Universal health insurance

[Prodigal_Son1]

On the money. Glad someone said it. Might raise the threshold slightly higher. Put catastrophic health care into the Social Security system underwritten by private insurers. Taking the million dollar bill for a 30 day stay in ICU off of the private sector would make private health insurance more affordable. It would lighten the burden on employers also. Making health care more affordable to provide as an employment benefit.

Make all people pay something out of pocket. Would keep the hypocondriacs from draining the system.

Something also has to be done about the lawyers. Their greed and the idiocy of juries has driven physicians malpractice insurance through the roof. That has to be addressed.

What about those, unemployed, who are really sticken with a serious disease or cancer? Do we say, oh well, and let them pass?

Just as lawyers are a problem, rising healthcare costs are also a problem. A problem I attribute, to a certain degree, with greed. Lawyers are expensive and take advantage, healthcare providers are expensive and take advantage, pharmacutical companies are expensive and take advantage, just as oil companies are expensive and take advantage. I just read an article of how food is high on the investment market. Things we find necessary in life are expensive because those who provide, through greed, make things more expensive because they know the demand will always be there. Lawyers are not the only problem with the healthcare system.

I never have understood why insurance costs are driven down through large companies because of group discounts. Why can’t we have an American group where everyone receives a discount, which by the pure numbers should be driven way down.

 

[He_Man]

Mandating everyone to be on the same system is a great idea. Choice is not necessarily a good thing.

I am more interested in getting good basic healthcare to the most people without it wiping them out financially. Too much healthcare cost is attributed to bad debt and collection cost of bills that can’t be paid. A working couple with a couple of children can be wiped out with a serious illness. So they not only have a sick family member, they have to go bankrupt. This is just flat wrong. When they need their family finances the most so a parent might be able to take care of a sick child they don’t have it.

And how does anything you wrote necessitate equalizing and federalizing all programs?

Even within healthcare now, there are tiers of protection. Plan, A, B, C, etc. Why is that fair?

Why is it people are allowed to have different levels of life insurance coverage? That isn’t fair either.

Providing coverage for everyone is fine; why eliminate the capitalistic nature of our society in the process?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mandating everyone to be on the same system is a great idea. Choice is not necessarily a good thing.

In that case, you have to marry the girl with the warts. I know she’s not the girl you would choose, but choice is not necessarily a good thing.

You have to take a job as a septic tank cleaner. I know it’s not the job you would choose, but choice is not necessarily a good thing.

You have to watch government television. I know the shows are nothing but propaganda, and not you would choose, but choice is not necessarily a good thing.

You have to buy whatever’s for sale at the government store. I know it’s poor quality, overpriced and not what you would choose, but choice is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m guessing this country is on the verge of making a bad situation worse. It is difficult for me to see how to create yet another subsidy on top of the already complex system of subsidies we now have in healthcare. Truly, nobody really knows what healthcare really costs. It’s just a mare’s nest of subsidies, cost-shifts, rebates and discounts. It’s hard to imagine what the system would be without all that.

Of all the notions people have, it does seem to me the primary objective should be catastrophic coverage, perhaps with tax-exempt medical savings accounts. This is anecdotal, of course, but I have occasion to see a lot of medical records in my occupation. Overutilization is absolutely rampant in “free care” programs, and the less the patient invests in his own healthcare, the more he or she uses it. Medicaid is the absolute worst. It is astonishing sometimes to see how many medications some people are on, when there is really no serious reason to be taking all of them, or sometimes any of them. Oftentimes one sees someone taking some medication of marginal utility, that causes side effects requiring yet more medication, which causes side effects that require yet more meds, and so on.

I do think people should bear a significant portion of the costs of their own healthcare, no matter what kind of program is put into place.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m guessing this country is on the verge of making a bad situation worse. It is difficult for me to see how to create yet another subsidy on top of the already complex system of subsidies we now have in healthcare. Truly, nobody really knows what healthcare really costs. It’s just a mare’s nest of subsidies, cost-shifts, rebates and discounts. It’s hard to imagine what the system would be without all that.

Of all the notions people have, it does seem to me the primary objective should be catastrophic coverage, perhaps with tax-exempt medical savings accounts. This is anecdotal, of course, but I have occasion to see a lot of medical records in my occupation. Overutilization is absolutely rampant in “free care” programs, and the less the patient invests in his own healthcare, the more he or she uses it. Medicaid is the absolute worst. It is astonishing sometimes to see how many medications some people are on, when there is really no serious reason to be taking all of them, or sometimes any of them. Oftentimes one sees someone taking some medication of marginal utility, that causes side effects requiring yet more medication, which causes side effects that require yet more meds, and so on.

