For liberals asking for an alternative.

[Herbie Hancock]

First..............there is no reason for the government to spend the amount of tax dollars on healthcare costs it does currently and under this plan would spend a fraction of what they currently do, specifically once my plan would go into affect over time. Following would be the steps I would introduce to eventually insure/cover all medical costs for everyone and do away with Medicaid/Medicare.

1) Do away with the states defining what a basic insurance plan needs to cover and do away with not allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.
2) Allow states to set up high risk pools for people that have tried (and have documented proof) that they cannot obtain insurance on their own...............in these high risk pools the state will operate the plan and the individual will pay a monthly premium based on their risk, much like in the private insurance. The individual will still be responsible for copays, a likely large deductible, and co-insurances for services rendered.
3) Tort Reform.
4) Health savings accounts managed by a firm of the individuals choosing. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR MY PLAN. Your contribution to this can go as high as you want but at a minimum 2% of your pay will be withheld. You may be asking how this is different than social security or the individual mandate, and they are much different, in fact, have very little in common. The two percent will not go to the government but a private account of your choosing. It can be invested in the stock market, bonds, savings accts, or you can simply have it put in a box in a bank and you can view your balance through whatever financial institution you choose to work with whenever you want. THE MONEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES. THE MONEY GROWS TAX FREE AND IS PULLED OUT TAX FREE. YOU CAN PASS IT DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN INTO THEIR OWN HSA TAX FREE. Your employer can also contribute/match if they choose as they are likely to see savings on the insurance side of things with this scenario. To illustrate how this will eventually do away with Medicaid/Medicare and possibly all insurance (or at least everything but major medical see below). It may take a few cycles but eventually everyone will be on their own dime.


Husband HSA upon death
$200,000
Wife HSA Upon death
$100,000
which they had three children
Child 1,2, and 3 inherit 100k each into their HSA and they pass their HSA which have had over 77 years to grow even more say husband and wife have 600k and 300k and have two children. Their children will now inherit almost 450k each into their HSA's. And so on and so forth. You can see that in generation 3 or 4 how this can happen.

I haven't ran into one liberal yet that can argue this system with me and it is pretty obvious this can be achieved not spending 1 trillion dollars and using funny math to show BS savings. (10 years revenue vs. 6 years spending) So there you go what it took the dems 2500+ pages to tear down I have re-done in a couple paragraphs and bullet points. I look foward to you libs trying to refute the above plan.

 

[Greenbeard]

What are the goals of these policies? What outcomes do you seek?

 

[Herbie Hancock]

What are the goals of these policies? What outcomes do you seek?

Well, first and foremost it is achieves what the messiah claims his plan does, althought it hasn't and won't, without creating another entitlement. It would essentially insure everyone and....in the long run make denials from insurance companies a minor inconvenience because you could pay cash for everything out of your hsa. I am not saying do away with insurance, yet have a major medical, high deductible plan. It would also eventually lead to the termination of Medicare/Medicaid saving the taxpayer trillions. Another untargeted aspect of this is that it would also save community hospitals that are currently drowning because of Medicare/Medicaid reimburesment. Again, what it took the messiah and his cronies 2500+ pages to tear down I have created an alternate plan which is much better in less than 1 page.

 

[Bernard]

We are in trouble!

 

[Old Rocks]

Why re-invent the wheel? It has been done at half the per capita cost with far better outcomes in many nations around the world.

Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Herbie Hancock]

Why re-invent the wheel? It has been done at half the per capita cost with far better outcomes in many nations around the world.


So a simple I can't find anything wrong with your proposed plan would have been fine. I will do you the courtesy that you didn't extend to me and debate what you have stated above.

1) Please do not ever reference PBS as a credible organization to get unbiased news, specifically on health care.
2) UK health care system, no thank you next.
3) Germany, rich paying more for the poor....we do enough of that in US already. Next.
4) Switzerland, can't sustain itself on US scale.

All these plans have their issues and put government in front of you and your doctor, or at a minimum managing the process.

What is everyones problem with taking personal responsibility? Why do you all think that a person shouldn't have to pay for services rendered? What gives person A a right to the services of person B?

