Proposed Health Plan - Suggestions Please

[JayS]

I posted this at the request of another DUer. It resulted from a discussion I had with a group that included two Republicans. It is a rough sketch of a compromise health plan designed to be agreeable to the most people.

Please tear it up with your suggestions.


*********************************************************************
The country provides a basic insurance card that you can use at the doctor of your choice. All the hodge podge programs that we have today get reduced or eliminated, saving several boatloads of money. Note that the words national or socialized cannot be used anywhere or kiss the deal goodbye. Basic Insurance Plan is a good enough name.

*Employees with company health insurance can have the basic card if they want it but many employers will want to offer something "slick" to attract workers. Small fee involved to get the basic card. Various copays and deductables.

*Employees without company insurance will get the basic card. Small fee involved to get the basic card. Various copays and deductables.

*All others get the basic card. Fees based on a sliding scale from free to full fee based on ability to pay. Various copays and deductables, based on ability to pay.

*Prescription medicines with copay, based on ability to pay. Government to act as "power buyer" to get lower costs on drugs, even drugs from Canada.

*Program is available to all U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens, including "green card" workers while they are in the country. Illegal aliens can apply for a "green card" to be covered. The immigrants that only want to come here for a temporary job can get a "green card" and be covered. This will mean a change in immigration law also but less aliens dying in the Texas heat in the back of an abandoned tractor trailer rig.

There was a lot more to it but that is a good summary.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. Everyone gets the same coverage

No sliding scale. Everyone pays the same co-pays for doctors and other services including drugs. Otherwise the middle class will not buy into it. Let the wealthy pay full price for any extra services they want or need. That way doctors and hospitals can push some of their costs off onto the rich.
It is still cheaper than what we have now. It is tax supported. No one is allowed to opt out of the system because then it would be bankrupt kind of like schools are when all the middle class people move out of the neighborhood.
Nationalized government run heathcare. NO more private insurance.

[JayS]

4. "NO more private insurance"

Good ideas but I don't think that this would make it. The insurance companies would scare the dickens out of people that already have insurance and would have the politicians they bought vote against it.

[Cleita]

9. Well, the big, bad insurance companies don't scare me.

I'm sick of what they have done to our health care system.

[JayS]

11. They don't scare me either; they just tick me off! There are...

...lots of voters covered by health insurance though and they can be scared pretty easily.

[Cleita]

14. I think most voters just want to know they will have a reliable

safety net if they need health care. I can assure you they don't care who provides it. Research by myself other DU'ers who are interested in this issue have discovered that the private sector can't provide adequate health coverage with insurance when they have to answer to a bunch of stockholders. Our present system is wasteful and cheats both patients out of the best care for their money and the healthcare providers of adequate compensation.

[JayS]

28. I think it would be fairly easy to convince those with a...

...health insurance plan now that a government plan would be horrible, poorly run, extremely limited, and so forth. I remember how everything went down in 1993 and I think we would see a repeat of that.

[Cleita]

56. Of course we would.

What happened in 1993 was a clever campaign instigated by PR firms hired by the health care industry to debunk all and every discourse on this subject, whether on TV, radio, print media or the internet. I am suspicious that all the non-liberal posts on this put on DU come from the same source. Now I am going out on a limb saying this, because I have had warnings about it, but Americans, not just DU'ers or liberals need to know where these talking points come from. Just because discussion is stifled doesn't make it any less true.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. scared by what?

Why is the answer always to cater to peoples ignorance. People are only scared because they are brainwashed by propaganda. Lets tell them the truth. I have a feeling that at this time when people either have no insurance or pay too much for it, they might be very happy to listen.

[JayS]

29. We have to cater to people's ignorance because they vote. :)

I think people would be happy to listen...but there would be so many different "versions" of the truth out there that the whoever has the most resources would win.

