Thursday, March 6, 2008

Korycare

Here it is, the hottest and most exciting topic of the day- Kory's Health Care plan. I know, I know, this may be just TOO much excitement for a Thursday. In response to Steve's comment on my last post I came up with Korycare. I'm going to send Korycare to McCain so he too can have an ambiguous health care plan to put forth.

Grab a glass of milk because this post is dry. Except for point 4 where I mandate all teenage women go on birth control. That part is pretty spicy.

1- Government provided insurance isn’t provided by the government

Contract with a 3rd party provider, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, just like all the other large corporations that provide health care. Medicare is GONE.

2- Defining Poverty- and need

If you can afford to pay for health care and instead chose to buy a new truck, you won’t be covered.

States would determine different levels of poverty- you’ll submit your IRS returns to qualify for government insurance.

Three levels of qualification: The first level makes you eligible to purchase the government insurance at the discounted rate. The second would be a more severely discounted rate and the third would be free.

Those that do not qualify for insurance due to pre-existing conditions will show proof of denials from 5 different insurance carriers in order to qualify to be covered under tier one of this program.

3- Preventative Health care required qualifying for the government subsidized insurance.

You have to have your annual check ups, maintain a proper weight to qualify for the coverage. You miss an annual appointment- you’re off the plan.

To pay for preventative health care-corporate sponsorships. What better place for Subway to advertise its low cal sandwiches than in a government funded weight management clinic?

4- Self Inflicted Illnesses are Not Covered
(Teen Pregnancy, Smoking, and Fat)

Most Controversial of this program- All female teenagers on government health care will be required to be on birth control in order to retain coverage. They will also have to be on birth control to get food stamps and government housing.

At the age of 18 this stipulation is released for health care, but remains in place for government housing and food stamps. If you can't afford to feed the kids you've got- what makes you think you should have more?

It’s a basic human right to reproduce, but then is it fair for you to expect your neighbors to pay for the upbringing of your offspring? By requiring women to be responsible for their reproductive organs we’ll reduce the drain on both welfare and heath care.

In addition, no smokers will be covered or those that are overweight with out a legitimate medical reason for being so.

5- Tax Incentives for Physicians

Physicians would be able to write off surgeries, consults and patient care that they do not get paid for. Currently if a surgeon works on a patient that is an illegal immigrant- the surgeon loses 3 valuable hours of his life, and can not write off the costs.

6- Tax incentives for clinics and hospitals to invest in cutting edge technology.

Electronic Medical Records, Digital X-Ray and Practice Management software. This will cut out a great deal of waste while assisting hospitals and clinics to stomach the upfront cost.

7. Build the damn wall between US and Mexico.

By reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the United States, we reduce the number of illegal immigrants on health care- stop people from draining a system that they are not paying into. This alone could fund the entire program.

19 comments:

seaside said...

I like this.

Taylor said...

hahaha. that cartoon. priceless.

Zach said...

Remarkably well thought out and well said. My only addition would come before point 1 as a foundation for the whole thing... 0) Pass a Constitutional Amendment that will make health care the government's business to begin with. Because, as near as I can tell (and yes, I've read the whole thing), the responsibility to provide health care isn't one of the numerated powers given to the federal government.

chloe elizabeth said...

And this is why we would be friends IRL. Ha ha ha! Love it. Especially the birth control and "no help if you choose to buy a new truck" parts.

Della Hill said...

Perfect. You are right on.
I had a friend once who was in foter care. I went with him to visit his mother in the motel she lived in.
She was unemployed, about 80 pounds overweight, smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day and paid her motel bill with her welfare check.
I liked my friend, and was glad he had a better situation at his foster home, but I think his mom was exactly the kind of person who drains our sytem and would be targeted by this health care program.
I will add, though maybe this is inferred, that teenage girls should have the right to waive hormone birth contol if they contract to be abstinent, use other forms of birth control, or provide their own coverage in the case that they do become pregnant.
Outside of that, amen and amen.
-Della

Steve said...

