The Gretsch Pages: Discussions: Miscellaneous Rumbles: Common sense from a dumb brain

Common sense from a dumb brain - my 'idea' for a health care 'solution.'

« » Page 1 2 3

- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 3:36 p.m. bigalthethird:

I was sitting at work a few weeks ago, and I was listening to the various sides on the health-care issue. My opinions on the matter don't side with either party, actually. Please read the whole thing before you agree or disagree with me, because it's a radical approach. Here's the facts, as I see them:

Current health care is abysmal, and broken. These HMOs are (for the most part) corrupt, and they don't have their clients'/patients' best interests at heart. Every time their patients come first, they lose profits - so by definition it's not in their best interest to be, you know, helpful. However, it is not wrong or illegal for them to be in business. Forcing them out of business is simply not right.

We need some method for everyone in this country to get health care. If I don't have my insurance card with me (can't prove financial responsibility) and I get into an accident, I'll be turned away at the door. More importantly, it's sad that so many people have no access to emergency health care. Really tragic, actually. And it's really terrible that people who simply can't afford it (for whatever reason) don't have access to health care if they want it and need it. However,

It's unfair for tax payers to foot the bill for others to get health care (in my opinion). Medi-Cal/Medicaid aren't right, in my opinion. If you are working for an employer who provides insurance, or pay for it out of pocket, and others aren't paying for their insurance at all, you sure as hell should not be required to pay for theirs too.

Government mandated health care plans take out competition amongst HMOs, and reduce quality. Any time a Government completely takes over an industry, it ends poorly for consumers. This is why monopolies are illegal, and regulated. When a monopoly exists, it can raise prices and lower services on a whim, because there is no other competition. Not only that, it's nearly impossible for competition to arise, because there's such a tight stronghold on the market. If the Government takes over health care completely with mandated plans (like Hillary wants), quality will suffer and there will be a lot of bitterness.

So what the hell is the solution!?

Well, in my opinion, we need a system like our postal service. Hear me out!

The USPS operates independently from other shippers like FedEx, and UPS, and is in direct competition. A consumer has the choice to go with any of the three companies. For general needs, the USPS is perfectly fine and is drastically cheaper. For some things, you don't necessarily need the UPS, but it can be nice. So employers can still offer the UPS (insurance-wise) if they want. This promotes competition, and also provides fair, adequate health-care service for everyone.

Think of it the other way, what if the USPS/US health system was the only service? You would be mandated to pay for services you may or may not want (because many people simply don't want health care, like my uncle and father). Would you really want to send money every month to the Post Office even if you never use it? And what if you want to ship something massive internationally, or use freight services. There's no way to do that through the USPS. Similarly, there are medical procedures covered through private HMOs that the Government can never cover (the cost would be too high). And prices can be raised artificially and for no real reason. Do you want to spend $3 mailing a letter!? I don't. I also don't want medical bills going through the roof as soon as other HMOs are gone.

So how do you pay for it?

This is the hard part but in my opinion you offer tax vouchers/rebates, intended for health care. The US health care is free of charge basically if you use the voucher for that, but if you A) already have health care privately or B) simply don't want it, use the money for something else! That gets it straight back into the economy. As long as money is moving, it's valuable. When money becomes stagnant, that causes inflation (and curiously enough, stagnation) and that's dangerous.

So how's that sound? I've told it to a few people, conservatives and liberals alike, and we haven't found any gaping holes yet. There could well be a problem somewhere, but if it's there I haven't found it. More to the point, nobody I've told it to has found a real problem either.
- Rated: 37 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 3:43 p.m. MR TROUBLE:

"Sicko" is one of my favorite films. A real tragic eye opener.
- Rated: 74 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 3:45 p.m. bonedaddy:

Where does the money come from to offer the vouchers/rebates?

The government doesn't generate income on it's own, right? Sure it sells bonds, but the big money comes from taxation.

