I can purchase health insurance disconnected from my employment now, if I wish to, I am healthy. My wife cannot, she is not healthy. Come up with a plan where any individual can be insured w/o being tied to an employer health care plan. Where the plan the individual can purchase is the same as one negotiated with the power of a large group of people, and hey I would be all for it.
Yes, you are right. We are not looking for a free-ride, but without insurance, there is no way we would be able to pay for a bone marrow transplant if a suitable donor were to appear.
Most people that say they wouldn’t mind paying “slightly more” for increased coverage are actually saying (without realizing that they’re saying it) they’d like to get more monetary benefits out of the system than the value of the $$$ they put in.
Well of course! We all would! If I could pay $100 more a month to receive $10000 more in health services a year, that would be great. Who wouldn’t want that deal?
My take on it is derived from observation of my cousins in Britain.
(My family have been Yanks for generations. By, “my cousins,” I mean fellow Nordic Anglophone humans.)
Imagine a hospital that treats everyone according to need, without fee. And can do it because its operating costs are guaranteed by the state.
Sounds like some weird Communist country, right? But it’s that way in Britain, the birthplace of Capitalism.
Further, unlike in, say, Canada, one may buy private health insurance there, or simply hire a doctor for additional care. And this is far cheaper than private medicine in the USA, because the infrastructure is tax-subsidized.
And the cost at state level? 8% of GDP, I hear. Granted, there are structural differences between the US & UK economies, such as Britain’s even more over-leveraged finance sector, & the fact that our employer-based health insurance isn’t counted as part of our wages/salaries in the USA. But it looks like about the same cost, for:
-
Greater personal liberty. You can quit your job to start your own business without worrying about losing health insurance.
-
Greater personal security. Same as point 1.
Wait, this, contra Ben Franklin, increases liberty & security at the same time? Seems like a winner.
That’s why I want a UK-style national health service.
Oh, this.
I think Americans haven’t figured out yet that it’s not the 1950’s, & the wealth of the country is not distributed through the petit-bourgeoisie. I wouldn’t tax mom ‘n’ pop to pay for much at all; I’d tax Forbes & Perelman & Buffett. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. Until he said, “uncle.” And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. And then I’d tax Buffett again. Because he has that damn much money.
How about rationing, end of life care, and wait times?
I like this post.
I spent many years paying into a system that I never used, and that money is gone, or at least is not usable by me. If people could afford health services, then we wouldn’t need to worry about health insurance.
How is that any different from our current system, in that many people can’t get health care due to being uncovered?
Rationing in a UK-style tax-funded system: Well, there aren’t spaces for everyone, but we’ll take whom we can, & at least it’s free. Oh, you can find a space in a foreign country? We may be able to help with the cost. Oh, you have money? You can buy some extra help if it’s available.
Rationing in USA-style “market”[sup]1[/sup] system: Well, we only have this many spaces, so let’s raise the price & see who decides it’s better to die & leave something to their children than to pay for the service. That way even those who get the treatment are screwed over.
(Note that this is abstract. There’s a lot of public health care, charity, & socialized medicine as it is now. But it’s not universal, & this is how shortage pricing plays out as a matter of principle.)
[sup]1[/sup] Note that it’s an imperfectly free market, as the supply is restrained by law. Physician supply would take a decade to respond to demand forces if it were truly free, but it’s worse than that—it’s dependent on state & federal governments opening med schools. So it’s a market, but a hobbled one.
Yeah, that meany. Damn him for creating jobs and financing innovation.
We’ve gone through this analysis before. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates do not have enough money to provide coverage for the 47 million uninsured. Not even close. You could tax them at 100% and take ALL THEIR MONEY and you still wouldn’t have enough to cover people for even 1 year.
Right. Which is why we need supply-side spending. We need to dig deep & invest in the next generation of health-care providers (note: NOT insurance providers, they are a second profit center & a drain) to avoid shortages down the line.
