Side by side comparison of Dem candidates' health care blueprint

[Texarkandy]

What facts would you like to debate?

The media & big-govt proponents want us all to debate "which plan is better" as though it's a "given" that both of them are better than our current situation which they have decided to call a "crisis" (another supposed "given").

I propose the following fact: We pretty much have "payers" & "non-payers" for health care in our society.

When you boil it all down, the various versions of Hillary/Obama/Edwards Care is designed to use the force of law to provide an Entitlement to the same access/quality to the "non-payers" in our society as the "payers" currently have.



There are pretty much only a few ways to do that
(1) increase the payers cost
(2) reduce the payers access/quantity/quality
(3) a combination of 1 & 2 above

The payers are already paying for the non-payers (& always will) - the issue is access/quantity/quality

Promises that these plans will (1) reduce the payers cost; AND (2) increase everybody's access/quantity - are just so-much "pie-in-the-sky" populist pandering for votes.

 

[Gumby]

To get back to my post of last night, I don't presume to speak for Insanity, but I believe the point he was trying to make is that for any system of insurance to work at the lowest total cost, you need to maximize the pool over which the risk is spread. That means we need to have the healthy and the unhealthy all in the same pool -- over time, everyone of us will migrate from the healthy to the unhealthy column. If we allow young, healthy people to opt out of the system unless and until they are hit by a truck and then they show up at the emergency room needing care, we will all bear a higher cost because they have not been paying into the system. Hillary Clinton has a very good argument on just this point.

I have posted before that I do not believe the Clinton "mandate" will work, because it is too difficult to determine who can "afford" health care but "chooses" not to buy it. In that respect, I think Obama's plan is superior if you are going to have a system that works through traditional health insurance. I believe that the best system is a tax funded, single government payer system. You achieve maximum risk spreading because everyone is in the pool. Unless you can avoid income tax, you cannot avoid paying for your share (yes, this is progressive, those of us who make more money pay more of the cost, and rightfully so. Just like any other government provided service.). My post was meant to point out that a tax funded system is therefore the ultimate "mandate". I also believe it eliminates the insurance company overhead component of the total health care cost. You have said you want you and your insurance company left out of this system. I can understand you, but why do you want to enrich your insurance company?

 

[TickTock]

DW and I were discussing this topic this morning.

I think Gumby has it right in terms of risk-sharing.

Could be funded by a national sales tax and/or value added tax; doesn't necessarily have to be payroll taxes.

I envision an everyone-from-birth-to-death 'basic' healthcare plan, that could be supplemented by private plans (something like Medicare). For instance, eyeglasses would be covered, but Lasik would not (or maybe it would... figure the annual costs of glasses/lenses vs. one-time Lasik. Anyway, you get the idea...) As an aside, this is how I think Social Security should be - basic, no one goes homeless or malnourished, but it doesn't guarantee a 4/2/2 home and steak; maybe a single bed in a dorm room and rice and beans.

IMO, healthcare in the US is too focussed on treating folks once their already sick, with too little emphasis on staying healthy in the first place.

Obviously, many details to be worked out, but I like the overall picture.

 

[Texarkandy]

RE: Gumby & TickTock posts (I'm a bit more receptive to some of your thoughts TickTock):
You can look at any system the same way - it still boils down to socialistic collectivism (and if I may repeat myself "populist pandering for votes") - which is not what this country is supposed to be about or what made this country great IMHO

Perhaps we should have the fed govt pool all of our pension monies, 401K's, IRA's & Roth's & dole them out equally to people in their old age according to their need and regardless of their contribution (of course that would mean no ER)

From my POV - the US should continue to focus on free-market solutions to the glitches in our health care systems - with a basic no-frills safety net for those who, for whatever reason, slip through the cracks.

 

[Texarkandy]

Could be funded by a national sales tax and/or value added tax; doesn't necessarily have to be payroll taxes.

I'm afraid I could support a natl sales tax or vat only if they abolished all payroll taxes -

it would seem to me to be a bad idea to give the fed govt a new mechanism to tax individuals without getting rid of an existing mechanism.

 

[Texarkandy]

Unless you can avoid income tax, you cannot avoid paying for your share

I don't know about you, but I spend a bit of time avoiding (legally) income tax when/where I can.
And there are quite a few folks who effectively pay none (many of whom are the same non-payers in our health care system)

(yes, this is progressive, those of us who make more money pay more of the cost, and rightfully so.

"rightfully so" you say?
I (& quite a few others) think the progressive income tax is morally wrong and un-American. Progressive taxation punishes success & productivity.

To hear the word "progressive" referenced in regard to health care costs just goes to show you how political this issue really is and one of the reasons I take it with a grain whenever I hear someone use the term "health care crisis"