Ravy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:18 PM
Original message |
A compromise between HC and BO on health ins. No mandates, no one left out. |
|
X-post from General Discussion
I wonder what it would cost for the government to provide everyone with 10k deductable health insurance?
I know one or both of the current candidates has a catastrophic provision built into their plan to limit what insurance companies would have to pay out on an catastrophic accident or illness. Perhaps people could buy in, or the government could just provide this coverage for everyone. It would probably be pretty cheap... particularly if it was renewable by competitive bidding.
Then, on top of that, private insurance could be purchased optionally if you wanted items like prescription drug reimbursement, gap insurance for a lower deductable, etc.
The catastrophic component should reduce current health insurance costs two ways: It limits the liablility of the insurer to the catastrophic cap, and at least the "hidden tax" for covering the uninsured would be limited as well.
There are lots of other ideas, such as modernization, etc. to further reduce the cost, and regulations will be needed to allow people to freely switch between plans, have pre-existing conditions covered, etc.
I fear having to talk about mandates in the general election, even for just parents.
What do you think?
|
Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. There are a lot of options, including a fairly simple one |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 12:25 PM by Armstead
Use the existing Medicare System and expand it to cover everyone for basic and catastrophic care, with a slight tax surcharge on existing Medicare taxes.
This could be offset for individual families by tax cuts in other areas, and/or subsidies or exemptions for low income. It could be sold to the public if the case is made that it would cost them significantly less than private insurance.
It could also be accompanies by other changes to improve Medicare generally.
It could also leave open the market for private coverage that people could choose to buy for supplemental care.
|
Submariner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:26 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Insurance = Legalized gambling |
|
"We bet you're going to stay healthy and live" vs. "No, I bet I'm going to get sick and die soon"
What a twisted system of health care.
Here in Massachusetts we are battling the mandated health insurance scam. The mandaters penalize us on our tax form. I can't afford the $10K/yr the mandate scam requires, so now the mandate cockroaches are with holding my personal state tax deduction.
No MANDATES
|
Ravy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Hopefully, the larger nationwide pool will drop that some... |
|
as well as regulation and standardization/modernization of the system. They do have some forms standardized, but not all.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:27 PM
Response to Original message |
3. The problem is a key cost savings element in both plans is preventative care. |
|
And preventative care depends upon regular medical treatment/checkups which people with insurance coverage are more likely to get.
Though your idea is intriguing on many levels.
|
Ravy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. This would provide that, if you choose to purchase it (Obama's plan) |
|
but at an even lower cost since everyone is covered (Hillary's plan) and no one would ever be personally stuck with a catastrophic bill, even if one of the 15 million (estimated) "uninsured" gets severely hurt oa ill where normally that big bill would be absorbed by higher prices for services for people with insurance.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I prefer single payer but I really see both plans and their expansion of public health and allowing it to compete on the market not just for the individual but companies as well as a door to single payer.
BTW thanks for starting a policy discussion flamefree.
|
bowens43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:34 PM
Response to Original message |
6. The chances of either getting their health care plans |
|
implemented as stated is about zero percent. It's fine for the candidates to talk about what they would like to see happen but only congress can implement changes and you can be absolutely sure that it will go through many changes before becoming law.
|
Ravy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. I agree. But it has to start somewhere. nt |
knixphan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I think we have to bolster congress |
|
...with more dems - so that we can force a REAL healthcare (single-payer) onto President Obama's desk. He won't veto it if we push him.
Conyers!
|
Ravy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-27-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. It would be nice to get to that.. but in the meantime, |
|
we should take whatever steps toward that that we can. We will have to see how things shape up after November.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 17th 2024, 02:16 PM
Response to Original message |