Ha, I didn't expect that! Well thought out and some great points that I probably wouldn't have thought of.

A couple probs though ,of course...

1. How is a for-profit monopoly going to do any better than the government? At least with the government cost cutting and all the rules about Rxs and what is and isn't covered could potentially be relieved.

2. I think this is a great idea. The federal definition is ridiculous, way too low and unencompassing.

3. Fair enough. Hell, I have to do that NOW with my HMO! Soviet-style, I like.

4. Brave, but fair. Although, what do we do with the teens that will still get pregnant, the smokers that will get cancer, and the fatties? Turn them away at the hospital door with their fetus sticking out?!?!?

5. Good idea.

6. Really good idea. I'm surprised something like this doesn't already exist.

7. Maybe, but they'll still get in and we just spend lots of resources keeping some out. For instance, buy a one-way ticket from Mexico City to Vancouver and walk in from Canada. Easy as pie. The wall is just another obstacle that desperate people will find a way around. The Berlin Wall didn't work either.

At least you are trying, which is better than 99% of us!!!!

Jolly said...

Kory, I really like this. I think your basic rational is totally sound.

There is one thing though, that I think is of major importance and I'm wondering if you'd think about it and let me know what your thoughts are: children who aren't covered because of neglectful parents.

I can think of children that I know--personally--who, if this were the plan, would not be getting essential care. I don't think that the birth control plan would prevent this from happening. And I don't think that "these" type of people would be, by default, made more responsible than they are (or aren't) already.

Perhaps after a generation has passed away, the birth control requirement would greatly reduce this problem. But my gut says no, teenagers and irresponsible parents of teenagers (not the responsible ones) are not the most reliable to depend on following through with the birth control.

Which leads me to...

I'm interested to know if any of your blog readers (Hil? Maybe?) have personal or professional experience with "classic" welfare cases--families who have been on welfare for generations, women who have had 5 children, and 3 of them have been placed in foster care--children who are neglected, who live with their irresponsible mom & her many rotating boyfriends, grandma who sort of picks up the slack, and other extended relatives in dirty surroundings, who have been on Child & Family Service caseworker's radar, but remain in these homes.

If this plan were in effect, instead of going to the doctor when these kids get sick (because some of these kids do at least get the medical care they need on the current system), they wouldn't be covered, physicians' "Tax Write-Off" charity cases would be overloaded--and I see a very bleak outcome.

The thing that breaks my heart is that there comes a point where it doesn't matter how the system is changed, or what the system tries to do to help, but their parents will only do so much--and if medical care isn't provided for them because their moms chose to (deliberately or not--most likely NOT) get pregnant--the tragedy is that the one child is no different than my little Ruby or Joey--that child didn't ask to be born into a neglectful home, to be in deplorable conditions. There is, obviously, a certain amount of that that cannot be changed--but maybe under the current system, we know that these children will at least have access to a doctor, immunizations--and that will also increase their chances of having intervention available if it is needed.

For example: if a doctor notices that a child is so uncared for that the child has "pica" and won't eat food, is so desperately malnurished, the doctor has a responsibility and the capability to notify Child & Family Protection Services--where as if the child didn't have medical coverage, then more of these cases might go unnoticed, unhelped, giving way to a more desperately destitute poverty-stricken social class--and widening the social-economic gap.

I used that example of "pica" only because I actually, this last week, came face-to-face with this situation and a little girl named "Lisa", and it absolutely breaks my heart. I keep thinking about "Lisa" and wondering how she is doing, if she is still in the same miserable place today. Then I look at Ruby, who is the same age, and my heart breaks even more. Does Ruby deserve our home any more than "Lisa" deserves our home?

I FUNDAMENTALLY I totally agree with your plan and your ideology. The way the program is now set up, it definetly has it's problems. No one on government aid should be driving a brand new car. And Kory, I'm dying to know who that relative is. ;-)

Salt H2O said...

