Universal Healthcare - Conservative Style? Vouchers?

GHook93

Aristotle
Apr 22, 2007
20,150
3,524
290
Chicago
Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want. Second, when in need you usually can't say no and it becomes very expensive even if you have insurance. Third, even if you have insurance maintaining the payment when you become sick is extremely hard. Even maintaining an income becomes very hard. It's as unique of a service as they come.

Obamanationcare isn't the answer. Most people without insurance are going to ignore the mandate (granted it's constitutional) and not get insurance. Even if everyone did, it's already been proven those payment will not offset the added costs to the insurance companies. There will be many small businesses effected by this (not as many as stated) which will hurt the economy. But the biggest impact will be to everyone. Everyone will have higher premium and deductibles, businesses will pay a ton more and the individual or self-employed person's insurance cost will be unaffordable. It's simply not the answer.

However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available. Employer based system removes choice and puts our corps at a disadvantage globally. It's a wasteful system. Medical Bills are still the leading cause of BK. The most vulnerable in society (our children) are at the mercy of others to get insurance! Status Quo isn't the option either. We have rationing already, use an HMO or look at the 20% co-payment and you will be dishonest to say we don't already have healthcare rationing!

Libs say single payor is the only way. I came across this article and I believe this author has the way.

Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person. Yet you can buy down the deductible and/or get addition coverage for a fee. It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage. Illegals and criminals won't get free healthcare, because you still have to sign up with an insurance co. There is still skin in the game with the deductible (which I believe the deductible gets waived for low income) and additional coverage can be purchased. It also move away from the inflexible to the consumer's needs of the employer based system. If would give our corps an advantage in the global market by reducing a huge cost to them.

I like it! What do you say!

Articles: Universal Health Care Conservative Style
To this end, I propose that the Republican Party expand on the Ryan plan with a national solution that addresses the real needs of all the people, while concurrently advancing the values of principled conservatism. In broad outline, the program would look like this.

The federal government would issue every American citizen and legal alien a voucher that would be used to purchase a basic health insurance plan. The benefits of the basic plan would be precisely defined and all insurers would have to offer such a plan for the money available from the voucher. Insurers could also offer supplemental coverage that individuals or employers could purchase, but the minimum level of care spelled out in the basic policy would be available to everyone.

Insurers would be responsible for all covered patient care costs after a moderate deductible -- say $1,000 per year per person. Low income persons would be exempted from the deductible through tax credits. This model would apply to Medicare patients as well as to younger patients. The voucher's value would vary based on age. All insurers would have to accept all patients. There would be a few refinements, but this is the basic picture.

Now you may be asking yourself: is this really a conservative proposal or is it socialism in disguise? It is conservative. It meaningfully advances the general welfare, and it does so in a cost-effective manner that does not involve burdensome regulation or restrictions of personal liberty. For this reason, it is consistent with the traditional values of principled conservatism. I will address some of these issues in more detail below.
 
Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want.

If that's the standard for government control, then we'll have to look to our central planners to provide, or fund through taxpayer theft, food, water, clothing, and shelter. After all, we NEED these things.

Since we don't need an education, can I assume all the tax money spent on public schools will be re-directed towards your plan for universal healthcare as described in that article?
 
Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want.

Healthcare isn't optional, unlike other things? Shithead, why don't you find a doctor that can give you a brain. Isn't food needed? Isn't clothing needed? Isn't a roof needed? Is electrical service and a phone really optional? Maybe a car is optional, if you live on a buss rout.

Medical care is mostly optional and even when it's not an option, it's only so expensive because of government intrusion. Even as it is, 95% of the population would save money by not having medical insurance. If you get a hundred thousand dollar heart job, because you were a fat slob, a bank loan to pay the bill wouldn't cost as much as insurance.

However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available.

Wrong, shithead. Pre-existing conditions don't apply with group insurance. Pre-existing conditions only count when they're already diagnosed. "At worst", pre-existing conditions are covered, just after a short period of exclusion. And, if you're poor, you get free medical care regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person.

Shithead, is there not one working brain cell in your skull? You want the government to flood the insurance market with billions of government dollars and you don't think the insurance companies will simply jack up their rates (and profits) to absorb the extra cash? Oh wait, you're already having the government writing the insurance contracts "$1000 deductible..." Sorry, shithead, the insurance companies will just find another way to absorb the extra cash.

It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage.

