Everyone else has a freaking health care plan, why can't I?
First of all, the "ideas" being offered by both "sides" are a travesty. The Dems are pushing for "free" health care that will be anything but free; it will stifle competition, which will destroy the few efficiencies currently in the system and will significantly hamper innovation through entreprenuerism. Additionally, when health care is "free", I'll invite you to take a visit to any ER or doctor's office waiting room and try to find a seat. Access will immediately be destroyed by demand. Ultimately, and relatively quickly, we will see bureaucratic rationing of our health care. So we'll have reduced access, less innovation, much higher costs through taxes and rationing. Delightful.
I would offer a concrete opinion of the Republican's health care plan, but it's so vague and sloppy as to be unintelligible. If the GOP thinks that tax credits are going to excite and ignite the electorate, they're even more naive than I thought they were. Sheesh, at least the Dems can explain their plan in two words: "Government controlled." How are you going to motivate a person who doesn't pay much in the way of taxes (or no taxes) that tax breaks are the way to go? Is this a joke? If it is, it's not very funny.
So here we go:
Technology - Computers are neat. Turn them on, push a few buttons and stuff shows up on the screen. Every provider, from family doctors to brain surgeons to emergency rooms, should have instant access to my complete health history via centralized medical information banks. Instant access to this information will immediately save time and money, and will significantly reduce the possibility of diagnosis and/or treatment error. No, this won't be easy, nor will it happen tomorrow. But we must have a strategy to (1) keep costs down, (2) keep errors down, and (3) speed up detection and treatment. This is it. Get on it, now.
The Basic Structure - Most people don't know what Medicare Advantage plans are. In short, they are major medical health plans for seniors, with a drug plan built in. Medicare pays insurance companies a certain amount for each enrollee, and the insurance company adminsters the plan. Insurance companies are not allowed to "cherry pick" enrollees, meaning they can't accept just the "healthy" ones. The insurance companies essentially are the enrollee's Medicare plan, the enrollee does not lose it.
On the other hand, these plans are, by far, much richer in benefits than standard Medicare. Why? Because insurance companies are far, far more efficient than the government in administering health care. Obviously. Competition plays a key role, as the insurance companies compete with each other to provide better benefits and better "value added" services, such as health club memberships and dental/vision. Typical office co-pays are $15 or $20. Hospital co-pays may be $600 for the whole visit.
Pete Stark of California has been attacking "Private Fee for Service" Medicare Advantage plans for quite a while. He complains that these highly flexible plans are too expensive, that it's costing Medicare up to 12% more to insure someone on one of these plans. Fine. Let's move towards more managed care on these plans, such as PPO and HMO. The insurance companies are already offering these kinds of plans. They may be able to make the PFFS plans more efficient, anyway. Sit down and shut up, Mr. Stark. Take your socialized medicine and cram it.
Right now, believe it or not - even with the higher-accessing senior population being covered - many of these plans have a zero-dollar premium. And most are under $100 a month. How can this be? Because the government is re-directing Medicare funds to the far more efficient insurance companies. Go figure!
These plans have been wildly successful, the seniors love them. I can hear you thinking, "Why haven't I heard about these plans?" - it's because the press would prefer you didn't. As we know, success in the public sector is bad news for them. Too bad. We model our basic health plan on Medicare Advantage.
Insurance & Drug Companies - I think it's wrong to dictate to companies how much money they're "allowed" to make, but I must admit it - the insurance companies are simply making too much money with Medicare Advantage plans - and that's even covering seniors, who access care much, much more than younger people.
Their profit margins would multiply with the younger, healthier folks on board. So, they have to pony up too. Their plans must be much richer, by lowering co-pays and adding more complete dental and vision benefits. Short-term and long-term disability would be nice, too. Mandatory for all insurance companies, as are no co-pay preventive services from physicals to pap smears to colorectal screenings. Long term care insurance may even fit in there. But, competition, innovation and the free market must be at the heart of this plan if we want to keep costs down and quality up.
Taxes - Before we raise taxes (and we may need to save that for Social Security), let's get some estimates on what my plan would cost above and beyond where we are now. However, with all the money being saved on this plan (by individuals and businesses alike), would an additional two, three, five per cent increase in sales taxes be too much to pay? For me, no. Look at what businesses and individuals would save.
Right now, Medicare Advantage plans are giving excellent coverage for a small price, and they're including preventive care. If we have to add a bit to the tax base to achieve this for all, I'm all for it. But competition must remain.
A Culture of Health - Here's where eyes roll, I know. But it's past time that we deal seriously with the rampant and rising obesity rates in this country. This will be addressed in the health care plans by providing consistent, ongoing preventive care. Perhaps there would be a way to motivate people to access this care.
Real, standardized nutrition and exercise education should be provided in schools (as should fundamental economics, but that's for another column).
This culture should extend to businesses such as restaurants and food suppliers. Not through regulation, but simply through information and education. Let's change the way we look at things.
That's ColoradoMacCare. Access for all, competition, innovation, quality, choice. Elements from both sides of the political spectrum. Based on a successful existing system.
And I'm not holding my breath.
...
First of all, the "ideas" being offered by both "sides" are a travesty. The Dems are pushing for "free" health care that will be anything but free; it will stifle competition, which will destroy the few efficiencies currently in the system and will significantly hamper innovation through entreprenuerism. Additionally, when health care is "free", I'll invite you to take a visit to any ER or doctor's office waiting room and try to find a seat. Access will immediately be destroyed by demand. Ultimately, and relatively quickly, we will see bureaucratic rationing of our health care. So we'll have reduced access, less innovation, much higher costs through taxes and rationing. Delightful.
I would offer a concrete opinion of the Republican's health care plan, but it's so vague and sloppy as to be unintelligible. If the GOP thinks that tax credits are going to excite and ignite the electorate, they're even more naive than I thought they were. Sheesh, at least the Dems can explain their plan in two words: "Government controlled." How are you going to motivate a person who doesn't pay much in the way of taxes (or no taxes) that tax breaks are the way to go? Is this a joke? If it is, it's not very funny.
So here we go:
Technology - Computers are neat. Turn them on, push a few buttons and stuff shows up on the screen. Every provider, from family doctors to brain surgeons to emergency rooms, should have instant access to my complete health history via centralized medical information banks. Instant access to this information will immediately save time and money, and will significantly reduce the possibility of diagnosis and/or treatment error. No, this won't be easy, nor will it happen tomorrow. But we must have a strategy to (1) keep costs down, (2) keep errors down, and (3) speed up detection and treatment. This is it. Get on it, now.
The Basic Structure - Most people don't know what Medicare Advantage plans are. In short, they are major medical health plans for seniors, with a drug plan built in. Medicare pays insurance companies a certain amount for each enrollee, and the insurance company adminsters the plan. Insurance companies are not allowed to "cherry pick" enrollees, meaning they can't accept just the "healthy" ones. The insurance companies essentially are the enrollee's Medicare plan, the enrollee does not lose it.
On the other hand, these plans are, by far, much richer in benefits than standard Medicare. Why? Because insurance companies are far, far more efficient than the government in administering health care. Obviously. Competition plays a key role, as the insurance companies compete with each other to provide better benefits and better "value added" services, such as health club memberships and dental/vision. Typical office co-pays are $15 or $20. Hospital co-pays may be $600 for the whole visit.
Pete Stark of California has been attacking "Private Fee for Service" Medicare Advantage plans for quite a while. He complains that these highly flexible plans are too expensive, that it's costing Medicare up to 12% more to insure someone on one of these plans. Fine. Let's move towards more managed care on these plans, such as PPO and HMO. The insurance companies are already offering these kinds of plans. They may be able to make the PFFS plans more efficient, anyway. Sit down and shut up, Mr. Stark. Take your socialized medicine and cram it.
Right now, believe it or not - even with the higher-accessing senior population being covered - many of these plans have a zero-dollar premium. And most are under $100 a month. How can this be? Because the government is re-directing Medicare funds to the far more efficient insurance companies. Go figure!
These plans have been wildly successful, the seniors love them. I can hear you thinking, "Why haven't I heard about these plans?" - it's because the press would prefer you didn't. As we know, success in the public sector is bad news for them. Too bad. We model our basic health plan on Medicare Advantage.
Insurance & Drug Companies - I think it's wrong to dictate to companies how much money they're "allowed" to make, but I must admit it - the insurance companies are simply making too much money with Medicare Advantage plans - and that's even covering seniors, who access care much, much more than younger people.
Their profit margins would multiply with the younger, healthier folks on board. So, they have to pony up too. Their plans must be much richer, by lowering co-pays and adding more complete dental and vision benefits. Short-term and long-term disability would be nice, too. Mandatory for all insurance companies, as are no co-pay preventive services from physicals to pap smears to colorectal screenings. Long term care insurance may even fit in there. But, competition, innovation and the free market must be at the heart of this plan if we want to keep costs down and quality up.
Taxes - Before we raise taxes (and we may need to save that for Social Security), let's get some estimates on what my plan would cost above and beyond where we are now. However, with all the money being saved on this plan (by individuals and businesses alike), would an additional two, three, five per cent increase in sales taxes be too much to pay? For me, no. Look at what businesses and individuals would save.
Right now, Medicare Advantage plans are giving excellent coverage for a small price, and they're including preventive care. If we have to add a bit to the tax base to achieve this for all, I'm all for it. But competition must remain.
A Culture of Health - Here's where eyes roll, I know. But it's past time that we deal seriously with the rampant and rising obesity rates in this country. This will be addressed in the health care plans by providing consistent, ongoing preventive care. Perhaps there would be a way to motivate people to access this care.
Real, standardized nutrition and exercise education should be provided in schools (as should fundamental economics, but that's for another column).
This culture should extend to businesses such as restaurants and food suppliers. Not through regulation, but simply through information and education. Let's change the way we look at things.
That's ColoradoMacCare. Access for all, competition, innovation, quality, choice. Elements from both sides of the political spectrum. Based on a successful existing system.
And I'm not holding my breath.
...
0 comments:
Post a Comment