO analysis in March 2010 of the PPAC as finally passed (including the companion reconciliation legislation).[31]
It was estimated by the PPAC's proponents that about 5% of the target US population will be exempted from having to carry healthcare insurance because it will not be affordable even with the subsidy or for other reasons. This is based on CBO correspondence to proponents during the PPAC debate in 2009-2010; the percentage varies according to the proponent's assumptions (e.g., whether or not a public option is included). Another percentage of US residents will likely not carry insurance even though they will have to pay the tax penalty. Therefore in addition to its lack of other universal health care characteristics, it is hard to include the US on a list of countries having universal health care based on the fact that everyone will not be included; that is, the PPAC by definition is not universal.
Healthcare insurance trends in the US should not be confused with healthcare delivery practices. Healthcare has always been universally available in the US both based on law and healthcare practitioner ethics and customs. However the geographic breadth of the country makes it more available in or near large cities where most healthcare practitioners are trained.
[edit] Asia
Bhutan, Brunei, China, Hong Kong SAR, Macau, North Korea, Mongolia[39], Kazakhstan[40], Tajikistan[41], Turkmenistan[42], Azerbaijan[43], India[citation needed], Kuwait[citation needed], Qatar[citation needed], UAE[citation needed], Saudi Arabia[citation needed], Israel,[44] Japan, Malaysia[citation needed], South Korea, Seychelles[citation needed], Sri Lanka,[45] Taiwan(R.O.C.),[46], Turkey[47], Iran[48],Syria[49], Pakistan[citation needed], Jordan[50] and Thailand[citation needed], Oman[51][52] have universal health care.
[edit] Bhutan
Main article: Health in Bhutan
The Royal Government of Bhutan maintains a policy of free and universal access to primary health care. As hospital facilities in the country are limited, patients with diseases that cannot be treated in Bhutan, such as cancer, are normally referred to hospitals in India for treatment. Such referral treatment is also carried out at the cost of the Royal Government.[53]
[edit] Hong Kong
Main article: Healthcare in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.[54] Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, Hongkongers enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for males,[55] which is the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.[56][57]
There are two medical schools in Hong Kong, and several schools offering courses in traditional Chinese medicine. The Hospital Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages all public hospitals. Hong Kong has high standards of medical practice. It has contributed to the development of liver transplantation, being the first in the world to carry out an adult to adult live donor liver transplant in 1993.[58]
[edit] India
Main article: Healthcare in India
India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial), governments. The government hospitals, some of which are among the best hospitals in India, provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Most essential drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.
Government hospitals provide treatment either free or at minimal charges. For example, an outpatient card at AIIMS (one of the best hospitals in India) costs a one time fee of rupees 10 (Around 20 cents US) and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free. In-hospital treatment costs depend on financial condition of the patient and facilities utilized by him but are usually much less than the private sector. For instance, a patient is waived treatment costs if he is below poverty line. Another patient may seek for an air-conditioned room if he is willing to pay extra for it. The charges for basic in-hospital treatment and investigations are much less compared to the private sector. The cost for these subsidies comes from annual allocations from the central and state governments.
Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres (PHCs). These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses.[citation needed] Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).[citation needed] However, the fact that the government sector is understaffed and underfinanced and poor services at state run hospitals forces many people to visit private medical practitioners.
Now organizations like Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotional Trust and other private organizations have started creating hospitals and clinics in India, which also provide free or subsidized health care and subsidized insurance plans.[citation needed]
Sunday 11 April 2010
Thursday 8 April 2010
Change 2010 - Forums and Website...
Change 2010
Launched for this Election only, for the first time, a public only forum for the Change 2010 Election. We are NOT Tory, We are NOT Labour, We are NOT ANY political party. We want to hear what you have to say about the parties.
Go directly to the Forums and sign up and start talking and posting.
I will take it upon myself to direct everything posted to the party it is directed at.
Launched for this Election only, for the first time, a public only forum for the Change 2010 Election. We are NOT Tory, We are NOT Labour, We are NOT ANY political party. We want to hear what you have to say about the parties.
Go directly to the Forums and sign up and start talking and posting.
I will take it upon myself to direct everything posted to the party it is directed at.
Health Care Reform
As someone who currently lives in the UK, and with a public Health care system, all I can say is, good luck USA, because we have the worst system on the planet, and it fails all the time to provide the type of care required.
You just need to look at the numbers, we have worse numbers for breast cancer, yet we have 1/5 of your population.
We have worse numbers for caner in general, again, 1/5 of your population.
We have Doctors, well I think this is more an education problem than anything else, who will not give out drugs because it will not help you live longer.
We have limits on what drugs you can get, because it is not cost worthy. If it only gives you an average of 6 months more, its not worth it, Die Quicker...
Thats the system you want? Good luck....
You just need to look at the numbers, we have worse numbers for breast cancer, yet we have 1/5 of your population.
We have worse numbers for caner in general, again, 1/5 of your population.
We have Doctors, well I think this is more an education problem than anything else, who will not give out drugs because it will not help you live longer.
We have limits on what drugs you can get, because it is not cost worthy. If it only gives you an average of 6 months more, its not worth it, Die Quicker...
Thats the system you want? Good luck....
http://brainblogger.com/
I just found http://brainblogger.com/ - Great site for getting information about Health Care
Websites - Health Care Websites
fundedhealthcare.com
governmentfundedheathcare.com
govfundedhealthcare.com
The following Websites are being developed for you to find the information that you desire...
governmentfundedheathcare.com
govfundedhealthcare.com
The following Websites are being developed for you to find the information that you desire...
Saturday 27 March 2010
The Failed Promises of Government Funded Health Care
By Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D.
The health care debate in this country is an old story. It began in 1934 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to include government-funded health care in his "New Deal" as part of his comprehensive Social Security legislation. President Roosevelt was very concerned that the Supreme Court might rule parts of his "New Deal" unconstitutional. He tried to induce Congress to approve increasing the total number of justices on the Supreme Court to fifteen, attempting thereby to circumvent the judiciary and the Constitution by stacking the Court in his favor.
Read More
The health care debate in this country is an old story. It began in 1934 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to include government-funded health care in his "New Deal" as part of his comprehensive Social Security legislation. President Roosevelt was very concerned that the Supreme Court might rule parts of his "New Deal" unconstitutional. He tried to induce Congress to approve increasing the total number of justices on the Supreme Court to fifteen, attempting thereby to circumvent the judiciary and the Constitution by stacking the Court in his favor.
Read More
Government Grants Free Money
Hello and welcome to the Gov-Grants.co.uk Blog. Here we hope to provide you with information in regards to government grants.
Thank you.
Thank you.
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)