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

I speak as a conservative, but I know our current for-profit health care system is dysfunctional. Your proposal sounds pretty good, actually.

But we need to make certain that whoever administers the program does so efficiently, and there must not be long waiting periods or rationing, as I hear about it some countries with socialized medicine.

My father had quadruple bypass surgery at the age of 81 years. I'm told that in some countries, this wouldn't have been covered, because they have age cut-offs for specific procedures, as a form of rationing. Well, Dad lived nine more good years as a result of that surgery, and I'm glad Medicare was there to pay for it.

And we have to watch carefully for the type of corruption and fraud which currently plagues Medicare and similar programs. Come up with a way to address that issue, too.

Answer 2

Interesting, but I am not sure it would meet the healthcare costs of the USA. But, the people of the USA deserve a better healthcare system than they have at present.

I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are higher than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.

In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care.

I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for an expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2167865,00.html

Answer 3

Its redistribution of wealth. It doesn't have any plan of how care will be provided or who will provide it. It is just a plan that says we are going to take your money and tell you you will get health care someday. Which is really why people don't want government health care. They don't trust it. Have you ever been to a VA hospital? Have you ever seen what government run health care is like. Do you know what doctors and nurses do when they are not working for profit but on a set government salary? You don't have a clue. I've been a disabled vet for 10 years. I have literally seen people die from lack of treatment in VA hospitals. The people there don't give a damn. They want to see as few patients as possible so they can go home doing as little work as they can get away with. And you want to inflict this on the entire nation? You are too ignorant to even comment on it. Doctors who are working for profit, do better work. Competition breeds excellence. You want a federal health care system, go spend a week in a VA hospital and interview the veterans about how well that system works. You will see.

Answer 4

Clever idea. But the 2% the govt pays comes from taxing us workers, so we would actually pay 4%. Which is close to what the UK NHS share of the national GDP is. (I am imprecise about USA budget.)
Where would you park or invest your Fund? Government bonds would mean the government lending money to itself.
What if the rich wanted to spend their own money on private doctors only when they got ill? Are you being unfair on them by suggesting yet more disproportainate taxation on them for services they don't use? (In practice, it would be the middle class who would pay, as there are too few rich)
You raise the interesting question whether healthcare should be nationally socialised as a form of insurance, or paid for only when used by individuals.

Answer 5

We already have the best medical care in the world. Why would we wish to replace it with something not as good? And why in the world would we want to have the government in charge of our health care?
I had a heart attack a few years ago. Being wealthy I went to a private hospital. I paid for my hospital stay and my surgery out of my own pocket. I had the best surgeon in the state and he charged me a small fortune. The hospital wasn't cheap either. I received excellent care and they saved my life.
Now, I am sure all you liberals would like nothing better than for me to work hard, make a lot of money and pay for you to have the same level of health care that I got. While we are at it why don't I buy you a nice house like the one I bought for me and my wife. Or the one I bought for my mom. Perhaps I should give you the start up capital to start a business like the one I own. I buy a new car every year so of course I should get you one too.
Is there anything else you would like? I mean heaven forbid that you should have to work hard and earn your own way in life. And why should you when you can pick the pockets of those of us who do work hard to prosper?
At least have the common decency to admit that you are asking for charity, instead of using these wacko socialist ideas to try and convince me that I have a moral obligation to support you.

Answer 6

No, we ALL can't agree it needs to be replaced. This is stupid. What makes you think that after seeing our Social Security and Welfare systems in this country that the government is capable of controlling something as important as healthcare???? Why do you even think that the government has any business controlling healthcare (a free market) in the first place? Are we going to let them take charge of Agriculture as well? What about vehicle manufacturing and house building just because not everyone can afford a car or house?

Also, history has shown that private enterprise, NOT government agencies provide the highest quality, most cost-effective services according to the demand of the consumer.

Have you actually read the proposals? It will cause a hell of a lot more than a 2% tax increase. Doctors will still need paid, medical facilities still need funds, and the program itself will cost billions to start, employ its administrators and to continue running.

All of this will be funded by tax dollars.

#1 The government, through this agency will essentially control your healthcare. This means that you will have to apply to the government for the healthcare that you need. Then if you need a procedure or treatment, you will have to get that approved as well. What other countries that have socialized healthcare have experienced is that the all-knowing, all-seeing government takes this one step further and actually places you in a wait status for the procedure based on the severity of your condition compared to other peoples'. So, lets say you are diagnosed with cancer, but the doctor does not feel that treatment for it is needed yet. Buddy the second I find out I have cancer, I'm doing eveything I can to get cured. Under National Healthcare however, you do not have that right. You have to wait in line as funding is allocate first to people with more severe cases than you. People say that then you can opt to pick up private health insurance, but in reality NO insurance company will provide coverage to ANYONE who has cancer as a pre-existing condition, so then you are at the mercy of politicians and the system.

#2 Under National Healthcare, you do not have the right to refuse treatment either. If you are prescribed a medication that is cheap, but that makes you go bald, and the only other medication for your condition is very expensive, the system is likely to provide you with only the cheapest medication. If you refuse it, the you are dropped from the National Healthcare plan because you would be considered a risk. Then, just like abovr, you are stuch with NOTHING as no insurance company will then pick you up with that pre-existing condition unless you are willing to pay HUGE premiums.

#3 Why should I, if I am willing to pay for insurance to avoid all that I have described above, have to have my taxes raised for others to have free, government-controlled healthcare that I will not benefit from??? Do you even realize how much your taxes will rise to be able to implement this???

Answer 7

No, it is still redistribution of wealth

It is also more government.

The problem with our current system IS government interference.

The market can solve all problems on its own.

So where does the 2% from the Government come from?
Where does the 2% from the employer come from?
in the end it all comes out of the workers pocket with lower wage or more taxes.

When you give away health care free it will clog it with unnecessary visits so everyone will feel like they are getting their moneys worth.

Answer 8

where do you think the government will get the 2 %,.....they will raise your taxes to cover it,.....the Government can not spend any money until it takes it from some one else,.....socialism is when the people pay for the care through Government, you are talking socialism with the question you asked,.....and let me ask you this??,.....why should the rich pay more then the poor??,.....and what about the people who do not work,.....how are they covered??,.....

Answer 9

Another denial of responsibility plan. If you are healthy there is no need for care, if you are unhealthy it was probable a life style choice that made you so. So why waste time and money on useless insurance, get your sh*t together and start practicing prevention.

Having accident insurance is a good idea, so is knowing and applying this http://www.helium.com/tm/148271

Answer 10

it is about time.