So please don't dodge the point of the thread and try to base a new system off of failed systems from other countries. We are the US and do things bigger and better than them. Debate the above plan and find the holes. I would guess that by you dodging the idea in whole you didn't find any.

 

[Greenbeard]

What are the goals of these policies? What outcomes do you seek?

It would essentially insure everyone and....in the long run make denials from insurance companies a minor inconvenience because you could pay cash for everything out of your hsa.

That's a start. Now, how do you believe it will do that?

 

[Herbie Hancock]

What are the goals of these policies? What outcomes do you seek?

It would essentially insure everyone and....in the long run make denials from insurance companies a minor inconvenience because you could pay cash for everything out of your hsa.

That's a start. Now, how do you believe it will do that?

Did you even look at the plan? It is through your HSA which would work much like a 401k, except that anything left upon death would go to your remaining family untaxed...100% of it. You could simply pay for anything insurance doesn't cover out of your HSA. Over time everyone's HSA will be large enough to pay for EVERYTHING major medical doesn't cover. Look at the examples on my initial thread.

 

[Greenbeard]

I see that you're suggesting requiring people to save 2% of their income, on the theory that, through inheritance and hard work, after a few generations one of the median American's grandchildren will be able to afford a decent length hospital stay. But you'll have to elaborate on how that achieves the goals most of us have for the system, such as the example you cite of "effectively insuring everyone." Preferably in this century.

 

[Sallow]

I see that you're suggesting requiring people to save 2% of their income, on the theory that, through inheritance and hard work, after a few generations one of the median American's grandchildren will be able to afford a decent length hospital stay. But you'll have to elaborate on how that achieves the goals most of us have for the system, such as the example you cite of "effectively insuring everyone." Preferably in this century.

Simple.

Generation one and two don't get sick..and die with the first heart attack.

Now why couldn't you figure that out?

 

[Herbie Hancock]

I see that you're suggesting requiring people to save 2% of their income, on the theory that, through inheritance and hard work, after a few generations one of the median American's grandchildren will be able to afford a decent length hospital stay. But you'll have to elaborate on how that achieves the goals most of us have for the system, such as the example you cite of "effectively insuring everyone." Preferably in this century.

I am saying that to completely get off of 3rd party payers it may take 2-3 generations, outside major medical, with high deductibles. In the interim you do the other things I listed to bring the cost down. Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, allow those purchasing ins. privately to write that cost off (like those that get it through their employer). The idea is that your HSA could be invested like your 401k, which grows tax free and can be invested in either safe, moderate, or riskier investments based on a number of factors. Your personal situation is unlike anybody elses and your investment portfolio for your HSA should follow suit to your situation. Upon your death your family would inherit the remainder tax free 100%, and so on, and so on. Also, much like how the benefits market got started in the first place, companies competing for talent when taxes were high, companies might start contributing to your personal HSA a certain amount or match, because the cost to insure you have gone down (this is caused by the competition across state lines). I am not saying this is an immediate fix but you can't refute that relatively quickly it will fix the problem, while leaving the government and taxpayers completely out of it and thus not liable for the aftermath. Obama's plan can't trumpet that either by government involvement or being able to state that it will 100% fix the problem forever.

 

[jillian]

First..............there is no reason for the government to spend the amount of tax dollars on healthcare costs it does currently and under this plan would spend a fraction of what they currently do, specifically once my plan would go into affect over time. Following would be the steps I would introduce to eventually insure/cover all medical costs for everyone and do away with Medicaid/Medicare.

1) Do away with the states defining what a basic insurance plan needs to cover and do away with not allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.
2) Allow states to set up high risk pools for people that have tried (and have documented proof) that they cannot obtain insurance on their own...............in these high risk pools the state will operate the plan and the individual will pay a monthly premium based on their risk, much like in the private insurance. The individual will still be responsible for copays, a likely large deductible, and co-insurances for services rendered.
3) Tort Reform.
4) Health savings accounts managed by a firm of the individuals choosing. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR MY PLAN. Your contribution to this can go as high as you want but at a minimum 2% of your pay will be withheld. You may be asking how this is different than social security or the individual mandate, and they are much different, in fact, have very little in common. The two percent will not go to the government but a private account of your choosing. It can be invested in the stock market, bonds, savings accts, or you can simply have it put in a box in a bank and you can view your balance through whatever financial institution you choose to work with whenever you want. THE MONEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES. THE MONEY GROWS TAX FREE AND IS PULLED OUT TAX FREE. YOU CAN PASS IT DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN INTO THEIR OWN HSA TAX FREE. Your employer can also contribute/match if they choose as they are likely to see savings on the insurance side of things with this scenario. To illustrate how this will eventually do away with Medicaid/Medicare and possibly all insurance (or at least everything but major medical see below). It may take a few cycles but eventually everyone will be on their own dime.