Wrong, shithead, with the government buying "basic coverage" with a "thousand dollar deductible" for everyone, it is a single player system... just one with a bunch of useless profiteers (the insurance companies) in the middle.

Socialism: Government -> medical care.
Shitheadism: Government -> insurance companies -> medical care.

Vouchers are a good idea for something like public education because the vouchers go to the school to pay the school, not to a third-party profiteer in the middle. And, because the cost of education is fairly consistent and controllable, it's trivial for the government to insist that a school doesn't charge tuition above the voucher.

The solution to our medical problem is for the government to deregulate medical care and insurance companies, and to cap liability. In short, shithead, the government is the problem, not the solution.
 
You talking little guy?

Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want.

Healthcare isn't optional, unlike other things? Shithead, why don't you find a doctor that can give you a brain. Isn't food needed? Isn't clothing needed? Isn't a roof needed? Is electrical service and a phone really optional? Maybe a car is optional, if you live on a buss rout.

Medical care is mostly optional and even when it's not an option, it's only so expensive because of government intrusion. Even as it is, 95% of the population would save money by not having medical insurance. If you get a hundred thousand dollar heart job, because you were a fat slob, a bank loan to pay the bill wouldn't cost as much as insurance.

However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available.

Wrong, shithead. Pre-existing conditions don't apply with group insurance. Pre-existing conditions only count when they're already diagnosed. "At worst", pre-existing conditions are covered, just after a short period of exclusion. And, if you're poor, you get free medical care regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person.

Shithead, is there not one working brain cell in your skull? You want the government to flood the insurance market with billions of government dollars and you don't think the insurance companies will simply jack up their rates (and profits) to absorb the extra cash? Oh wait, you're already having the government writing the insurance contracts "$1000 deductible..." Sorry, shithead, the insurance companies will just find another way to absorb the extra cash.

It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage.

Wrong, shithead, with the government buying "basic coverage" with a "thousand dollar deductible" for everyone, it is a single player system... just one with a bunch of useless profiteers (the insurance companies) in the middle.

Socialism: Government -> medical care.
Shitheadism: Government -> insurance companies -> medical care.

Vouchers are a good idea for something like public education because the vouchers go to the school to pay the school, not to a third-party profiteer in the middle. And, because the cost of education is fairly consistent and controllable, it's trivial for the government to insist that a school doesn't charge tuition above the voucher.

The solution to our medical problem is for the government to deregulate medical care and insurance companies, and to cap liability. In short, shithead, the government is the problem, not the solution.
 
Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want.

If that's the standard for government control, then we'll have to look to our central planners to provide, or fund through taxpayer theft, food, water, clothing, and shelter. After all, we NEED these things.

Since we don't need an education, can I assume all the tax money spent on public schools will be re-directed towards your plan for universal healthcare as described in that article?

I love the extremist. If this happens then why not everything. If one can't see that healthcare is (1) Unique, (2) A Unsolved Pressing US problem and (3) Needs some drastic change then I feel for you.
 
If this happens then why not everything.

Because that's the way central planners work. Drip by drip, they enact more socialist programs, growing government more and more each year. They'll say if healthcare is a "need" and we provide it, then we MUST provide for other "needs". Of course, they want to manage/provide/oversee all kinds of programs that do not represent need, but again, that's the way central planners think...everything THEY run will be great. It's only the other central planners that don't have the right magic beans.

I'll take free markets, competition and choice every time over either side's planners. So, in summary, I am not impressed with your suggested version of socialized healthcare.
 
If this happens then why not everything.

Because that's the way central planners work. Drip by drip, they enact more socialist programs, growing government more and more each year. They'll say if healthcare is a "need" and we provide it, then we MUST provide for other "needs". Of course, they want to manage/provide/oversee all kinds of programs that do not represent need, but again, that's the way central planners think...everything THEY run will be great. It's only the other central planners that don't have the right magic beans.

I'll take free markets, competition and choice every time over either side's planners. So, in summary, I am not impressed with your suggested version of socialized healthcare.

It offers free market, compeition and choice! Are you against medicare also? What about social security are you against any form of SS also?

If you are going to hate on extremist on the left who want government in everything, then you have to hate on extremist on the right who want government in nothing!
 
Last edited:
Articles: Universal Health Care Conservative Style
To this end, I propose that the Republican Party expand on the Ryan plan with a national solution that addresses the real needs of all the people, while concurrently advancing the values of principled conservatism. In broad outline, the program would look like this.

The federal government would issue every American citizen and legal alien a voucher that would be used to purchase a basic health insurance plan. The benefits of the basic plan would be precisely defined and all insurers would have to offer such a plan for the money available from the voucher. Insurers could also offer supplemental coverage that individuals or employers could purchase, but the minimum level of care spelled out in the basic policy would be available to everyone.

Insurers would be responsible for all covered patient care costs after a moderate deductible -- say $1,000 per year per person. Low income persons would be exempted from the deductible through tax credits. This model would apply to Medicare patients as well as to younger patients. The voucher's value would vary based on age. All insurers would have to accept all patients. There would be a few refinements, but this is the basic picture.

This is just a variant of the dreaded "Obamacare," except it's actually less "conservative" (if that word still has meaning). Under Obamacare, insurers do have to offer a basic set of health benefits and the feds do offer financial assistance to cover the cost of those benefits. The difference is that the value of that financial assistance is determined by market forces (not set at a fixed value, apparently administratively, as in the proposal you're describing), instead of simply requiring insurers to offer those basic benefits at a price dictated by the government.

Of course, if you're going to rely on market forces to determine the level of the financial assistance, you need to address the features of the market that make it anti-competitive (e.g. it being fragmented, opaque, confusing, and otherwise limited). Which the ACA does by doing things like leveling the playing field to make consumer choice more meaningful and facilitating the introduction of new, competing plans into insurance markets.
 
Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person. Yet you can buy down the deductible and/or get addition coverage for a fee. It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage. Illegals and criminals won't get free healthcare, because you still have to sign up with an insurance co. There is still skin in the game with the deductible (which I believe the deductible gets waived for low income) and additional coverage can be purchased. It also move away from the inflexible to the consumer's needs of the employer based system. If would give our corps an advantage in the global market by reducing a huge cost to them.

I like it! What do you say!

Sounds like "plan B" in the insurance industry's ongoing campaign to tap government for guaranteed income.
 
Articles: Universal Health Care Conservative Style
To this end, I propose that the Republican Party expand on the Ryan plan with a national solution that addresses the real needs of all the people, while concurrently advancing the values of principled conservatism. In broad outline, the program would look like this.

The federal government would issue every American citizen and legal alien a voucher that would be used to purchase a basic health insurance plan. The benefits of the basic plan would be precisely defined and all insurers would have to offer such a plan for the money available from the voucher. Insurers could also offer supplemental coverage that individuals or employers could purchase, but the minimum level of care spelled out in the basic policy would be available to everyone.

Insurers would be responsible for all covered patient care costs after a moderate deductible -- say $1,000 per year per person. Low income persons would be exempted from the deductible through tax credits. This model would apply to Medicare patients as well as to younger patients. The voucher's value would vary based on age. All insurers would have to accept all patients. There would be a few refinements, but this is the basic picture.

This is just a variant of the dreaded "Obamacare," except it's actually less "conservative" (if that word still has meaning). Under Obamacare, insurers do have to offer a basic set of health benefits and the feds do offer financial assistance to cover the cost of those benefits. The difference is that the value of that financial assistance is determined by market forces (not set at a fixed value, apparently administratively, as in the proposal you're describing), instead of simply requiring insurers to offer those basic benefits at a price dictated by the government.

Of course, if you're going to rely on market forces to determine the level of the financial assistance, you need to address the features of the market that make it anti-competitive (e.g. it being fragmented, opaque, confusing, and otherwise limited). Which the ACA does by doing things like leveling the playing field to make consumer choice more meaningful and facilitating the introduction of new, competing plans into insurance markets.

Excellent points.
 
Come on people. Republican Health Care is:

1. Spend a fortune and if you can't:

2. Let him die or:

3. Die quickly.

Period. Run on what you believe in. It makes you more honest and more likely to get votes.
 
You talking little guy?

Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want.

Healthcare isn't optional, unlike other things? Shithead, why don't you find a doctor that can give you a brain. Isn't food needed? Isn't clothing needed? Isn't a roof needed? Is electrical service and a phone really optional? Maybe a car is optional, if you live on a buss rout.

Medical care is mostly optional and even when it's not an option, it's only so expensive because of government intrusion. Even as it is, 95% of the population would save money by not having medical insurance. If you get a hundred thousand dollar heart job, because you were a fat slob, a bank loan to pay the bill wouldn't cost as much as insurance.