I do think people should bear a significant portion of the costs of their own healthcare, no matter what kind of program is put into place.

Look at the American Shipbuilding industry – Congress ruined it with regulations – like entitling people working in that industry to double workman’s compensation.

Look at the Nuclear Power industry – Congress crippled it so badly that we haven’t built a nuclear power plant in 30 years. France is about 80% nuclear, and the US – which invented nuclear power – is only about 17%.

Look at the Oil Industry – regulations and hamstringing have left us dependent on foreign oil, when we have plenty of domestic oil, but can’t drill for it.

Look at Medicare – a bloated example of runaway inflation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do think people should bear a significant portion of the costs of their own healthcare, no matter what kind of program is put into place.

What is our responsibility, as Christians instructed to heal the sick, feed the poor and love our neighbor, in helping those who cannot afford the significant portion of the costs of their own healthcare?

I’m sorry, but I see alot of arguements presented that seem to be some of us being more concerned with our own collection of earthly things and I don’t see that being our purpose as followers of Christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is our responsibility, as Christians instructed to heal the sick, feed the poor and love our neighbor, in helping those who cannot afford the significant portion of the costs of their own healthcare?

Our responsibility to heal the sick, feed the poor and love our neighbors does not entitle us for force all our neighbors to wear the same size shoes. There is no morality in imposing a one-size-fits-nobody solution on everyone.

Nor is there any merit in forced extractions to pay for these things. Charity must be** given**, not taken by force of law.

I’m sorry, but I see alot of arguements presented that seem to be some of us being more concerned with our own collection of earthly things and I don’t see that being our purpose as followers of Christ.

Nor is it our purpose as followers of Christ to impose a poorly-designed solution on everyone, with no thought for the needs of individuals.

Have you considered MSAs?

The fundamental principle behind Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) is that you buy cheap, high-deductible catastrophic health insurance, and then save an amount each year equal to the deductible with tax-free dollars. You use that money to cover any medical expenses up to the deductible. You roll any unused dollars over at the end of each year into your IRA. The institution holding the MSA would issue a credit card, and this card would be used to pay for health care. This would have several important impacts:

1. Paperwork makes up from one-third (in private health plans) to two-thirds (in government programs) of the total cost of health care. The use of this credit card approach would dramatically reduce the paperwork and result in lower costs.
2. The current systems of paying for health care have long delays built in. The pay-on-the-spot approach would allow care providers to further lower costs.
3. MSAs provide an incentive for people to bargain for health care – when people spend their own money (and know they can keep all they save), they have an incentive to bargain for better rates.
4. MSAs provide an incentive to avoid over-consumption of medical care.

People who cannot afford MSAs can apply for assistance, based on their most recent tax return, and would receive proportionate assistance – not an automatic 100%. They would get help with insurance premiums and with each payment from their MSA – so they would always have the chance to save something by bargaining and not over-consuming.

Young people would especially benefit from this – since they could build up substantial savings in their healthiest years.

 

[Julianna]

I would like to know “How, if such a plan were implemented, would it be paid for?”

Where would the checks and balances be?

Should we start it with our “senior citizens”? I would love to put my mom on mine and my DH federal health insurance policy (we both work for uncle sam)…but we can’t. I would like the option and would pay a bit more to have her insured for the rest of her life.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What is our responsibility, as Christians instructed to heal the sick, feed the poor and love our neighbor, in helping those who cannot afford the significant portion of the costs of their own healthcare?

I’m sorry, but I see alot of arguements presented that seem to be some of us being more concerned with our own collection of earthly things and I don’t see that being our purpose as followers of Christ.

I’m sorry you chose to see my comment as callous. In believing people should bear a significant portion of their own cost of healthcare, I did not mean to suggest that the indigent should go without care. However, I have seen cases in which care is not only grotesquely bloated, but is sometimes the disease itself. Having no financial stake in one’s own care, in my opinion, does lead to overutilization; sometimes even creating health problems for those who utilize it. For one person, that “stake” might be the cost of that additional movie channel. For another, it might be the difference in cost between drivng a Chevrolet versus a BMW.

I don’t think regulatory oversight is enough. My wife works for an ARC, virtually all of whose clients are on Medicaid. She often comments, and rightly so, that her clients get better care than we do, if it’s measured by quantity. State regulations are such that one is never written up for overutilization, but the slightest failure to provide the very optimum in care brings regulators down on one’s head. It’s the same with the providers. If they don’t do the absolute uttermost, even to ridiculous lengths, to diagnose and treat a client, the regulatory agencies are all over them. Why is that? Because if the regulatory people aren’t that way and something happens to a client, their own heads could roll. As a consequence, everything is overdone.

