Such a step would attempt to reform the current healthcare system by making all medical infrastructure state owned. Tragically, of the ~151,000 homeless people in California 68% have outstanding medical debt. In fact, 17% of homeless people are veterans (undercovered by the VA and other government agencies) The pros of reform would revolve around increasing public access, erasing medical debt and mitigating the need to reduce government programs via a bipartisan appeal. Such a system could also increase medication access by taking advantage of the economics of sale. However while such a system may seem beneficial in all ways there are some major downsides that should be noted. As a con such a reform requires upfront capital expenditure in order to transition evertyin to a new light. Furthermore, nothing is guaranteed that the savings from the reform will even materialize into reality. In addition, average middle class families will also be greatly impacted. Under the Affordable healthcare Act for example the average savings per person was $74 but for a family of 6 spending rose to $1000 each year. Finally, this system only works if the majority complies. So there will be a system of penalties which will somehow always affect people who can’t comply somehow. Overall, the effectiveness system can’t truly be determined as transitioning the state from its current system formulates a gap of uncertainties in terms of affecting various groups of people across the state.
Comments are closed.
|