Husband HSA upon death
$200,000
Wife HSA Upon death
$100,000
which they had three children
Child 1,2, and 3 inherit 100k each into their HSA and they pass their HSA which have had over 77 years to grow even more say husband and wife have 600k and 300k and have two children. Their children will now inherit almost 450k each into their HSA's. And so on and so forth. You can see that in generation 3 or 4 how this can happen.

I haven't ran into one liberal yet that can argue this system with me and it is pretty obvious this can be achieved not spending 1 trillion dollars and using funny math to show BS savings. (10 years revenue vs. 6 years spending) So there you go what it took the dems 2500+ pages to tear down I have re-done in a couple paragraphs and bullet points. I look foward to you libs trying to refute the above plan.

other than spouting rightwingnuttiness, do you know what percentage of health insurance costs occur because of malpractice suits?

i'm all for limiting liability when doctors limit the damage they cause.

 

[Herbie Hancock]

First..............there is no reason for the government to spend the amount of tax dollars on healthcare costs it does currently and under this plan would spend a fraction of what they currently do, specifically once my plan would go into affect over time. Following would be the steps I would introduce to eventually insure/cover all medical costs for everyone and do away with Medicaid/Medicare.

1) Do away with the states defining what a basic insurance plan needs to cover and do away with not allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.
2) Allow states to set up high risk pools for people that have tried (and have documented proof) that they cannot obtain insurance on their own...............in these high risk pools the state will operate the plan and the individual will pay a monthly premium based on their risk, much like in the private insurance. The individual will still be responsible for copays, a likely large deductible, and co-insurances for services rendered.
3) Tort Reform.
4) Health savings accounts managed by a firm of the individuals choosing. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR MY PLAN. Your contribution to this can go as high as you want but at a minimum 2% of your pay will be withheld. You may be asking how this is different than social security or the individual mandate, and they are much different, in fact, have very little in common. The two percent will not go to the government but a private account of your choosing. It can be invested in the stock market, bonds, savings accts, or you can simply have it put in a box in a bank and you can view your balance through whatever financial institution you choose to work with whenever you want. THE MONEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES. THE MONEY GROWS TAX FREE AND IS PULLED OUT TAX FREE. YOU CAN PASS IT DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN INTO THEIR OWN HSA TAX FREE. Your employer can also contribute/match if they choose as they are likely to see savings on the insurance side of things with this scenario. To illustrate how this will eventually do away with Medicaid/Medicare and possibly all insurance (or at least everything but major medical see below). It may take a few cycles but eventually everyone will be on their own dime.


Husband HSA upon death
$200,000
Wife HSA Upon death
$100,000
which they had three children
Child 1,2, and 3 inherit 100k each into their HSA and they pass their HSA which have had over 77 years to grow even more say husband and wife have 600k and 300k and have two children. Their children will now inherit almost 450k each into their HSA's. And so on and so forth. You can see that in generation 3 or 4 how this can happen.

I haven't ran into one liberal yet that can argue this system with me and it is pretty obvious this can be achieved not spending 1 trillion dollars and using funny math to show BS savings. (10 years revenue vs. 6 years spending) So there you go what it took the dems 2500+ pages to tear down I have re-done in a couple paragraphs and bullet points. I look foward to you libs trying to refute the above plan.

other than spouting rightwingnuttiness, do you know what percentage of health insurance costs occur because of malpractice suits?

i'm all for limiting liability when doctors limit the damage they cause.

