Opinion JD Vance’s health-care idea is bad politics — but reasonable policy
Opinion | JD Vance’s health-care idea is bad politics — but reasonable policy The Washington Post
sdgtalks
JD Vance’s Proposal for Health Care Reform
JD Vance emphasizes the need for “more choice” in our health-care system. However, critics argue that his proposal could lead to higher costs and reduced accessibility for low-income and sick individuals.
Potential Benefits of Vance’s Idea
Vance suggests that allowing young and healthy people to purchase policies tailored to their risk profiles could result in lower premiums and increased coverage. However, opponents argue that this could lead to healthier individuals opting for cheaper plans, leaving sicker individuals with more comprehensive policies and higher premiums. This could potentially destabilize the market for individually purchased insurance.
Historical Examples
Similar concerns were raised when the Trump administration allowed the purchase of renewable short-term insurance plans that bypassed certain regulations of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, these plans actually resulted in reduced premiums and increased coverage.
Balancing Regulation and Accessibility
Deregulation does not necessarily mean returning to the pre-ACA era, where individuals with preexisting conditions and no insurance faced difficulties. The goal of allowing healthy individuals to purchase affordable insurance is to encourage them to obtain coverage before they become sick. Protections can still be in place for those who maintain their coverage and then develop health issues, ensuring they are not denied coverage or charged higher premiums.
Government Support and Risk Pools
The ACA already provides substantial federal funding for risk pools through its exchanges. The majority of participants receive federal subsidies that increase along with their premiums. Therefore, the number of low-risk individuals who would be tempted by cheaper, unsubsidized insurance is limited. If any individuals were to leave the market, higher subsidies would protect those who remain.
Shifting Costs and Political Challenges
Implementing Vance’s proposal would involve redistributing the costs of insuring individuals with chronic conditions. More of the burden would be placed on taxpayers, while young and healthy individuals who choose to purchase insurance on the individual market would contribute less. This would require a shift in the flow of money from beneficiaries to insurance companies.
Political Realities
Despite the potential merits of Vance’s proposal, it is unlikely to gain traction among congressional Republicans who have little interest in reopening the debate on Obamacare. The lack of consensus within the party and the presence of the filibuster further complicate the possibility of significant health care reform.
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis
-
SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues
- SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
- SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
The issues discussed in the article are connected to SDG 3, which focuses on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. The article discusses the potential impact of changes in the health-care system on the accessibility and affordability of health insurance, which directly relates to SDG 3. Additionally, the article also touches upon SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities within and among countries. The potential consequences of policy changes on the affordability and accessibility of health insurance can have an impact on the inequalities in access to healthcare.
-
Specific Targets Based on the Article’s Content
- Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines.
- Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.
The article’s content highlights the importance of achieving universal health coverage and ensuring financial risk protection, which aligns with Target 3.8 of SDG 3. It also emphasizes the need to address inequalities in access to healthcare, which relates to Target 10.2 of SDG 10.
-
Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article
- Indicator 3.8.1: Coverage of essential health services
- Indicator 3.8.2: Proportion of the population with large household expenditures on health as a share of total household expenditure or income
- Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and disability
The article implies the need to measure the coverage of essential health services (Indicator 3.8.1) to assess the impact of potential changes in the health-care system. It also suggests considering the proportion of the population with large household expenditures on health as a share of total household expenditure or income (Indicator 3.8.2) to evaluate the financial risk protection provided by the health insurance system. Additionally, the article highlights the importance of monitoring the proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and disability (Indicator 10.2.1) to assess the impact of policy changes on reducing inequalities in access to healthcare.
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being | Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines. | Indicator 3.8.1: Coverage of essential health services Indicator 3.8.2: Proportion of the population with large household expenditures on health as a share of total household expenditure or income |
| SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities | Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status. | Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and disability |
Source: washingtonpost.com