Those clients, of course, do not direct their own care. My wife does. Many people do direct their own care, though. My point in saying this is to say that overutilization is always a potential problem with free health care, and that regulation is not an effective mechanism for dealing with it. Since spending some reasonable portion of one’s own money for anything at all makes one more judicious in that thing, it seems to me some incentive to self-regulation would be in order in any plan.

In speaking of all the cost-shifting that goes on, there are many of them, and I doubt many people really have a command of them. I was, for instance, surprised to find that the Democrats in Congress recently required drug manufacturers to give rebates to “familly planning” clinics. (Of which Planned Parenthood is the biggest) That makes the price of everyone else’s medications go up. There is a lot of that sort of thing. People think they know what the cost of healthcare is, but they really don’t, because all the subsidies, rebates and so forth, are not known to very many.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would like to know “How, if such a plan were implemented, would it be paid for?”

For those able to pay, each person would pay his or her own healthcare. The savings would come in reduced paperwork, reduced over-consumption, bargaining for healthcare, and faster payment.

For those unable to pay, each person could apply for assistance, based on his or her most recent tax return. Assistance would be on a sliding scale, based on the individual’s income and personal circumstances.

Where would the checks and balances be?

The same checks and balances we already have in the healthcare and the finance and investing industry.

Should we start it with our “senior citizens”? I would love to put my mom on mine and my DH federal health insurance policy (we both work for uncle sam)…but we can’t. I would like the option and would pay a bit more to have her insured for the rest of her life.

Why not?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Our responsibility to heal the sick, feed the poor and love our neighbors does not entitle us for force all our neighbors to wear the same size shoes. There is no morality in imposing a one-size-fits-nobody solution on everyone.

I think our responsibility is to provide shoes that fit each individual.

We should not exclude anyone from being able to receive healthcare as necessary for their situation. We should not let them receive less care because of their financial state.

I know you can’t force charity. Charity is a part of the free will given to us by God.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think our responsibility is to provide shoes that fit each individual.

We should not exclude anyone from being able to receive healthcare as necessary for their situation. We should not let them receive less care because of their financial state.

I know you can’t force charity. Charity is a part of the free will given to us by God.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

Then let us give of ourselves, not through forced extractions under law. We gain no grace or merit when a bureaucrat takes someone else’s money and spends it as he sees fit.

 

[whatevergirl]

My top value in this debate is the general well being of the American people. While universal health insurance for every American sounds like it would significantly reduce medical problems, I do not believe it would. First, the doctor-patient ratio would increase, and doctors would be seeing more patients and therefore not be able to treat each one as well. Second, people with terminal illnesses would not be able to get treated as quickly, due to a longer waiting list. Third, countries such as Canada have established this policy, and it has been a failure. Canadians are always coming to hospitals in the USA. Fourth, the status quo ensures treatment for every patient already. No doctor can reject a patient in a hospital for the lack of funding. Problem appears to be solved already. Fifth, the funds required for the government mandate this program would be through the roof, and thus money could not be spent elsewhere, on problems that truly do need funding (environment, protecting the troops, immigration problems, economic stimulus, etc.)

The Catholic Church currently advocates for universal health insurance. While their intent is great, I do not believe that the problem could be solved by the method in which they are in favor of.

The counter-plan would be this: provide incentives for private industries to contribute to the American health care system. This way, doctors would not have such strict regulations, the advantages of the current system would be maintained, and the government would not be spending so much money.

I work for a global broker, and we were just chatting about how the face of health insurance will change depending on who gets elected. Universal healthcare would not be socialized medicine. It would be more that employees have a choice…like for example, an employer would give them 10-15 carriers to choose from, all with varying rates, and the employee would have more of a say in who they are choosing, as opposed to an employer saying…‘we selected united healthcare for you, and here are three plans UNDER THEM to choose from.’ There actually would be less of a need for companies like mine, on the healthcare side. We also do risk management, but healthcare is a big thing that we provide services for, from a broking perspective. If the decisions are placed in the hands of the employees more, with the employer helping…there will be less of a need for brokers, and healthcare would naturally be less expensive because you would cut out the brokerage side for the employer. That is more how healthcare will change, that it being giving healthcare for free to people, say, who don’t have jobs. I do see it becoming free for children, though…I think I read something about that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then let us give of ourselves, not through forced extractions under law. We gain no grace or merit when a bureaucrat takes someone else’s money and spends it as he sees fit.

