The “1990s revolution of care” proved to have been successful if it was a temporary success. Health insurance premiums and National Health Expenditure (NHE) have been allocated to GDP for 5-6 years. But it seems to have been unsuccessful now. We see that the anger, the obesity, the hostility and the frustration reflected in government and federal legislatures as a high honor due to the great dissatisfaction of doctors, other providers, and many medical care providers. Moreover, the cost limit seems to have fallen. The annual average sized increase for major buyers is about 9 or 10 percent. The Healthcare Funding Administration actuators understand that the share of national health services in the GDP increases from 13.9% in 2001 to 14.6% in 2007, to 16.0% in 2007. There are around 90 billion dollars per cent of GDP. SAM, this is lots of money (Health Research & Educational Trust, 2002).
Our society is a serious problem of rising and rising health costs. They are building public property: now the government pays 46% of the bill for healthcare. Much of this comes from education and other vital public goods. It reduces the actual increase of workers. And they think they cannot achieve health insurance for moderate intermediaries and families of taxpayers who want to help them: there are insufficient 43 million people in this country and numbers are increasing. According to a recent survey of Californians without insurance, the lack of health insurance is explained most often. For this reason, the cost of health care must be maintained to some extent (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993).
There were lots of details about what employers paid and how they paid. Some of them paid 100% of everything. Some paid employees are filled and do not rely on the scope. Others paid 75% or 80% of the premium, irrespective of the employee’s preferred plan. He noted that a small skilled employee has choice and employment if they choose a less expensive plan. In some cases, employers’ policy was established through joint marketing and in each instance the Internal Revenue Code was created. That is, the so-called “employer contributions” are exempt from taxes for unrestricted employees, which give the employer and the employer a weak cause to consider health care costs.
This scheme is very inflated. Thinking about insurance, suppliers can resolve all doubts in favor of creating more things without giving any adverse financial consequences directly against the disease or themselves. In cohesion with speed technology, national health spending increased rapidly in the 1980’s and grew by 8.9 % of GDP in 1980 to 13.6% in 1993. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the premiums in California were double over a five-year period (The U.S. United States General Accounting Office. Medicare Choice, 2000).
Ultimately, employers were able to get insurance premiums for health insurance, which hurt raising wages; These premiums are as big and fast as they cannot get wages without cutting salaries, which will cause serious conflicts and dissatisfaction. Therefore, in a relatively short period, many people were guided by traditional insurance coverage. From 1988 to 1998, the share of the traditional FFS team fell from 71% to 14% (The U.S. United States General Accounting Office. Medicare Choice, 2002). A Large change in short time. Some employers have a broad range of employees with an individual contribution that leaves workers with economic responsibility for premium differences. The shortlist of health insurance plans includes many government employees, including Stanford, Harvard, University of California, federal public servants and public officials in California. I chair the Advisory Board of the California Pension Fund for the Pension Funds and the Teachers’ / Staff Committee in Stanford for about six years, and I do not believe that you had a “targeted adverse reaction” because there is no person in the HMO.
References
Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust. Employer Health Benefits 2002 Annual Survey. Menlo Park, CA.: 2002.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Medicare Managed Care Plans: Many Factors Contribute to Recent Withdrawals; Plan Interest Continues. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, DC.: Apr 1999. GAO/HEHS-99-91.
The U.S. United States General Accounting Office. Medicare Choice: Plan Withdrawals Indicate Difficulty of Providing Choice While Achieving Savings. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, DC.: Sep 2000. GAO/HEHS-00-183.
