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

[Brian Gibson]

Your ideal plan already exists.  It's called a savings account minus the tax free part, but there's also these things called Health Savings Accounts which I believe are tax deferred or can be claimed as a tax deduction or somewhere along those lines there's a tax benefit.  HSAs do exactly what you want except they're restricted to paying for health costs, but they double as another retirement account to be withdrawn at the age of 65.  And I even predicted such a plan at the end of the same paragraph from which you took my quote.  Yet individual plans are more expensive compared to group plans for equal coverage because the cost of health care is spread over the entire group rather than letting every one fend for themselves.  Your plan only works for those that have the income to put towards health care.  Therefore there will be a segment of the population priced out and so is no better than what we currently have, other than the increased personal
 autonomy over your income (which is obviously very important to you).

I gave you a link which presented 5 working universal health care systems (2 of them with phenomenal results) each within capitalist societies, and rather than acknowledge their successes, you ignore them?  You wanted an example where socialist mechanisms work and here they are.



----- Original Message ----
From: Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>
To: CLUE talk <clue-talk at cluedenver.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2008 2:34:03 AM
Subject: Re: [clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...


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



_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk