Single payer insurance system won't work without socialising the care providing system as well. In fact, it my inflate care costs even more.
I still think the best way to reduce health care costs is to reduce liability insurance rates (limit punitive damages in malpractice cases to a multiple of actual damages except in cases of death, increase regulation of the medmal insurance sector by limiting non-claims based rate hikes to a small percentage), reduce equipment costs (tax breaks/grants for offices upgrading and optimizing their equipment), and reducing education costs (MD's who work in low income sectors and/or volunteer time in free clinics/programs get loan forgiveness for some of their student loans, and increase scholarships and grants specifically for med-school training).
Erh, dan, it is called insurance and anyone can buy it.
When they guvmint gets involved, it is called socialism and
the bureaucrats take charge and it is called: rationing.
Because the guvmint cant afford it. Well that is, unless,
they raise the taxes to cover it. You ever heard of a few
countries who have tried UHC; you know, England and
Canada. And even Mexico tries a form of it, and you see
how they have made such a success of it.
Hmmm...we are required to buy liability insurance if we drive. Yes, not all drive, but most of us do and need to in order to be able to get to work, etc...to live, basically.
Not perfectly analogous to making health insurance mandatory, but there is a precedent.
In any event, why should an individual be forced to do pay for something to cover the cost shirked by others? Also, if I am not mistaken, if you are indeed provided with emergency medical care and you don't pay up, then you end up with a lien against your assets. Not sure if your wages can be garnished. But the broader point is that it's handled like a debt just like any other.
^^Yeah! But HC, how bout I buy my insurance and not require
anyone else to buy any. Like no liability insurance. I will cover
me and to with you. You want insurance, buy it. Talking about
car insurance. I can hear the lawyers screaming now. But, but,
but, that's not fair (to me) for the little guy who you run over.
May be surprising the some, but health insurance didn't
exist in my younger days and funny thing happened. I cant
think of a single person who died for lack of medical care.
Oh, and my first two children cost me: $75 bucks for the
doctor and 63 bucks for the hospital. boutons are you
listening. Oh, he was a family doctor and he let me put it
on the books. And he did get paid.
And that's something I fundamentally disagree with. Why should I contribute to a random new yorker getting medical treatment at a rate of twice what I would pay for the same thing here. This kind of crap should be state level programs, period. They will never be cost effective on a national level, even if they were cons utional.
Why should I pay the government MORE than what I would have to pay doing it myself?
I don't trust the government with my money. I would rather volunteer to pay for a random persons medical treatment than trust the government to do anything effective.
I'd rather see better developed HSA system. Allow (require) people to contribute to an account that can only be used for medical treatment, offer company matching, and allow it to be used for any household member (not just spouse and children). It'd be much more effective since the vast majority of people will never even come close to using the amount of money they pay for insurance. The small percentage that does could be covered by a small tax.
combine that with efforts to reduce root cost, and that system will work quite handily.
The fundamental problem with American health care is that most consumers pay for just about any health care related expenditure through insurance. In such an arrangement what incentive does a consumer have to mitigate those expenditures when they are pay a fraction of the true price? We ended up in this arrangement as health benefits are not taxable for the covered and employers are able to deduct the cost of those benefits for their employees. I may be wrong, but I don't believe in any other nation does such an arrangement exist. Of course, employers do have an incentive still to minimize those costs and thanks to legal arrangements such as HMOs, individuals find themselves in plans they generally do not want and which opt to engage in less than ethical practices in the coverage provided. The problem with American health care is not that the market is punishing individuals, but rather that it has not been tried.
"I don't trust the government with my money."
You're perfectly happy to give your money, $10K/year for family of 4, to private insurers who then burn up 30% in overheads, dividends, management payouts, etc while delivering back to you as little product as possible.
You don't pay much attention do you. I was pushing for reduction in care costs and expanded HSA system.
I give nothing for health insurance or care for myself, and I won't. Insurance is a scam. It's a government supported industry that can't possibly lose money and treats its customers like crap.
"reduction in care costs"
... increasing at 2+ x inflation, at least.
The winning rats in the health care scam will destroy anybody or anything that touches their $3T/year ripoff. That's why no health care plans by the candidates talk about cost reduction but only how find more money to pay the current/escalating costs of new coverage.
