A healthcare reform idea

[Percivale]

A healthcare reform idea
Our healthcare system needs an overhaul. It wastes a lot of money and still does not cover everyone. Here is an idea I think could help.


Government, preferably on the state level, gives everyone a health and education savings account and deposits several thousand each year into it. (The US spends nearly 10,000 a person on healthcare, and this could hopefully displace much of that). The amount might vary by age or other factors. That money is used to pay for smaller medical bills directly, and to buy insurance, which should have high deductibles. Having most bills paid directly rather than through insurance companies would reduce costs and help healthcare operate more like a market system. Hospitals should post set prices for routine procedures so that people can shop around.


Those with extra money in their hsa account could donate to other people’s medical needs, or use it for education as long as a high enough balance is maintained, and perhaps also for housing. That would be an incentive to use that money wisely and could replace a considerable amount of other government spending and bureaucracy, while giving people more opportunity to improve their lives.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the NAME of the LORD our GOD!

"MY people PERISH for lack of knowledge"

The poor who trust in God are better off than all the rich who earned their money through widespread oppression of the poor; the rich who trust in the government or who trust in their money.

 

[Percivale]

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the NAME of the LORD our GOD!

"MY people PERISH for lack of knowledge"

The poor who trust in God are better off than all the rich who earned their money through widespread oppression of the poor; the rich who trust in the government or who trust in their money.

If you want to discuss scriptures or how trust in God should influence our lives there are forums for that. I believe it’s against the rules to post off topic comments.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you want to discuss scriptures or how trust in God should influence our lives there are forums for that. I believe it’s against the rules to post off topic comments.

Isn't healthcare your interest, subject, and topic ?

Will doing things the way the enemy does accomplish that ?

Or did Yahweh show His People how to accomplish this HIS WAY ?

 

[miamited]

A healthcare reform idea
Our healthcare system needs an overhaul. It wastes a lot of money and still does not cover everyone. Here is an idea I think could help.


Government, preferably on the state level, gives everyone a health and education savings account and deposits several thousand each year into it. (The US spends nearly 10,000 a person on healthcare, and this could hopefully displace much of that). The amount might vary by age or other factors. That money is used to pay for smaller medical bills directly, and to buy insurance, which should have high deductibles. Having most bills paid directly rather than through insurance companies would reduce costs and help healthcare operate more like a market system. Hospitals should post set prices for routine procedures so that people can shop around.


Those with extra money in their hsa account could donate to other people’s medical needs, or use it for education as long as a high enough balance is maintained, and perhaps also for housing. That would be an incentive to use that money wisely and could replace a considerable amount of other government spending and bureaucracy, while giving people more opportunity to improve their lives.

Hi percivale,

Your idea sounds reasonably sound, my wife gets $2,700/year in an HSA by her employer and it has paid all of our insurance premiums and most of our out of pocket expenses. My only suggestion for change would be the dispersal of the monies for anything other than the individual's, or immediate family's, healthcare expenses.

As your plan proposes, everyone would get an HSA and so why there would be any particularly great need to donate leftover funds to someone else, confuses me. If, as you also write, the HSA account can be used to pay health insurance premiums, and they otherwise can't use the money, why wouldn't everyone carry 'free' health insurance? What I would do, is that each year any leftover funds just rollover into the next year's account along with the contribution for that year. Conceivably, after 3 or 4 years of good health, which the majority of people do experience in their younger years, a person's HSA should have quite a nice little bundle of money saved up, for unforeseen and particularly expensive health care needs.

Now, admittedly for the first few years in which you might start such a system there could be people without enough money saved in their HSA to cover medical expenses, but again, they should be using that money, even from day one, to carry health insurance. Since they're not paying it out of their own pocket, I would think pretty much everyone would want to purchase a premium plan. I would not make the monies available for education or home ownership. There are plenty of other resources available to people for that and that would just increase the amount that we'd likely want to put into a person's HSA account. For me, any left over monies in a person's personal government funded HSA should go strictly for medical needs and at death, go back into the government fund to be given out to others.

Of course, you would still have the problem with insurance companies not wanting to cover people with pre-existing conditions. That is one thing that the current ACA has done that helps everyone. If we believe the arguments being made, that health insurance is so expensive because they have to cover pre-existing conditions, but young healthy people don't want to pay into the pot, then this should also bring down overall insurance costs.

However, here's the line at the bottom of the total. It costs x number of dollars for healthcare in the United States. If we take every man, woman and child in the nation and total up what each one spent on healthcare that number does exist. A good plan would have some reasonable idea of what that number is and fund each person's healthcare accordingly. By only allowing people to use their 'free' HSA for their own or immediate family's healthcare expenses, then at that person's death, all the leftover funds would go back into the system to become a part of the contributions for others as they live out their lives. This, I think, would prevent anyone coming up with some scheme to defraud the government, although one could still work with a shady doctor who would bill for non-existent tests and other procedures and split the money.

But on the whole, I find that your plan, with some minor tweaking is likely a workable plan. I think we need to be wise enough to realize that there are always people figuring out ways to bilk insurance companies. The guy who pretends to get hit by a car. The person who burns down his own home or business. These people are always going to be out there and so there would, of course, need to be some sort of regular checking of claims and fairly stiff penalties for trying to bilk the system.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[John Bowen]

Health care should be reformed yes .No one should profit on other people's misery . U.S wastes billion and billions on useless science experiments studying mating habits of toads,,. etc and such . hundreds billions on defense to fight people living in caves ? billions the politicians spend on themselves . The $$$ there everyone should receive health care its the way of Christ .

 

[Percivale]

Hi percivale,

Your idea sounds reasonably sound, my wife gets $2,700/year in an HSA by her employer and it has paid all of our insurance premiums and most of our out of pocket expenses. My only suggestion for change would be the dispersal of the monies for anything other than the individual's, or immediate family's, healthcare expenses.

As your plan proposes, everyone would get an HSA and so why there would be any particularly great need to donate leftover funds to someone else, confuses me. If, as you also write, the HSA account can be used to pay health insurance premiums, and they otherwise can't use the money, why wouldn't everyone carry 'free' health insurance? What I would do, is that each year any leftover funds just rollover into the next year's account along with the contribution for that year. Conceivably, after 3 or 4 years of good health, which the majority of people do experience in their younger years, a person's HSA should have quite a nice little bundle of money saved up, for unforeseen and particularly expensive health care needs.

Now, admittedly for the first few years in which you might start such a system there could be people without enough money saved in their HSA to cover medical expenses, but again, they should be using that money, even from day one, to carry health insurance. Since they're not paying it out of their own pocket, I would think pretty much everyone would want to purchase a premium plan. I would not make the monies available for education or home ownership. There are plenty of other resources available to people for that and that would just increase the amount that we'd likely want to put into a person's HSA account. For me, any left over monies in a person's personal government funded HSA should go strictly for medical needs and at death, go back into the government fund to be given out to others.

Of course, you would still have the problem with insurance companies not wanting to cover people with pre-existing conditions. That is one thing that the current ACA has done that helps everyone. If we believe the arguments being made, that health insurance is so expensive because they have to cover pre-existing conditions, but young healthy people don't want to pay into the pot, then this should also bring down overall insurance costs.

However, here's the line at the bottom of the total. It costs x number of dollars for healthcare in the United States. If we take every man, woman and child in the nation and total up what each one spent on healthcare that number does exist. A good plan would have some reasonable idea of what that number is and fund each person's healthcare accordingly. By only allowing people to use their 'free' HSA for their own or immediate family's healthcare expenses, then at that person's death, all the leftover funds would go back into the system to become a part of the contributions for others as they live out their lives. This, I think, would prevent anyone coming up with some scheme to defraud the government, although one could still work with a shady doctor who would bill for non-existent tests and other procedures and split the money.

But on the whole, I find that your plan, with some minor tweaking is likely a workable plan. I think we need to be wise enough to realize that there are always people figuring out ways to bilk insurance companies. The guy who pretends to get hit by a car. The person who burns down his own home or business. These people are always going to be out there and so there would, of course, need to be some sort of regular checking of claims and fairly stiff penalties for trying to bilk the system.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I’m glad we agree on the main idea, and yes i would want the money to roll over each year and maybe go back to the government at death, though allowing people to will it to relatives might be nice too. But wouldn’t allowing the money to be used for education reduce the likelihood of fraud, since there would be more a person could use it for so more incentive to save it? The government already spends a lot on education too, so it would be more efficient to do both the same way. Also those with more education tend to be healthier, and there are grey areas between the two, such as the speech therapy which my son gets.
Regarding insurance I think enough people would buy it that they could cover preexisting conditions without needing the individual mandate or most of the other regulations of the ACA. I want to reduce the role of insurance though, since the paperwork that dealing with various insurance companies creates for hospitals is a major source of the high cost of healthcare in the US. That’s why I’d encourage high deductibles and allow for donations to make up the difference in the rare cases where people can’t afford the difference. What would the downside be to allowing donation or education spending of the HSA money?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The $$$ there everyone should receive health care its the way of Christ .

Way way way BEFORE the government and corporations got involved,
the way of Christ was abandoned then and since then.
Except by a REMNANT , even today, who experientially know. (the truth from the Shepherd Jesus, and all of God's Word, how to 'repent' (how to turn to God, to be healed) and now not to get sick in the first place (by following the right directions). ) .

Reform? No. Replace. Replace man's ways with Yahweh's ways TODAY.

As also disclosed a hundred years ago by a Baptist Pastor who thus recovered from the doctor's decree/ diagnosis of TERMINAL CANCER.

He did not know yet, but learned, to replace man's way(s), with God's Way.

and lived about 60 more years without disease recurring,
after recovering within one year of the doctor's death decree,
by following the Shepherd, whose VOICE HE HEARD (in the Bible).

"God's Key to Health and Happiness" by Pastor Josephson, published about 100 years ago and available TODAY. (he passed away peacefully a few years ago, and his wife was still alive in Kansas, continuing to publish the book for about $17 new. )

 

[miamited]

Hi percivale,

Thanks for your response.

though allowing people to will it to relatives might be nice too.

Yes, but that puts a burden on the healthcare system that it shouldn't be used for. No, let any monies left in an individual's government funded HSA go back to the government so that the healthcare system will be able to use that money too, for the healthcare purpose that it was intended for.

I really can't make the connection that you're making that being able to use the money for education or home ownership would somehow reduce fraud. My thinking is that it's healthcare and it's only intended to provide healthcare and there's nothing else that it needs to supply but healthcare and it's really all about healthcare. Now, if the government wants to come up with a similar tax giveaway program for education and home ownership, then they can have at it. But let's keep healthcare as healthcare so that we don't burden the system with even more costs than is necessary.

BTW as far as fraud, if someone can use the funds for education then if they want to defraud the government then they'll just get some bogus education costs and bill them to their HSA. Healthcare is healthcare. Let's leave it at that so that costs will remain low for the healthcare system. Education is education and if people want a government funded system of education, as many countries do, then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[ArmenianJohn]

A healthcare reform idea
Our healthcare system needs an overhaul. It wastes a lot of money and still does not cover everyone. Here is an idea I think could help.


Government, preferably on the state level, gives everyone a health and education savings account and deposits several thousand each year into it. (The US spends nearly 10,000 a person on healthcare, and this could hopefully displace much of that). The amount might vary by age or other factors. That money is used to pay for smaller medical bills directly, and to buy insurance, which should have high deductibles. Having most bills paid directly rather than through insurance companies would reduce costs and help healthcare operate more like a market system. Hospitals should post set prices for routine procedures so that people can shop around.


Those with extra money in their hsa account could donate to other people’s medical needs, or use it for education as long as a high enough balance is maintained, and perhaps also for housing. That would be an incentive to use that money wisely and could replace a considerable amount of other government spending and bureaucracy, while giving people more opportunity to improve their lives.

