CDZ US Healthcare Reform

[Sun Devil 92]

You can do that now if you can get access.

I have thought about asking my company to just put my premiums in an HSA. It's large enough now that I could handle a pretty big hit.

Those healthcare savings accounts are not really what I am talking about, although this idea would also be tax and regulation free.

This would be people putting all the money they would normally give to insurance companies into a mutual shared account, which would pay directly for any health costs of its members. Each account would have elected trustees that represent its members interests to healthcare companies, and sets the rules for how much members pay into the account and how money is dispensed to those that need it.

Different accounts may operate differently, such as one covering abortions, and another refusing to do that.

Now end-of-life coverage is 30% of our total bill. That should be in the public discussion.

Absolutely. Just in general most healthcare spending goes to senior citizens, for obvious reasons.

Sounds like a great idea! What will we call it? I know! We'll call it "health insurance!"

Your comment, as usual, makes no sense in the context of the reasonable post that was put up.

 

[Onyx]

So wait....all you're proposing is that people not carry health insurance and that they instead contribute only to health savings accounts?

Okay, I'll slow down..... Basically what I am proposing is a mutual savings solution. Do you know what mutual savings banks are? They are banks which takes periodic contributions from its members and pools their money together into diversified securities. Whenever a member needs to get a loan or pay emergency fees, money is withdrawn from the account for that purpose. This differs from a mutual fund in that the purpose of the savings bank is to provide financial security for its members, rather than mitigating the risk of high profile investments.

Under this solution, all those paying into a US health insurance company, would pull out and pool their money into a mutual savings account. This account would be used solely for the purpose of healthcare and be tax exempt (much like the individual HSA provided by the government). Whenever a member falls sick, money is withdrawn to pay for the medical expenses of the sick member. Since the account would need to be regulated and negotiate directly with healthcare companies, the members of the account would elect trustees and representatives to perform those tasks on their behalf.

This is the same logic economists use for single payer, except management is not undertaken by the government and that there is actual choice. The primary advantage is that there is no profit incentive, which means 100% of the pool (besides administrative expenses) is used efficiently.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So wait....all you're proposing is that people not carry health insurance and that they instead contribute only to health savings accounts?

Okay, I'll slow down..... Basically what I am proposing is a mutual savings solution. Do you know what mutual savings banks are? They are banks which takes periodic contributions from its members and pools their money together into diversified securities. Whenever a member needs to get a loan or pay emergency fees, money is withdrawn from the account for that purpose. This differs from a mutual fund in that the purpose of the savings bank is to provide financial security for its members, rather than mitigating the risk of high profile investments.

Under this solution, all those paying into a US health insurance company, would pull out and pool their money into a mutual savings account. This account would be used solely for the purpose of healthcare and be tax exempt (much like the individual HSA provided by the government). Whenever a member falls sick, money is withdrawn to pay for the medical expenses of the sick member. Since the account would need to be regulated and negotiate directly with healthcare companies, the members of the account would elect trustees and representatives to perform those tasks on their behalf.

This is the same logic economists use for single payer, except management is not undertaken by the government and that there is actual choice. The primary advantage is that there is no profit incentive, which means 100% of the pool (besides administrative expenses) is used efficiently.

Thank you. Now I understand better what you have in mind.

Essentially, what you are proposing is no different than what insurance companies already do. What may be different is that your idea seems like there's no actual policy, and rather there's just an account and whenever a "depositor" wants money to pay for a medical expense, they via some process "withdraw" the money from the "account" and use it to pay for them. Have I got it right? (Click the link before responding.)

 

[Onyx]

Thank you. Now I know what you have in mind. Essentially, what you are proposing is no different than what insurance companies already do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So wait....all you're proposing is that people not carry health insurance and that they instead contribute only to health savings accounts?

Okay, I'll slow down..... Basically what I am proposing is a mutual savings solution. Do you know what mutual savings banks are? They are banks which takes periodic contributions from its members and pools their money together into diversified securities. Whenever a member needs to get a loan or pay emergency fees, money is withdrawn from the account for that purpose. This differs from a mutual fund in that the purpose of the savings bank is to provide financial security for its members, rather than mitigating the risk of high profile investments.

