Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I must be slow today. I do not see anything about who/what entity you think ( in reality) will be managing, making up the rules for a health care system.
I must be slow today. I do not see anything about who/what entity you think ( in reality) will be managing, making up the rules for a health care system.
You don't say who would manage your proposed system: Would it be the private sector or the Government. And if its the government - an existing agency or a new one. And, would it be the Federal government or the state government?
Government isn't handling the medicine.
The subsidaries could be handled either at the federal level.. but probably best at the state level..
BTW. Tort reform would also have to be included
As would ability to sell insurance across state lines.
If you fall below the poverty level.. you'll still get free healthcare.. But , depending on guidelines set.. subsidies wouldn't kick in until after a certain percentage of your income.. say 10 - 12%.
THAT coupled with a LARGE pool of insured would really lower costs.
It also doesn't have to be employer based. and Employer could still offer to give pay your premiums as part of the employment package or a portion of (and with the costs driven down more companies would be able to) BUT.. the insurance can move with you if you lose your job.
Think .. you will no longer be limited to the carreir your Job choses to purchase from.. but you can choose whatever carrier is YOUR preference (in otherwords, I've found some insurance companies suck more than others..but when you get a job.. if the job buys say Aetna.. that is what you have to chose from.. but what if you prefer BCBS? or Geisinger Direct... etc.)
If you lose your job, the premium is part of the unemployment package.. or atleast a larger percentage of your premium would be.
THe subsidies would come from either the state of federal level via an agency (hey, your legislation according to a previous post of yours was also developing an agency to handle what needed to be done.. I believe on the means tested portion? Although I don't recall completely. .but I DO recall you mentioning an agency or sub agency of some sort being developed to handle some aspect of the legislation you said that was proposed)
But.. Government is not running hte hospitals.. not running the pay system to Dr.s .. not dictating costs of procedures.. etc. etc etc. Insurance would be PRIVATE.. no different than it is in the current system. NO rationing of care by government.. etc.
Really.. the ONLY compromise needed from the right is the mandatory compromise.. because everything else they "fear" would not even be involved.
No worries about "eminant domain" as you like to bring up so often either!
Last edited by TristansMommy; 05-10-2009 at 04:41 PM..
I must be slow today. I do not see anything about who/what entity you think ( in reality) will be managing, making up the rules for a health care system.
THe same as it is now.. the insurance companies..
Or do you think you currently make the rules for yourself individually?
Of course regulations would still be in place that are in place to protect the public from insurance companies..
So, the insurance companies can still make a profit under your scheme?
The CEO's can still make their salaries under your scheme?
That is a far cry from your previous ideas.
And this from the man who accuses me of not bending.. of not seeing other things ore other sides. I happen to have been speaking about Swiss type system for weeks now
I happened to have been made aware of how it works in Switzerland and did some reading on it. While they have the second highest GDP in the world there's is still at 11% while ours is at 17% . Also their government spends 24% of their entire GDP with an over 98% insured rate while the U.S government spens about 44% of the nations GDP on healthcare with an uninsured rate of 11%.
I think CEO's are outrageously paid.. BUT with the flood gates of competition open AND a larger pool of potential customers insurance will have to get VERY competitive and trim the high premiums.. which would mean that they may not be able to pay their CEO's so much if they want to compete (some of those salaries are completely off the charts.. $14M in ONE YEAR!!).
I thought that type of system was the absolute BEST compromise and one that tackles all the underlying issues of healthcare costs on the best levels.
It's a middle ground... I don't get my utopia.. but it's a compromise
Of course a baseline will need to be established.. in the way of what that insurance covers, out of pocket costs etc. that the government would subsidize if it goes over the 10% .. exactly what that would be I do not know. It should be at the very least an HMO like insurance.. which would need to be determined if such a bill were to be outlined and established. ...
Last edited by TristansMommy; 05-10-2009 at 05:12 PM..
So if we get UHC it is going to be set up ala Tristansmommy protocols.
You already know how it's going to be run and what it's going to cost and I bet the rest of the money is going to come from you stopping the war and no more overpaying those rotten CEOs.
Whew...I am sure relieved.I can't imagine what I was so concerned about
Actually, I would be pretty well screwed if I had some sort of major medical issue to deal with. But I wouldn't start promoting a government run system if it happened. Our business is young and we don't make enough yet to afford insurance, but I don't let that affect my position on this issue.
I absolutely think that coverage is too expensive, especially for individuals and those with preexisting conditions (such as TM), and that providers are charging more than their services should cost, but again, that doesn't mean that the government should be in charge. They can't run the post office without a net loss of billions each year; why should I believe that they could do better with something as convoluted and difficult to manage as health care?
My best friend's wife just had to spend a night in the hospital for something which is a bit too personal to go into here. She was there less than 24 hours, and they gave her two pints of blood and a couple of shots. Their bill? $10k. Yeah, medical care is too expensive, especially if you don't have the negotiating power of a major insurance company, but nothing in this thread, including my friend's situation, justifies letting the government take over the system.
How to reduce the cost of health care is certainly a good question, but giving government total control is NOT the answer. And now that our current President has guaranteed that something like $10,000,000,000,000 will be spent over the next several years, UHC will be off the table. They can't afford to do it, which I suppose is a silver lining to the spendulous cloud.
If Congress wants to reduce the cost of health care, they could do it without spending a dime. All they need to do is remove the restrictions that keep insurance companies from offering plans across multiple states. That would have a huge impact. They won't do it, though, because as long as the insurance companies can't do it, they can justify keeping their rates as high as they are. And we all know how powerful the insurance lobby is - Congress is pretty obviously in their pocket when it comes to this, and some people (who shall remain nameless) still argue for government controlled health care... I guess actually thinking about the issue is too much to ask when they've already let their condition do their thinking for them.
I can understand your points. My overall fear is that every time something goes wrong in the US, instead of letting the the market heal things by changing SOME restrictions(not all of them) or relieving tax burdens, statist always run out and tout a "Bigger government is the answer" campaign. And the republicans offer a semi big gov solution and Dem's offer a REALLY big gov. solution, as if it is the ONLY option.
Like Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
So if we get UHC it is going to be set up ala Tristansmommy protocols.
You already know how it's going to be run and what it's going to cost and I bet the rest of the money is going to come from you stopping the war and no more overpaying those rotten CEOs.
Whew...I am sure relieved.I can't imagine what I was so concerned about
Hmm.. . considering what I had been talking about in the previous post is not really considered a UHC in the sense that YOU are referring to.. I don't get the point of your post.
Government will not be giving anybody healthcare (accept the poor who already get it).. they will be giving subsidies.. It could be paid for thruogh eliminating medicaid/medicare as we have it now. It could be paid for through fines of those that do not conform with the mandatory insurance laws (similar to state laws regarding car insurance.. where you are fined ).. And yes.. there will be a tax.. BUT the overall savings would make the burden far less. and the tax not such a high percentage.
It works well for Switzerland.. or did you not read the part where I say that the government only spends 24% of the total amount of GDP healthcare spending in that country (which is 11%) as opposed to our system now that spends 44% of that 17% GDP on healthcare we spend. AND over 98% of their population has insurance! (NOT provided by the government.. but subsidized if the premiums reach over a certain percentage of your household income).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