[Pithlet]

66. I agree

It is a different situation now than it was ten years ago. I think more people would be on board with it. It will be easier to convince them. Even people who are insured are getting disgusted with their rising premiums and dwindling coverage. The days where premiums didn't take up a significant of your salary, and all you had to do was pay a small co-pay and everything else was covered has all but vanished.

I also think that companies are going to get sick of dealing with the rising costs and hassles of insuring their employees. They will be a bigger influence in the push towards national health care than many realize. It's going to take a long time, and it will be a hard fight, but I think it will happen.

[NMDemDist2]

2. I think this is a pretty good plan

part of the hi cost of health care is the first and last 6 months and catastrophic illness. When you take these out of the mix, things are suddenly much more affordable for the "regular folks"

If the government picked up the costs for the individuals who skew the numbers, the rest of us can get better coverage for less money.

more here

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/issue...

[Mountainman]

3. I feel that there needs to be more than one plan.

There needs to be the ability to opt out of the plan if you want. I mean those that fear a plan will force them to go to a doctor not of their choice. If they want their own private insurance they can have it.
If employers want to offer health care as a benefit they should be able to do that.

There should be a means test. If you can pay for your medical expenses or insurance you should.

Then I feel employers and employees should pay into a fund like social security payments and that fund would cover medical insurance for the company personel. The cost to the employer should be lower than the cost of health insurance now.

You should be rewarded for a health life style someway. Prevention is always cheaper than treatment.

All others who for some reason can't afford health coverage should be provided coverage by the state they live in with money coming from federal as well as state taxes.

Insurance companies should be allowed to make a reasonable profit but not be able to decide what treatment you get.

[JayS]

5. In this plan there is the ability to opt out and many companies...

...would want to offer a better plan for their employees to retain them. Since you are getting a "card" under the basic plan, you can go to whatever doctor accepts your card.

Since Medicare/Medicaid would go away, I would imagine the employer/employee (1.45% / 1.45%) contributions could stay in place to help cover costs.

[Cleita]

8. Never, ever say that Medicare and Medicaid would go away

unless you have plans to replace it with something better. What to you have against senior citizens and those who are genuinely ill getting health care when they need it?

[JayS]

13. hehe I would imagine AARP might get violent. :)

Medicare/Medicaid would be rolled into the insurance plan. Most likely the administrative staff would be used to implement the new plan. Seniors and those with chronic illness would be covered and could not be denied.

[Cleita]

17. You are so wrong, AARP has been taken over by neo-cons

who are undermining everything that it is supposed to do for senior cititizens. They endorsed this big give away to the pharma companies with Medicare money seniors need. It's a shame. I am old myself and trust me it's a royal screwing at the time in our lives that we can't just recover.

[JayS]

Uuugh! When did all this happen? I remember AARP from...

...when my grandmother was alive...but that was years ago.

[Cleita]

26. Well, it was taken over by a guy named Novelli, who was

once a speech writer for Newt Gingrich. Remember Newt? He unabashedly once said that he intended on destroying Medicare and Social Security. Even though Newt is out of the picture, apparently his disciples aren't

[JayS]

6. Bump for the Night Crew.

[Cleita]

7. Is this a compromise to kiss up to the for profit health care industry?

How's this for a plan. Let the government offer private companies Medicare coverage they can buy for their employees, with no deductibles, no copays and 100% coverage for prescriptions, dental, mental health and eyeglasses as well. Because Medicare's administrative costs are only 2% at most, the government could offer this expanded coverage for half of what these companies are paying now.

Healthcare providers would bargain for fee rates on a yearly basis. Medicare would bargain with the pharma companies for the best price for drugs. Because with this system health care costs that are now $5,000 approx a year per capita could be cut in half for better coverage and more efficient administration. Whadda ya think?

[JayS]

31. You are closer to where I am as far as those that cannot, for...

...any reason, afford to contribute as much towards their health insurance and health care. For those that can afford more, I would want the copays and deductables and all that just to help prevent abuse of the system.

And yes, this is all a bit of kissing up to the health care industry. There is no way, that I can see, of ever getting very far with this if we don't kiss up.

