Personally I’d rather see a system more like Singapore has. It wouldn’t make me popular in conservative circles but I’d like everyone (and I do mean everyone) to have a basic government run catastrophic health insurance policy. Everyone would have a health savings account. People who want better coverage could buy it in the open market and from any company that chose ot offer it. Private companies could offer the basic plan also but at the same cost and benefit level as the govt. plan. The basic system would have copays that would be subsidized for people or families below a certain income level. Hospitals and doctors would be required to publish prices. Healthcare providers would be protected by clamping down on frivolous lawsuits. Obviously since everyone is covered there are no issues with pre-existing conditions.
Did I miss anything (besides cost and how to pay)? I’d like some constructive criticism.
and…. If Congress wrote a plan like this, how many pages would it take? 1000? 1500? 2000?
James, that’s truly funny!
O baa maa, if private companies figured they could administer the plans more efficiently and make money on the they should be allowed to.
This would mean that the govt. plan would have to pay for itself and not be subsidized by the general fund. I tried not to get too much more involved in the initial question for fear of making it waay too long. It’s already long enough that people’s eyes probably glaze over halfway through.
jehen, try to rise above the stupid ideological rhetoric. If you claim that conservatives want people to die and go bankrupt, you’ll be countered by people who rightfully say that the current proposals will ration healthcare, reduce medicare benefits and cause even more deaths. Getting into this argument is pointless. It doesn’t get us anywhere so unless you have something constructive to add, please move on to the next question.
rotorhead, I think you might be confusing Singapore with Thailand but I’m no expert.
Patriot, thanks for the response but laying blame on the insurance companies for blaming hospitals doesn’t really address the issue. Your cut and paste job is impressive too but I don’t see where it’s at all related to my question. I’m actually advocating a universal plan. What’s the point of trying to sell me on a plan when I’m already sold?
I will check out your links later when I have time.
Here’s a question for you. Why does the US have a higher death rate for younger children? Reading and regurgitating statistics doesn’t necessarily prove anything if you don’t know the details behind the stats.
O baa maa, paying would be the sticking point but when I read how economical the Singaporean plan is, I can’t help but think that we could cover everyone and save money. This is what we are being pitched now but I don’t think what’s being proposed it going to achieve that. The govt. is legislating mandatory care, not making people be directly responsible for costs and leaving out tort reform to save costs and allow more doctors to afford their insurance.
I have a basic plan that costs about $200.00 and month. I’m healthy and 48y.o. Younger people would be cheaper but jus like S.S. the system would be dependent on people paying all through their life not just to spread costs to all citizens but to spread the costx vs. benefits across ones whole life.
I haven’t put a great amount of though into it but people who can pay the minimum would pay. People who cannot would be subsidized. People who can afford better plans would pay for the basic plan and the premium plans would be taxed.
OB, I agree with your points but lately I’ve been swayed by logical arguments that show other countries have done this effectively.
It once seemed that we were going to have this shoved down out throats but now that seems doubtful.
I think that if this was tweaked and pitched properly it could pass and be a benefit. I suppose we will eventually have something like this forced upon us so my intent was to find something more palatable. My plan should satisfy public option proponents but they’d have to accept tort reform. Covering everyone would take away concern about pre-existing conditions, etc.
What I lack is hard number. How much do we spend yearly on insurance, care and drugs. How much on Medicare, medicaid and the VA. Lump that together, calculate savings from efficiency and tort reform and divide by the number of citizens.
If someone could put numbers to the proposals it would show how feasible these plans are.
Thanks for all you input.
jehen, thanks for the response. I agree with most of what you say but in one breath you say the current proposals are not adequate and in the next you say they won’t pass because people oppose them. Well if they’re not sufficient, we should all oppose them until something better is proposed. If you’re going to condemn Republicans and healthcare lobbyists don’t forget to include some Democrats and the legal lobby. If it’s only Republicans voting no to preserve healthcare lobby dollars, the measures would have passed long ago. If you’re going to ask to ***** the healthcare lobby the attorneys have to get it also.
If we had the right compromise I believe that it could be passed.