Wrong, shithead. Pre-existing conditions don't apply with group insurance. Pre-existing conditions only count when they're already diagnosed. "At worst", pre-existing conditions are covered, just after a short period of exclusion. And, if you're poor, you get free medical care regardless of pre-existing conditions.



Shithead, is there not one working brain cell in your skull? You want the government to flood the insurance market with billions of government dollars and you don't think the insurance companies will simply jack up their rates (and profits) to absorb the extra cash? Oh wait, you're already having the government writing the insurance contracts "$1000 deductible..." Sorry, shithead, the insurance companies will just find another way to absorb the extra cash.

It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage.

Wrong, shithead, with the government buying "basic coverage" with a "thousand dollar deductible" for everyone, it is a single player system... just one with a bunch of useless profiteers (the insurance companies) in the middle.

Socialism: Government -> medical care.
Shitheadism: Government -> insurance companies -> medical care.

Vouchers are a good idea for something like public education because the vouchers go to the school to pay the school, not to a third-party profiteer in the middle. And, because the cost of education is fairly consistent and controllable, it's trivial for the government to insist that a school doesn't charge tuition above the voucher.

The solution to our medical problem is for the government to deregulate medical care and insurance companies, and to cap liability. In short, shithead, the government is the problem, not the solution.

Way to admit you've got nothing.
 
This is just a variant of the dreaded "Obamacare," except it's actually less "conservative" (if that word still has meaning).
How so? Obamacare requires everyone to get and pay for their own insurance and doesn't allow the insurance companies to turn down anyone or offer pre-existing condition riders. What it has done and will do when it's fully in effect in 2014 is raise the cost of insurance for everyone DRASTICALLY (including for our businesses)! Deductibles will go through the roof and many benefits will be dropped. An individual or small business owner will have to pay a ton to get insured. It's won't be affordable or cut costs in the least.

This plan is what someone would call "liberal," but I don't care about labels. I am conservative on some issues, moderate on others and liberal on others. What this plan does is provide EVERYONE a voucher to pick their own basic plan. Then if you want to upgrade for better coverage you can. It removes the inflexibility and cost disadvantage to our business that is associated with employer based plans. It allows you to pick a plan that fits what you want. It allows the private sector to take care of the management (because the government is incapable of it). However, the Fed fronts the bill and doesn't run it.

Under Obamacare, insurers do have to offer a basic set of health benefits and the feds do offer financial assistance to cover the cost of those benefits. The difference is that the value of that financial assistance is determined by market forces (not set at a fixed value, apparently administratively, as in the proposal you're describing), instead of simply requiring insurers to offer those basic benefits at a price dictated by the government.
That is inaccurate. The Fed is spending money for some of the "low" income people, but there will be a ton without assistance and none of the middle class people will get assistance, even though Obaminationcare will (and is) shooting premiums and deductibles through the roof!

I believe healthcare is an unique product that require an unique CONSTITUTIONAL solution.

It is very easy for a young health (and single person) to say fuck everyone get your own damn insurance. Then they get older, might have a sick kid, parent or spouse or get sick themselves. Then they see their insurance only pay for this and that. If it's them, when they can't keep up with the bills they get dropped. When they go to get new insurance it's either extremely expensive or not available. Luckly I am healthy and so is my family, but I have seen my brother-in-law fall into the healthcare blackhole.

The guy worked hard since he was 16, had a good job, wife, kids, house and savings. At 34 he was diagnosed with MS. By the time he was 40 it really kicked in and he had trouble getting around and even going to work, not because he didn't want to, but because he couldn't. The healthcare was extremely expensive esp the drugs. He lost his job within a year and blew through his savings to pay the medical bills and COBRA payments. His wife, who was a bitch, stated, "She didn't sign up for this when they got married," kicked him out of the house and divorced him. COBRA eventually ran out and he had to apply for the CHIPS program. Too 6 months to get into it and 1 year to get over the pre-existing conditions rider. 1 1/2 years with minimum doctor visits and a lot of expensive drug payments, he blew through whatever he had left and ran up $40K in credit card bills (every see how much MS drugs cost without insurance, it made me want to cry). He had to declare BK, go on food stamps, apply and receive social security disability and move in with his parents. The guy is a mess, he eventually got on the CHIPS program, but it's not the greatest like every government run program.

