- 154
Universal Health Care
- Thread starter sunmed
- Start date
- 403
Mandated HDHP coverage might be the only workable solution. Deductible could be tied to income/net worth. Premium should be tax-deductible.
- 2,908
As previously discussed, we will end out with government-approved creditable plans which will qualify for tax deductions or credits. In this way, consumers will be carroted and sticked into coverage. The proposal discussed in this video is such a scenario.
- 403
Individual insurance is the best vehicle for preserving people’s dignity through personal responsibility. Insurance works best when it is used to protect against financial hardship, not to pay every dollar for every medical possibility. But we do not want emergency rooms to turn anyone away due to lack of financial ability.
Congress should require all Americans to purchase High-Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs). The minimum deductible for each individual/family would be keyed to financial capacity, i.e., lower income and available assets would permit a lower deductible to qualify for full tax benefits. Having a lower deductible would be permitted, but tax benefits and guaranteed issuance would apply to the extent of the minimum- (or higher-) deductible HDHP.
Those who fail to purchase a qualified HDHP (or a lower-deductible plan) would be assessed annual tax penalties equal to their minimum HDHP deductible plus the annual premium. HDHPs could be issued on a group basis to employers, whose employees could satisfy the requirements for coverage by participating. Employer contributions exceeding those for the minimum-deductible HDHP would be taxable as ordinary income to the employee.
Premiums should be tax-deductible for all approved plans, with tax exemption for Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions up to the deductible (as at present). HDHP requirements would be set by Federal standards, administered by state insurance departments (similar to Medicare Supplement). Policy forms and rates must be approved by the insurance department in the state of residence.
Qualified HDHP plans would be guaranteed issue. Attained-age rating would be required, as issue-age rating has proven to be too tempting for carriers, who lowball the initial rate to get market share. No community rating would be required, because the higher rates for younger people would give them too much incentive to pay the tax penalty rather than buy into the system.
HDHPS would provide annual physical exams without a deductible (i.e., as now provided by current HDHPs). In addition, they would be required to provide non-emergency routine treatment (including prescription drugs) without a deductible for chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and asthma. The amounts and frequency of covered routine treatments, as well as the list of mandated covered conditions, would be set by federal standards.
HDHPs could also offer wellness incentives. Premiums could be reduced for those having appropriate annual exams, regular vaccinations, and treatments. Incentives could also be provided for following fitness regimens, balanced diets, and other health improvement programs.
Congress should require all Americans to purchase High-Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs). The minimum deductible for each individual/family would be keyed to financial capacity, i.e., lower income and available assets would permit a lower deductible to qualify for full tax benefits. Having a lower deductible would be permitted, but tax benefits and guaranteed issuance would apply to the extent of the minimum- (or higher-) deductible HDHP.
Those who fail to purchase a qualified HDHP (or a lower-deductible plan) would be assessed annual tax penalties equal to their minimum HDHP deductible plus the annual premium. HDHPs could be issued on a group basis to employers, whose employees could satisfy the requirements for coverage by participating. Employer contributions exceeding those for the minimum-deductible HDHP would be taxable as ordinary income to the employee.
Premiums should be tax-deductible for all approved plans, with tax exemption for Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions up to the deductible (as at present). HDHP requirements would be set by Federal standards, administered by state insurance departments (similar to Medicare Supplement). Policy forms and rates must be approved by the insurance department in the state of residence.
Qualified HDHP plans would be guaranteed issue. Attained-age rating would be required, as issue-age rating has proven to be too tempting for carriers, who lowball the initial rate to get market share. No community rating would be required, because the higher rates for younger people would give them too much incentive to pay the tax penalty rather than buy into the system.
HDHPS would provide annual physical exams without a deductible (i.e., as now provided by current HDHPs). In addition, they would be required to provide non-emergency routine treatment (including prescription drugs) without a deductible for chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and asthma. The amounts and frequency of covered routine treatments, as well as the list of mandated covered conditions, would be set by federal standards.
HDHPs could also offer wellness incentives. Premiums could be reduced for those having appropriate annual exams, regular vaccinations, and treatments. Incentives could also be provided for following fitness regimens, balanced diets, and other health improvement programs.
CoventryOneLA
New Member
Words Versus Realities
By: Thomas Sowell
April 21, 2009
Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, I must report the shocking facts: Medical care is medical care. Nothing more and nothing less.
This may not seem like a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge. But it completely contradicts what is being said by many of those who are urging "universal health care" because so many Americans lack health insurance.
Insurance is not medical care. Indeed, health care is not the same as medical care. Countries with universal health care do not have more or better medical care.
The bottom line is medical care. But the rhetoric and the talking points are about insurance. Many people who could afford health insurance do not choose to have it because they know that medical care will be available at the nearest emergency room, whether they have insurance or not. This is especially true for young people, who do not anticipate long-term medical problems and who can always get a broken leg or an allergy attack taken care of at an emergency room -- and spend their money on a more upscale lifestyle.
This may not be a wise decision but it is their decision, and there is no reason why other people should lose the right to make decisions for themselves because some people make questionable decisions. If you don't think government bureaucrats can make questionable decisions, then you haven't dealt with many government bureaucrats. It is one thing to deal with bureaucrats when you are at the Department of Motor Vehicles and in good health. It is something else when you have to deal with bureaucrats when you are lying on a gurney and bleeding or are doubled over in pain on a hospital bed.