Zach- Agreed
Chloe- we'd totally hang IRL
Della- I'm all for forcing teenage girls to get IUD's they're 99.9% effective.

Steve-

1. I changed my mind, I think each state would chose the health care provider for it's state- and the state will bear the burden of funding. That way they will be less lienent in it's policies. A corporation is SO much better than the government because you'll have different insurance carriers competing for business.

2. I'll be more encompassing in my official documentation.

3. It makes sense- if one wants the government to take care of their health bills, the least they can do is care about their own health.

4. Birth controll isn't effective all of the time, but if the teen has proven history of taking birth control and getting pregnant, she'll qualify, if not- we send her a bill- maybe we can take a lien on the child- until they pay for the birth they don't get to have the kid!

Smokers aren't covered. If you can afford cigarrettes you can afford healthcare. You get lung cancer, you get to foot the bill or try to sue the cigarette companies to foot the bill.

5. How is it that I can't get a free surgery in Mexico but Mexican's can get a free surgery in America? We need to do what ever they're doing down there....deny service.

Salt H2O said...

Jolly,

Great, now I've got to go construct a healthcare policy specifically for children.

(the relatives on welfare are on the husband's side of the family, anyone related to me by blood on welfare would get a swift kick upside the head)

bryce said...

Umm, not to barge into a conversation unannounced, but I stumbled across this doing a blogsurf. By way of introduction, I am mormon (though somewhat atypical), not in Utah, and a medical student.

I have one question, and it will probably reveal my thoughts on your proposed health care system. How do you justify a health-care system like that with Christian theology, and even more specifically, with the doctrine of agency?



btw, IUD's are contraindicated for non-monogamous individuals as risk for PID goes through the roof (what with a great foreign object to act as a reservoir for n. gonnorrhea and c. trachomatis to hide in).
To respond to your previous post, I know tons of Democrat surgeons. Literally, tons. Figure 165 lbs each, so I'd say I probably know 3 or 4 tons worth.

Salt H2O said...

Bryce,

This is why I love blog. Thank you for your input.

You ask two questions that of free agency and that of christian charity-

I ask where is the choice to be charitable or not? Socialism (or Populism)takes that away in giving away health care. When the government takes money away from me to support my neighbor who is on welfare- agency is gone, and we have Satan's plan- where everyone is forced to do 'good'. (mormon theology).

As applied to 'korycare' you have the choice to go on 'korycare' or not. However if you make that choice there are certain rules and responsibilites that go along with it. Unlike Hilary's plan, my plan does not force people to buy healthcare if they do not have it, it simply offers a governement subsidzed option should you choose to accept it.

When it comes to being pregnant on welfare- the choice to be on welfare is the individuals, just as it's a choice (in most cases) to have sex. No one madates that people go on welfare- in turn I believe that those on welfare should be doing something to earn it, and attempting to stop the cycle of poverty.

Where agency is taken away is when a person on welfare has a choice to get pregnant and then forces the rest of us to pay for it.

Our society has gotten away from holding people personally accountable for their actions.

I did not know that about the IUD, very interesting. Ok, we'll give the girls that CHOOSE to be on government health care the choice of contraceptives.

Any of those 'tons' of democrats orthopods?

Salt H2O said...

Bryce,

Quick question for you- what are your thoughts on medicare and medicade and what kind of medicine are you studying?

bryce said...

I'm in an allopathic school (top 30), getting ready to take boards, if that is what you are asking. If by "type" you meant specialty, then I don't know yet. You don't pick a specialty until the end.

First, several of those MD Dem's are orthopods. Really, though, you should be more impressed if a family physician or pediatrician is a democrat. Orthopods make ridiculous, laughable amounts of money. I know they work a lot. I know they had a long residency. But even with a huge chunk getting taken out of a yearly wage that large doesn't really hurt unless they have absolutely ridiculous lifestyles. For the primary care provider to make 20-30% an orthopaedic surgeon makes, when he/she went through the SAME educational experience (okay, two years less residency - which the orthopod probably made 50K a year at; and if anything it seems the PCP has worse hours) and still be willing to vote Blue is, in my eyes, a more impressive act.