Hello Vern,

Let’s apply this logic to another law. Let’s say abortion laws. We can give, of ourselves, all the moral support in the world, but in reality, abortion is a decision a person makes through free will, yet many of us believe we need laws to prevent abortion. That is forcing our opinion on others through the use of laws. Should we through our political choices, try and vote in people who will help defeat abortion? Of course we should, just as we should try and get our politicians to create laws to help us acheive other goals pleasing to our Lord, such as feeding the poor, healing the sick and loving one another.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Julianna]

DH and I work for uncle sam. For us it is the best healthcare we can afford. Each year at open season in November, we are presented with several companies that contracted with the Fed. We can choose whichever company. Dental is optional and doesn’t come with the healthcare, same with vision. It does get more expensive every year, and since we are almost empty nesters, are coverage will go down. My son is also employed with uncle sam while he goes to school. However, the student interns cannot get coverage under the gov health plans because they are not “full invested” employees. So as it now, my son does not have healthcare of any kind.

My daughter is 23 and she does not have healthcare. Her fiance does, but until they are married, she is without.

My mother gets limited social security as she had been a wife and mother all her life. She also gets Medicare and my sister, brother and I have kicked in for a supplement plan through AARP. My father passed away 2 yrs ago…and it was my hope that uncle sam would allow it’s employees to cover their senior parents. It didn’t happen.

If I had the choice, I would have worked for uncle sam a long time ago, just for the healthcare alone. I have encouraged my son to stay with the Fed after graduation for this very reason. My daughter’s fiancee is applying with the Fed and I hope he gets picked up.

I guess we have the closest thing to universal healthcare.

When I worked outside the Fed, my employers would say they would love to give their employees healthcare…but it is at great expense to do so. They would inturn add the cost on to whatever service or product they provide to the consumer to pay for it.

Is there an ideal…? I would like to think so.

The Fed plan isn’t perfect…but when my son was diagnosed with HFA…it paid all the counseling, testing and medical costs. We could not afford it otherwise…and perhaps instead of going to college, he would have ended up in a group home. That was a big deal for us.

 

[whatevergirl]

DH and I work for uncle sam. For us it is the best healthcare we can afford. Each year at open season in November, we are presented with several companies that contracted with the Fed. We can choose whichever company. Dental is optional and doesn’t come with the healthcare, same with vision. It does get more expensive every year, and since we are almost empty nesters, are coverage will go down. My son is also employed with uncle sam while he goes to school. However, the student interns cannot get coverage under the gov health plans because they are not “full invested” employees. So as it now, my son does not have healthcare of any kind.

My daughter is 23 and she does not have healthcare. Her fiance does, but until they are married, she is without.

My mother gets limited social security as she had been a wife and mother all her life. She also gets Medicare and my sister, brother and I have kicked in for a supplement plan through AARP. My father passed away 2 yrs ago…and it was my hope that uncle sam would allow it’s employees to cover their senior parents. It didn’t happen.

If I had the choice, I would have worked for uncle sam a long time ago, just for the healthcare alone. I have encouraged my son to stay with the Fed after graduation for this very reason. My daughter’s fiancee is applying with the Fed and I hope he gets picked up.

I guess we have the closest thing to universal healthcare.

When I worked outside the Fed, my employers would say they would love to give their employees healthcare…but it is at great expense to do so. They would inturn add the cost on to whatever service or product they provide to the consumer to pay for it.

Is there an ideal…? I would like to think so.

The Fed plan isn’t perfect…but when my son was diagnosed with HFA…it paid all the counseling, testing and medical costs. We could not afford it otherwise…and perhaps instead of going to college, he would have ended up in a group home. That was a big deal for us.

I think there is no ideal, but I can see employers not using brokers for healthcare consulting, because that drives significant expense. If they can do it the way I outline above, then that would greatly help the problem of providing decent healthcare for all, who work. But, there would still exist the problem for those who don’t work…lost their jobs, etc. Most HR Depts of employers hire brokers to handle claims, etc…ditching the broker would cause them to be more involved, and the employees to be more involved…however, they would have to haggle with carriers to get good rates. Brokers do that for them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hello Vern,

Let’s apply this logic to another law. Let’s say abortion laws. We can give, of ourselves, all the moral support in the world, but in reality, abortion is a decision a person makes through free will, yet many of us believe we need laws to prevent abortion. That is forcing our opinion on others through the use of laws. Should we through our political choices, try and vote in people who will help defeat abortion?