I guess the question is, how does this remove objection number 2, 'you shouldn't be paying for your neighbor's health insurance'? If it's government funded, you're still paying for it, right? Did I miss something?
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 3:50 p.m. bigalthethird:

Yeah bone, that's the sticky part. The Gov. doesn't generate income on its own, you're right. But they sure as hell generate a lot of income on other taxes. There's room in the budget to put this through, because there's more tax money out there than people realize.

To answer your second question, taxes don't need to be raised in order to do it. They'd actually be lowered. Get rid of medicaid taxes altogether.

The people pay for anything we do, it's just the allocation. Gov. mandated health care plans charge more money. This doesn't charge more at all, just re-allocates the money. Because I think health care is a pretty important thing moving forward.
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 3:56 p.m. bigalthethird:

Bone, I re-examined your question when I was taking a piss right now, and I get what you're saying.

With my idea, everyone gets the same money back. What you use it for is up to you. But everyone is on the same playing field. So you're paying for everyone else's health insurance just as you're paying for your own rebate, if you want to put it that way.

As it is now, many people are paying taxes for others without getting anything in return.
- Rated: 20 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 4:52 p.m. DangerousMan:

Just do like we do here in Ireland. And like they do in Britain. And like they do in Sweden. And like they do in Germany. And like they do in France. And like they do in Denmark. And like they do pretty much everywhere else in the world that's civilized. FREE HEALTHCARE
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 5:13 p.m. bigalthethird:
Well I guess that's the whole point. lol Want to keep taxes low, while providing a service if you want it. My plan as it is at the moment would/could actually reduce taxes.

Here are federal income taxes possible. I realize that most people fall into the lower part of the spectrum, but I ranked it in order of most possible. I don't know how it works in the rest of the world, but at least here you've got to be making an obscene amount of money to get into the higher tax brackets. My parents make around $200k/year, and they only pay 20%. By "only 20%," I mean they fork over $40 thousand dollars a year to the Government. That's insane!! But it could be a lot worse.
1. Denmark: 38-63%
2. Sweden: 28.89%-59.09%
3. France: 10-50%
4. Germany: 15-45%
5. Ireland: 20-41%
6. United Kingdom: 0-40%
7. United States: 0-35%
If people pay for healthcare themselves, it promotes competition, keeps money moving, and doesn't force A) people who don't want to pay for it or B) people to pay for others' insurance.
- Rated: 20 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 5:30 p.m. TAG4:

Everybody should have free healthcare (dental too). EVERYBODY should have to pay SOMETHING based on their ability to pay--NO exceptions. Those who are able could get a premium level of care if they desire to. The FBI (Instead of investigating ballplayers and steroids) should rigorously investigate corruption in the HMO's, hospitals, group practices, pharmical companies, medical equipment providers et al. Violations should be punished with draconian measures including liberal whippings and scourgings to those offenders in executive positions. The federal government agencies (state and local too) should tighten ther belts--For example: If the Air Force has seventy-five F-22's, they should be able to squeek by with sixty. And doctors, dentists and HMO executives could still live like princes--maybe just not like KINGS!

TAG4

PS/Edit--I find the Air Force has more than 300 F-22's!!?!
- Rated: 74 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 5:59 p.m. bonedaddy:

That's always the kicker though, isn't it? Redistribution of taxes, or wealth, or what ever. The funding will still come from "we the people". That being said, I have no problem with a healthcare system that covers everyone.

And, as TAG4 said, everyone should contribute. And, here's my controversial point, ONLY citizens get covered. No more showing up at an emergency room to have your anchor baby.

As for Dr's living like kings? Maybe certain, high paying specialities like heart or brain surgeons do, but the everyday, general practitioner, he's not living like a king, or even a prince.

The flip side of that is also this; why should I spend 8 years in school, rack up 100s of thousands of dollars in debt for my education, then do an internship and a residency so I can then get in with a group of doctors (because I can't afford the malpractice insurance on my own) and be the low man on the totem pole for years and have to work all the oncall holidays, etc....

