Health Care (A simpler solution)

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Darkwind, Aug 21, 2009.

  1. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    14,150
    Thanks Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,265
    So, what are the key requirements that Mr. Obama keeps talking about (Though if he read the bills, he'd see that none of his talking points are being met) and that you progressives want?

    Portability:

    1. Keeping your health coverage if you lose your jobs.
    2. Moving a health coverage you like to your new employer.
    3. I can use My health coverage anywhere in the United States.

    Affordability:

    a. The Dream;

    1. Costs nothing to anyone but the rich.
    2. Costs nothing to anyone but employers

    b. The Practical;

    1. A low cost plan (as of yet, low cost is undefined by anyone)

    Pre-existing Conditions:

    1. I cannot be turned down for a pre-existing condition.
    2. I cannot be denied coverage if I develop a serious condition


    Does that about cover it?

    As it stands now, we can accomplish all of this with the absolute MINIMUM of government intervention into our lives without having to bankrupt our country or put our grandchildren into a 100k dollar debt before they are even born!

    The legislation would also be pretty straight forward, requiring no more then 15 to 25 pages just to be sure the loop-holes are closed.

    That plan would be a mandatory payroll deduction of a percentage of your weekly/bi-weekly/monthly pay into a Health Savings Account.
    And it is tax deductible.

    This account would be strictly controlled by you and the investment of the money would be determined by you with the caveat that you could not invest in high risk stocks.

    This account would go with you no matter who was your employer (much like you social security) and since you would be paying cash from this account for services rendered (with the exception of catastrophic care) you simply cannot be turned down for a pre-existing condition. It is, after all, your money.

    But the best part of this is.......


    The law would be written in such a way that No Politician from any level of government would be allowed access to this money. It would require everyone to participate and would lower medical costs because the insurance companies would be pretty much eliminated from the equation with the exception of the catastrophic care that would still need to be funded by the individual.
     
  2. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    The basic foundation is a solid one, good blueprint for coverage.

    One thing that's not taken into account is that it's not about good healthcare coverage, it's about government controlled coverage. There lies the rub
     
  3. wvpeach
    Offline

    wvpeach Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    100
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    West Virginia ( God's country)
    Ratings:
    +18

    Pretty much the same as medical savings accounts , which you can open now if you want and save money for medical care tax free. Still costs $600-$1200 a month for real health insurance . Something people making minimum wage or even $10 a hour simply cannot afford.

    Let me guess darkwind ......... your a ron paul supporter ?

    Am I right?

    You people all sound alike . Kind of nonsensical and wishful.
    No basis in reality.
     
  4. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,156
    Thanks Received:
    10,167
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,729
    It's about saving the unions money as well.
     
  5. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    14,150
    Thanks Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,265
    That is the beauty of My plan. The only government involvement is a law that makes it mandatory to set aside a specified percentage of a persons income for a health savings account.

    The government would not be permitted to have access to the monies at all.

    Of course, that would make it a deal breaker for every politician.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    14,150
    Thanks Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,265
    To My way of thinking, the unions don't really have a say. After all, we are talking about a system that helps everyone have an ability to pay for their health needs.
     
  7. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    14,150
    Thanks Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,265
    Surprise surprise. I am not a ron paul supporter. So you are wrong in two instances.

    The reality is that the government cannot supply health coverage for every American, and that IS based in reality.

    The real need is to get people to provide for their own health needs and quite frankly. If you cannot afford the 600 to 800 per year for catistrophic health coverage you should be doing more to improve your position in life.

    Sitting back for decades at a time on 10 dollars per hour is no ones fault but your own.

    A health savings account can get very large if started at a young age (as soon as you enter the work force) and the truth is, people should be paying out of pocket for their preventative health needs. A medical savings account can provide just that.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2009
  8. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    This would work for most so long as you could not be denied for the catastrophic insurance. Without a doubt, it would make much more sense to pay out of pocket for everyday medical care. Prices would be much more competetive that way. But I can guarantee that the insurance companies would fight this also.
     
  9. Emma
    Offline

    Emma Evil Liberal Leftist™

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,377
    Thanks Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    On the street, acting all loud and tumultuous and
    Ratings:
    +757
    I like my plan better. It solves all our problems.
     
  10. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Well we're snotty aren't we?

    If you cannot afford the 600 to 800 per year for catistrophic health coverage you should be doing more to improve your position in life.

    :lol:

    Sitting back for decades at a time on 10 dollars per hour is no ones fault but your own.

    :lol:

    Your plan is fucked chum, it just won't work in reality.

    The richest country in the world, the world's biggest economy, can't provide for the health care of its citizens?

    Really?

    :lol:

    I don't think so!
     

Share This Page