[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 1, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Brian Gibson wrote:

>>> And what's this obsession with socialists?
>
>> The plan (posted on Obama's website for all to see) is more  
>> socialist than anything seen in a long time, that's why the  
>> "obsession" with it.  It's published, >and it's not a good plan for  
>> economic growth or anyone who doesn't want their money poured down  
>> the drain by government.  SOCIALIZED healthcare, for example.
>
>>> Tell me where I said I support socialism, and the above might make  
>>> some sort
>>> of sense.I do think the hyper-"patriots" are the ones to watch  
>>> out, for,
>>> though, yes, as they are probably signifying they are RWAs.
>
>> A vote for Obama's campaign is a vote for socialized medicine.
>
> Nate, I'm sure the biggest ideological problem you have with  
> universal health care is that you should be free to NOT have health  
> coverage if you don't want to.  I can certainly sympathize with that  
> position.

Actually quite the opposite.

My "ideal" health plan would disconnect my health plan completely from  
my employer.  It would allow me to save tax-free for my own health  
coverage without limits on the amount of money in the account, which  
would be my own.   If I terminated employment for any reason, my  
account stays with me and is mine.  No "uncovered" status in between  
jobs.

My health care is MY business, and I'm more than happy to manage it  
myself, and not have it tied to my employment to be a member of some  
contrived group of insureds made up of my employer's employees.

In my desired plan, employers would be allowed to contribute any  
amount of money they saw fit (whether taxed or tax-free could be a  
debate) directly into anyone's medical account in order to create a  
competitive market for employers both big and small to compete in...  
"Job 1 pays me more, but Job 2 will put $5000 a year into my  
healthcare account".

Or perhaps in special circumstances an employee could choose to forego  
a higher salary in lieu of higher medical account payments.

The money in the account could be used for ANY family member or  
domestic partners.  You earn it, your family benefits from it.   
(Perhaps this could just be open... as long as it's going to medical  
bills, it could go to anyone you chose.  Not sure there's not some  
strange problems hiding in that idea, though.)

Of course, if folks are worried that people "need to be protected from  
themselves", then I could live with employers of a certain size being  
required to contribute something.  I won't go into that here, since I  
don't agree with it, believing that employers would continue to need  
to attract the best and brightest and would pay up anyway.

A plan where each individual has their own account would also allow  
small employers who can't afford full plans to contribute SOMETHING to  
even the lowest paying jobs, and where each account could be invested  
in "safe" investments of some type (you decide where that line is  
drawn), they could grow at something near inflation.)

There would be also be no restrictions on having to stay within any  
particular geographic area for coverage.  Similar to McCain's plan.   
Any group could form to negotiate better rates with any particular  
insurer.

I could give more details, but McCain's plan is *closer* to that than  
the plan Obama supports, which doesn't cover everyone anyway...  
socialized but broken medicine is the only way the Democrats could get  
the NEXT Presidential election, by claiming that Republicans had  
somehow "stalled" the process.  Doesn't everyone else see that one  
coming?

Similar to our continuously semi-broken policy for immigration where  
bureaucracy is blamed, but where clear instructions and clear rules  
*could* be upheld, even if they included more ways for people to  
become Citizens of the United States -- the broken systems keep both  
sides in power, via different means.  This is something both my right  
and left friends agree on ... government has a way of being so messed  
up, it can then claim that government itself is the only "savior"  
available for the problems at hand.

Getting employers out of the business of providing our healthcare  
(which is downright strange in the modern world), and keeping  
government out of it for anything other than whatever needed  
regulations are required, while putting individuals back in control of  
buying their medical care... would mean that when a hospital sent you  
a bill for a $40 tylenol, you'd call them up asking who at the  
hospital would they like you to show them how to use one as a  
suppository.

We talk about "transparency" for the financial markets being needed  
after this credit crisis, but we pay our $10 co-pay (if we're lucky  
enough to have health insurance) and never question what the bill was  
(nor care, because it's not coming out of *our* pocket... or so we  
want to believe) that was sent to the insurer.  Pull that money from  
an account you own and have control of, I guarantee people who go into  
the emergency room for non-emergencies would drop off.  Costs would  
plummet, because someone with a real vested interest would be WATCHING  
the bills.  You.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com