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.
Okay a government insurance policy.
Wouldn't an easier solution be to simply expand Medicare to cover everyone from day one?
You got it.
Quote:
How much do you think this will cost us?
A healthy percentage of the federal budget, but there's a lot of wasteful Cold War-style millitary spending and corporate subsidies that could be cut to decrease the tax pain. Most countries with UHC spend less on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, so we wouldn't necessarily have to spend any more (overall) on healthcare than we do now to cover everyone if the middlemen were removed (private insurance with multiple bueracracies dedicated to denying payment to as many people as possible) and increased preventative healthcare access led to fewer emergencies and major, expensive problems.
Quote:
You want a 'sin tax' on certain goods,how will that work?
Say fast food for example.
You put an extra $1 tax on a Big Mac, would you put the same tax on two all beef patties,special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions and a sesame seed bun???
Let the FDA handle it, I guess... not all beef is as drugged up as McDonalds...
A healthy percentage of the federal budget, but there's a lot of wasteful Cold War-style millitary spending and corporate subsidies that could be cut to decrease the tax pain.
Would cutting the defense budget cover the difference?
Won't healthcare costs increase with the aging of the US population?
Also what happens when more and more of the population is no longer working,how will it be funded?
Quote:
Most countries with UHC spend less on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, so we wouldn't necessarily have to spend any more (overall) on healthcare than we do now to cover everyone if the middlemen were removed (private insurance with multiple bueracracies dedicated to denying payment to as many people as possible) and increased preventative healthcare access led to fewer emergencies and major, expensive problems.
What nations in particular?
Quote:
Let the FDA handle it, I guess... not all beef is as drugged up as McDonalds...
Most hamburger meat is the same but hopefully you got my point,if you 'sin tax' a burger you would have to equally tax the ingredients that make up the burger.
The need to assure that everyone has adequate access to healthcare is very obvious – while everyone does have access, the desire to assist in making sure such healthcare is paid for is what this country is debating. Some want the government to take over payment of all healthcare and for the US to go to a government run system. Others want a “single payer” system with everyone paying a portion of their income for a “basic”, one size fits all system. Still others believe the government should stay out of any type of a socialistic type endeavor. Then, there are those who believe we can actually lower the cost of health insurance and make it more affordable, thereby more accessible, to the masses.
I have been communicating with a number of my Congressional Representatives with my ideas. A couple of them have had their staff members follow-up with me for more discussion. I would like to share what I have put forth to them:
1) Pass legislation that would allow Health Insurance companies to sell their products across state lines. Currently, states regulate the sales of health insurance and, as a result, the cost of a policy from one side of the country to the other, can vary greatly. By allowing polices to be sold across state lines, would create bigger “pooling” of risk, and bring down costs.
2) Pass legislation (currently in the Senate), that would allow professional groups to create their own insurance pools – thereby allowing members of these groups to buy health insurance at affordable rates. Currently, this is not done nor allowed.
3) Pass legislation limiting health insurance companies ability to deny health insurance because of pre-existing conditions
4) Pass legislation limiting punitive damage awards for malpractice claims. This would reduce a physicians overhead to be passed through to their patients
5) Amend the tax laws to allow those currently paying for health insurance, to FULLY DEDUCT the cost of all the premiums they pay – for health, dental and vision
6) Establish a means test for those who are financially unable to pay for health insurance or who do not have employer sponsored or employer fully paid health insurance. By using the system, currently in place for Medicaid, those that fall below a certain income level (based on family size), would get a GRANT (for example only - $5000.00) that would be used to purchase, from a private health insurance company, a health insurance plan of the individuals choice. By doing this, there would be an entire new pool of insured who would be offered insurance and affordable rates.
The above, in my opinion would serve multiple purposes: A) Reduce the cost of health insurance, B) Allow those who cannot afford health insurance to get it, and C) Keep the government out of the health insurance business and allow private enterprise to compete.
Would cutting the defense budget cover the difference?
Won't healthcare costs increase with the aging of the US population?
Also what happens when more and more of the population is no longer working,how will it be funded?
A. Not completely, but it would help
B. Yes, but they will whether we have universal healthcare or not
C. A good question to ask of those who wish to close the borders and reduce immigration to a trickle. The "population that is no longer working" will continue to get Medicare whether we go to UHC or not... switching to a universal system won't necessarily slow down or speed up that increase.
Quote:
What nations in particular?
All of the industrialized ones
Quote:
Most hamburger meat is the same but hopefully you got my point,if you 'sin tax' a burger you would have to equally tax the ingredients that make up the burger.
B. Yes, but they will whether we have universal healthcare or not
C. A good question to ask of those who wish to close the borders and reduce immigration to a trickle. The "population that is no longer working" will continue to get Medicare whether we go to UHC or not... switching to a universal system won't necessarily slow down or speed up that increase.
A. where will the rest come from?
B.If costs continue to climb,eventually the healthcare industry will run out of customers.
C.Problem is every new member of our society would still require care to some extent,most european nations thought this was the answer but it seems to be failing most of them.How would it be done differently here?
Quote:
All of the industrialized ones
Well the UK's system is failing and France's system is propped up by 85% of the population having private insurance.
The UK system is already discussing restricting care given,by this it means the system will decide if you should receive care....frightening thought.
Quote:
You don't have to fry hamburgers...
The point being as you cannot KNOW what will be done with the burger.
I vastly prefer paying taxes for police “protection”, fire and rescue, health care, and all the rest than trying to provide all this by myself or by hireling others to do this for me without doing it for anyone else.
