LAW AND ORDER TEACHER and TRUTH 101 SPONSOR THE FIRST LEFT/RIGHT HEALTH CARE SYMPOSIUM

At the urging of one of the Right's most respected bloggers, Law and Order Teacher,

http://lawandorderteacher.blogspot.com/, we're having a health care symposium.


TAO has allowed me to post his thoughts at the top. I'll go next in the comment section. LaOT and I hope this can lead to real discussion. Thank you for your participation.


From TAO:





I think we are going about healthcare reform all the wrong way: The reality is we are trying to reform something that is wedged between too many special interests.


Currently the government provides healthcare to the poor, the young, the elderly, and our veterans; and no one has raised one issue with this. Not the communists, not the socialists, not the democrats, not the liberals, not the republicans, and not the conservatives.


Thus, it appears that we all do agree that society has an obligation to provide healthcare to certain members of our society but does that mean we believe that universal healthcare is not a societal obligation?



Since we as a society, through our democratic form of government currently pay over 46% of all medical expenses incurred in a year and as the balance of the expenses are either paid by us as employees, employers, or individuals through our premiums for health insurance and this means we also end up paying for those without insurance who seek medical treatment then the only group left uncovered are those who are recently unemployed, those who elect not to have insurance and have no need for medical treatment, and those who do not have access to health insurance either through their employer or on an individual basis.



The reality is WE pay for all medical treatment provided in this country either directly via our insurance premiums, or indirectly via taxes, via underwriting by insurance carriers, and or via cost pass throughs by healthcare providers.



Thus by default, we have socialized medicine and universal coverage.



If we accepted this reality then we could devise a more realistic and cost reducing healthcare reform package that would be innovative and futuristic without looking like a hodge podge of 'gifts' to special interests like the current package before Congress.



First we would start with a bare bones preventative care package, that would cover just basic office visits, drugs, and outpatient proceedures. This would be offered AT COST to all Americans via for profit insurance carriers with a nominal fee of 3% for administration and profit. If you are young, or living under the poverty level, elderly or disable the government would pay the full costs of this package.



Then private insurance companies could provide a 'step up' or lets call it a 'basics plus' package that would include more services, surgery, and other more expensive services that could be sold as an additional add on package to the basic core plan. This add on package would be priced at cost plus a 10% fee for administration and profit and this would be something an individual could purchase on their own or the government could subsidize the cost of for those who are young, poor, elderly, or our veterans.



From there, the insurance carriers could devise all sorts of healthcare insurance add ons that they could sell at whatever price and with whatever profit margins the market will bear. The government would not subsidize the cost of these for anyone.



This would allow us to provide a basic level of care to all citizens and allow for free market capitalism to create opportunities for more and better healthcare products.



Our military turns away quite a few applicants because of health issues and this would improve the quality of applicants entering the military. By ensuring everyone regular access to healthcare over the course of their whole life we will eventually see a drop in the expenses incurred due to the fact that right now most of our costs go to extreme and emergency care rather than preventative care.



We also need to accept the fact that under the basic or core plan an elderly person would eventually exhaust their insurance coverage, if that is all they had, and treatment would be terminated. But, the reality is that we spend way to much of our GDP on medical expenses incurred in the last two years of an individuals life and unless that individual has bought additional coverage exaclty what is our obligation, as a society, to the elderly when we have so many working age citizens without adequate healthcare?



Pre existing conditions would no longer matter because everyone would always have insurance but maximum policy benefits, or lifetime benefits would still be an issue for those who do not buy an upgrade from the basic policy. To deal with people who would naturally seek insurance upgrades when they became aware of a need then you could make everyone have a policy inforce for six months before any services would be covered.



This is the SWISS PLAN in a nutshell!



It guarantees everyone a basic level of healthcare and subsidizes the cost of this plan when an individual cannot afford the premiums or falls into a certain class of citizen (elderly, poor, young, veterans, or disabled). It takes health insurance decisions away from businesses/employers and makes it a personal/employee decision. It is not socialism because it works within the framework of private, for profit insurance carriers and it allows these carriers to create and market additional products to supplement the basic or core policy. You could see abortion riders, plastic surgery riders, I want to live forever riders, experimental treatment riders, only namebrand drug riders, rehab riders, and all sorts of innovative ideas spring forth.
It basically allows for society to provide a basic level of care as a benefit of citizenship and it also allows for capitalism to create opportunities for companies to develop and profit from meeting certain demands of the marketplace.



It would also limit the existing strain on medicare and medicad that we will see with higher unemployment, greater drug dependency, and the eventual retirement of the baby boomers. It focuses more on adequate coverage, and basic coverage rather than brow beating providers for discounts.



All the way around it is more logical, more cost effective, and more in line with the values that this country holds dear. Oh, and yes there would need to be tort reform and the issue about portability across state lines would no longer be an issue due to the fact that this would be a FEDERAL law.


Posted by TAO of RADICAL PERSPECTIVE http://radicalpersective.blogspot.com/