Posted on 08/30/2006 10:10:23 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Dem banner ad...
They "explain" by explaining nothing. They should state HOW those numbers are arrived at
That would screw up their agenda, though, since the only way to get everyone above the "Poverty line", IIRC, is if everyone had the same income, so that there would not be any percentile rankings.
Hogwash! Texas passed malpractice reform and the end result was Doctors pocketing more money. I know numerous doctors making over million a year.
They have! Medical Malpractice Law Firms are almost Nonexistent in Texas. I am trying to see how anyone but the doctors benefited.
They should state HOW those numbers are arrived at...
"The AP will reach for everything. Bush is even responsible for the year BEFORE he took office."
Good catch!
"We are NOT wealthy, and we are uninsured, but not without medical care...the Democrats must hate us."
I'm thinking of dropping our health insurance, too. We pay for it ourselves as small business owners and it costs us close to $5,400.00 year, too. I'm thnking of dropping me because I'm healthy as a horse, though DH has a few meds he needs and has had two spinal surgeries already with probably more in his future, poor guy. (Bad discs.)
It is a cr@p shoot, that's for sure. If we didn't have insurance when he needed his surgeries, we'd still be paying off over $100,000.00 in hospital bills, so I'm a little nervous to go completely cold-turkey, though I'd love to.
Yeah; like I said, the only way they can "eliminate poverty" using their rules is to have zero variation in per capita income.
Point Two: In a growing population, the "bottom 15%" is always increasing, numerically.
Yes, it is a calculated risk, and that depends heavily upon one's prior medical history, and life style.
Our biggest risk is accident, and the highest risk there is auto...and that is covered by vehicle policies.
It also helps that Medicare is coming up in a few years; but any private general health/medical policy would expire then anyway.
Plan "A" was military retirement with full benefits; early onset, non-service connected asthma ended that, so it has been other alternatives ever since.
Oh, and don't forget to subtract savings on unpurchased insurance premiums, plus interest earned, to arrive at net cost of uninsured care.
Over 50% of a doctor's time is not providing health care. It is filling out cya. So maybe I worded my post poorly. Most of the health care dollar does not go to health providers to provide health care... a large portion of the money the health care provider receives is to cover the time he spends filling out the paperwork for cya.
The NET income of the average doctor has not gone up as fast as that of poorly educated computer programmers like me, nor as fast as tort lawyers, nor as fast an most other professionals.
Nurses did have a period of steep increases which came after a long plateau and has not almost leveled off.
I've consulted to health insurers (on billion dollar HIPAA projects that was a total waste of time and money... but imposed on them by law) and have seen the numbers on where the money goes.
Health insurance managed through employers is a vestige of the paternalism of Old Europe.
Healthcare management should be a consumer-based system empowering individuals and families. Beyond this, religious and other non-profit, charitable organizations should have a place, but it should be about the empowered individual.
Excelent article by Milton Friedman.
The solution, which may never be adopted by politicians is a PRA - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACCOUNT.
Require each employer withold from gross pay and direct deposit into a PRA at the financial institution designated by the employee. This is similar to the way the employee designates direct deposit of the NET pay. So then the employee could designate both halves of his gross pay... the part he sees and the part he doesn't see. Of course, it would all be clear in a simple pay stub.
Into the PRA go ALL employer expenses currently designated as FICA, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, WIC, Kidcare, ALLCare, Unemployment Comp, Workers Comp, Health Insurance, Sick Pay, 401K, 403B, IRA, etc. This would include the Health and Welfare costs currently covered by the Income tax. So the income tax (or FAIR tax) would be less than it is now.
ALL of that cost that is seldom seen by the employee is put into the PRA. The PRA is the employee's money. What he does not spend is his.... his for retirement, for paid unemployment, or whatever.
The employee would spend the money with a debit card. There would be laws as to the circumstances and purposes under which the employee could access this money. There would be laws to require "major medical" as part of the package. The employee would have to violate the rules in order to squander the money. There is no doubt that a small percentage of people will find a way to squander the money.
But the vast majority of the people will have control of their money with a very low "expense ratio". Their money will grow. Probably 80% of all people would realize better use of their money. Probably 15% would be in the same position as they are now. Probably 5% would squander the money. Why should the 80% be penalized for the immediate gratification of the 5%? Under Personal Responsibility Accounts we would see a slight improvement in lifestyle choices. Not utopia... but better than some of the stupid choices people now make.
The simple fact is that most medical costs come in two categories.
1) Keeping senior citizens alive a couple more months when they are terminal. I hate to be cold. By why should future generations not yet born be required to pay for that?
2) Lifestyle. Alcohol, drugs, overeating, bad diet, no exercise, risky behavior... these are the single largest category of health care costs. Why should Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists with a good lifestyle be required to pay for the lousy lifestyle of the rest of us.
I drink too much Mountain Dew and eat too few veggies. When I need medical care, why should the good lifestyle person pay for my immediate gratification?
In order to get it accepted politically, we would put some "seed money" in the accounts of the working poor. That "seed money" would have stricter rules on how it could be spent.
The big losers would be alcoholics and similar malingerers on SSI. They'd have to get work.
Of course, none of this would in anyway prevent any private charity from doing whatever it pleased to help (or not) those with poor lifestyle choices.
Anyone going to the ER with battery of test cost 10K to avg person but insurance companies settle for 4K. If you or I ask for the insurance discount they say it's not available to you only to insurance companies because they have a mutual deal. It's all collusion in my book.
Thank you! I always appreciate your advice. :)
In reality, if something 'medically tragic' happens to me, I can draw upon my military medical benfits as a vet. I am leaning more and more towards keeping husband insured and dropping myself from the policy. I'm easier to re-insure than he is if it comes down to it.
Genetically, I'm clean, too. My parents are in their 70's and neither is on any prescription medication, which is rare. Little cancer in our family, no problems with cholesterol, and only one massive heart attack amongst hundreds of relatives. Most everyone lives to be an old f@rt in my family. My Great Aunts are all in their 90's and living on their own having outlived their husbands by decades. :)
Last physical I had, my doctor said she's never seen anyone healthier for my age (46) here in Cow Town. And she knows the skinny on everyone, LOL! I owe it all to Clean Country Livin' and a Conservative Attitude! :)
"...but it should be about the empowered individual."
Amen to that!
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.