Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want. Second, when in need you usually can't say no and it becomes very expensive even if you have insurance. Third, even if you have insurance maintaining the payment when you become sick is extremely hard. Even maintaining an income becomes very hard. It's as unique of a service as they come.
Obamanationcare isn't the answer. Most people without insurance are going to ignore the mandate (granted it's constitutional) and not get insurance. Even if everyone did, it's already been proven those payment will not offset the added costs to the insurance companies. There will be many small businesses effected by this (not as many as stated) which will hurt the economy. But the biggest impact will be to everyone. Everyone will have higher premium and deductibles, businesses will pay a ton more and the individual or self-employed person's insurance cost will be unaffordable. It's simply not the answer.
However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available. Employer based system removes choice and puts our corps at a disadvantage globally. It's a wasteful system. Medical Bills are still the leading cause of BK. The most vulnerable in society (our children) are at the mercy of others to get insurance! Status Quo isn't the option either. We have rationing already, use an HMO or look at the 20% co-payment and you will be dishonest to say we don't already have healthcare rationing!
Libs say single payor is the only way. I came across this article and I believe this author has the way.
Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person. Yet you can buy down the deductible and/or get addition coverage for a fee. It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage. Illegals and criminals won't get free healthcare, because you still have to sign up with an insurance co. There is still skin in the game with the deductible (which I believe the deductible gets waived for low income) and additional coverage can be purchased. It also move away from the inflexible to the consumer's needs of the employer based system. If would give our corps an advantage in the global market by reducing a huge cost to them.
I like it! What do you say!
Obamanationcare isn't the answer. Most people without insurance are going to ignore the mandate (granted it's constitutional) and not get insurance. Even if everyone did, it's already been proven those payment will not offset the added costs to the insurance companies. There will be many small businesses effected by this (not as many as stated) which will hurt the economy. But the biggest impact will be to everyone. Everyone will have higher premium and deductibles, businesses will pay a ton more and the individual or self-employed person's insurance cost will be unaffordable. It's simply not the answer.
However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available. Employer based system removes choice and puts our corps at a disadvantage globally. It's a wasteful system. Medical Bills are still the leading cause of BK. The most vulnerable in society (our children) are at the mercy of others to get insurance! Status Quo isn't the option either. We have rationing already, use an HMO or look at the 20% co-payment and you will be dishonest to say we don't already have healthcare rationing!
Libs say single payor is the only way. I came across this article and I believe this author has the way.
Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person. Yet you can buy down the deductible and/or get addition coverage for a fee. It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage. Illegals and criminals won't get free healthcare, because you still have to sign up with an insurance co. There is still skin in the game with the deductible (which I believe the deductible gets waived for low income) and additional coverage can be purchased. It also move away from the inflexible to the consumer's needs of the employer based system. If would give our corps an advantage in the global market by reducing a huge cost to them.
I like it! What do you say!
Articles: Universal Health Care Conservative Style
To this end, I propose that the Republican Party expand on the Ryan plan with a national solution that addresses the real needs of all the people, while concurrently advancing the values of principled conservatism. In broad outline, the program would look like this.
The federal government would issue every American citizen and legal alien a voucher that would be used to purchase a basic health insurance plan. The benefits of the basic plan would be precisely defined and all insurers would have to offer such a plan for the money available from the voucher. Insurers could also offer supplemental coverage that individuals or employers could purchase, but the minimum level of care spelled out in the basic policy would be available to everyone.
Insurers would be responsible for all covered patient care costs after a moderate deductible -- say $1,000 per year per person. Low income persons would be exempted from the deductible through tax credits. This model would apply to Medicare patients as well as to younger patients. The voucher's value would vary based on age. All insurers would have to accept all patients. There would be a few refinements, but this is the basic picture.
Now you may be asking yourself: is this really a conservative proposal or is it socialism in disguise? It is conservative. It meaningfully advances the general welfare, and it does so in a cost-effective manner that does not involve burdensome regulation or restrictions of personal liberty. For this reason, it is consistent with the traditional values of principled conservatism. I will address some of these issues in more detail below.