I'm a right wing nut because I belive in personal responsibility and have created a better plan than your messiahs that does not include government involvement? In regards to tort reform, I know the estimates aren't high but there is no reason not to include it and any savings are worth putting in there. However, maybe the estimates are wrong and the savings are much larger. Didn't Pelosi and the Messiah go with "you will have to pass it to know whats in it" approach.

So I will make a note that you are on record stating that tort reform will not save trillions. You have unsuccessfully tried to dodge the meat of the plan. Should I make note that you have been owned or can you debate any other part of the plan.

 

[Greenbeard]

I am saying that to completely get off of 3rd party payers it may take 2-3 generations, outside major medical, with high deductibles.

Well, you start with a fairly common sentiment, which is that large-scale health services, of the sort that gobble up most of our national health expenditures, cost too much for one person to afford. And thus some kind of transfer is going to occur. The most common mechanism now, of course, is for an insurer to pool resources for communal use on health care. Medicare, on the other hand, morphs that model into an intergenerational transfer, which seems to be what you're suggesting. The difference there is that with Medicare the young finance care for the old right now, whereas you're suggesting the old (or, rather, dead) will help finance their younger relatives' health expenses by offering an inheritance with dollars earmarked for health spending.

The problem--besides the obvious one that it doesn't actually work for several decades because this is an intergenerational transfer that actually takes generations to work--is that health resources are heavily constrained by the health and wealth of your parents and grandparents. If a parent exhausted his resources in a long and expensive fight with cancer or some chronic illness, you, the child, are left starting from scratch: we're back at Generation 1. If you come from a poorer family, obviously their accumulated contributions will be smaller.

But even more importantly, you're ignoring the actual distribution of health spending in the United States. Five percent of the population accounts for almost half of our national spending. That may be less true as you look across generations, since people often disproportionately rack up medical expenses later in life; as AHRQ put it: "the elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses." So we should consider the chronically ill and the elderly who consume a disproportionate share of national health resources. What do we do about an older person who exhausts or nearly exhausts his health savings in a futile battle during his final year of life? How do we ensure that those who need care can get it?

There are broader questions about quality and building a better, more cohesive system that go beyond some of the financing questions that you're narrowly focused on, but it's worth thinking about the issues above if access if one of your biggest goals.

Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines

What are you trying to accomplish with this?

 

[Sallow]

First..............there is no reason for the government to spend the amount of tax dollars on healthcare costs it does currently and under this plan would spend a fraction of what they currently do, specifically once my plan would go into affect over time. Following would be the steps I would introduce to eventually insure/cover all medical costs for everyone and do away with Medicaid/Medicare.

1) Do away with the states defining what a basic insurance plan needs to cover and do away with not allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.
2) Allow states to set up high risk pools for people that have tried (and have documented proof) that they cannot obtain insurance on their own...............in these high risk pools the state will operate the plan and the individual will pay a monthly premium based on their risk, much like in the private insurance. The individual will still be responsible for copays, a likely large deductible, and co-insurances for services rendered.
3) Tort Reform.
4) Health savings accounts managed by a firm of the individuals choosing. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR MY PLAN. Your contribution to this can go as high as you want but at a minimum 2% of your pay will be withheld. You may be asking how this is different than social security or the individual mandate, and they are much different, in fact, have very little in common. The two percent will not go to the government but a private account of your choosing. It can be invested in the stock market, bonds, savings accts, or you can simply have it put in a box in a bank and you can view your balance through whatever financial institution you choose to work with whenever you want. THE MONEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES. THE MONEY GROWS TAX FREE AND IS PULLED OUT TAX FREE. YOU CAN PASS IT DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN INTO THEIR OWN HSA TAX FREE. Your employer can also contribute/match if they choose as they are likely to see savings on the insurance side of things with this scenario. To illustrate how this will eventually do away with Medicaid/Medicare and possibly all insurance (or at least everything but major medical see below). It may take a few cycles but eventually everyone will be on their own dime.


Husband HSA upon death
$200,000
Wife HSA Upon death
$100,000
which they had three children
Child 1,2, and 3 inherit 100k each into their HSA and they pass their HSA which have had over 77 years to grow even more say husband and wife have 600k and 300k and have two children. Their children will now inherit almost 450k each into their HSA's. And so on and so forth. You can see that in generation 3 or 4 how this can happen.

