What do you think of this proposal to replace our health care dilemma?

Question

First of all I think we can all agree that our "for profit" system we have now, must and will be replaced. Now, how about this?
1. All workers will pay in let's say 2% of our paychecks(automatically deducted) each week.
2. Our employers match this with another 2% .
3. The Federal government pays in another 2%
Total 6% each week that will go into a separate group health insurance fund. Separate from the federal budget; separate account all together.

That way we all pay the same PERCENTAGE each week regardless of income. We all know nothing is free, but this way the workers, business and government would in pay equally. Of course the rich would pay more (their fair share) and the poor would pay less (there fair share). To cover all of our health care and prescription drug coverage. And since we all contribute into it, it could not be called socialism or free health care.

We could call it something like the American Triad Health Insurance Plan.

Answer 1

ANY plan, with the exception of a plan suggested by congress is worth considering.
As far as congress is concerned, have you ever been to a zoo?? Did you see the camels??? A camel is a race horse designed by a congressional committee.

Answer 2

We definitely need an over-haul on our health care system.
It is so pitiful that so many Americans have no Insurance.
And some are very sick and desperately need treatment.
I don't like Government intervention on anything.
But something is going to have to be done!
The Hospitals ,Doctors And yes the pharmaceutical companies have a license to steal. This license needs to be revoked.They have busted the Insurance companies so hard for so long.Now the average working person cannot afford Health Insurance.The Ins, Co.are going to make money and the policy holders are paying the piper. There needs to be a set rate that Doctors & hospitals can charge for services.
The drug companies also need to be brought under control.
I don't have the answers to all of these problems.But with all the smart Well educated people,in this High Teck world we live in today you would think that these problems could be solved. And every American have the Health care they need And Deserve!

Answer 3

I think the main problem is that our current system is too confusing.

Your idea sounds purty, but you will still have the problem of people wanting procedures they can't afford and their insurance won't cover. Just ask any Medicare recipient if they know someone this has happened to.

The problem, as many people perceive it, goes much deeper than just being able to afford insurance. It is also feeling that the coverage is fair for the price. Troll this site for a while and wait for people to start asking why their coverage doesn't provide for gastric bypass and lapband.

Oh, and not all health insurance companies are "for profit" BCBS of NC is filed as a non-profit. Again, this sounds purty, but doesn't solve the problem. All it means is they can't retain earnings.

Answer 4

Nice try, but as someone noted, WE are the government, so we will pay that "governmental 2%" as well. Now, let's get to the REAL problems: who gets what? The same problem we have NOW.

What do you do when a silly old man shows up on a holiday in the ER because his prescription eye drops ran out?

I was in an ER a few years ago and witnessed this IDIOCY. Because he had Medicare, they were willing to take him instead of doing what they should have done: send him to his pharmacist who most likely would have been able to recommend something non-prescription for one day, or if it were a long-standing eye drop order, fill it and call the doc for approval the next day.

Because of the POORLY trained triage nurse, this old fool was taken before an INFANT who was brought in by his hysterical mother. The infant was listless, pale, and she said he'd been vomitting for hours--very credible looking at him. No idea what Crackerjack box HER RN license came from.

There were also about 2 dozen other people who were GENUINELY ILL with real problems--such as upper respiratory infections (when people are hacking colored sputum up, they NEED to be seen). The list went on, but this guy they knew had insurance and "who had been there for hours" got in before people who NEEDED to be seen. Sheer idiocy. Everyone is so terrified of being sued that they won't do the RIGHT thing for fear they'll be charged for doing the right thing.

Also, they want to bring in revenue--here was someone it should take less than 5 minutes to deal with and they can pretend he "needed" to be in the ER. (This scrip was NOT for post-op or an infection either. I was sitting close enough that I heard plenty when the gal playing at being a nurse came to waste time chatting him up. How you can basically walk past people in an ACUTE condition, at least one of whom was a candidate for death (the infant) because an old guy who no doubt is LONELY wants to sit in an ER where he does NOT belong is beyond me.)

And no, there is no one to report it to either. You get blown off--just like the ER doc did when I raised that concern to him that day. I don't want to hear about the JCAHO either. Please. I've seen similar stupidity in too many ERs over too many years to count. Yes, you CAN evaluate some BS cases where this happens without doing an exam--this old guy was chatting up a storm with people around him, too, so there was no doubt about what his story was.

Answer 5

One, I cannot think of anything that government bureaucrats do better than the private sector. Two, we currently spend 16 percent of GDP on health care so you are going to need 16%, not 6%. Three, the portion you get from the government comes from taxes we pay so you divide it two ways not three. So, if we assume that the bureaucrats can do a better job than private enterprise, then employees and employers will each pay eight percent payroll tax. That may be a tough sell.

Answer 6

First of all, I disagree. Our current "for profit" system is more effecient, and more cost effective, than any of the government health insurance programs in the world.

It's not going to work. Here's why: the median household gross income in the US is $42,000. The median family size is 5. The median health cost is $7,000 per person, or $35,000 per year, for this median family.

Government run programs - any kind - have an overhead cost of about 60%.

So. You're going to have each family pay in $840 per year, plus the feds and employers another $840 each (don't forget, the feds get their money through TAXES, so they're going to have to raise employment taxes on that family).

So, this average family is paying in $2520. Their medical expenses are $35,000. Um, after everyone has paid in, counting government overhead, there will be $1008 to pay $35,000 in medical expenses.

In order for your numbers to work in the real world, everyone has to kick in 35X a much. That means, 70% tax on the employee's gross pay, matched by employer and government (who, keep in mind, has to raise taxes SOMEWHERE to pay for this).

AND, are you going to extend coverage to people who don't work? The unemployed, the illegals?

There is no "free" health care anywhere. Even in socialist countries, the people are taxed - and heavily - to pay for the health care system. AND, they don't cover foreigners, or illegals.

In other words, your numbers aren't going to work. I got mine from Consumer Reports and the US Census Bureau.

Answer 7

It sounds good, but where do you think the government gets its 2%? From us. So we'd be paying in 4%, not 2%. We definetly need reform, though. This is ridiculous. A country as affluent as ours, and people can't afford health care? It's deplorable.