It's not just MS people there are, children who get sick and the parents spend everything to get them better, finding themselves in BK and other problems. There are construction workers who are not hurt at the job (so no worker's comp), but can't do physically straining stuff and lose their job and insurance.

Healthcare is different and MUST be treated as such.
 
Come on people. Republican Health Care is:

1. Spend a fortune and if you can't:

2. Let him die or:

3. Die quickly.

Period. Run on what you believe in. It makes you more honest and more likely to get votes.

Do you ever not troll? This is about a voucher program vs a non-voucher program (Obaminiationcare and Status Quo). About a market based UHC vs. A single payor UHC.

Can't you ever contribute or are you just a troll? I bet you didn't read the OP, if you did you might see you like it?
 
You talking little guy?

Healthcare isn't optional, unlike other things? Shithead, why don't you find a doctor that can give you a brain. Isn't food needed? Isn't clothing needed? Isn't a roof needed? Is electrical service and a phone really optional? Maybe a car is optional, if you live on a buss rout.

Medical care is mostly optional and even when it's not an option, it's only so expensive because of government intrusion. Even as it is, 95% of the population would save money by not having medical insurance. If you get a hundred thousand dollar heart job, because you were a fat slob, a bank loan to pay the bill wouldn't cost as much as insurance.



Wrong, shithead. Pre-existing conditions don't apply with group insurance. Pre-existing conditions only count when they're already diagnosed. "At worst", pre-existing conditions are covered, just after a short period of exclusion. And, if you're poor, you get free medical care regardless of pre-existing conditions.



Shithead, is there not one working brain cell in your skull? You want the government to flood the insurance market with billions of government dollars and you don't think the insurance companies will simply jack up their rates (and profits) to absorb the extra cash? Oh wait, you're already having the government writing the insurance contracts "$1000 deductible..." Sorry, shithead, the insurance companies will just find another way to absorb the extra cash.



Wrong, shithead, with the government buying "basic coverage" with a "thousand dollar deductible" for everyone, it is a single player system... just one with a bunch of useless profiteers (the insurance companies) in the middle.

Socialism: Government -> medical care.
Shitheadism: Government -> insurance companies -> medical care.

Vouchers are a good idea for something like public education because the vouchers go to the school to pay the school, not to a third-party profiteer in the middle. And, because the cost of education is fairly consistent and controllable, it's trivial for the government to insist that a school doesn't charge tuition above the voucher.

The solution to our medical problem is for the government to deregulate medical care and insurance companies, and to cap liability. In short, shithead, the government is the problem, not the solution.

Way to admit you've got nothing.

Did you even read the post? Do you think I would respond to that troll? Not going to waste my time. Look at all the read stars, Ariux is not worth the time!

I respect and would respond to you if you have an argument!
 
This plan is what someone would call "liberal," but I don't care about labels. I am conservative on some issues, moderate on others and liberal on others. What this plan does is provide EVERYONE a voucher to pick their own basic plan.

Shithead, what are you conservative on? Bathing?

Shithead, you think a government mandate for people to buy something will cause the price to rise... but in utter shitheadness, you don't think the government buying something for everyone will cause the price to rise? "Now that I'm not buying this insurance with my own money, I suddenly care what the price is." F-ing shit-for-brains...

I believe healthcare is an unique product

Yeah, we got that from your earlier post. "Unlike food, shelter, and air, healthcare isn't optional. There's nothing you can do on your own to be healthy."

The guy worked hard since he was 16, had a good job, wife, kids, house and savings. At 34 he was diagnosed with MS.

You want to fuck society with because some guy got MS? BTW, MS is easily treatable "for free" through diet changes and fasting. But, shitheads would prefer to spend thousands of dollars on marginally effective drugs... they would especially prefer to spend my money on their problem.

We already have insurance to pay for MS treatment. And, for the poor, there's medicaid. What's the problem? If that guy didn't have insurance, he could have still bought some insurance and waited for the pre-existing condition period to expire before buying expensive drugs.

Our medical system is fucked up, thanks to shitheads like you with stupid ideas to impose on everyone else about how to fix it. For example, I think that guy with MS should have been allowed to sign a waiver giving up all liability claims in exchange for cheaper drugs. Or, maybe just have congress cap liability damages (after all, liability damages is extracted by the government). There's no good reason why that guy with MS shouldn't have been able to buy generic MS drugs for pocket change... no good reason, but plenty of shitheads like yourself standing in the way of affordable medical care. And, now, you want to cause the price of medical care to double, crushing our economy. You are so f-ing stupid...
 