[baldguy]

10. When we come to the realization

that trading on the pain & misery of others is barbaric and uncivilized - that's when we will become a responsible society.

The outrageous & obscene amounts of money that big pharma & for-profit health providers get is what's making the health care system collapse.

[sangha]

12. Well intentioned but misses the most important point

You don't really explain what the card covers. I can go to the doctor of my choice, but will it pay if I need an operation? And how will it define "need"?

And if the card covers everything, then what kind of "slick" benefit can some private plan offer? And if it doesn't cover everything, like cosmetic surgery, then who is going to tell those who have been disfigured in an accident that they do not really NEED to have that operation? More importantly, WHO is going to decide what is covered and what isn't? Politicians? Republican politicians?

In addition, universal coverage is incompatible with private health insurance. Once you get past the basics, medical care expense shoot up rapidly. Only a small number can afford it, and so the insurance industry can't make enough money. Also, they cherry-pick the healthy people, leaving the burden of supplying health care to those who are less healthy to the general public, distorting the economics of universal care.

Then there's the issue of pricing. Does the govt and all these various private insurers negotiate their own payments to the doctors? Assuming that a large portion of Americans will have the basic card, that would give the govt the ability to set prices, and the prices they pay have as much an effect on access as having health insurance does. If an insurer won't sufficiently reimburse the doctor, the doctor won't accept patients who are covered by that insurer.

on edit: Having said all that, I also want to add that it's a really good start in that it would make universality a central idea.

[Cleita]

15. As I said in my above post the government could

start offering an improved version of Medicare to companies to buy just like they do health insurance and they could do it for less cost and more coverage than most insurance is willing to do.

I think this would be fair and the private companies would have to compete or get out of the business, which is what I really have in mind that they will have to do because they can't compete. I think this would be the beginning of universal coverage.

[sangha]

16. Actually, as a first step

I think that's a splendid idea. It already has some political support, it's ideologically consistent with free-enterprise (making it great wedge issue for us), and it would work.

[JayS]

44. Awesome idea, Cleita!

I'll include this in with the package I am getting ready if you want me to. I have some older employees whose total cost to me for their insurance has long since gone past ridiculous. If I did not secretly dickey with the percentage of the insurance cost they pay, there is no way they could stay with my company's insurance and would be forced to go to Medicare for their health insurance/care. I don't want them to have to do this.

[JayS]

33. Darn good points. Much of this got touched on briefly but ...

...as items to be worked out later. This will be where all the big arguments appear though.

The plan was to be all-inclusive so a surgery would be covered, as would any necessary medical expense. Deciding what is necessary will be as big a mess under the plan as it is now, most likely. None of us agreed that it was a good idea to have pencil pushers making decisions that doctors should be making.

The idea of slick employer plans came about because of the real or perceived belief that will surely appear that the government plan is lacking in some degree. An employer can have a plan that offers better benefits, faster service, more choice of doctors, etc.

The "race to the bottom" that happens as layers of healthy people are coaxed to cheaper plans that don't cover as much will still occur most likely. In this case, at least the bottom still has some form of health insurance. It might not be a Cadillac but at least it will be reliable transportation.

We talked some about keeping the government out of pricing because of the concerns you mentioned. The government is just supposed to use its leverage to get better prices but not be a monopoly. In practice this is going to be extremely difficult to do.

I don't know if any politicians would ever buy into this but it is worth a shot. One comment that my acquaintances made often is that this plan has to be distanced as much as possible from that tried in 1993. I'd have to agree with them here.

[depakid]

18. tying health care to employment is problematic

and only became the dominant theme here due to historical anomaly.

It's become a serious issue- businesses (especially small and mid-sized businesses) get really hammered by yearly double digit premium increases- and so those who do pony up are placed at a major disadvantage vis a vis those who won't. The same is true for large corporations, who because they shoulder a large health care burden in the US, lose what otherwise may have been a comparative advantage against other countries.

