In his State of the Union address, President Bush outlined an ambitious plan to redefine health insurance in the United States. He proposed using tax incentives to make insurance more affordable for the 47 million uninsured in this country, and claims this willinsure more Americansat no cost to the Federal Government.
This plan generated cautious optimism and immediate controversy. Someclaim thatthese incentives will make insurance more affordable for the uninsured.Additionally,the planmay actually raise taxes forothers who have generous employer-provided coverage. Others fear that by giving employerswho currently provide coverage an excuse to jettison these programs (regardless of whether or not their employees can afford individual coverage) the plan may actually increase the number of people without insurance.
The President’s plan, as well as the programs adopted in Massachusetts and recently proposed in California requiring coverage for all citizens, are but pieces in what is sure to be a complicated puzzle. Do you think that these proposals can realistically help to cover those that are currently uninsured? If we move from an employer-provided to an individual insurance model, will this help the problem or will more be left without coverage? Are these proposals better or worse than the universal coverage models proposed in the past?
This Week’s Articles:
For more informaiton, please contact Kristin Millikan at 312.422.5580.