Government is not outside the health-care market. It funds medical education; it is a supplier. A market where the indispensible supplier does not respond to new realities does not function. It needs to respond to what the market is telling it, or we all suffer.
You mean buying up small businesses that had poor estate planning when their owners die so he can flip them?
There’s a serious financial reason he supports the estate tax, you know.
Increased funding of health education (if you favor such a “regressive” policy, since most medical workers make far above median income) can and should be separate from a restructuring of the healthcare system. If you really wanted government to do that, it can do so right now, and we’d still get the same benefits. It does not require government healthcare.
I don’t seriously think that one member of Berkshire Hathaway has the liquidity to fund the entire tax base. I use him as a symbol. And I know about the Laffer Curve, eh?
But certainly, we can restore progressivity to the tax code, & tax net capital gains at a higher rate.
They won’t make far above median income after I glut the market. High prices indicate shortage. Increased supply is the solution.
No, it is a restructuring. In the sense that making something much larger is a build on existing structure. I don’t consider health insurance to be the “healthcare system.” I consider it to be a false security blanket that’s covered up real supply issues.
Which is why I’m pushing it. I want a reform that will accomplish something useful, & that even the GOP will vote for!
Although I’d like an NHS as well.
The point is, insuring your wife is going to cost more than currently. That money has to come from somewhere. It will not cost any less, in other words,
That money has to come from somewhere, and whether it comes from you, or from the taxpayer, it will exert the same upward pressure on costs.
And I don’t think you (or the taxpayer) is going to pay “slightly” more. Because either your wife’s health care will be paid for in full by someone, or it will not be possible to provide it. Doctors and hospitals and nurses and therapists and janitors and people in the pharmaceutical industry and people in the waste disposal industry and everybody else do not work for free.
Maybe we as a society need to say sure, let’s pay for your wife’s health care. What I would really, really like, and what I really, really don’t see, is a real answer to the question “how are we going to pay for it?” and especially “what are we going to give up so that we can use the money to pay for health care instead?”
All the plans I have seen before Congress so far leave about two thirds of the cost of what they promise uncovered. Where are we going to get the trillion dollars, which is **in addition to **the tax hikes included in the bills, to cover a little more than half the currently uninsured?
We have already committed to spend almost a trillion dollars with zero indication that we will be any more able to pay it off after we’ve spent it than before. Assume a best-case scenario. We come out of the recession in the next year or so. Cool.
Now we need to cut spending by a trillion dollars and balance the budget. In addition, we need to raise taxes by a trillion dollars to pay back the money we borrowed to spend on the stimulus package. In addition to that, we need to raise taxes to cover the one-third of the health care bill (assuming it gets passed). Then at the end of it, in addition to that we need to come up with another trillion dollars to cover the part of the health care bill that isn’t covered.
Do you start to see what I am talking about?
Regards,
Shodan
Here lies the irony of being caught in the void. You are capable of making insurance payments but are denied the opportunit so the only way to get coverage is to drive yourself into the medicaid paying poor house. We should be able to extract more money out of you in the form of a higher premium and eat some of that as a social umbrella through tax deductions.
Look I’m not sold on UHC, but as with any health insurance, including the current system, the healthy pay for the sick. I am healthy, I have been paying for health insurance for many years, I will continue to pay for health insurance until the day I cannot afford to, whether I use it or not. Not everyone is so lucky, you don’t know when the shit is going to hit the fan, the best you can do to plan for it is to purchase insurance, keep up with your payments and maintain a healthy lifestyle. Thats what insurance is for, for when the unforeseeable rears its head. With some items, homeowners, auto, the risk is manageable (the value of a house, the value of the car), what is the value of a human life? Please tell me so I can take out a policy that covers that amount. As for my wife, her current treatment is affordable, even w/o insurance. What would not be affordable to pay in one lump sum, w/o insurance would be a bone marrow transplant. That is what we would depend on insurance for.