Terrible idea. It doesn't eliminate the for-profit insurance companies with their unnecessary intermediary role that only saps tons of money from both patients and health care professionals while harming people who are the most sick. Prices will remain exorbitant and the health insurance companies will continue to play their games in denying claims for no reason and fighting against the most sick people while their death panels deny claims for necessary medical care.

All your plan does is take are incredibly terrible and harmful system and shift more burden to the patients who are already unfairly treated by this ridiculously horrible system.

Thank God your plan would never come to fruition. Then again, with Trump, any horrible thing is possible...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

professionals

ick...

Remember when a physician knew every member of the family, by name, and often was the one who delivered them in birth ?

Back when a chicken or a dozen eggs, IF avaiable that much!, was all the physician took FOR HIS HOUSE CALL to someone needing his care ?

Yes, insurance industry is totally evil, profit-mongers, greedy and uncaring ...medical, car, home, business (rips off billions of tax-payer dollars per year in claims by million-aires and billion-aires individuals or companies )
A common way to FLOOD (not siphon) money up hill to the very rich !

 

[miamited]

Terrible idea. It doesn't eliminate the for-profit insurance companies with their unnecessary intermediary role that only saps tons of money from both patients and health care professionals while harming people who are the most sick. Prices will remain exorbitant and the health insurance companies will continue to play their games in denying claims for no reason and fighting against the most sick people while their death panels deny claims for necessary medical care.

All your plan does is take are incredibly terrible and harmful system and shift more burden to the patients who are already unfairly treated by this ridiculously horrible system.

Thank God your plan would never come to fruition. Then again, with Trump, any horrible thing is possible...

Hi john,

I agree that this plan doesn't eliminate the elephant in the room, but then neither has any other plan that our nation has seriously considered. I think, and the OP will correct me I'm sure if I'm wrong, that he's trying to work out a plan that our nation might adopt to provide better health coverage for everyone without having to fight the fight of putting the insurance companies out of business. Not that that's a particularly bad thing for them to be out of business, but that's a fight that our nation doesn't seem quite yet ready to give up. Health insurance is BIG business. Millions of people's livelihoods are dependent on the payment of health insurance premiums and the resultant work of an insurer checking and paying medical care costs. That's a big fight that will likely be a very long and drawn out process dictated mainly by the lobbyists for such companies. It could take decades and I think our lawmakers are fully aware that they aren't going to make a lot of friends in the business world by putting an entire line of business out of work.

So, what we have to do is to try to come up with a fair and equitable way that everyone can afford health insurance premiums and leave the checking and paying, for now, up to the insurance companies. The current ACA, I think, did a reasonably good job of setting us on that path. It also offered a government funded reimbursement, based on one's income, for health insurance premiums. Can it be made better? Sure. But, making it better doesn't mean going back to what we had any more than making America great again should mean making everyone else on the planet our enemy. What our president doesn't seem to understand is that people really can earn respect and live a civil life without being a bully to everyone else.

I mean, personally, and I've done a good bit of studying on it, the nations that offer fully government funded healthcare seem to do a pretty good job and for a much lower cost. Just like our military costs, our health costs per capita are the largest in the world.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Hi john,

I agree that this plan doesn't eliminate the elephant in the room, but then neither has any other plan that our nation has seriously considered. I think, and the OP will correct me I'm sure if I'm wrong, that he's trying to work out a plan that our nation might adopt to provide better health coverage for everyone without having to fight the fight of putting the insurance companies out of business. Not that that's a particularly bad thing for them to be out of business, but that's a fight that our nation doesn't seem quite yet ready to give up.

Hi ted. I disagree. Obama seriously considered and said he was going to include a public option in the ACA. He never followed through probably because he was weak and also probably because he became influenced by the insurance industry (or by his fellow Democrats who are influenced, i.e. bought and paid for, by the insurance industry). Probably a combination of all of those, but he dropped the public option from the ACA. Shame, too, because he had both branches of the legislature with Dem majority. Shame also because the public option (key word being OPTION) would have given the OPTION to us to go with either insurance companies OR a government-run healthcare system which would have been like a Medicare for all.

