 |
ESSAY OF THE WEEK |
|
|
|
Question
The following appeared in a report to the State Commission on Aging:
"A significant percentage of the State's Medicaid budget is spent on long-term care for elderly and disabled persons, whose savings and insurance do not cover the annual cost of their care. Since most people do not plan adequately to cover the cost of long-term care, the State should develop a program to promote long-term care savings plans. This will alleviate the burden on the State's Medicaid budget."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| better health care plan for aged & disabled: 8/23/2009 |
 |
The significant initiative taken by by the State Commission will definitely benefit the aged & disabled .However, the State need to well plan and set a programme to promote their health care savings on long-term basis , unless it'll alleviate the burden on the State as many people don't plan well enough to cover the cost of their long-term care |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Veselina Kracheva: 8/29/2009 |
|
Although the idea to promote long-term care saving plans may indeed decrease the Medicaid budget spending, the report to the State Commission on Aging fails to provide crucial information regarding the case.
First of all, it is unclear what the general target of the Medicaid budget is. If its goal is exactly to support the elderly and disabled individuals who lack the necessary finance to do this on their own, it is far from surprising that a significant percentage of the budget would be spent for this purpose. Therefore, the situation described in the report would not be alarming at all.
Another missing element is the current capacity of the budget. Does the budget suffice to cover the above-mentioned costs and is there enough evidence to conclude that it will not fall into shortage in the future? In case both answers are "yes", there is no need to take any action whatsoever, especially if this action is likely to have negative side effects.
The obvious negative effect of leaving money aside for "rainy days" is that this financial potential remains latent instead of pouring into the economy. The decision to promote spending or saving on such a large scale must take into account many important factors. The reduction of the load on a budget, which is not likely to be overloaded anyway, should be very low on the priority list. If, for example, the country is stagnating and liquidity is low, government support for saving may be detrimental to the fast recovery of the economy.
Another open question is the extent to which such a proposal would actually lead to better financing of the "elderly and disabled persons" and how it may affect the Medicaid budget itself. As more people have sufficient insurance and savings to cover for potential health problems at a later age, it is likely the budget itself will be reduced, because of this security. This may lead to the situation where the budget is insufficient to serve the needy people who decided not to contribute to a savings plan or simply could not afford it. In other words, the people who would participate in the savings plans are not necessarily those, who will need the money later.
In conclusion, the report fails to prove that any action is necessary in the case and furthermore does not persuade me that the proposed action would reach the desired goal. Moreover, the author neglects possible economical side effects of the action, which renders the argument weak. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
Reference Essay |
|
The State should not promote long-term care savings plans as a first step. Instead, the State should educate its residents on the issue of paying for long-term care, and the options available to residents to pay for long-term care. Further, the State should investigate options for encouraging people to save for long-term care on their own.
It is possible that people are misinformed about the issues involved in paying for long-term care. For example, if people believe that Medicare will pay for long-term care, they may not be willing to save for long-term care. On the other hand, if people know that Medicare offers only a limited long-term care benefit, they may be more willing to save for long-term care. Likewise, if people understand that once the Medicare benefit is exhausted, private savings and long-term care insurance provide for much higher quality care than Medicaid, people may be more willing to examine these options.
Long-term savings plans will not be effective until people understand the need for them. People are only motivated when they understand the impact of acting or not acting. The State's resources are better spent on educating people about what happens when they need long-term care, and what options are available to them for this potential circumstance. The argument for long-term care savings plans would be stronger if it indicated that the State has already tried to educate people about the costs of long-term care.
The State also has the power to encourage people to save for long-term care without promoting savings plans. For example, the State could offer a tax credit or other incentive to people who save money for long-term care. The argument for savings plans would be stronger if the article indicated that the State has already tried other means of persuading people to save for long-term care.
The article does not give any direct evidence that promotion of long-term care savings plans will reduce the State's Medicaid budget. This assumption relies on the fact that the major Medicare expense is long-term care. It's possible that those who can pay for long-term care do, and only those who have no ability to save for long-term care end up using Medicaid benefits to cover their care costs. The argument would be stronger if it offered some indication that the majority of people who end up using Medicaid had the means to save for long-term care while they were still able-bodied.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
