What health plan do you think would work best?
I am not convinced that the primary plan being proposed by Congress is the best one, or even the best one that might get passed. I'm looking for other options, so that when I talk to my congressman I can say what I am [i]for[/i], not just what I am against.
Right now the two possibilities that are most compelling to me are:
1. Interstate Insurance Competition.
As several members of these boards like to point out, right now individuals cannot buy health insurance from companies in other states. (People receiving employer-provided health care can, however.) This leaves only a handful of companies in any given state for a person to consider.
A plan proposed by McCain last year (basics of it are here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282743245193057.html) would open up health insurance to individuals anywhere in the country. This, coupled with new tax credits that would let people deduct what they pay for their own insurance (the way that employers can deduct health insurance they provide from their employees) would increase competition, and encourage states to adopt cost saving measures so that local businesses can keep up with companies elsewhere in the country.
Apparently when something similar occurred in the auto insurance industry, prices went down. This plan could force insurance companies to work cheaper, and it would make it easier for folks who move or change jobs to avoid being temporarily uninsured, since they're buying it themselves, instead of relying on their employer.
However, I have not seen comments as to whether or how this would make it easier on people with existing conditions. Sure, costs overall might go down, but insurance companies would still rather have a healthy college student on their rolls than a sickly senior.
Sickly seniors, of course, tend to vote more than healthy college students, so when they say, "My medical care is too expensive," congressman listen. I'm partially of the mind that you should pay for what you get, and when you're healthy (young or old), you shouldn't have to pay higher premiums just to cover the increased cost of treating sick people. But there's good logic in keeping people alive, healthy, and able to contribute to the economy, so for me to get behind this plan, it would need to include a component that makes it easier for everyone to afford health care, not just the healthy people.
2. National Insurance.
I've been particularly interested by Congressman Anthony Weiner's commentary that all insurance companies do is leech money away from the health care system. Ten people put in $100 to stay healthy, and a few get sick, and of the $1000, $900 goes to pay doctors. The remaining $100 goes to the insurance company, who did not provide any treatment, perform any tests, or make any medication. All you did was spend $10 apiece to pay the insurance company's overhead.
Weiner proposes to pretty much put everyone on Medicare. Medicare has problems, he admits, but he points out that it has 4% overhead expenses, whereas insurance companies take 30% in overhead and profit. All insurance companies do is manage paperwork, really, and -- I need to find numbers to support this, but Weiner claims it -- people on Medicare are more satisfied by it than people on private insurance are.
For those who fear the degradation of the free market, the part of the market that matters -- actually providing health care -- is not government run. Hospitals can still compete on costs, pharmaceutical companies can still see who can make the most cost-effective pill, doctors can see who can treat patients best for the lowest price. All that changes is that the government does all the bureaucratic paperwork that your insurance company does now, but with less overhead expenses, and more direct accountability to the public.
I'm personally more inclined to option 2, perhaps with an opt out option where you can choose to keep your money and pay for your health care yourself.
What health plan do you think would work best?
Right now the two possibilities that are most compelling to me are:
1. Interstate Insurance Competition.
As several members of these boards like to point out, right now individuals cannot buy health insurance from companies in other states. (People receiving employer-provided health care can, however.) This leaves only a handful of companies in any given state for a person to consider.
A plan proposed by McCain last year (basics of it are here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282743245193057.html) would open up health insurance to individuals anywhere in the country. This, coupled with new tax credits that would let people deduct what they pay for their own insurance (the way that employers can deduct health insurance they provide from their employees) would increase competition, and encourage states to adopt cost saving measures so that local businesses can keep up with companies elsewhere in the country.
Apparently when something similar occurred in the auto insurance industry, prices went down. This plan could force insurance companies to work cheaper, and it would make it easier for folks who move or change jobs to avoid being temporarily uninsured, since they're buying it themselves, instead of relying on their employer.
However, I have not seen comments as to whether or how this would make it easier on people with existing conditions. Sure, costs overall might go down, but insurance companies would still rather have a healthy college student on their rolls than a sickly senior.
Sickly seniors, of course, tend to vote more than healthy college students, so when they say, "My medical care is too expensive," congressman listen. I'm partially of the mind that you should pay for what you get, and when you're healthy (young or old), you shouldn't have to pay higher premiums just to cover the increased cost of treating sick people. But there's good logic in keeping people alive, healthy, and able to contribute to the economy, so for me to get behind this plan, it would need to include a component that makes it easier for everyone to afford health care, not just the healthy people.
2. National Insurance.
I've been particularly interested by Congressman Anthony Weiner's commentary that all insurance companies do is leech money away from the health care system. Ten people put in $100 to stay healthy, and a few get sick, and of the $1000, $900 goes to pay doctors. The remaining $100 goes to the insurance company, who did not provide any treatment, perform any tests, or make any medication. All you did was spend $10 apiece to pay the insurance company's overhead.
Weiner proposes to pretty much put everyone on Medicare. Medicare has problems, he admits, but he points out that it has 4% overhead expenses, whereas insurance companies take 30% in overhead and profit. All insurance companies do is manage paperwork, really, and -- I need to find numbers to support this, but Weiner claims it -- people on Medicare are more satisfied by it than people on private insurance are.
For those who fear the degradation of the free market, the part of the market that matters -- actually providing health care -- is not government run. Hospitals can still compete on costs, pharmaceutical companies can still see who can make the most cost-effective pill, doctors can see who can treat patients best for the lowest price. All that changes is that the government does all the bureaucratic paperwork that your insurance company does now, but with less overhead expenses, and more direct accountability to the public.
I'm personally more inclined to option 2, perhaps with an opt out option where you can choose to keep your money and pay for your health care yourself.
What health plan do you think would work best?