They still need some quality of life too.
- Rated: 41 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 6:33 p.m. dubkitty:

there's a simple solution: require individuals to carry health insurance in the same way that residents of California are required to carry automobile insurance. this eliminates the whole layer of spendy-ness associated with funneling all that money through the government on its way in/out.

the price of "free healthcare" as measured in poor quality of care, increased power of the state, rationing of care, governmental inefficiency as compared to a freer system, and the continued infantilization of the individual is much higher than the supposed "high cost of healthcare" in the US. As some wag put it recently, "if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free."
- Rated: 74 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 6:45 p.m. bonedaddy:

This is true, but now you have a regulation issue, much as with the auto insurance industry. That may not be a bad thing though. But the notion of price comes in, and this is particularly true in California; the cost of living isn't getting any cheaper, the dollar is worth less than it ever has, and it's a very real concern these days; do I go to the doctor, or do I buy gas? Do I eat healthy, or do I buy gas?
- Rated: 20 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 7:44 p.m. DangerousMan:

dubkitty said: the price of "free healthcare" as measured in poor quality of care, increased power of the state, rationing of care, governmental inefficiency as compared to a freer system, and the continued infantilization of the individual is much higher than the supposed "high cost of healthcare" in the US. As some wag put it recently, "if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free."

What's your basis for this dub?
- Rated: 37 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 10:05 p.m. MR TROUBLE:

OMG! FREE HEALTHCARE ON AMERICAN SOIL!!!

PART 1
- Rated: 19 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 11:17 p.m. TyPierce:

I like a lot of it, and I think the USPS example is a good one. The biggest problem I see is a continuation of the biggest problem we currently have - insuring the working poor and, increasingly, the lower-middle class.

Please correct me if I'mwrong, but as I understand it, you're proposing that everyone be entitled to a "health care voucher" which is essentially money back, a tax break, etc. So if you need health care coverage, you use the money for that, but if you already have coverage, you can use the money as you see fit, yes?

This unfortunately won't do a thing for the working poor or lower-middle class. Many of them have to choose between food/bills and emergency health care coverage under the current system, and would still have the same dilemma under your proposed system. They are working at jobs that don't provide adequate health care plans, and with the cost of privately insuring my family almost as expensive as my monthly mortgate, that's just not an option for millions of Americans. Again, that's if I'm understanding you correctly, and assuming that the dollar cost of health care coverage stays the same (I can't see any health insurance companies wanting to make less money than they already are).

Also, the disabled and anyone below the poverty line would be left completely in the lurch, because they won't have access to the emergency coverage current government programs provide.

But I would end up with some extra pocket money to spend on whatever because I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with a health care plan? I'm not quite down with that...

Why not extend a set of goverment-sponsored coverages to the populace at large - even set them up in tiers, so that individuals have the option of paying for "upgraded plans" - and still allow private companies to provide plans tailored to those who want coverages or service guarantees not provided by the government programs? You could argue that this would eventually slippery-slope into the situation we have currently, but that would require putting an enormous amount of faith in corporations, and if there's one truism in modern society, it's that when it comes down to Everyday People vs. The Bottom Line, your Everyday People are going to get the screws 95% of the time.

Also - and I've said this many times in many places, but I don't think I've ever said it here - any productive discussion of "overhauling" any domestic program - health care, education, any of it - while we're still throwing billions out the window each month in Iraq is doomed to fail. The money coming out of my tax bill to pay for a lot of the "health care bogeymen" that are bandied about by the punditry is nothing compared to the Iraq money Bush decided to spend for me. And I'm in no way trying to stir the pot or politicize this at all, as this thread has so far been a very intelligent, even-keeled discussion, but it's tough to get very far on any conversation on the big fix-it issues without that Iraq elephant filling up the room in a hurry.
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 4, 2008 11:30 p.m. bigalthethird:

Ty, I haven't read your post enough to really comment. However, you made a great point.

It really might not make sense to just hand money over to the poor, because you're absolutely right. They'll use it for stuff they need (probably) like food or rent. That's a wonderful point. I'm not sure it's enough to break the deal, in my opinion, but it's a great point.