We are not talking about abortion, rape, murder or bank robbery – those are all criminal acts. The anology does not apply to civil matters like housing, health care and so on.

Of course we should, just as we should try and get our politicians to create laws to help us acheive other goals pleasing to our Lord, such as feeding the poor, healing the sick and loving one another.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

Why don’t we do it? Instead of creating a one-size-fits-nobody system, financed by extractions made under force of law, why don’t we give freely, as Christ commanded us?

I suspect it’s because we’re too selfish and greedy, and hope to gain merit by forcing someone else to give. But I doubt that God will be fooled by this ruse.

I posted a proposal where most of us pay our own way, and then contribute to pay for those who cannot pay their own way. An added advantage of the system I proposed is that it drives costs down.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We are not talking about abortion, rape, murder or bank robbery – those are all criminal acts. The anology does not apply to civil matters like housing, health care and so on.

Why don’t we do it? Instead of creating a one-size-fits-nobody system, financed by extractions made under force of law, why don’t we give freely, as Christ commanded us?

I suspect it’s because we’re too selfish and greedy, and hope to gain merit by forcing someone else to give. But I doubt that God will be fooled by this ruse.

I posted a proposal where most of us pay our own way, and then contribute to pay for those who cannot pay their own way. An added advantage of the system I proposed is that it drives costs down.

So as not to be confused with those you accuse of using a ruse, let me tell you abit about myself.

I am currently unemployed, in a very small town where work is hard to come by. My wife is working but her employment offers no healthcare benefits.

We give to several Catholic charities and we give to our Church. The amount we give could go towards our own well being, but we’re not led to believe we should be collecting worldly goods.

It seems to me that those with money are the very ones trying to keep all their money, as part of their collection of worldly goods.

Whether you give or not, I do not know and would not judge you for however you saw fit to live your life. I would appreciate the same respect. It appears that your statements are directed at those who promote healthcare for all, including myself.

As for abortion being a “criminal” act, it is to us who follow Christ and his teachings but, it is not according to our laws in this and other countries. But as Catholics we should continue to try and change those laws, just as we should try and change laws to provide all we can as taught by our Lord.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[vern_humphrey]

So as not to be confused with those you accuse of using a ruse, let me tell you abit about myself.

I am currently unemployed, in a very small town where work is hard to come by. My wife is working but her employment offers no healthcare benefits.

We give to several Catholic charities and we give to our Church. The amount we give could go towards our own well being, but we’re not led to believe we should be collecting worldly goods.

It seems to me that those with money are the very ones trying to keep all their money, as part of their collection of worldly goods.

Actually it is those who** envy** them who want them to pay for everything.

I have seen many posters say, “Those with money should pay.”

I have never seen a poster say, “I must work harder, so I can pay my share.”

Whether you give or not, I do not know and would not judge you for however you saw fit to live your life. I would appreciate the same respect. It appears that your statements are directed at those who promote healthcare for all, including myself.

No. My posts are intended to show that a bloated one-size-fits-nobody government-run system is not the way to go.

And I have offered a detailed alternative.

Add genuine charity – giving of ourselves, from the heart – and we can solve our problems.

 

[He_Man]

So as not to be confused with those you accuse of using a ruse, let me tell you abit about myself.

I am currently unemployed, in a very small town where work is hard to come by. My wife is working but her employment offers no healthcare benefits.

We give to several Catholic charities and we give to our Church. The amount we give could go towards our own well being, but we’re not led to believe we should be collecting worldly goods.

It seems to me that those with money are the very ones trying to keep all their money, as part of their collection of worldly goods.

Whether you give or not, I do not know and would not judge you for however you saw fit to live your life. I would appreciate the same respect. It appears that your statements are directed at those who promote healthcare for all, including myself.

As for abortion being a “criminal” act, it is to us who follow Christ and his teachings but, it is not according to our laws in this and other countries. But as Catholics we should continue to try and change those laws, just as we should try and change laws to provide all we can as taught by our Lord.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

You deserve some sort of health care to take of your family.

You do not deserve to see everyone else’s healthcare ripped away because you can’t afford it. That’s socialism.

I still don’t see what your goal is - an honorable one, like ensuring a minimum level of health coverage for all people, or a dishonorable one, like taking away everyone else’s choices because some people in society don’t have the choice. That doesn’t help YOU at all. It is simply punishing your fellow man because they can afford more.

Again, explain to me why this country allows for the existence of private education?