I haven't ran into one liberal yet that can argue this system with me and it is pretty obvious this can be achieved not spending 1 trillion dollars and using funny math to show BS savings. (10 years revenue vs. 6 years spending) So there you go what it took the dems 2500+ pages to tear down I have re-done in a couple paragraphs and bullet points. I look foward to you libs trying to refute the above plan.

other than spouting rightwingnuttiness, do you know what percentage of health insurance costs occur because of malpractice suits?

i'm all for limiting liability when doctors limit the damage they cause.

I'm a right wing nut because I belive in personal responsibility and have created a better plan than your messiahs that does not include government involvement? In regards to tort reform, I know the estimates aren't high but there is no reason not to include it and any savings are worth putting in there. However, maybe the estimates are wrong and the savings are much larger. Didn't Pelosi and the Messiah go with "you will have to pass it to know whats in it" approach.

So I will make a note that you are on record stating that tort reform will not save trillions. You have unsuccessfully tried to dodge the meat of the plan. Should I make note that you have been owned or can you debate any other part of the plan.

You can put me on that record too. Tort Reform probably would save a few million..if that.

Anyone paying attention knows those cases aren't easy to win. And that most HMOs LOST money doing EXACTLY what you recommend. Playing the market.

 

[Herbie Hancock]

[

Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines

What are you trying to accomplish with this?[/QUOTE]

Added competition=lower prices. Right now a person in NY cannot buy insurance from NJ. The government has controled what a "suitable" standard plan is in many states and only those that abide by the standard offering are allowed to sell insurance in a certain state. If I live in NY, whether I am an individual or a company looking to provide a plan for my employees, why can't I buy the plan from a plan issued in NM, CA, etc.....Don't you see it as wrong that if you live in one state you don't have the ability to shop around and purchase a much cheaper plan that may suit you better in another state?

 

[Herbie Hancock]

I am saying that to completely get off of 3rd party payers it may take 2-3 generations, outside major medical, with high deductibles.

Well, you start with a fairly common sentiment, which is that large-scale health services, of the sort that gobble up most of our national health expenditures, cost too much for one person to afford. And thus some kind of transfer is going to occur. The most common mechanism now, of course, is for an insurer to pool resources for communal use on health care. Medicare, on the other hand, morphs that model into an intergenerational transfer, which seems to be what you're suggesting. The difference there is that with Medicare the young finance care for the old right now, whereas you're suggesting the old (or, rather, dead) will help finance their younger relatives' health expenses by offering an inheritance with dollars earmarked for health spending.

The problem--besides the obvious one that it doesn't actually work for several decades because this is an intergenerational transfer that actually takes generations to work--is that health resources are heavily constrained by the health and wealth of your parents and grandparents. If a parent exhausted his resources in a long and expensive fight with cancer or some chronic illness, you, the child, are left starting from scratch: we're back at Generation 1. If you come from a poorer family, obviously their accumulated contributions will be smaller.

But even more importantly, you're ignoring the actual distribution of health spending in the United States. Five percent of the population accounts for almost half of our national spending. That may be less true as you look across generations, since people often isproportionately rack up medical expenses later in life put it: "the elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses." So we should consider the chronically ill and the elderly who consume a disproportionate share of national health resources. What do we do about an older person who exhausts or nearly exhausts his health savings in a futile battle during his final year of life? How do we ensure that those who need care can get it?

There are broader questions about quality and building a better, more cohesive system that go beyond some of the financing questions that you're narrowly focused on, but it's worth thinking about the issues above if access if one of your biggest goals.

I give you kudos you have been the only one that has actually had a rational thought on this and are providing constructive thoughts. In regards to how this system works. I would much rather know my family has access to the money in a family account vs. the governement taxing and managing it. I may re-state my case here in terms of it will take longer than 2-3 turns to completely be rid of 3rd party payor. However, with the HSA going through generations you will be able to pay for any denials or special services out of pocket. Also, to address the case of a tragic instance where a person has a prolonged battle with cancer (etc) the payor would be a mix of ins (major med) and HSA. The idea being that it wouldn't completely deplete the acct. However, law of averages is on the side of the HSA over time. Not every family member will battle to the end and money will be transferred downward. In regards to poorer families...again, law of averages should apply and some of them should be getting out of poverty. If not, that is a different issue as to why they aren't progressing. If you are asking why should the millionare have an HSA that is 10x more than a middle class person/poor person............the answer is because they made more while living. In any case my plan is individualized and leaves the governement and taxpayer completely off the hook. Both good things in my view.

 

[Greenbeard]

Added competition=lower prices.

In this instance, that's not necessarily true. There are a few very important things that determine your premiums: things like the utilization of health resources by your risk pool, the composition of your risk pool (i.e. how many sick people are in it), and how high are the reimbursements your insurer has to pay providers of health care services.

The kind of deregulation you're talking about may be effective at shifting the composition of some risk pools by making it easier to reject or jettison the sick (note that this stands in opposition to the goal of achieving universal coverage), but it potentially gets into a bit of a bind when you consider the insurer-provider relationship. Providers obviously want to negotiate higher reimbursements for their services, which trickles down into higher premiums for you.

If you dilute the insurance market, the providers in your area gain clout in that negotiation. Which means the actual price of care (and thus the price of your premiums) can have upward pressure on it. In picture form, you may be starting at Point C but end up reach (or even overshooting) Point A, which might actually entail higher premiums:

If you happen to live in a high-cost area in Boston or New York, buying an insurance plan sold in Idaho doesn't guarantee you lower premiums because that insurer still has to pay the reimbursements to the providers in your area (if you intend to take a plane ride to Idaho any time you need care, disregard what I'm saying). And since the Idaho-based insurer presumably has precious few customers to offer your local providers, it's at a distinct disadvantage in negotiating reimbursements. Essentially you're always "out-of-network."

And that doesn't even get into the enforcement issues. The standard conservative across-state-lines proposal puts the impetus for handling any problems you have with your insurer on the state regulators in the state in which it's based. In other words, insurance regulators in Idaho become responsible for your problems and, indeed, they're expected to police their insurers' activities in potentially all 50 states.

Don't you see it as wrong that if you live in one state you don't have the ability to shop around and purchase a much cheaper plan that may suit you better in another state?

I don't have a problem with interstate sales of health in principle, though I think it requires a few extras to work--things like a baseline set of federal regulations and probably some kind of all-payer rate system to prevent different insurers from getting fleeced by a particular provider. But I wouldn't support deregulation all by itself.

 

[auditor0007]

First..............there is no reason for the government to spend the amount of tax dollars on healthcare costs it does currently and under this plan would spend a fraction of what they currently do, specifically once my plan would go into affect over time. Following would be the steps I would introduce to eventually insure/cover all medical costs for everyone and do away with Medicaid/Medicare.

1) Do away with the states defining what a basic insurance plan needs to cover and do away with not allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.
2) Allow states to set up high risk pools for people that have tried (and have documented proof) that they cannot obtain insurance on their own...............in these high risk pools the state will operate the plan and the individual will pay a monthly premium based on their risk, much like in the private insurance. The individual will still be responsible for copays, a likely large deductible, and co-insurances for services rendered.
3) Tort Reform.
4) Health savings accounts managed by a firm of the individuals choosing. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR MY PLAN. Your contribution to this can go as high as you want but at a minimum 2% of your pay will be withheld. You may be asking how this is different than social security or the individual mandate, and they are much different, in fact, have very little in common. The two percent will not go to the government but a private account of your choosing. It can be invested in the stock market, bonds, savings accts, or you can simply have it put in a box in a bank and you can view your balance through whatever financial institution you choose to work with whenever you want. THE MONEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES. THE MONEY GROWS TAX FREE AND IS PULLED OUT TAX FREE. YOU CAN PASS IT DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN INTO THEIR OWN HSA TAX FREE. Your employer can also contribute/match if they choose as they are likely to see savings on the insurance side of things with this scenario. To illustrate how this will eventually do away with Medicaid/Medicare and possibly all insurance (or at least everything but major medical see below). It may take a few cycles but eventually everyone will be on their own dime.