People who believe in "universal health care" show remarkably little interest -- usually none -- in finding out what that phrase turns out to mean in practice, in those countries where it already exists, such as Britain, Sweden or Canada. For one thing, "universal health care" in these countries means months of waiting for surgery that American get in a matter of weeks or even days. In these and other countries, it means having only a fraction as many MRIs and other high-tech medical devices available per person as in the United States.
In Sweden, it means not only having bureaucrats deciding what medicines the government will and will not pay for, but even preventing you from buying the more expensive medicine for yourself with your own money. That would violate the "equality" that is the magic mantra.
Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of trying to understand realities, make much of the fact that some countries with government-controlled medical care have longer life expectancies than that in the United States.
That is where the difference between health care and medical care comes in: Medical care is what doctors can do for you; Health care includes what you do for yourself -- such as diet, exercise and lifestyle.
If a doctor arrives on the scene to find you wiped out by a drug overdose or shot through the heart by some of your rougher companions, there may not be much that he can do except sign the death certificate.
Even for things that take longer to do you in -- obesity, alcohol, cholesterol, tobacco -- doctors can tell you what to do or not do, but whether you follow their advice or not is what determines the outcome.
Americans tend to be more obese, consume more drugs and have more homicides. None of that is going to change with "universal health care" because it isn't health care. It is medical care.
When it comes to things where medical care itself makes the biggest difference -- cancer survival rates, for example -- Americans do much better than people in most other countries.
No one who compares medical care in this country with medical care in other countries is likely to want to switch. But those who cannot be bothered with the facts may help destroy the best medical care in the world by falling for political rhetoric.
Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Thomas Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
By: Thomas Sowell
April 21, 2009
Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, I must report the shocking facts: Medical care is medical care. Nothing more and nothing less.
This may not seem like a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge. But it completely contradicts what is being said by many of those who are urging "universal health care" because so many Americans lack health insurance.
Insurance is not medical care. Indeed, health care is not the same as medical care. Countries with universal health care do not have more or better medical care.
The bottom line is medical care. But the rhetoric and the talking points are about insurance. Many people who could afford health insurance do not choose to have it because they know that medical care will be available at the nearest emergency room, whether they have insurance or not. This is especially true for young people, who do not anticipate long-term medical problems and who can always get a broken leg or an allergy attack taken care of at an emergency room -- and spend their money on a more upscale lifestyle.
This may not be a wise decision but it is their decision, and there is no reason why other people should lose the right to make decisions for themselves because some people make questionable decisions. If you don't think government bureaucrats can make questionable decisions, then you haven't dealt with many government bureaucrats. It is one thing to deal with bureaucrats when you are at the Department of Motor Vehicles and in good health. It is something else when you have to deal with bureaucrats when you are lying on a gurney and bleeding or are doubled over in pain on a hospital bed.
People who believe in "universal health care" show remarkably little interest -- usually none -- in finding out what that phrase turns out to mean in practice, in those countries where it already exists, such as Britain, Sweden or Canada. For one thing, "universal health care" in these countries means months of waiting for surgery that American get in a matter of weeks or even days. In these and other countries, it means having only a fraction as many MRIs and other high-tech medical devices available per person as in the United States.
In Sweden, it means not only having bureaucrats deciding what medicines the government will and will not pay for, but even preventing you from buying the more expensive medicine for yourself with your own money. That would violate the "equality" that is the magic mantra.
Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of trying to understand realities, make much of the fact that some countries with government-controlled medical care have longer life expectancies than that in the United States.
That is where the difference between health care and medical care comes in: Medical care is what doctors can do for you; Health care includes what you do for yourself -- such as diet, exercise and lifestyle.
If a doctor arrives on the scene to find you wiped out by a drug overdose or shot through the heart by some of your rougher companions, there may not be much that he can do except sign the death certificate.
Even for things that take longer to do you in -- obesity, alcohol, cholesterol, tobacco -- doctors can tell you what to do or not do, but whether you follow their advice or not is what determines the outcome.
Americans tend to be more obese, consume more drugs and have more homicides. None of that is going to change with "universal health care" because it isn't health care. It is medical care.
When it comes to things where medical care itself makes the biggest difference -- cancer survival rates, for example -- Americans do much better than people in most other countries.
No one who compares medical care in this country with medical care in other countries is likely to want to switch. But those who cannot be bothered with the facts may help destroy the best medical care in the world by falling for political rhetoric.
Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Thomas Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
Hello..
its very good and knowledgeable information you have given here....
.
well it really depends on the illness...and how quickly you want it to be cured...there are certain types of illnesses...with eventually go with time...but the question is do you have the time...and most people dont....there was a time when there were no medicines..but people still survived....that means...problems did cure themselves...but now with all the medicines being around...and people wanting quick solutions to problems..i think medicines really have become the obvious choice...
Thank you for sharing you information
its very good and knowledgeable information you have given here....
.
well it really depends on the illness...and how quickly you want it to be cured...there are certain types of illnesses...with eventually go with time...but the question is do you have the time...and most people dont....there was a time when there were no medicines..but people still survived....that means...problems did cure themselves...but now with all the medicines being around...and people wanting quick solutions to problems..i think medicines really have become the obvious choice...
Thank you for sharing you information
The issue of universal health care is inarguably quite complex. AMSA has developed a wide range of reader-friendly materials to help educate you about universal health care. The educational materials are categorized conceptually to facilitate your learning process.
Universal health care is health care coverage that is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region and often covers medical, dental, and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.
Term life insurance
Universal health care is health care coverage that is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region and often covers medical, dental, and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.
Term life insurance
- 403
An additional reason for mandatory universal coverage?
Swine flu could shine glaring light on uninsured - Health AP - MiamiHerald.com
Similar threads