Perhaps the Gov. should offer vouchers (specifically and only for health care) if you need insurance, and if you can prove that you already have it then they give you a normal tax break instead of the voucher. Hmm... I gotta think about this.

And I think that stabilizing Iraq is one of the most important issues in the world right now. The American public has no concept of the good we're doing over there, and just how imperative it is that we 'succeed' in A) liberating the people and B) eliminating (as much as possible) the terrorist network. Not only is 'victory' necessary to ensure our own safety here (although we can never be sure, but better safe than sorry), but it's also necessary to help those people. As humans, I still think we have an obligation to help those that cannot help themselves.

In my opinion, we should be in Burma, and Darfur, and Somalia, and lots of other places too. But you can spread yourself too thin, so we need to be cautiously, intelligently, and also sympathetically active.
- Rated: 10 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 4:14 a.m. hummingbird_rose:

I have a very simple solution that involves both the government, all employers, and every citizen of this country...and even a few non-citizens.

-A Law Requiring All Employers Provide Adequate Healthcare for All Employees Regardless of Employment Status-

I've spent the last 18 months or so uninsured by anyone but myself. I pay for private coverage which is both incredibly expensive and incredibly inflexible. I moved from one state to another, and guess what, yep, I had to change insurance because nothing here is "in network." Screw the network.

Minimum coverage can be decided by the government, and all employers must provide it. I'm not saying all employers must make it available. I said provide it. 100% medical coverage. No more ridiculous co-pays, no more you-pay-half-I-pay-half. 100% coverage. All employees. By law.

If companies decide they can't afford it and lay people off to cut costs and maintain their profit margin, they'll go out of business. Other companies will embrace the law, shrink their margin, and gladly accept quality workers from the places that "cut costs."

Based on that former statement, this will also promote competition in our 'capialist' society.

I'm really liking my idea by the way, even though it's nothing more than a pipe dream.
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 9:54 a.m. bigalthethird:

Requiring companies to do just about anything is a mistake. That's socialist, and it doesn't work.

If you don't want to work for a company who doesn't have health care, don't. Requiring the company will only cause bitterness, and you'll also see companies offering the worst possible plan - possibly something like $10,000 in coverage with a $1,000 deductible, completely worthless for the average person.

No, that might be the worst way to solve the problem. Giving people and companies choices is the only way to solve almost any problem.
- Rated: 10 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:24 a.m. hummingbird_rose:

Allowing the freedom to choose doesn't work either. The employer from my last job fired four people in every store in Tennessee to offset the fact that minimum wage was going up nearly two dollars over a twenty-four month period. They chose to keep their profit margin, and to do that, they reduced their workforce. Many employers don't provide healthcare benefits for that exact reason: it dents their margin.

Along those same lines, outsourcing allows companies to grow their margin by paying international workers a very tiny fraction of even minimum wage in this country. More jobs cut, more people without benefits, but you can't outsource everything. There will come a point where companies will have to choose quality, or profit. If quality fades, so does profit. It's circular.

The government, in my idea, would set a minimum healthcare to be provided by employers that reaches a higher level than $10,000 with a huge deductible. My idea is provided healthcare, not available healthcare. If they want to charge a deductible, they get to pay it also. 100% coverage.

And it's not necessarily socialist to require a healthcare minimum. Going back to minimum wage, that's required. People would still pay $2 an hour for cashiers in retail stores if minimum wage didn't exist. Why does the cashier not get medical coverage? It's not required. It should be.

Employers are also required to spend extra money for safety standards per OSHA and the government. They're required to spend extra funds for privacy considerations for customers and employees. They're required to let people leave work, or stop doing their work, vis a vie breaks and lunches. Employers, by federal and state laws, are required to do tons of things. Healthcare should be one of those things and at no cost to me, or you, or any other working citizen of this country. If I worked at Wal-mart, they wouldn't be allowed, by law, to deduct even one penny from my check to pay for water. They shouldn't be allowed to charge me for my health, either.
- Rated: 11 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:27 a.m. thomas (aka greaser):

Al, there's a basic flaw in your initial metaphor :

Treatments are A LOT more expensive than a letter.

