My Idea for Health Care: The NO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN :
This is a discussion on My Idea for Health Care: The NO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN : within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; It's simple: No Health Insurance for ANYONE whatsoever,medicaid and medicare only pays similar fees to the cost set by supply/demand of everybody else.
The No ...
September 29th, 2013 05:07 AM
My Idea for Health Care: The NO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN :
It's simple: No Health Insurance for ANYONE whatsoever,medicaid and medicare only pays similar fees to the cost set by supply/demand of everybody else.
The No Health Insurance Plan does not work unless it is completely inclusive - from a poor baby to a rich, elderly man: NO HEALTH INSURANCE.
Health Ins. Companies will crash against the wall - good riddance. MEDICAL COSTS: at once sink 75%. A heart surgeon instead of making $300,000 per operation will be able to charge about $5000 for the average Middle-Class person's cardiac surgery. And what about the poor who could not afford even these fallen fees? Or conditions like Kidney Disease which require dialysis. Right now this, and probably a few others that are wildly expensive and mean death without them are paid for by Medicaid without regard to income. I guess under my plan that would remain as would Medicaid for the poor. But even for these type of treatments of life and death, costs would go down markedly and for those poor on Medicaid for most health costs the payment rate would be the going one, i.e. the one 75% below traditional costs.
Government health expenditures would be cut by by 70% or so. Think what that much more money back in the economy or paying off the debt would do for us. Look now on how much the gov. spends on health care. Eye-Opener
That's it - few more details - but essentially it's a simple and cheap program.
The one problem and a serious one: if those medical personnel highly trained over years and years, (I'm thinking of Doctors and especially certain specialists, like Neurosurgeons) would want to continue in their careers and new ones wish to keep entering them with such a dramatic lowering of income? That is a potential serious issue. No answers - except perhaps some type of modest tax set solely by income and/or rise in investment wealth. That would increase the market salary of doctors to double hopefully, i.e. - a Neurosurgeon making $100,000 on market salary would make $200,000 on added-Physician Training Tax. While there are a lot of doctors, with about the entire population of the country using market medicine - everyone needs medical care at times - the per-person tax would hopefully be quite small. Maybe handled like a graduated sales-tax, top rate: 5% of purchase price
NB! HEADS UP: I am no more an Economist that I am the Pontiff and I'm barely literate in Math. So keep that in mind for my estimates above. Fact, if those good with Economic based Math saw something they knew was wildly off, please post that.
Last edited by detective; September 29th, 2013 at 12:51 PM.
September 29th, 2013 06:26 AM
Did you run into a wall with your head??
I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.
America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.
Give me Liberty or give me BACON!!!
You know that look women give you when they want some sugar? Me neither
September 29th, 2013 08:32 AM
He is right that without insurance, prices would plummet. Same with college: without loans, prices would drop. They'd have to or hospitals and colleges would have no customers.
September 29th, 2013 09:07 AM
If the purpose and point of "healthcare reform" was to make it inexpensive, that would work, as would only partially deregulating health insurance and allowing it to be sold across state lines instead of only a few providers who basically work together to keep profits up. Making healthcare affordable is not now and never has been the purpose and point. If you want to see that just read the 2,700 page "law". The purpose and point is control, much higher tax revenue, and expanded money and power for the Washinton bureaucracy (with specific focus on growing the IRS and the afore useless HHS). It accomplishes what it is supposed to accomplish very well, and everyone for these things is not about to let it go or change it. If you actually believed their whole song and dance about this saving money and providing everyone with "free healthcare"....you are probably unreachable. You either don't speak English and cannot follow it, have a very low IQ, or the wisdom of a small child. When this fails and everyone hates it watch what their solution becomes. If you doubt it will be a totally government controlled single payer system you probably believed that this debacle was going to save you money and get your family better healthcare.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis
September 29th, 2013 10:13 AM
Doing away with all health insurance is not the answer, and neither is obamacare.
If obamacare is so awesome, then why did Obama and all congressmen exempt themselves from it?
Do they think we're stupid?
The main reason illegals come across the border is to get free healthcare, food stamps, and welfare.
Before we do away with all healthcare, we should implement limits on food stamps and welfare. But no congressman will introduce that legislation because it would be political suicide. Half of the country is on some type of entitlement.
The only way to correct the problem at this point is to let the whole system collapse and start over.
"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
September 29th, 2013 10:14 AM
Right. Or we'll know soon -
Originally Posted by Jaeger
That's why Obama is switching to MY plan.
September 29th, 2013 11:40 AM
Let's all just die! That will show them!
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
September 29th, 2013 12:01 PM
First off, no one has a right to tell someone else they can't buy health insurance.
Second, the prices would climb drastically for out-of-pocket expenses. Right now the uninsured are VERY heavily subsidized by the insured. A hospital that charges, say, $20,000 to an insurance company likely charges half of that or less to an uninsured patient. Then the majority of that reduced fee is very likely paid by some kind of government program. Since the vast majority of people have insurance of some kind, if that's taken away, suddenly hospitals are getting half the income, and it's almost entirely coming from government. Socialized medicine is then a reality. OR, hospitals can slash their budgets, and skilled doctors will find other lines of work.
The latter is the worst part. Nobody with any talent spends the time, effort, and money that it takes to become a surgeon if they're going to end up making high five figures. One would have to be an idiot to do so, and I'd rather my doctors not be idiots.