This is just a variant of the dreaded "Obamacare," except it's actually less "conservative" (if that word still has meaning).
How so? Obamacare requires everyone to get and pay for their own insurance and doesn't allow the insurance companies to turn down anyone or offer pre-existing condition riders.

Which seems to be exactly what you're suggesting. Since your article explicitly says "All insurers would have to accept all patients and "It would eliminate the nightmares of pre-existing conditions," it's obvious this proposal is based on the same kind of guaranteed issue rules as Obamacare--it doesn't allow insurance companies to turn down anyone on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

And since we're told only that "The voucher's value would vary based on age," it seems likely your proposal operates on the same modified community rating rules as Obamacare, in which--aside from geography and family size--premiums can vary only based on the buyer's age (and, in the case of Obamacare, tobacco use).

You're suggesting folks can't be denied coverage for having pre-existing conditions and their premiums won't vary based on gender, health status, etc, only based on age. That's exactly how Obamacare works.

The difference is that while you're suggesting every insurer offer the basic benefit package for a price determined by the government and designed specifically to match up with the voucher the government issues, Obamacare relies on market mechanisms to determine the value of the financial assistance (and thus doesn't force competing insurers to offer the basic benefits at the same price).

Anyway, where you're correct is that the ACA holds onto the employer-based system, primarily as a practical/political matter. But the creation of these markets for individuals and small businesses (with the option for larger employers to eventually allow their employees to shop in them) creates the foundation for participation by a huge chunk of the country in real-live health insurance markets.
 
Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want. Second, when in need you usually can't say no and it becomes very expensive even if you have insurance. Third, even if you have insurance maintaining the payment when you become sick is extremely hard. Even maintaining an income becomes very hard. It's as unique of a service as they come.

Obamanationcare isn't the answer. Most people without insurance are going to ignore the mandate (granted it's constitutional) and not get insurance. Even if everyone did, it's already been proven those payment will not offset the added costs to the insurance companies. There will be many small businesses effected by this (not as many as stated) which will hurt the economy. But the biggest impact will be to everyone. Everyone will have higher premium and deductibles, businesses will pay a ton more and the individual or self-employed person's insurance cost will be unaffordable. It's simply not the answer.

However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available. Employer based system removes choice and puts our corps at a disadvantage globally. It's a wasteful system. Medical Bills are still the leading cause of BK. The most vulnerable in society (our children) are at the mercy of others to get insurance! Status Quo isn't the option either. We have rationing already, use an HMO or look at the 20% co-payment and you will be dishonest to say we don't already have healthcare rationing!

Libs say single payor is the only way. I came across this article and I believe this author has the way.

Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person. Yet you can buy down the deductible and/or get addition coverage for a fee. It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage. Illegals and criminals won't get free healthcare, because you still have to sign up with an insurance co. There is still skin in the game with the deductible (which I believe the deductible gets waived for low income) and additional coverage can be purchased. It also move away from the inflexible to the consumer's needs of the employer based system. If would give our corps an advantage in the global market by reducing a huge cost to them.

I like it! What do you say!

Articles: Universal Health Care Conservative Style
To this end, I propose that the Republican Party expand on the Ryan plan with a national solution that addresses the real needs of all the people, while concurrently advancing the values of principled conservatism. In broad outline, the program would look like this.

The federal government would issue every American citizen and legal alien a voucher that would be used to purchase a basic health insurance plan. The benefits of the basic plan would be precisely defined and all insurers would have to offer such a plan for the money available from the voucher. Insurers could also offer supplemental coverage that individuals or employers could purchase, but the minimum level of care spelled out in the basic policy would be available to everyone.

Insurers would be responsible for all covered patient care costs after a moderate deductible -- say $1,000 per year per person. Low income persons would be exempted from the deductible through tax credits. This model would apply to Medicare patients as well as to younger patients. The voucher's value would vary based on age. All insurers would have to accept all patients. There would be a few refinements, but this is the basic picture.