So any standardized solution has to deal with that issue. Right now, we're socializing costs while privatizing profits- not smart- not for business or for individuals. Only for PhRMa and certain parts of the health care "industry."

Your idea of a sliding scale is a good one- though by definition a slippery slope. Some small fee needs to be in place for individual visits or we'll end up with over-utilization (insurers use the term "moral hazard"- but I hate how that sounds). Yet I'm not convinced that an annual premium is a good idea- too many will either opt out or won't be able to pay it. That narrows the risk pool and hence, limits its economic benefit. Better that it comes from a general fund, supported by progressive federal taxation.

Other than those few thoughts- great ideas- especially the national buying power....

[shraby]

19. No deductible!

If they have a deductible, it will gradually increase until we have the same situation we have now. No one will be able to afford the deductible and still won't be able to go to a doctor. No sliding scale. The scale will be raised until people who need it are no longer covered. It will be a same old same.

[Cleita]

20. Well, the poster did say he was talking to a couple of

Republicans. Are you surprised? I know for a fact that this is one of these issues that we cannot compromise with the RW on, or we will be back to square one or even off the board.

[JayS]

35. I think this is one of those issues that we have no choice but...

...to compromise. It is going to take both parties to ever get something like this in place and neither side is going to get all that it wants. With both sides working together a plan can be created that provides a better health insurance scheme than what we have now but still be screwed up enough to pass for a government program.

[Cleita]

41. Honey, the history of health care from the early days of

Blue Cross has been compromise with the right, the insured, the privileged. Now it's time for us to become civilized from the BOTTOM to the top, not the other way around.

[JayS]

48. I agree...but how to do it without acknowledging the sad fact that...

...most of the politicians we will be dealing with are the insured and the privileged, in a big way. My cynical morning self sees this as a bigger issue than the left/right one.

And as a Christian Nation we should remember that Jesus left some wisdom for us that included phrases like "How you treat the least of these..." that we should perhaps revisit.

[Cleita]

58. We are not a Christian nation. We are a secular nation that

allows people to freely follow any faith they chose. I think you are on the wrong board.

[JayS]

59. That was a tease about the Republican Party Platform of my...

...state. It may also be in the national platform but I am not sure. It is way too often that I hear the Christian nation statement or that the Founding Fathers were Christians. If I remember right, they we mainly Deists.

[JayS]

63. Tick

[depakid]

38. I'm convinced universal healthcare will only come about through

economics.

One can't appeal to compassion- because with few exceptions, corporations have little or none- and because most individuals in America are hard pressed to place a high enough value on affordable health care, until the lack of it affects them or theirs.

Unfortunately, it's too easy for the far right to push most people's buttons, when the issues are framed that way. Using a hard cold set of quantitative measures inoculates our arguments from the usual right wing debasements and makes the conclusions inescapable.

Qualitative appeals- including interviews and personal stories are the coup de grâce, the edge on the sword that allows the logic to sink deep into peoples' hearts.

Healthcare in America presents such a complicated set of issues that it's tempting to pigeonhole things. The left is as guilty as the right in this area- though from what I see here at DU and elsewhere, we on the left are better equipped to listen, discuss and rationally deal with the exigencies.

To understand why that's true, one only need look to what Bev Harris and so many others have done with BBV.

[Cleita]

40. You are right.

But there are some of us who are beginning to feel as dedicated as Bev Harris in this issue. I wish personally that I had her brains and her resources, but right now I don't think that is going to stop me from trying.

[JayS]

49. We discussed the economic angle some also. We all agreed...

...that there is somewhat of a socialized medicine system in this country already but it is only available to those that either know, or have someone to help them that does know, just how to go about getting it. Access to this care is like one of those video games that only the experienced players will know what to touch to open the secret door, or get the extra points, or the secret weapons, and so forth.

Taking this patchwork of somewhat redundant sytems and rolling them into one system is bound to save a lot of money. Quantifying it will take someone with way more skills than me though.