So, people with low income will need treatments that far exceed the whole of their revenues. Even if they put all they have on the table, it won't be enough to pay for treatments, or even for an insurance that will cover it.

So someone will have to pay for them.

So, if you want everyone to have health care,

SOME PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR OTHERS.

There's no way around this, make it public, private, corporate, take the money through taxes, private insurance, charities, whatever...

So, the first step is to acknowledge you will pay even if you don't need/want it, and the money will be used for other people. That's called "redistribution", and I suppose you consider it "socialist", so how about some socialism in the US ?
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:32 a.m. bigalthethird:

I don't agree with the minimum wage. How's that?

Some things you said are basic human rights. Humans have a right to expect safety where they work. They have a right to water and breaks, or else employers could turn it very easily into dangerous sweatshops.

Health care is neither a God given right nor a law given right. All people need food and water to live, and you need a safe work environment. Not all people need health care, matter of fact most people don't. By "need," I mean that the vast majority of people will not die if they don't get health care tomorrow but far more people will die without immediate water.

The Government is not intended to 'force' our liberties or conveniences. It is their to protect our inalienable rights, and that's about it. They're not there to be our babysitter. Look at the history of civilization, and name one single society that lasted the test of time while oppressing/controlling/babysitting their citizens. There isn't one.

On that same note, America is not impervious to failure, and I think it's closer than many people realize.
- Rated: 66 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:34 a.m. Walter Broes:

God, Al, do we REALLY need to discuss this on a guitar forum, when tempers are already running high from the elections?

Even though I don't usually get into this kinda thing on guitar forums, the health care issue and the usual far-fetched, surreal, idiotic, criminal, inhumane, medieval, hateful right-wing arguments against it really get my blood boiling.

And I'm with MrTrouble there : go see "Sicko", or maybe set foot outside the USA for once and discover there's nothing, but absolutely nothing wrong with socialized health care. It works, and we're not giving up one ounce of your precious "freedom" for it, and it's not breeding little commie babies.

If there's one thing "Us Europeans" just do NOT understand about the U.S. way of doing things, it's the healthcare issue and the incredibly weird, far-fetched arguments against socialized health care.
There's nothing, but nothing "Christian" or even "civilized" or "decent" about not having socialized health care IMO.
- Rated: 10 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:37 a.m. hummingbird_rose:

<3 Walter, whoever you are.
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:38 a.m. bigalthethird:

thomas, you're right to an extent. On a Federally funded health care plan, if someone needs treatment and is covered by the plan, the Government would foot the bill. But it works the same as any other HMO. It operates as a business, and as such should be financially viable on its own. The USPS is not funded by tax dollars. It operates on its own, funded solely by business.

The key is to 'charge' enough for US Health Care such that it can support itself. Normal HMOs have HUGE cash outlays when a patient needs care, but the vast majority of patients don't need care. Their monthly payment more than pay for the few people who need care. That's how insurance works.
- Rated: 52 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:50 a.m. bigalthethird:

lol Walter, I figured this wouldn't be too hot-button of an issue. I got out of the other discussions cause I saw they were headed south, I haven't even opened those pages. Furthermore, everybody has been respectful in here so far. I don't see any problems.

To get to the root, there's a fundamental difference between European politics/societies and American society. Europe has what I would call more of a personal growth floor, and more of a ceiling than America. The way it's set up there, it's harder to fail and somewhat harder to really succeed, because there's artificial barriers both ways.

That said, the unemployment rate is higher in Europe than America and the poverty rate is nearly double. Make your own conclusions on that. And though America has 1/20th of the world's population, we also have nearly half of the world's billionaires.

It's just a different way of doing business here.
- Rated: 66 ↑
Sep 5, 2008 10:53 a.m. Walter Broes:

Bigal said: Europe has what I would call more of a personal growth floor, and more of a ceiling than America. The way it's set up there, it's harder to fail and somewhat harder to really succeed, because there's artificial barriers both ways.
You really believe this stuff, don't you? How do you "know" this?