Under this solution, all those paying into a US health insurance company, would pull out and pool their money into a mutual savings account. This account would be used solely for the purpose of healthcare and be tax exempt (much like the individual HSA provided by the government). Whenever a member falls sick, money is withdrawn to pay for the medical expenses of the sick member. Since the account would need to be regulated and negotiate directly with healthcare companies, the members of the account would elect trustees and representatives to perform those tasks on their behalf.

This is the same logic economists use for single payer, except management is not undertaken by the government and that there is actual choice. The primary advantage is that there is no profit incentive, which means 100% of the pool (besides administrative expenses) is used efficiently.

Thank you. Now I know what you have in mind. Essentially, what you are proposing is no different than what insurance companies already do.

You obviously didn't click the link. That's fine. We're done.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Elect me as your trustee!!!!!!!!!!!! me! ME!

 

[Bush92]

Americans should stop paying private insurance companies and put their money in non-profit mutual healthcare savings accounts. These accounts would be supervised by elected trustees that would negotiate directly with healthcare companies.

Citizens would have security in case they get sick, stop insurance companies from skimming profits off the top, and eliminate the corruption and inefficiency that comes with state control of healthcare.

This replicates the advantages of single payer while keeping the government out of healthcare. Everybody happy now?

Oh...we can put our healthcare in the hands of a board of party komissars.

 

[Fishlore]

Public healthcare needs to be part of the basic structure of government, along with roads, schools, clean drinking water, etc. Healthcare like the armed forces, is a government service that is not well handled by the private market.

Healthcare would be handled great by private mutual savings accounts. States are plagued with incompetency and corruption, and I don't want you to determine my healthcare plan. Citizens should have the right to decide how they invest in their own health security.

AHCA is dead. AHA is not going to be repealed. This gives Democrats an opportunity to lead AHA upward and resolve the issues which have been cited as part of a "death spiral" (rising premiums, costs, Medicaid expansion). The Democrats have a fool-proof fix: step one is to create the public option policies which were part of the original ACA but were stripped out by stooges for the insurance industry. Step two is Medicare for All, the single-payer plan part of the Bernie Sanders platform.

After all the lies and treats from the GOP with their AHCA, the American pea pull are ready to get behind this two-step plan to real healthcare.

 

[usmbguest5318]

AHA is not going to be repealed. This gives Democrats an opportunity to lead AHA upward and resolve the issues which have been cited as part of a "death spiral" (rising premiums, costs, Medicaid expansion). The Democrats have a fool-proof fix: step one is to create the public option policies which were part of the original ACA but were stripped out by stooges for the insurance industry.

Two typos? If not, what is the AHA?

 

[Fishlore]

AHA is not going to be repealed. This gives Democrats an opportunity to lead AHA upward and resolve the issues which have been cited as part of a "death spiral" (rising premiums, costs, Medicaid expansion). The Democrats have a fool-proof fix: step one is to create the public option policies which were part of the original ACA but were stripped out by stooges for the insurance industry.

Two typos? If not, what is the AHA?

Sorry about that both "AHA"s should be "ACA". The now-defunct AHCA seems to have made my "H" key sticky.

 

[usmbguest5318]

AHA is not going to be repealed. This gives Democrats an opportunity to lead AHA upward and resolve the issues which have been cited as part of a "death spiral" (rising premiums, costs, Medicaid expansion). The Democrats have a fool-proof fix: step one is to create the public option policies which were part of the original ACA but were stripped out by stooges for the insurance industry.

Two typos? If not, what is the AHA?

Sorry about that both "AHA"s should be "ACA". The now-defunct AHCA seems to have made my "H" key sticky.

NP. I suspected it was a type, but asked just to be sure. I have "been there" too when it comes to the "alphabet soup." I "dyslexically" typed "ACHA" for an entire OP and subsequent series of thread posts before I even realized I'd done so.