[Kat45]

21. Tying it to employment is problematic in other ways as well.

It is problematic for: Those who are out of work, between jobs, work part-time, or several part-time jobs. Those who are self-employed. Contract workers. Freelancers. Temp workers. Those working for small companies that can't afford the insurance. Those who hate their job but are trapped in it because they need the insurance.

Too many people have no access to health insurance, and therefore to health care, when it's tied to employment. Mainly for this reason, I've been arguing for universal health care since before HMOs were invented.

[Cleita]

22. Yes, and it's kind of hard if you are twelve years old or eighty.

eom

[Cheswick2.0]

27. Yes UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

An idea whoes time is long past.

[JayS]

36. Those that are not working for an employer providing a...

...health insurance plan can still be covered under the basic plan, as could all those that are not working, are self employed, working in a temporary job, and so forth.

[JayS]

34. Darn good points! I think we barely touched on all this if at...

...all. We did gripe about the rapid rise of costs to the company health plans though...but we would have done that under any circumstances.

[DWolper]

23. Forget "company insurance"

Health insurance tied to your place of employment needs to go. Coverage for *everyone* and it be single payer similar to Canada. Long-term care should be included. Yes it's expensive, but the lost productivity to illness and to having to care for aging parents is as well.

[flaminbats]

24. Requiring employers to only hire workers with cards...

in other words any company hiring individuals without healthcare cards would immediately lose their business license. Businesses obeying the law will no longer have to compete with those that break it by underpaying undocumented workers. And legal immigrants and citizens will all have basic health insurance regardless of how little they earn or what kind of job they have.

[thebigmansentme]

30. clinton's only failure

was that he couldn't reform health care.

but where he failed somebody else will succeed. we just have to keep on trying different approaches.

the first step, of course, is electing democrats, though

[Cleita]

32. Welcome to DU!

Apparently you are into health care reform too.

[flaminbats]

37. Clinton was fighting an impossible battle...

Clinton did everything possible to pass healthcare reform. But it was a Republican filibuster 10-years ago which killed any hope of a compromise on that issue.

Universal healthcare will never occur with one sweeping effort, neither can smaller steps pass with the Republicans in power.

[JayS]

45. I think a new healthcare system could be passed with...

...one sweeping effort but it would take one sweeping effort on the part of both sides of the isle to make it happen. When you start seeing flying pigs ticking off air traffic controllers, the time will be right for this to happen.

[Cleita]

60. We won't have meaningful health care reform until health as a commodity

becomes unprofitable on Wall Street. The insurance companies have got to go one way or the other. I personally prefer passing a law stating that all health plans must keep their administrative costs below 2% of their revenue, that 98% of the revenue has to be used for health care or put into escrow to be used for health care in the future, and that no one can be denied coverage, regardless of their medical history. Also, premiums must be affordable at all levels of income.

You will see a flight of insurerers and for profit health care organizations once health care is no longer profitable. Once we see it as a necessity and not a commodity, then we can move forward.This will pave the way for the government to offer an improved and more comprehensive Medicare to all Americans. I say Medicare because the bones of the system are good and the organization is in place and operates very efficiently. It needs to be better funded and offer more comprehensive benefits and as a number cruncher I know it can be offered to everyone for less than 8% of our GDP, which is less than we pay for medical expense now.

[Only Me]

39. I like the idea tremedously, but I would think that adding caps on

costs would be beneficial to the government and to us. Like some state medicaid and medicare, the state/government has caps on what they are willing to pay up too to the provider. With some medicaid the cap is in some cases taken as full payment and with medicare (part B basic)the amount is payed 80% you pay the 20% copay and the provider can't charge you over the 15% allowable charge( this is sort of new).

The caps/cost regulation is very excepted by providers and I think it would keep the costs down making it more affordable and the program going.