Of course, nobody in the insurance industries wants even a public option because it will be made clear to them how it blows away ALL insurance options in terms of helping the people it serves. In fact, Medicare as it stands right now already blows away ALL private insurance - blows it out of the water. And it's not even perfect but still light-years ahead of private insurance.

Health insurance is BIG business. Millions of people's livelihoods are dependent on the payment of health insurance premiums and the resultant work of an insurer checking and paying medical care costs. That's a big fight that will likely be a very long and drawn out process dictated mainly by the lobbyists for such companies. It could take decades and I think our lawmakers are fully aware that they aren't going to make a lot of friends in the business world by putting an entire line of business out of work.

That's correct, it's a big business and has bought-and-paid-for politicians/legislators in both parties. It only is being blocked by this fact. If we as a nation stopped legal bribery (which is what the health insurance and other big industries are permitted to do) then we could easily and quickly eliminate them.

It's not so much people's livelihoods that depend on big insurance but rather the insatiable greed of the fatcats in the insurance world and Washington who rely on the obscene amounts of money they get without earning it. The rank and file workers in that industry can very easily transition to other industries to get new jobs, not to mention the thousands of jobs that would open for them in the government-run healthcare system.

So it's not an issue of a big business that deserves to stay in business because it provides value. Rather, it's an issue of a BIG business that pays bribes to our government to keep them in business when in fact they should be OUT of business because rather than providing value they actually rob everyone blind.

So, what we have to do is to try to come up with a fair and equitable way that everyone can afford health insurance premiums and leave the checking and paying, for now, up to the insurance companies. The current ACA, I think, did a reasonably good job of setting us on that path. It also offered a government funded reimbursement, based on one's income, for health insurance premiums.

As long as there are "health insurance premiums" only one of two things can happen:
1. Those people who don't pay premiums have to go without any health care and literally be left to die,
OR
2. Those who don't pay premiums will be taken care of and the rest of us who pay premiums will pay for their health care (whether it's partial or full) out of our premiums and/or taxes, just like it is now.

So there is no "fair and equitable way that everyone can afford health insurance premiums". You can't force people to buy healthcare.

UNLESS..... You take it from taxes. And if you're going to do that, the best way is to take it from everyone's taxes and provide the same healthcare to all.

Can it be made better? Sure. But, making it better doesn't mean going back to what we had any more than making America great again should mean making everyone else on the planet our enemy. What our president doesn't seem to understand is that people really can earn respect and live a civil life without being a bully to everyone else.

Actually, no, it can't be made better. The ACA didn't make it better, it just made it different. After the initial ACA where the government supplemented premiums for people, once the supplements went away people again could not afford healthcare. Not to mention that it was susceptible to losing the requirement that they couldn't deny people for pre-existing conditions because that can and has been taken away.

I mean, personally, and I've done a good bit of studying on it, the nations that offer fully government funded healthcare seem to do a pretty good job and for a much lower cost. Just like our military costs, our health costs per capita are the largest in the world.

Of course they do. Government healthcare systems are the only way for a first-world country to go. We're the only ones who go against it and that's why we have the worst health care system amongst first-world nations.

And our health care costs are only high because of our backwards insurance system. Medicare's costs are FAR lower than any private insurance company's because Medicare is so big that they negotiate FAR lower prices than private carriers. Like a 1/3 or less the costs. As for military costs, most of that is a waste of our money as well, but that's a whole different topic, lol.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Thanks for your courteous and well reasoned response, I largely agree with you but obviously disagree on some key points. I appreciate your response, God bless you too!
In Christ,
- John

 

[miamited]

Hi john,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:

Obama seriously considered and said he was going to include a public option in the ACA. He never followed through probably because he was weak and also probably because he became influenced by the insurance industry (or by his fellow Democrats who are influenced, i.e. bought and paid for, by the insurance industry).

