Indiana Gov. Mike Pence shows frustration in the lack of flexibility on Medicaid plans, with the state wanting low-income participants to pay a premium towards the cost of coverage and penalize them if they don't comply. As a conservative, Pence states, “By requiring people to have that responsibility to make that monthly contribution, they really take ownership of their own health insurance and their own health care." However, on the other side, some critics say punishing low-income people is counterproductive and does not pave a positive path forward for Medicaid.
I think this topic and article is extremely interesting in illustrating a topic of division between the conservative and liberal perspectives for Indiana's plan.
Do you think Pence is justified in his requests and frustration? Personally, I understand his points and I actually do see benefits to the accountability. However, I understand the counterproductive argument and that this could restrict low-income people, seeing as this is not the intentions for Medicaid. Thus, I feel inconclusive on the argument and I'm curious on your opinions and which side of the argument you would support and why.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/indianas-gov-pence-to-press-obama-on-medicaid-plans-1412344426
The point in expanding Medicaid is so that low-income people can obtain health insurance. Although the premiums doesn’t seem burdensome to the conservatives advocating for them, the premiums could be the decision between health coverage and food for those families struggling financially. Also, I feel as if the administrative cost of enforcing a $15 or $25 a month premium is costly and exceeds its benefits. With the choice between necessities, like food, and health coverage, some individuals will chose food and not pay the premium. In which case, the government would lose significant money in administering Medicaid and enforcing punishments for everyone who chooses not to pay the premiums. The whole reasoning behind Medicaid is that low-income family can’t afford health insurance. So, why make them pay premiums on a program that’s supposed to help them while they are already struggling financially? Ultimately, I think as many people should be covered as possible without punishing them more for having low-incomes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Querubin. While I see the benefits that could come from the monthly fee, both financially and in ensuring responsibility, I don't think that the program should require the premium. The goal of medicaid is to provide health insurance to low-income families and the premium is counterproductive to this goal. Further the administrative costs would likely outweigh the benefits. It would be required that money be spent ensuring that all individuals are paying, notifying them if they missed a payment and dealing with problems that arise in how the cost should be paid. Also people would need to be hired to run the program. This would greatly take away from any financial benefit that would come from the policy and only require individuals to complete additional processes to be covered. I think the policy would be more trouble than it is worth.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see the points being made as to why Medicaid was created. I also believe that people are taking advantage of the program. I believe that if a premium, even a small one, was charged it could help to eliminate this. As a person with low income you have no incentive to work more or to go to school to get a better job if health care is simply given to you by the government. I am all for helping the poor and keeping people healthy, but I think that if they had some investment into the program it would help them to live healthier lives and to eventually get off government support.
ReplyDelete