[Cleita]

42. Why am I tearing my hair out??? And I am a bean counter!!!

Get the private insurance and HMO's out of the equation!! Caps? actuarial tables? All that other accounting shit has no place in health care!! What is need in health care is that patients get the care and medication that they need and that the health care givers, who provide this, get adequate compensation. After this, it is only a matter of collecting 8% of the GDP that most nations do, to pay for this. In the case of our country, since our GDP is still high, we probably wouldn't even have to do this high of a percentage and still cover everyone.

[Only Me]

43. I am not familiar with GDP ...

Gross Domestic Product? However, I totally agree with you. We need to get rid of the HMO and Private insurance. I believe that is part of the Governments past reluctance to approve any national healthcare for us. The revenue that the Insurance companies provide, I think I read approximately 1.7 trillion dollar a year. That is just private medical insurance providers. I am for any government regulation that provides us with national/universal healthcare like so many other countries provide to their people. I struggle to pay my medical bills (not to mention medicines and supplies) and honestly I have some hospital bills I will never be able to pay off. It is a sad state of things when poorer nations can give their people heatlhcare and the US, supposedly one of the riches...48 million of us still have no health care and I would guess a good portion of the rest of us struggle to keep some form of it. Sad.

[JayS]

47. The inclusion of private health insurance was in part a nod...

...towards the political realities of getting any changes at all. Using the lessons learned from 1993, I feel it would be a mistake to not take into account the potential and probable opposition from the established system. The inclusion of private health insurance plans would also provide a bit of competition and lesson the chance that the government would become just another monopoly or that the government run insurance plan would become another "wallet" for politicians to reach into. With companies continuing to pay some of the health insurance/care costs for their employees the burden to all taxpayers would be shared somewhat more.

The medical caps worry me in some ways. I do like the idea that costs could potentially be kept from spirally upward but I see too many doctors here with "Medicare/Medicaid not accepted" signs in their windows due to not only Medicare/Medicaid being a pain to work with but also not providing enough of a payment to make providing service for these patients worthwhile.

[Only Me]

65. I used to do ICD medical coding/billing for a local doctors group...

Medicare and Medicaid especially Medicaid in my state of Virginia, were very timely payers. Medicare is billed either electronic or on paper on specially formated forms that are very brief and to the point. Literally it only takes seconds to post a bill to either Medicare or Medicaid. The biggest issue is keeping up with updates so your claim doesn't get kicked back to you for non payment.

The fees that Medicare and Medicaid pay or based on average pay allowance according to the private health care industry standards.
I personally worked with many different insurance companies pay scales and Medicare and Medicaid are really very competitive. Being a participant or a part of a network saves the insurer more money.

But I honestly believe that alot of providers that refuse Medicare and Medicaid do it simply out of greed and not necessity.

I billed for 5 doctors. From GP to Internist and Hematologist in a hospital clinic. Meaning we did hospital type procedures as well as typical clinic stuff. Our doctors would have preferred to see Medicare, Medicaid patients because they were guaranteed and timely. Blue Cross Blue Shield was also one of the best payers we had. The mark up on supplies and time for the physicians is so high,
they can't help but make a huge profit. Not to mention the ordering of unnecessary tests that are big payoffs. But this has just been my particular experiences and maybe not be someone Elses.

[John_H]

46. Here's what you need for compromise, especially w/ a GOP congress

IMHO, everyones going to have to give a little if we're going to have top quality health care for every American.

The big battles are going to be against the Insurance, Doctor and Lawyer, Drug lobbies. Hillary's big mistake was choosing one--the insurance industry--to fuck with. You've got to make everyone give a little. You're going to need caps that screw them all a tolerable amount.

1)Doctors are going to have to take a little less for some expensive treatments, but will have lower malpractice insurance payments thanks to fair caps on lawsuits.

2) Lawyers get the caps, but maybe we could lower taxes on lawyers fees for malpractice cases.

3) Insurance companies will pay less for treatments, but will take a hit since they have to give everyone portable insurance.