You do realize that we live in a democracy, right? A president isn't weak just because he can't get something done. He just can't get agreement with enough people in the Congress to support his idea to float the vote. President Obama also gave us his famous line that everyone could keep their existing doctors. I don't think he was lying to us. I just believe that he didn't really know, at the time that he said it, all the changes that the new ACA bill would really have. He wasn't a congress person, he was the president. It wasn't his job to sit in chambers every day and be aware of all the hundreds of changes that were made to the comprehensive ACA as it was fought and argued and debated over.

Now, if we lived in a dictatorship, like President Trump seems to think that we do, then yes, he'd have been weak if he failed to make a rule that he wanted to make because some others talked him out of it. President Obama didn't vote on the ACA legislation as it wound its way through chambers. He merely signed it into law when it hit his desk and I'm pretty sure with all the fight and squabble over the ACA that had gone on beforehand that he knew better than to throw it back to congress just because he wanted to tweak something here or there. That's what President Trump has done and look at the turmoil that's caused. President Obama was waaaaaaaaay smarter than President Trump. He knew it was likely the best compromise and agreed upon healthcare bill that contained the basics of what he hoped for and he signed. In a democracy you have to kind of understand that no single person ever gets everything that they want.

As president you stand before the Congress and you say something like, "Ok guys, I think that healthcare is a major problem in the nation and I'd like to see a comprehensive insurance plan that addresses this very serious problem of pre-existing conditions and affordability. That's what he got. Was every word in it something that he had written by his own hand and everything that he wanted in his own heart. No!!! Of course not.

I would agree with you that the insurance industry has likely put up a big fight to save their own jobs. However, in a democracy we don't have a single dictator who can say this is the way it will be and thus it is. Everything has to go through our legislature. Those lobbyists that you think were working in the Oval office weren't working in there at all. They were over in the legislature where they could sway certain legislators to fight a particular position and they did. As that process wound its way through various amendments and committees there were thousands of changes from the original bill that was presented that started this process. Some were concessions of the Democrats and some were concessions of the Republicans. Democracy is a process whereby bills are debated and amended and changed and argued over and hammered out until one day, viola' a final draft is ready for vote. The ACA was voted on a number of times and voted down and then the process would start over again and more concessions would be made and amendments added and paragraphs subtracted until again it is brought up for a vote, voila' it passes through to land on the president's desk.

I'm pretty confident that by the time the ACA was presented to President Obama he knew full well, President Obama was not a stupid person, that he had to either sign it as is or wait another year of more just for a couple of small tweaks. What was in the bill satisfied what it was he had intended for the nation, to wit: A comprehensive insurance law that protected people from the penalty of pre-existing conditions and also provided federal or state funding for those deemed to poor to have to pay their insurance premiums. He know that was the best he was going to get. That's democracy!

You also wrote:

Of course they do. Government healthcare systems are the only way for a first-world country to go. We're the only ones who go against it and that's why we have the worst health care system amongst first-world nations.

Sure, and I agree with you. Now all you've got to do is get 150 million more people to agree with you and write their legislators and get it done. Let me know when you have completed the task. Remember, it's a DEMOCRACY!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Percivale]

Hi percivale,

Thanks for your response.


Yes, but that puts a burden on the healthcare system that it shouldn't be used for. No, let any monies left in an individual's government funded HSA go back to the government so that the healthcare system will be able to use that money too, for the healthcare purpose that it was intended for.

I really can't make the connection that you're making that being able to use the money for education or home ownership would somehow reduce fraud. My thinking is that it's healthcare and it's only intended to provide healthcare and there's nothing else that it needs to supply but healthcare and it's really all about healthcare. Now, if the government wants to come up with a similar tax giveaway program for education and home ownership, then they can have at it. But let's keep healthcare as healthcare so that we don't burden the system with even more costs than is necessary.

BTW as far as fraud, if someone can use the funds for education then if they want to defraud the government then they'll just get some bogus education costs and bill them to their HSA. Healthcare is healthcare. Let's leave it at that so that costs will remain low for the healthcare system. Education is education and if people want a government funded system of education, as many countries do, then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

My thinking is the more things people can use the money for, the more people will view the money as theirs rather than the governments, and people won’t waste money they consider their own. I understand your concern that we keep it limited so that we not overtax the government’s budget, so I suppose the money should not be used for anything the government had not already decided to spend money on. It’s a tricky balance to make.