Now you may be asking yourself: is this really a conservative proposal or is it socialism in disguise? It is conservative. It meaningfully advances the general welfare, and it does so in a cost-effective manner that does not involve burdensome regulation or restrictions of personal liberty. For this reason, it is consistent with the traditional values of principled conservatism. I will address some of these issues in more detail below.

Basically, the described system is Obamacare on steroids. It continues to put a huge amount of money into the hands of the insurance companies. As costs continue t spiral out of control, eventually we will get it and understand that one payer is the way to go, and it really is. Change the entire system to one payer and leave the option to purchase private insurance for those who choose to do so.
 
Basically, the described system is Obamacare on steroids. It continues to put a huge amount of money into the hands of the insurance companies.

Exactly, the various proposals similar to the one outlined in the OP are why expecting Romney to reject the policy goals of PPACA is a sad joke.

As costs continue t spiral out of control, eventually we will get it and understand that one payer is the way to go, and it really is. Change the entire system to one payer and leave the option to purchase private insurance for those who choose to do so.

Couldn't disagree more.
 
Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want. Second, when in need you usually can't say no and it becomes very expensive even if you have insurance. Third, even if you have insurance maintaining the payment when you become sick is extremely hard. Even maintaining an income becomes very hard. It's as unique of a service as they come.

Obamanationcare isn't the answer. Most people without insurance are going to ignore the mandate (granted it's constitutional) and not get insurance. Even if everyone did, it's already been proven those payment will not offset the added costs to the insurance companies. There will be many small businesses effected by this (not as many as stated) which will hurt the economy. But the biggest impact will be to everyone. Everyone will have higher premium and deductibles, businesses will pay a ton more and the individual or self-employed person's insurance cost will be unaffordable. It's simply not the answer.

However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available. Employer based system removes choice and puts our corps at a disadvantage globally. It's a wasteful system. Medical Bills are still the leading cause of BK. The most vulnerable in society (our children) are at the mercy of others to get insurance! Status Quo isn't the option either. We have rationing already, use an HMO or look at the 20% co-payment and you will be dishonest to say we don't already have healthcare rationing!

Libs say single payor is the only way. I came across this article and I believe this author has the way.

Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person. Yet you can buy down the deductible and/or get addition coverage for a fee. It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage. Illegals and criminals won't get free healthcare, because you still have to sign up with an insurance co. There is still skin in the game with the deductible (which I believe the deductible gets waived for low income) and additional coverage can be purchased. It also move away from the inflexible to the consumer's needs of the employer based system. If would give our corps an advantage in the global market by reducing a huge cost to them.

I like it! What do you say!

Articles: Universal Health Care Conservative Style
To this end, I propose that the Republican Party expand on the Ryan plan with a national solution that addresses the real needs of all the people, while concurrently advancing the values of principled conservatism. In broad outline, the program would look like this.

The federal government would issue every American citizen and legal alien a voucher that would be used to purchase a basic health insurance plan. The benefits of the basic plan would be precisely defined and all insurers would have to offer such a plan for the money available from the voucher. Insurers could also offer supplemental coverage that individuals or employers could purchase, but the minimum level of care spelled out in the basic policy would be available to everyone.

Insurers would be responsible for all covered patient care costs after a moderate deductible -- say $1,000 per year per person. Low income persons would be exempted from the deductible through tax credits. This model would apply to Medicare patients as well as to younger patients. The voucher's value would vary based on age. All insurers would have to accept all patients. There would be a few refinements, but this is the basic picture.

Now you may be asking yourself: is this really a conservative proposal or is it socialism in disguise? It is conservative. It meaningfully advances the general welfare, and it does so in a cost-effective manner that does not involve burdensome regulation or restrictions of personal liberty. For this reason, it is consistent with the traditional values of principled conservatism. I will address some of these issues in more detail below.

Basically, the described system is Obamacare on steroids. It continues to put a huge amount of money into the hands of the insurance companies. As costs continue t spiral out of control, eventually we will get it and understand that one payer is the way to go, and it really is. Change the entire system to one payer and leave the option to purchase private insurance for those who choose to do so.

I am at the point where I want:
(1) The voucher system I laid out in the OP.
(2) The Kerry $20K deductible Plan. Basically the government cover catastrophic coverage and people can buy down on the deductible. Therefore the insurance cos have reduce risks so they can reduce insurance costs!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...y6XaCQ&usg=AFQjCNHCna0W4eQ8jTFJ_yA3lcrl3tzFOQ

(3) Single Payer
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top