I hope someone on Trump's staff reads this post and uses it to show him just how easy it is to just own a simple mistake, correct it, and move on. Unless I've misunderstood your reply, and I don't think I have, neither of us feels the need to "double down" on our errors and call them something they are not. For instance, I don't see you saying, for instance, that in "AHA," the "H" means "health" which is the same thing as "care" so really AHA and ACA are synonymous. I've not done anything similar regarding my mistyping "AHCA" as "ACHA;" indeed, I'm the one calling attention to the fact that I goofed. I think it may be asking too much to think Trump will ever do that. LOL

 

[Meane]

Was I unclear in asking for more detail?

I'm not going to waste my time and write you an essay. What more detail do you want?

That's probably what Trump told all the journalists who asked what exactly is his health care plan going to be like. "I'm not gonna just sit here all day talking about it. I know what I'm talking about. A great health care, for everyone!"

I would like to know what is this mutual saving account? Mutual to whom, for starters? Who's allowed to use it and when?

 

[Onyx]

I would like to know what is this mutual saving account? Mutual to whom, for starters? Who's allowed to use it and when?

This is why I can't have serious discussions here. You guys do not understand basic concepts that were invented long before my arrival.

 

[Meane]

I would like to know what is this mutual saving account? Mutual to whom, for starters? Who's allowed to use it and when?

This is why I can't have serious discussions here. You guys do not understand basic concepts that were invented long before my arrival.

Oh I have heard of a savings account. But to be sure and to respect your argument I checked my definition. This is what I found.

A savings account is an interest-bearing deposit account held at a bank or another financial institution that provides a modest interest rate. Banks or financial institutions may limit the number of withdrawals you can make from your savings account each month and they may charge fees unless you maintain a certain average monthly balance in the account.

But I'm still not at all sure if what you mean by a mutual savings account. I know what mutual means as well, it's just that

1. Who owns this account?
2. Where is it located?
3. How do people sign themselves in?
4. How many people belong to it?
5. What it you have no money to put there, no money at all, isn't the problem with health care - not the rich with their savings accounts but the poor without a penny?
6. Who is authorised to use it?

And so on.

 

[Onyx]

But I'm still not at all sure if what you mean by a mutual savings account. I know what mutual means as well, it's just that

Mutual savings is a banking concept where members put money into a joint account, which pays for the expenses of each individual member. The idea is that the combined assets of the members will create an effective security net. This differs from a mutual fund, which is designed to mitigate risk in high profile investments.

Who owns this account?
Where is it located?
How do people sign themselves in?
How many people belong to it?
What it you have no money to put there, no money at all, isn't the problem with health care - not the rich with their savings accounts but the poor without a penny?
Who is authorised to use it?

1. Everyone that puts money into the account

2. The account can be held by a mutual bank or private association created by the members themselves

3. It would vary based on the conditions of each account

4. The more the better, as long as each members contribution can manage risk and meet any other agreed upon terms

5. Individuals would put money into the account that best balanced their income and interests. For example, a low income individual would have more difficulty paying into an account filled primarily by middle income individuals, but would have the inverse benefit of more security and benefits.

6. Elected trustees would manage the account and oversee the distribution of funds to each member as they need it. Each account would likely have a formal document detailing the coverage members receive. For example, one account may cover abortions whereas another may not.

Just imagine non-profit private insurance, and you have this.

 

[Meane]

But I'm still not at all sure if what you mean by a mutual savings account. I know what mutual means as well, it's just that

Mutual savings is a banking concept where members put money into a joint account, which pays for the expenses of each individual member. The idea is that the combined assets of the members will create an effective security net. This differs from a mutual fund, which is designed to mitigate risk in high profile investments.

Who owns this account?
Where is it located?
How do people sign themselves in?
How many people belong to it?
What it you have no money to put there, no money at all, isn't the problem with health care - not the rich with their savings accounts but the poor without a penny?
Who is authorised to use it?

