I am glad that the Obama administration is determined to reevaluate health care coverage. However, I find that the big picture is being missed. Shouldn't we focus on health care prevention, and then treatment? Statistics state that low income households had the worst health, and also provided the heaviest burden on the medicaid system. However, as we established last week, only 10% of health issues are related to health care. It is far more likely that these households suffer from their socio-economic status or environment, and it seems like we should be addressing those. A new health care system just seems like a quick fix to a much more complicated problem. However, the fact that we recognize that there is a problem is a start.
As to women's health, is there a great difference in coverage between poor women and poor men? I couldn't really deduce that from the article. The issue of dependency is covered, and I am surprised that that number is so large. However, I feel like it is a little misleading. For instance, my parents work at the same institution, and my mother is listed as a dependent. But if my father were fired or lost coverage, she would still be able to get coverage. Maybe she is listed as the dependent because of societal norms (sexist) but that doesn't mean that she is at risk.
I am relieved that insurance companies will be required to charge the same premiums for men and women. I wasn't aware that this was an issue, and I would love to explore this more.
No comments:
Post a Comment