And that's why none of those plans will accomplish anything. Like the current form of SS, why support something that will inevitably bankrupt the nation.
If you're unwilling to correct the root costs, your plan will fail. Period.
First of all, SS is not bankrupting the nation. There are simple solutions available to the President and Congress if there was any political will and bipartisan cooperation. Yes, it means someone will have to pay more taxes, e.g., increasing the threshold where 15% kicks down to 3% (I'm off on the percentages) or increasing the 3%. I think many in Congress would go along with starting some form of private SS accounts with such an increase, but the GOP are very adverse to any tax increase for any reason.
Regarding health care costs, the US is incrementally moving towards a government system of some form. Currently, the governments at all levels pay nearly 50% of all health care costs. The question is whether we can move toward a rational single-payer system (regulated private insurance is fine if they aren't allowed to cherrypick) using the best of other countries' experiences or whether we make laws that are designed to make companies richer (e.g., prescription Medicare, a GOP boondoggle for the pharmas). Unfortunately, I would expect too much of the latter, so I expect health-care problems to become much much worse before any reasonable action occurs.
There are lots of problems with SS:First of all, SS is not bankrupting the nation. There are simple solutions available to the President and Congress if there was any political will and bipartisan cooperation. Yes, it means someone will have to pay more taxes, e.g., increasing the threshold where 15% kicks down to 3% (I'm off on the percentages) or increasing the 3%. I think many in Congress would go along with starting some form of private SS accounts with such an increase, but the GOP are very adverse to any tax increase for any reason.
* capped at 100K of earnings
* it was never intended to be a retirement account, but now everyone treats it like one
* we have 12 million people (illegals) in this country that aren't paying into it
And I have to disagree. The tag team of SS and Medicare is GOING to bankrupt this country, and I'm not sure how old you are but unless you're over 40 and don't live very long it's going to happen in your and my lifetimes.
That, or the dollar is going to be worth about as much as the peso and we're all going to get ed over by hyperinflation ( , that's probably going to happen regardless of whether not the stupid s in D.C. actually do something about Medicaid and SS).
Since government has managed to F up our health care industry let's double down.
It's no big surprise man. Just gotta work harder and adapt. No biggie.I can't wait to see all of you righties in January when the dems take control of the country.. will any of you leave?
And the government will do a better job?
I know they ownz with Social Security, but let's not push our luck.
the world is coming to an end!!!
....Touche' .....but rising health-care premiums and the home foreclosure boon is bankrupting people anyway....I'm not totally against the idea of HSA's, but with some sort of catastrophic (health) insurance to cover costs that families could never raise, or pay on their own...dependent on income and family size....
I wonder what it's like to live in a free country.
Essentially, the feds give us an allowance - it's the amount of your income that they don't take.
...ask the British.....
Clandestino sighting!
You answered your own question. "You are perfectly happy to
give your money". Freely given, not taken. See the
difference boutons? He gets what he pays for. Not what
some damn Congressman, Senator or bureaucrat
says you will get. You are not happy with your
health insurance company, you go to a different one.
You are not happy with the Government plan. Go suck
a lemon, that is all you get, like it or not. Or pay as
you go. Not an unheard of thing.
True, catastrophic insurance would need to be a part of it. It actually wouldn't bother me if the government provided the attached catastrophic insurance (through a small tax based on contributions, with contributions matched by employer).
The way I view these things is a minimum level of required contributions based on exceptions claimed on W-4 (the less exceptions you claim, the less you are required to contribute) with employer matching the required contributions. A charge based on % of contributions for catestrophic coverage (should never even come close to being equal to employer contributions, so effectively the employer purchases for you).
The employee could choose their own bank to hold the money, and it should be easily transferable to a different bank to allow compe ion for interest rates, etc. Contributions would be pre-tax deductions.
The accounts could be charged directly from Dr offices (medical, dental, vision all available). Starting at retirement age, you can draw a set % (say 5-10) of the balance out for whatever use you want, and the balance in the account is cashed out upon death and added to the estate. They should be usable for spouses and children, and community property at divorce (the person who's name it's in should always retain the lion's share).
This turns them into a combined health care/retirement/life insurance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
