Health Care for All?

Share this content

The nation is off and running with its attempt at a socialized health care program for the masses, although there are those who have suggested that the recent Supreme Court decision will create rather than solve many of the problems associated with health care. One thing is certain, however: many new jobs will be created, and there will be lots of health care-related work for accountants and lawyers.

Insurance-related call centers have been receiving calls ever since the 2008 election from people asking when they are going to get their free health insurance, which illustrates a level of confusion and perhaps ignorance among potential recipients of government benefits. And I'm not even going to mention that government subsidies are never free - they're just paid for by somebody else. As the accountants who are tasked with being on the front line of helping taxpayers understand and comply with this new tax issues, it will be our responsibility to understand the law so we can help taxpayers and businesses fulfill their obligations. We'll follow this issue closely on AccountingWEB and bring you the news and information you need.


Please login or register to join the discussion.

Regarding your comment: "attempt at a socialized health care program" why would you even think that much less say it?  Talk about leading people to confusion.  The Affordable Care Act is, at its basic, an attempt to reform private health insurance by eliminating many anti-patient provisions of existing private insurance policies.  It also attempts to get more people under private insurance coverage and uses the government insurance exchanges as an insurance of last resort.  Socialized health care? Really?  I think not.


I agree with you Jeremiah. I decided not to read any more of Gail's articles due to all of her political undertones.

Gail, if you are going to make comments about socialism, you should learn what it is.  Affordable Health Care is not even close to socialism.  What is closer to socialism is the fact that I am paying about $1,000 per year indirectly for medical costs covering people who don't buy insurance, many by selfish choice.
Thank you, Jeremiah!

I am in total agreement with the other comments.  Gail's comments are what contribute to the poisonous discourse about serious issues in our country.  No matter what you think, the Affordable Health Care Act is the law of the land.  If you must make comments about it, give the facts and not your political slant.

Your comments are very appropriate to the issue.  The comments you received
indicate a young, inexperienced audience acustomed to receiving benefits at
no cost to them.  The health care costs will be at tremendous cost to the public
at large and will not be realized for several  years.  The Supreme Court decision
was wrong.  If the Congress does not succeed in repeal this country is headed
for disaster.  Those who oppose your slant are merely stating their own slant.

The usual misinformation and distortions. 

You can do much better if you check reality.  1st, costs will only go down when insurance companies will be forced to spend approximately 88% of premiums on actual care. This will take some of the money from the obscene bonuses that management pays itself and actually use it to care for patients including preventative care that will avoid many costs that are currenttly being borne by the system. 2nd, when premiums are received from healthy people who were not paying premiums before, the costs for all the rest of us go down because there will be a more equitable distribution of costs throughout the system.The costs to society at large are already being borne by all of us subsidizing those of us who are using their emergency rooms as their primary care physicians. Sure it's not perfect, one major tweak needed is to break the grip of the plaintiffs bar on the health care system with meaningful caps on awards and banning of contingent fees. Hopefully, this will be addressed in the next round.

 Seriously? Wow. Astoundingly prejudicial, and no references to boot. 

I take exception with the need to "label" this plan as "socialized". You must know how factually inaccurate that characterization is as well as the fact that, in our current polarized political environment, how the very use of the word can evoke an almost McCarthy era view that the program is some foreign encroachment upon our beloved capitalistic system.  For your readers, here are the real facts:  (1) The affordable care act was a Republican idea to maintain the current private insurance system rather than convert to a single-payer system fashioned like the Medicare program. (2) There is nothing socialistic or revolutionary about it except that it finally prevents abusive behaviors by insurance companies that disadvantaged certain individuals with preexisting conditions or because they had attained an age at which time they were no longer eligible to be covered by their parents' plans, and those that are unable to obtain affordable insurance because their employer did not offer a plan or because they were unemployed.

Now, more than ever, words matter. Please select them more judiciously so as not to mislead and not to influence attitudes based on misinformation.

1 other thing - if you truly don't want anything that smacks of socialism, let's home school our children, close all public hospitals including those that take care of the indigent, end Social Security and Medicare and let people fend for themselves like a pack of wild wolves, Seriously, this is so reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy era where he didn't let facts get in the way of his political and personal agenda.  Please stop poisoning the well. As a journalist, that is the least you can do.

This is very helpful