Would health insurance stamps (like food stamps) be a better way to universal coverage?

There has to be a better way to cover the uninsured than the massively expensive government run health plan being proposed by congressional Democrats and the administration. Not only will it destroy the existing health industry, but it will result in rationing to control costs. It will bring VA quality health care to the general public, as Congress and the very wealthy get Bethesda Naval Medical Center treatment.

Here is a better alternative. It is a plan is to offer “health insurance stamps” similar to food stamps to the needy who are not covered by employer funded health care. With these “stamps” the eligible uninsured would be able to buy a policy...

I like this plan better than zer0’s plan already. You’ve already proven yourself smarter than Congress and the Executive branch.

We have to keep hammering on the point that the present system works well for most of us, we don’t need to scrap it.

How about more communtity health clinics? That would cost less than zer0’s plan.

How about more communtity health clinics?

I'm all for that! That's all we use here in rural areas. I like the "sliding scale" for fees. (We're- by federal standards- waaaaay below "poverty".) Most office visits only run us about 25 to 30 bucks. As for medicine, true, we usually have to get generics, but if one isn't available the local pharmacist works with us. It has worked well for us for over 24 years now. I'd like to see more clinics in our area, we only have 2 now and they are always busy!

This is a great solution.

Remember...no one in this country is denied health CARE. We are talking about health INSURANCE. Even if you believe INSURANCE is a right, does the government need to force everyone into a health insurance plan? If so, what would stop them from forcing everyone to have a life insurance policy. I know some people personally who have suffered terribly because a close family member died without any life insurance. Should the government step in and protect people from the stupidity of being uninsured and force them into buying life insurance, too?

Or is it still a free country?

In 1986, Congress passed a law commonly referred to as EMTALA (Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, also known as the Patient Anti-Dumping Law) to address a growing concern that ERs were refusing to treat patients based on their inability to pay. This law requires every ER to provide a minimal level of care to all comers regardless of their ability to pay.

This law and the way hospitals are compensated for this treatment are at the crux of the ‘problem’, IMO. Here is where congress needs to direct its attention.

Your proposal is an excellent approach to a piece of the puzzle as far as covering insurable but impoverished citizens. The critical problem, however, is the issue of ‘preexisting conditions’ which insurance companies exclude from coverage; these people, especially those with chronic conditions that do not qualify for Medicare, would not qualify under your approach. How do we deal with them?

This raises a topic that is the real Elephant in the Room. The foundation of government social policy is the idea that there are people who deserve the help of the rest of us because they are unable to provide for themselves.

This issue is one that advocates of the Fair Tax can use to their advantage. We must have a public discussion on who is *indigent* and who is not. Who deserves help so they can have enough food to live, shelter and clothing for themselves and their children.

The Fair Tax makes the strategic mistake of just leaving this job to government, saying that the Prebate will be tied to the “poverty level”. Yet this metric is defined by government in ways that allow it to define people who are not indigent and it does not include “in-kind” services, so a family can receive all manner of services, such as free meals at school and even free winterizing and heating bill subsidy and yet this is not “income”.

Of course there is also tremendous pressure on government to define as many poor people as possible, because school districts get more aid to provide “services” to “at-risk” children, and this also triggers a host of other government social program spending.

The social contract must be that those who really need help, get the help they need. Everyone else must be expected to pay their own way.

The moral crisis of this age has become our pervasive system of mutual predation. The socialist society we live in seduces us into thinking we each can live at the expense of someone else. It further deludes us that we each get the better end of the bargain. The real beneficiary here is are the power-brokers who run the collection and distribution system, especially those who get to make the rules.

This has lead us all down the road of being mutual enslavers of our fellow citizen, a system that is completely antithetical to a government that was set up to ensure we each had life and liberty while we were free to pursue whatever made each of us happy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.