1. Everyone that puts money into the account

2. The account can be held by a mutual bank or private association created by the members themselves

3. It would vary based on the conditions of each account

4. The more the better, as long as each members contribution can manage risk and meet any other agreed upon terms

5. Individuals would put money into the account that best balanced their income and interests. For example, a low income individual would have more difficulty paying into an account filled primarily by middle income individuals, but would have the inverse benefit of more security and benefits.

6. Elected trustees would manage the account and oversee the distribution of funds to each member as they need it. Each account would likely have a formal document detailing the coverage members receive. For example, one account may cover abortions whereas another may not.

Just imagine non-profit private insurance, and you have this.

1. Everyone puts money into it, but on whose name is it signed in? It isn't really enough to say someone because who is that someone who will be responsible for the account? Is it the one who supervices it? Then if it's a private person, isn't he kind of like an insurance seller?
2. 
   
3. Sounds a bit chaotic? How can busy and uneducated people among themselves begin creating new associations and deciding the terms of contract themselves. A bunch of people, yes. The whole of America, no.
4. What about the saving part? How long are they supposed to put money there until it can be used? And what if the expenses are enormous and use all the money?
5. According to their interests? Like how sick are they thinking about becoming? How much money they plan to use rescuing themselves from whatever happens? Do they then lay the same amount to one account, the people belonging to that one account would equally into it? If so, how would the poor make it among themselves? If not, isn't it outrageously unfair?

If there's no profit, who will pay the trustees?

 

[Onyx]

"Everyone puts money into it, but on whose name is it signed in?

Sounds a bit chaotic? How can busy and uneducated people among themselves begin creating new associations and deciding the terms of contract themselves. A bunch of people, yes. The whole of America, no.

What about the saving part? How long are they supposed to put money there until it can be used? And what if the expenses are enormous and use all the money?

According to their interests? Like how sick are they thinking about becoming? How much money they plan to use rescuing themselves from whatever happens? Do they then lay the same amount to one account, the people belonging to that one account would equally into it? If so, how would the poor make it among themselves? If not, isn't it outrageously unfair?

If there's no profit, who will pay the trustees?

- It is a mutual account, so obviously it would be signed under the association the members are under.

- No one said organizing affordable healthcare would be easy. Yes, it would take a lot of work to transition people from for-profit insurance to non-profit mutual savings.

- That depends on each individual account. Insurance risk pools do not go away. Members would still need to manage contributions with risk, in order to ensure every member has a security net. The only difference is that there is no one skimming profits off the top like insurance companies do.

- I am referring to the extent of special coverage and security provided by each account. Each account can structure itself differently and decide upon its own rules. One account might provide less special coverage options and security, which would make it more affordable to lower income individuals. I don't know what's unfair about setting the same price for all income brackets, but I suppose an account could lower the contribution requirements for lower income brackets (therefore increasing risk).

- Non-profits are allowed to pay their own administrative fees. A small percentage would go towards paying trustees, representatives, and other operating expenses.

Honestly, just imagine private insurance, except all of the money people pay in premiums and deductibles goes towards their own healthcare instead of enriching executives. It's the same exact formula minus the profit incentive.

 

[Meane]

It'd crash. People already have insurances. They don't even cost that much but this is health care. It isn't like insurance where we expect nothing to happen and take an insurance lest our house blows up and we have nothing left. Health care needs to be always available. And the part of it that is always available, needs to be always available to all equally.

 

[Onyx]

It'd crash. People already have insurances. They don't even cost that much but this is health care.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. It would crash because people already have insurance? For profit insurance is the reason why US healthcare is broken in the first place.

All I am doing is taking the insurance formula and making it non-profit, and therefore more affordable.

 

[Meane]

It'd crash. People already have insurances. They don't even cost that much but this is health care.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. It would crash because people already have insurance? For profit insurance is the reason why US healthcare is broken in the first place.

All I am doing is taking the insurance formula and making it non-profit, and therefore more affordable.

The health care is still too expensive in itself. That is the problem.

According to this the saving from switching off from profiting insurance would be a few billions.

Is The Profit Motive Ruining American Healthcare?