Healthcare in America
We’re going with a theme in the titles.
Just reading in the NYT about the differences between Clinton’s and Obama’s healthcare plans. Which one covers more?!?! Who’s right?!?! Who’ll be the nominee?!?! Are you ready to ruhhhhmbbbbbuuuuuuuuuul?!?!
Here’s a stat that struck me. Some 20% of people in Massachusetts, which has universal, mandatory health coverage, still don’t have it. The reason? It costs $12 000 per year for a family, and $5000 for individuals.
My health cover in Australia is $637 for two years. Now, I’m a student, and overseas health cover doesn’t cover everything (notably, I don’t get free Gardasil shots - boo). Everyone has to buy ambulance cover if they want free ambulance service. The system isn’t perfect…
But $5000 a year? Mandatory? There are government subsidies for those at or below 300% of the poverty line. Hilariously, for an individual that’s $30 630 and for a family of four $61 950.
If the government has to subsidize every family of four under $62 000 so as not to charge them over 19% of their gross yearly income, I’d say the cost of your health coverage is too high. How many people would they have to cover if such an plan were enacted nationwide? Well, since half of all Americans live within this 300 percent, um… lots.
Economics is a little bit above me (it involves a lot of that pesky adding), but wouldn’t it make more sense just to build it into the tax structure if you’re going to be subsidizing nearly half of all Americans anyway? (Ron Paul just died a little.)
Not to mention the simple fact that $62 grand is not a lot to house, feed and clothe four people - though a lot of people do it on a lot less. (But that’s a whole other issue of what’s considered ‘poverty’ in this country, which we’ll have to leave aside for today. Check back tomorrow; I’ll likely have it solved by then.)
So at $63 000 a year for my family of four or $31 000 as an individual, I’d take my chances, too.
Richest country in the world. Shouldn’t be this hard. Raise the cost of beer; I’m pretty sure that’s what Australia did.
Links:
Clinton Attack on Obama Overlooks Some Realities [NYT]
Massachusetts Sets Health Plan for Nearly All [NYT]
What Is 300 Percent of the Poverty Level? [The Tax Foundation]
December 6th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Ironically, Boston has the best maternity care in the US which is implicitly linked to socio-economic status. There are a lot of middle-class women who have the money to pay for ridiculously expensive infertility treatments and therefore, all of the best ob-gyns are drawn to the those hospitals.