Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lepidopteran

Another DU'er to FreeRepublic. Welcome.

I like to put liberals on the right path, so I'll break it down:

There are three types of health care systems:

1. A consumer-based system where everybody pays as they go
2. A corporatist, employer-provided system we know have
3. a single-payer government provided system

We currently have #2 for the most part, with #3 for seniors. It's a flawed system and actually a historical fluke: companies started paying workers with health care benefits during WWII to get around wage freezes. Employees liked health care, and government noticed, so they started allowing companies to deduct money spent on health care from their taxes. But it's a truly flawed system wherein the consumer does not decide what kind of health care he recives, nor does he have ANY regard for how much healthcare he consumes (he's not paying for it!). Furthermore, "employment mobility" is stifled because people are afraid of losing coverage and big businesses have an unfair advantage over small businesses by (large group plans are cheaper per worker than small plans).

The little devil on the left shoulder, #3, is also driving up costs. Did you know medicare only pays for 90% of the bill? And what do you think the hospital does to pay for the other 90%? Pass it on to non-medicare recipients in the form of $8 aspirins, for example.

You see, both candidates want to move us away from #2. However, Kerry wants to move us towards #3 while President Bush wants to move us towards #1 with his "medical savings accounts".

The president wants to enlarge Medical Savings accounts and down the road reform the corporate tax structure so employers aren't encouraged to give employees health care they really don't need.

Simultaneously eliminating corporate taxes and the welfare that goes along with it (the two are roughly the same amount) while expanding President George W. Bush's Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to all Americans would (1) eliminate the tax incentive to "pay people in benefits" (2) allow Americans to save for their own high-deductible health insurance. This would lead to a truly consumer-driven market.
There is very little cost awareness among insured consumers of health care services. If the cost of consuming a good is relatively low, consumers will generally consume more of them! This is especially true if a consumer gains little financially from minimizing their consumption. This is precisely the case in the healthcare industry, and it should be fixed by making American consumers, already cost-conscious in other facets of life, become cost-conscious about healthcare costs. This can only be done by making consumers pick their own healthcare plans.

Vote 4 Dubya!


245 posted on 08/12/2004 1:57:04 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Remember_Salamis

bump


251 posted on 08/12/2004 2:08:41 AM PDT by GeronL (KERRY: "I went to Cambodia with the CIA and all I got was a hat")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies ]

To: Remember_Salamis

We have a winner!!!


255 posted on 08/12/2004 2:17:10 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies ]

To: Remember_Salamis

Did the Post Office discover the internet?

The libs want a govenrment monopoly for heath care...and it doesn't get any worst than that. The "free" care will increase demand and naturally long lines result. The government will then determine that the cost is way too high. Then the pharmaceuticals and doctors will be told how much money they can keep.


264 posted on 08/12/2004 2:26:51 AM PDT by The Raven (Fair and Balanced)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson