Universal Health Care
Universal health care. It has become one of the buzz issues of this Presidential campaign. The Democrats have embraced this issue while the Republican side has yet to address it. From what I have gathered the Democrats believe this is a good issue for the federal government to address with some 50 million or so people in this country living without any health insurance. Also from what I gathered the Democrats also wish to create a bureaucratic agency to oversee such a massive undertaking.
Before I begin with my opinion I want to clarify that I think it is important to indicate as a 33 year old man I have only had health insurance seven years of my life. I also do not have health insurance currently due to decisions entirely of my own choice.
But with that in mind, I don't think the Government needs to take an active role in this issue. For one, there is not a person in this country who is ever denied health care if they truly need it. You think I am wrong, go down to Methodist Hospital. Or any hospital for that matter. People without health insurance or without the means to pay are routinely given access to care regardless of their ability to pay. Also, for example, when a person is in a car accident have you ever seen the emergency persons look in the victim's wallet to see if they have insurance? No. They take them to the damn hospital for treatment. My point simply is that no one from my observation is ever denied health care if they truly need it.
Also anytime the Government takes on an issue the bureaucratic red tape and costs are staggering. In this age of a five trillion dollar deficit (due to reckless economic policies of the current administration and a costly un-necessary war), the United States does not need additional costs to bear.
So how do you address an issue that does need addressed? I believe the best way is for the Government to allow the private sector to tackle the issue. But how? By making it economically feasible to do so through the Internal Revenue Code. For example the Government could establish how much a person of a certain economic means should be able to pay for health insurance. For example, let's say a 25 year old man makes twenty thousand a year. The Government could establish that he should be able to afford health care in the amount of 50 bucks a month. But that is not how much it would cost if he were to try to buy health insurance on the open market. Accordingly, if he were to go to an insurance company they would sell him health insurance for 350 bucks a month (that isn't too far off from how much it would actually cost and that is part of the problem). But, if that same insurance company offered him the insurance for what the Government has established he has the ability to pay, the Code could then allow that same company either a credit or a deduction. So if the health insurance company offered him the insurance for 50 bucks a month and he accepts, that same company would then receive either a 300 dollar credit or deduction for each month he has the insurance. No new government agency would be established and compliance with the program would be passed to an existing agency--the IRS. Also keep in mind that these companies would presumably have increasing profits, which in turn means they are paying more in taxes. That would also mean a lower cost overall for the Government.
Just an idea. It will be interesting to see how this issue pans out in this election.
Before I begin with my opinion I want to clarify that I think it is important to indicate as a 33 year old man I have only had health insurance seven years of my life. I also do not have health insurance currently due to decisions entirely of my own choice.
But with that in mind, I don't think the Government needs to take an active role in this issue. For one, there is not a person in this country who is ever denied health care if they truly need it. You think I am wrong, go down to Methodist Hospital. Or any hospital for that matter. People without health insurance or without the means to pay are routinely given access to care regardless of their ability to pay. Also, for example, when a person is in a car accident have you ever seen the emergency persons look in the victim's wallet to see if they have insurance? No. They take them to the damn hospital for treatment. My point simply is that no one from my observation is ever denied health care if they truly need it.
Also anytime the Government takes on an issue the bureaucratic red tape and costs are staggering. In this age of a five trillion dollar deficit (due to reckless economic policies of the current administration and a costly un-necessary war), the United States does not need additional costs to bear.
So how do you address an issue that does need addressed? I believe the best way is for the Government to allow the private sector to tackle the issue. But how? By making it economically feasible to do so through the Internal Revenue Code. For example the Government could establish how much a person of a certain economic means should be able to pay for health insurance. For example, let's say a 25 year old man makes twenty thousand a year. The Government could establish that he should be able to afford health care in the amount of 50 bucks a month. But that is not how much it would cost if he were to try to buy health insurance on the open market. Accordingly, if he were to go to an insurance company they would sell him health insurance for 350 bucks a month (that isn't too far off from how much it would actually cost and that is part of the problem). But, if that same insurance company offered him the insurance for what the Government has established he has the ability to pay, the Code could then allow that same company either a credit or a deduction. So if the health insurance company offered him the insurance for 50 bucks a month and he accepts, that same company would then receive either a 300 dollar credit or deduction for each month he has the insurance. No new government agency would be established and compliance with the program would be passed to an existing agency--the IRS. Also keep in mind that these companies would presumably have increasing profits, which in turn means they are paying more in taxes. That would also mean a lower cost overall for the Government.
Just an idea. It will be interesting to see how this issue pans out in this election.
posted by The Kid at 4/04/2008
2 Comments:
I have to quibble with you a bit. I am a fair bit older than you and have had health insurance for a far less amount of my adult life. For myself, I agree with you. The problems is others. Which is why we both need and will get national health insurance.
For many years I practiced bankruptcy law and for most of those years I practiced in Anderson - a former GM-UAW town. I saw way too many bankruptcies caused by lack of or too little health insurance. Until the "bankruptcy reforms" of 2005, we had a form of national healthcare through our bankruptcy courts. For while Methodist and others may give free healthcare upfront, they do expect payment at some time.
Meanwhile, GM and Ford and Chrysler carried huge numbers of our fellow citizens on health insurance plans. Those costs are breaking them. That they are competing overseas against companies whose countries provide health insurance to it citizens does not help.
I see the movement for national health insurance as a squeeze play: on one side those who cannot afford insurance but are not indigent and Big Business on the other side.
Kid - I have to join with Sam H. on this one. Sure, if I am hit by a bus tomorrow, the ER will fix me.
How do I pay for it?
A few years back, a co-worker had his appendix out. Insurance refused to pay. Why? It hadn't burst. Had it burst, they would have paid the bills.
My insurance does not cover innoculations. It does not cover routine check-ups.
This has just got to be fixed.
Post a Comment
<< Home