*Note* These are just numbers off the top of my head.. they could be subject to change.. so don't take issues with the numbers themselves.. rather the idea behind it.
What about a plan that gave health care to those that are at say 1.5 times the poverty level.. subject to change based on number of dependents... and everyone above that level was still responsible for their own plans... that would have less of the effect that republicans are worried about with a total universal system bogging things down.. and would cost far less... and yet those in need would still receive aid.. which is what the democrats are after for the most part anyway...
thoughts?
2007-05-04 07:34:52 · 4 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
truthwill.. that's why I'm talking about the people who can't pay their own bills on this one.. unless you have a plan to lower the cost of health care enough for them?
2007-05-04 07:41:15 · update #1
isn't medicare on one of the "going bankrupt" lists though? I would think it has too many problems to support the numbers we are talking about... though I admit I'd have to look at it a little closer.
2007-05-04 07:42:39 · update #2
You've just described the Massachusetts program. Well, not precisely, but in concept it's close. The program has subsidized tiered options for those falling between 100% and 300% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL) - cheapest plan is $35 per month for a single person aged 26, I think it is, and they graduate up from there to a top rate of $180, I believe is the latest. Then above 300%, premiums are priced to market.
This is actually all being ironed out even as we speak (write/read, I mean). Check out www.hcfa.org to learn more and to get some links.
ed. to Truthwill: You're decrying the implicit transference of burden from the poor to the middle class and wealthy. Fair enough - let's look at the matter in a bit more detail.... Today, businesses bear the inordinate burden of health care, not just for their employees but for *everyone* - don't forget about those ER visits by the uninsured today, costs of which get passed up the chain to those with medical plans, typically paid for by businesses.
Now as a good free-marketeer, that must rub you raw, so consider what happens when those hidden, unfunded mandates for provisioning health services in ERs are brought out into the open, codified, subjected to the disciplines of actuarial science, and costed more accurately? Now add on this little feature - community health clinics that focus on preventative care and provide medical services that cost about a quarter of the cost of ER care?
Bottom line is that the economics SUPPORT a change from the current system that relies on employers and, ultimately, insurers and tax payers to maintain status quo. The current system is strained in cost, quality, and capacity, and the changes being made in MA and soon PA, CA, and some 24 other states will bring health care much more in line cost-wise while also increasing access.
2007-05-04 07:44:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What about a plan that gives something to people means it forces other people to pay for it?
What about people should pay their own bills?
2007-05-04 14:40:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I liked Bush's proposal of a tax deduction.
2007-05-04 14:40:55 · answer #3 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you know how much medicare costs individuals - its super cheap - look it up!
2007-05-04 14:40:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