 

[Percivale]

Terrible idea. It doesn't eliminate the for-profit insurance companies with their unnecessary intermediary role that only saps tons of money from both patients and health care professionals while harming people who are the most sick. Prices will remain exorbitant and the health insurance companies will continue to play their games in denying claims for no reason and fighting against the most sick people while their death panels deny claims for necessary medical care.

All your plan does is take are incredibly terrible and harmful system and shift more burden to the patients who are already unfairly treated by this ridiculously horrible system.

Thank God your plan would never come to fruition. Then again, with Trump, any horrible thing is possible...

I agree that the for profit insurance companies are one of the big problems with healthcare, and one of my goals is to reduce their scope, since I doubt they can be eliminated right away. I would support Medicare for all if it came to a vote, though I’d prefer something a little friendlier to individual choice and market forces, or else it being done at the state rather than federal level.

 

[miamited]

My thinking is the more things people can use the money for, the more people will view the money as theirs rather than the governments, and people won’t waste money they consider their own. I understand your concern that we keep it limited so that we not overtax the government’s budget, so I suppose the money should not be used for anything the government had not already decided to spend money on. It’s a tricky balance to make.

Hi percivale,

Well, my thinking runs more along the lines that we want people to realize its the government's money because the next step, after people got used to seeing that their personal healthcare costs are supplied through the government would to then be to get rid of the insurance middle man and go directly to doctors and hospitals billing directly to the government health system. I would think that if people already realize that what they have is pretty much government funded healthcare as most of the other nations have, they would then say, "Well, we could save more of our tax dollars if we cut out the insurance companies."

Of course, insurance companies are still not going to go down without a pretty big fight, but if the people are already acclimated to thinking that the government is funding their insurance premiums, maybe they'd be more receptive of the next step. I'm sure it would take several years to reach the culmination of such a plan and I'd certainly hope that we could offer the insurance company employees a place in a lot of the government offices that would be handling claims and other work that they now do that the government would be taking over.

Great Britain actually seems to have a pretty good system of healthcare coverage. For everyone there is free healthcare, but as some become successful financially they use a tax increase on the healthcare portion of their tax bills to 'push' them out into the standard insurance market. So, they leave no one uncovered, but those who can afford to pay, there are still private insurance options. By taxing the high earners an extra, I think it's a percent or two, then their costs through taxation for healthcare coverage can sometimes be more than what they can buy private coverage for. If someone is making three or four hundred thousand pounds/year and the tax is 2%, then they're healthcare tax is £6,000. They might be able to buy a private plan for less than £500./month. As one's income goes up, that 2% becomes ever larger. So at £750,000 the tax is £15,000 and surely they could find decent private coverage for less than £1,200/month.

So, the point is that everyone's covered and taxed for that coverage. As the income goes up, some can save part or all of the healthcare tax by providing their own private insurance, thereby taking themselves out of the government pool on their own freewill. No one is forced to do anything and if a high earner wants to keep the government provided plan, then that's perfectly ok, too.



God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JackRT]

A major expense in our healthcare system is administration costs. A universal single payer system dramatically reduces those administration costs. As an interesting side note doctors have no need to try and collect from deadbeats and the cost of a collection agency is eliminated.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Hi john,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:


You do realize that we live in a democracy, right? A president isn't weak just because he can't get something done. He just can't get agreement with enough people in the Congress to support his idea to float the vote. President Obama also gave us his famous line that everyone could keep their existing doctors. I don't think he was lying to us. I just believe that he didn't really know, at the time that he said it, all the changes that the new ACA bill would really have. He wasn't a congress person, he was the president. It wasn't his job to sit in chambers every day and be aware of all the hundreds of changes that were made to the comprehensive ACA as it was fought and argued and debated over.