4) Drug companies will have to deal w/ negotiated prices. Unlike the other industries they can take a hit to profits since they are far and away the most profitable industry in the World--all on the backs of old and sick people.

4)Businesses will have to pay slightly higher premiums. And patients will have to deal with some HMO-like restrictions and mandatory preventative medicine regimes.

[JayS]

50. I thought you were going to suggest...

...nuclear weapons; that was ruled out because none of us had enough money to buy one and the government only sells them in bulk anyway.

You make a lot of good points, the one about Senator Clinton especially; I think that even at the time we knew what the outcome of her efforts would be. The HillaryCare (HillaryScare?) legacy will be difficult to overcome.

[FlaGranny]

53. Doctors - are you aware that

they only get about half of what they actually set as fees from insurance companies? The patient pays a percentage and the rest is written off. The only folks who pay the entire full fee are those who can't afford insurance. It is the same with hospitals.

[JayS]

55. For those of you without health insurance and are stuck with...

...the full bill, you can often negotiate the amount down as the full bill is sometimes based on nothing more than an estimate. The Clark Howard Show had a great segment on how to do this and I am trying to find it on his website. There is some interesting health info on that site. Here is a bit of it:


From: http://clarkhoward.com/library/tips/health_insurance.ht...

GM, other companies reshaping health care - June 15, 2004
There are a lot of things we don’t have a clue about when it comes to health care in the United States. But there is some movement in making a difference in the future. General Motors, the nation’s largest automaker, is at a massive disadvantage to Japanese and European carmakers because of the huge health care bills the company must pay. The company could spend billions on making new car models but instead the money goes to current and retired employees. The company wants it to stop, and so does Clark. We have spent about 15 percent of the country’s wealth on health care, while other countries spend about nine percent. So GM has banded together and set up a co-op that will make pharmaceutical companies compete with each other for GM’s business. It’s a great idea.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other health care news, Florida has passed a law that requires hospitals to tell you how much procedures will cost. In emergencies, of course, it’s not possible. But most surgeries and treatments are not emergencies. It’s the first move like it in the country, and it makes great sense. Hospitals will also have to provide estimates to customers. Yes, you are a customer! We’re moving into the era in medicine when humans will be treated like customers. With all of these services, the quality of treatment is sure to improve. It’s what happens when you allow free markets to run their course.

[Cleita]

61. Many of us have health insurance but no health care because

of huge deductibles, high co-pays and many things that aren't covered like prescriptions and chronic diseases. That isn't meaningful health care for the people who need it most the sick and the elderly.

[Bandit]

51. Sounds very much like the Clinton proposals

I'm for National Health Care just like we had in the military. I always had the option to seek private care but government facilities were always available at no cost . Funny they want to keep their soldiers healthy and productive but not our citizens. Something just doesn't compute.

[FlaGranny]

52. While it sounds better than the present system,

it is loaded with means tests, rules, and different strokes for different folks. Much more complicated than necessary, which probably makes it a lot more expensive than necessary. Keep it simple.

[dorktv]

54. I advocate a single payer system where the government

(on behalf of all citizens) negotiates with doctors and hospitals two sets of fees, one for service and one for improvements. Perscription drugs could be based on co-pay.

This allows for capitalism but takes away the burden from businesses large and small to provide health insurance. The government ONLY collects the money (with a small increase in payroll taxes, which are taken out of almost every paycheck, even pretty small ones, so it is not a "welfare program") and releases it to hospitals and doctors and other health care providers.


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.php

[Alpha Wolf]

57. Total Government-Paid plan:

That the government pay for every single American's healthcare. I mean, in a country as wealthy as ours, this should be a given. Why should we have to pay for healthcare? The government should have to pay for it. They're a lot wealthier than all of us.

[Cleita]

62. You do pay because the government takes your taxes, but

wouldn't it be better to spend that money for health care for everyone than give it to Halliburton for goods and services that the bill for but don't deliver?

[JayS]

64. kick