...there is no arguing with such snivelling puppies, who allow superiors to kick them about deck at pleasure.
— Captain Bellamy
September 29th, 2013 12:11 PM
OK, I am for everyone having good health insurance. That being said, I dont think that they 80/20 deductible model that we have works.
One of the main reasons to have health insurance, (other than to insure that you get treatment), is to protect you financially. With the 20% portion owing by the patient, one can EASILY go bankrupt, over what we used to think of as fairly minor things
September 29th, 2013 12:55 PM
Right, I too am in a mood to punish.
Originally Posted by OldVet
Keep the good thoughts coming!
September 29th, 2013 01:06 PM
You're right, that's what worried the heck out of me in the summer, seemed in the summer I would need a complex spinal operation (I didn't thankfully).
Originally Posted by StormRhydr
The MD I saw was out of my network, my Insurance is very good and they'd still have paid 80/20, but can you imagine what 20% of complicated spinal surgery would be. You're likely talking a quarter of a million! once every bill for everything arrived.
Luckily I had a solution available, while I 'm not retiring I get Social Security at 66. At 65, my age now, you pick up Medicare, the hospital part, but until you retire it's used as a secondary insurance, You can pay for the medical part of Medicare, that pays doctors. It's about $100/mo. So I bought that for 3 months which, had I had to have had the operation, that would have picked up most of the 20%.
September 29th, 2013 01:43 PM
Welfare has been limited, quite a bit during the Clinton administration and food stamps have income levels and do save people and their children from not eating or rather not being able to afford enough good food for proper nutrition. My uncle died in '64, a 50-something cop 3 months short of the earliest age of retirement or death during duty benefits, can't recall exactly. They wouldn't give it to his survivors. My aunt, his wife, and he had 13 children, once he was dead: no money, before food stamps, nor with raising 13 kids alone could she take a job. She made it and died having had a good life just a few years ago and being a peaceful person temperamentally. She was a great person. The initial reason? Her in-laws had a little money to help with, her children as the years went by became old enough to work and support the family communally AND two years after her husband died Food Stamps were inaugurated. Saved her and her kids in the beginning, they could keep their house and continue on their harsh road at least.
Originally Posted by Patti
Having a blanket attitude towards help for the poor and sick way over their means just to get by is no way to act (not saying you do). The money available can save people in a real way and does, the money is there for us all should we need it - and don't suppose we also won't need help from our neighbors and countrymen some day. Fate has a funny way of playing with expectations and I know quite a few who used these services at earlier and catastrophic times in their lives and now are productive members of society.
To say these are but the few and most don't need anything who get it, is a political attitude of one section of the span of political opinion and does not synch with the reality of most programs of need.
I did quite a lot of work (volunteered) with the homeless in NYC. They have none of this aid - for from the beginning or from life on the streets they are too disorganized mentally and socially to even begin to understand the process of benefiting from them, applications etc. So, "they are making it on their own".
A horse's behind they are: they live lives filled with great danger, at the mercy of the elements - extreme cold with no shoes, are diseased, driven nuts by the life if not starting that way, have rotting teeth, look much, much older than they are and die young with nothing but harsh memories at their hard end in some alley or other.
I would not wish this, even at a lower level of want, on more countrymen.
Fine to take my taxes and use them that way, they're already far below most other countries - and I would rather they go there than to some of the places they do go - especially the waste in government and the military, the precise level of which if we knew, would likely cause massive national vomiting.
September 29th, 2013 02:23 PM
Well, it's clear that Obamacare was dominated by the lobbyists. The failure to rethink Medicare D is obvious proof of that.
Nearly all health reforms (my country included) are shuffling the deck chairs. Supply will never match demand, and so the prices will always rise and it's a question of how quickly.
The only time the Demand > Supply rule breaks is when the cure for the disease becomes affordable. At that point, the price drops (see: vaccines, insulin, antibiotics, etc.)
Shuffling the deck chairs can be useful. It can even sometimes break out of being a zero-sum game. Cures change the nature of the game. The counterfactual to the March of Dimes would be a current raging debate about Universal Iron Lung coverage.
Perovskite is one of 'cheap' materials for solar conversion that's most-rapidly growing in proven efficiency ratings. For those who invest in venture capital or early-investment entrepreneurship opportunities.
September 29th, 2013 03:04 PM
OK, i'll play. We'll use this premise to start. Wheat else could we do to avoid discouraging people from entering the medical profession, if we eliminated all insurance. The first thing I can think of would be to completely exempt the actual care givers ( not admin staff and paper pushers ) from any tax what so ever on their income. This would encompass Doctors, nurses, xray techs and such. Next malpractice law suits would have to be eliminated somehow. We have to stop punishing doctors trying to help. An oversite panel could look at any issues that arrise, and only Gross Neglect would have an effect, and in that case it should end with dctor being stripped of all ability to practice. Jim
Originally Posted by detective
1911 responds much quicker than 911
September 29th, 2013 04:13 PM
Well, one idea I had I posted but that is the sticker: yours is possible too. I don't think we should worry TOO much, I sincerely doubt a plan based on No Health Insurance is going to be suggested by any politician who wants to keep his head.
Originally Posted by Bassindude