Please tell me when "health care" became part of the equation? How about housing, or basic utilities, water, heat, food.. .. are these not even more important.. Why not add those to your list? Where does it stop?
The need to assure that everyone has adequate access to healthcare is very obvious – while everyone does have access, the desire to assist in making sure such healthcare is paid for is what this country is debating. Some want the government to take over payment of all healthcare and for the US to go to a government run system. Others want a “single payer” system with everyone paying a portion of their income for a “basic”, one size fits all system. Still others believe the government should stay out of any type of a socialistic type endeavor. Then, there are those who believe we can actually lower the cost of health insurance and make it more affordable, thereby more accessible, to the masses.
I have been communicating with a number of my Congressional Representatives with my ideas. A couple of them have had their staff members follow-up with me for more discussion. I would like to share what I have put forth to them:
1) Pass legislation that would allow Health Insurance companies to sell their products across state lines. Currently, states regulate the sales of health insurance and, as a result, the cost of a policy from one side of the country to the other, can vary greatly. By allowing polices to be sold across state lines, would create bigger “pooling” of risk, and bring down costs.
2) Pass legislation (currently in the Senate), that would allow professional groups to create their own insurance pools – thereby allowing members of these groups to buy health insurance at affordable rates. Currently, this is not done nor allowed.
3) Pass legislation limiting health insurance companies ability to deny health insurance because of pre-existing conditions
4) Pass legislation limiting punitive damage awards for malpractice claims. This would reduce a physicians overhead to be passed through to their patients
5) Amend the tax laws to allow those currently paying for health insurance, to FULLY DEDUCT the cost of all the premiums they pay – for health, dental and vision
6) Establish a means test for those who are financially unable to pay for health insurance or who do not have employer sponsored or employer fully paid health insurance. By using the system, currently in place for Medicaid, those that fall below a certain income level (based on family size), would get a GRANT (for example only - $5000.00) that would be used to purchase, from a private health insurance company, a health insurance plan of the individuals choice. By doing this, there would be an entire new pool of insured who would be offered insurance and affordable rates.
The above, in my opinion would serve multiple purposes: A) Reduce the cost of health insurance, B) Allow those who cannot afford health insurance to get it, and C) Keep the government out of the health insurance business and allow private enterprise to compete.
Some good ideas here. I especially like the tax relief. Still does not address the two largest issues - which are the fraud and administrative waste caused in most part by the insurance companies trying not to pay, but also by inefficencies in many hospitals relating to their administrative programs.
How does this get monitored and regulated?
Also how do we work through all the special interests in bed with congress to open up America to cheap prescription drugs?
Without fixing these two issues I am afraid the current system will still prove unfeasible.
Some good ideas here. I especially like the tax relief. Still does not address the two largest issues - which are the fraud and administrative waste caused in most part by the insurance companies trying not to pay, but also by inefficencies in many hospitals relating to their administrative programs.
How does this get monitored and regulated?
Also how do we work through all the special interests in bed with congress to open up America to cheap prescription drugs?
Without fixing these two issues I am afraid the current system will still prove unfeasible.
Good questions all -
First, waste: Waste is something that "always has been there and always will". Private Hospitals are responsible to their stockholders. To increase dividends to their stockholders (owners/investors) they need to increase their profits. If they decrease waste, profits go up - dividends go up. IMO, you provide incentives, tax wise, to decrease waste. BTW, "waste" is somewhat subjective - was that extra test necessary? Did you need that extra gauze? Could they have used that EKG machine a little longer? See what I mean? I'm not suggesting there is not waste - but, it can be difficult to quantify.
As for Prescription Drugs: One of the conversations I have had with a Congressmans staff member is, we need to reduce the time it takes to bring a product to market. Testing is necessary - no question. But, in Canada, they allow a drug to be brought to market much quicker. Also, one of the issues regarding drug prices in the US (NOT the only one ) is the issue of liability. There essentially is no statute of limitation for a lawsuit to be brought against a manufactuer of a drug - It could be 30 years after introduction. While compensatory damages may in fact be necessary, the hugh punitive damage awards are not - it goes back to the punitive damage award suggestion
There are some detailed studies conducted that claim a national health plan would be cheaper than today. By cutting out the waste, fraud and inefficencies of the private health insurance companies, whose main goal is not to pay anything, or as little as possible. One of the main reasons medical care is escalating at such an alarming rate. And also by opening up the free market for pharmaceutical drugs. So poeple don't have to go to Mexico or Canada to get the same prescriptions at a fraction of the cost.
More people would be covered...which also means a healthier and safer society for all of us...and the only guys losing out would be the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
No anyone who has Insurance provided by their comapany loses. I am a vet and have seen what a VA style sytem looks like. Its not a system I would trust to care for a dog let alone myself. I don't trust politicians od either party to make the right decisions for us. Have they made the right decisions about Immigration, iraq, or education? Why would they when it comes to healthcare? They tend to have different priorities than the common man. Their priority is how can they make money for themselves, friends and family off any given spending package.
No anyone who has Insurance provided by their comapany loses. I am a vet and have seen what a VA style sytem looks like. Its not a system I would trust to care for a dog let alone myself. I don't trust politicians od either party to make the right decisions for us. Have they made the right decisions about Immigration, iraq, or education? Why would they when it comes to healthcare? They tend to have different priorities than the common man. Their priority is how can they make money for themselves, friends and family off any given spending package.
Your post points out my puzzlement on this issue,people complain about gov't ineffiency and ineptitude almost daily but then turn around and want to put them in control of their health???
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.