Husband HSA upon death
$200,000
Wife HSA Upon death
$100,000
which they had three children
Child 1,2, and 3 inherit 100k each into their HSA and they pass their HSA which have had over 77 years to grow even more say husband and wife have 600k and 300k and have two children. Their children will now inherit almost 450k each into their HSA's. And so on and so forth. You can see that in generation 3 or 4 how this can happen.

I haven't ran into one liberal yet that can argue this system with me and it is pretty obvious this can be achieved not spending 1 trillion dollars and using funny math to show BS savings. (10 years revenue vs. 6 years spending) So there you go what it took the dems 2500+ pages to tear down I have re-done in a couple paragraphs and bullet points. I look foward to you libs trying to refute the above plan.

Let's start with with your first suggestion, allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. First of all, most of the big ones already do. Secondly, they do it as individual companies because there are so many issues trying to sell from one state to another. For instance, just because you could purchase a policy from Anthem of Colorado in New York, you would not get a policy with Colorado rates. They would have to sell you a policy with rates that correspond to the costs of providing healthcare in New York, which are much higher than in Colorado. I think some of you think that you would get cheaper rates. Actually the rates would need to be higher because they are dealing with entities much further away from their normal area of operation. Another huge problem with this is it would open the door for all types of fly by night companies that would coerce people into purchasing crap plans that may or may not pay out. When they don't pay, trying to fight with them becomes that much harder because they are operating in a different state. You see, this idea just creates one problem after another.

Next: High risk pools. We've had those. They are unbelievably expensive and very few can afford them. You even stated that the rates would be based on risk. So how does $2000 per month sound? How many do you think can afford that? So there is bad idea number two.

Number three: I can go along with tort reform. Cap liability. On top of that, revoke physician's licenses when they do something extremely stupid like cutting off the patient's wrong leg. But the truth is, the savings will be small, but it will help some.

Last of all, your 2% savings account. It's a flippin joke. It amounts to a spit in the bucket when it comes to actual healthcare costs. Most people, assuming they stay healthy until old age, would burn through that with one heart attack. If they get sick before retirement, they would have zilch in the account by the time they retire. Now, if the rate were 10%, you might actually have a good idea, but it still would not remove the need for a program like Medicare. And one more problem. You can't force people to save money for something they may not want. You guys keep telling us that is un-Constitutional.

 

[auditor0007]

Why re-invent the wheel? It has been done at half the per capita cost with far better outcomes in many nations around the world.


So a simple I can't find anything wrong with your proposed plan would have been fine. I will do you the courtesy that you didn't extend to me and debate what you have stated above.

1) Please do not ever reference PBS as a credible organization to get unbiased news, specifically on health care.
2) UK health care system, no thank you next.
3) Germany, rich paying more for the poor....we do enough of that in US already. Next.
4) Switzerland, can't sustain itself on US scale.

All these plans have their issues and put government in front of you and your doctor, or at a minimum managing the process.

What is everyones problem with taking personal responsibility? Why do you all think that a person shouldn't have to pay for services rendered? What gives person A a right to the services of person B?

So please don't dodge the point of the thread and try to base a new system off of failed systems from other countries. We are the US and do things bigger and better than them. Debate the above plan and find the holes. I would guess that by you dodging the idea in whole you didn't find any.

1. Only reference Fox News. It is the only fair and balance source.
2. UK system is horrible. Only those who are willing to pay for private insurance get gold treatment. Everyone else only gets treatment.
3. The rich shouldn't have to pay anything for the poor. They give plenty to beggars in the street already.
4. I highly doubt you even know how Switzerland's system works. Funny thing is the Swiss have more choices when it comes to insurance than we do here in the US. On top of that, their cost for private insurance is much less than here in the US, and last of all, the percentage of government spending is less than here in the US. And guess what? Almost everyone is insured privately. And it doesn't matter if they switch jobs, because everyone buys private insurance themselves. Employers do not provide health insurance, limiting a person's choice as to what type of insurance plan they can have. And since employers don't have to pay for health insurance for their employees, they are more competitive. But you're right; we couldn't pull something like that off here in the US, because we're not smart enough.