A Look at the State Opt Out Plan and Wheelchairs.

On October 2, 2009 at http://voices.washingtonpost.com there is an article titled Senate Finance Committee Releases Its Final Text of Health-Care Bill. Within this article is the text of the health care bill that committee members will be voting on next week. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_amended_100209.pdf
This is a very good document to look at if you are curious about just what it is that will be voted on. I, however, had a little trouble understanding all of it.

One thing I did notice was the state opt out plan. This allows for the individual states to come up with their own healthcare options for their residents and, if the Federal government approved it, that could be offered instead of the Federal plan. One prerequisit was that the insurance must be available to all residents in the state. That is good, I suppose, although I am still undecided about illegal immigrants being eligible for free medical care. Children, absolutely, the adults, if it is life threatening, absolutely. Otherwise, I'm undecided. Sounds harsh, I guess, but as an American citizen I am not eligible for healthcare unless I have insurance, unless it is a life threatening condition, so why should the standards be different for others?
There is also a condition of the state opt out which is that a ten year budget must be introduced that is neutral to the Federal government. There is to be no cost to the Federal government for the state provided insurance. Really? Does that not make sense to anybody else? It seems to me that if there is a plan in place through the government and they are planning to use the money in those states for healthcare regardless, shouldn't that money be given to the states then? Maybe the Federal taxes in those states will be lower because we all know taxes are going to go up to pay for this healthcare if is to be provided. It would really be not right to have to pay the taxes then get no benefit. Almost unAmerican. Almost.

Another item I found interesting is regarding wheelchairs. At present a person may get a wheelchair through medicare and it will be paid for through either a monthly rental, or in one lump sum. I would think if you are a person who knows you're going to be in a wheelchair for an extended period of time the lump sum would be the way to go. Apparently the government and I disagree on this too. On pages 184 and 185 the issue of wheelchair rental versus lump sum payments is addressed. All wheelchairs, with the exception of the complex, rehabilitative wheelchairs, are to be rented on a monthly basis. Only these heavy duty, costly, do it all for you wheelchairs would be paid off in a lump sum.
Again, I am no financial genius, but it seems to me it is a lot more cost effective to pay something in a lump sum than to pay monthly payments for many, many months. Perhaps the government has paid for a lot of wheelchairs in a lump sum when they were only necessary for a few months so the government lost money. I guess a look at the prognosis and an estimation of the amount of time the wheelchair was necessary should have been looked at. I know that would have occured in a private insurance scenario.

Just a note with regard to last week's blog about medical malpractice. There is mention of that in this document on pages 207 and 208, however it says that is up to the states to deal with.