Now, if we lived in a dictatorship, like President Trump seems to think that we do, then yes, he'd have been weak if he failed to make a rule that he wanted to make because some others talked him out of it. President Obama didn't vote on the ACA legislation as it wound its way through chambers. He merely signed it into law when it hit his desk and I'm pretty sure with all the fight and squabble over the ACA that had gone on beforehand that he knew better than to throw it back to congress just because he wanted to tweak something here or there. That's what President Trump has done and look at the turmoil that's caused. President Obama was waaaaaaaaay smarter than President Trump. He knew it was likely the best compromise and agreed upon healthcare bill that contained the basics of what he hoped for and he signed. In a democracy you have to kind of understand that no single person ever gets everything that they want.

As president you stand before the Congress and you say something like, "Ok guys, I think that healthcare is a major problem in the nation and I'd like to see a comprehensive insurance plan that addresses this very serious problem of pre-existing conditions and affordability. That's what he got. Was every word in it something that he had written by his own hand and everything that he wanted in his own heart. No!!! Of course not.

I would agree with you that the insurance industry has likely put up a big fight to save their own jobs. However, in a democracy we don't have a single dictator who can say this is the way it will be and thus it is. Everything has to go through our legislature. Those lobbyists that you think were working in the Oval office weren't working in there at all. They were over in the legislature where they could sway certain legislators to fight a particular position and they did. As that process wound its way through various amendments and committees there were thousands of changes from the original bill that was presented that started this process. Some were concessions of the Democrats and some were concessions of the Republicans. Democracy is a process whereby bills are debated and amended and changed and argued over and hammered out until one day, viola' a final draft is ready for vote. The ACA was voted on a number of times and voted down and then the process would start over again and more concessions would be made and amendments added and paragraphs subtracted until again it is brought up for a vote, voila' it passes through to land on the president's desk.

I'm pretty confident that by the time the ACA was presented to President Obama he knew full well, President Obama was not a stupid person, that he had to either sign it as is or wait another year of more just for a couple of small tweaks. What was in the bill satisfied what it was he had intended for the nation, to wit: A comprehensive insurance law that protected people from the penalty of pre-existing conditions and also provided federal or state funding for those deemed to poor to have to pay their insurance premiums. He know that was the best he was going to get. That's democracy!

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. It's pretty clear Obama gave in to the corporatists by backing out of the public option:
Why Obama Dropped the Public Option - The Atlantic

Obama was a weak president, terribly weak, and he was too conservative. He gave in to the Republicans and conservatives on almost everything. Plus, Obama was one of the most blood-thirsty killers of all the presidents, up there with W. He expanded our nation's wars and killed 100's of thousands of innocent civilians.

But as for the ACA, what is so good about it? All it did was provide more customers and money to the insurance industries to line the pockets of their executives. It didn't benefit anyone except in the short-term and it did that by using taxpayer money to pay the insurance companies. Once that part of the ACA ran out the people who briefly had insurance could no longer afford it or the few who did are paying through the nose to the insurance fat-cats.

The ACA is Romneycare, dreamed up by a conservative think tank and implemented by an uber-conservative Mormon who cares only about money and his wealthy donors. Obama simply followed the conservatives on this one.

Sure, and I agree with you. Now all you've got to do is get 150 million more people to agree with you and write their legislators and get it done. Let me know when you have completed the task. Remember, it's a DEMOCRACY!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

No, it's not a Democracy, it's an OLIGARCHY. In a democracy, people who get more votes win primaries. In an oligarchy, the system is rigged so that the corporate-owned politician will win over popular opponents who get more votes. We have an oligarchy in this country, not a democracy.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I agree that the for profit insurance companies are one of the big problems with healthcare, and one of my goals is to reduce their scope, since I doubt they can be eliminated right away. I would support Medicare for all if it came to a vote, though I’d prefer something a little friendlier to individual choice and market forces, or else it being done at the state rather than federal level.

I don't see a place for market economics in health care. If there is money to be made at the expense of an individual's health, the market determines that the money should be made. There should be no market for healthcare. People should receive the best care they can get regardless of economic class. The only way to accomplish this is to eliminate markets from the healthcare field.