(You may have found MY soapbox. It seems so completely ridiculous that the worst paid, ahem, least compensated specialties are the ones who should have the largest amount of information floating in their mind while meeting with patients. They really have the largest opportunity to help, and are the worst paid and least respected for it.) Where is the logic in that? NOTE --I'm not trying to downplay a specialist's importance, or that of a surgeon [I actually want to end up in a surgical sub-specialty, not ortho], I'm just trying to put it in perspective --

My thoughts on the Medicare/caid are that it is great coverage for the patient. Sucks to be a provider with them though, doesn't it? I don't know how to fix the problems in them. I mean, we could prevent so much of the morbidity and mortality associated with hospitals if we could just convince everyone [read: EVERYONE] to wash their hands. We all know that, and yet it is neglected far more often than either of us would care to think. Extending some of that thought to health insurance, we don't even know all the things we need to fix (ie we haven't even really identified all the problems), let alone developing a reasonable solution [ie required hand washing]. With medicare/caid the one large issue I would like to see more is exactly what your system had in it: more personal responsibility. Making patients who miss appointments deal with consequences of that decision would be one giant step in that direction - and I just mean co-pays. But I think you overshoot. Do some googling on knockout mice and obesity. What about other "self-inflicted" disorders? The first ten to come to mind are STDs, steroid-usage, illicit drug use/addiciton, alcoholism, suicide/attempts, getting in a car accident when it was snowing, sports injuries, improper nutrition related disorders (ie neural tube defects - if the mother had just been taking her 1mg of folic acid there's a huge reduction in the risk of her baby having spina bifida), brushing/flossing their teeth should really prevent caries, or what about eating disorders like bulemia or anorexia nervosa? I just don't see the definition of "self-inflicted" being very clear when taking about disease.

As to your response to my question, I think I aimed you a little off-target with the second part (about agency). With the main question, "How do you justify a health-care system like that with Christian theology?" I was more aiming at forgiveness/second chances. I would be interested in your thoughts along that line.

Della Hill said...

Wow, good comments.
I have a suggestion for the topic of providing care to children who's parents are not taking responsibility for them.
I do work in the foster care world and have seen far too many examples of what Jolly is talking about.
Here is my idea. If a woman or girl who is receiving this health care becomes pregnant despite the requirement to prevent it, this health care would cover the child, under the condition that the mother accepts a permanent or semipermanent birth control option, (paid for by the program of course). This could be tubal ligation or any one of several long term options that last 3-5 years.
This solves 2 problems. First the child is covered, and second the mother would not be able to bring more children into those circumstances. But if she chooses the semi permanent option she can still choose to have more children later on when she is in a better position to.
I think many would choose the permanent option, which would take a huge drain off of the system for generations.
Of those that refuse the long term birth control and thereby choose to not be covered, we would be aware of who they are and would be able to check on the health and care of their child(ren).
Unfortunately, until Christ comes again there will always be children neglected and abused, no matter what health care system we have.
Jolly is right. This is heartbreaking. But as she also said, by enforcing birth control, many of these problems would be resolved in one generation.
#4 is actually one of my favorite points. If fewer teenage girls got pregnant, more of them would finish high school and go to college. They would have better jobs, better self esteem, better relationships, less dependency on the system and would be more likely to have children when they are ready to, providing better lives for the children they do have.
We would see changes in the whole country in only a few years.
Theoretically anyway.
I think children are one of the greatest joys in this life. But they should come to this world with parents who are ready and waiting for them and can provide and care for them.
-Della

Steve said...

Salty,

There has been at least one study, maybe more, suggesting that abortion has helped raise women out of poverty, thus by your definition to 'stop the cycle', wouldn't your health care plan have to offer abortions to those that can't afford to go to the clinic themselves?

I think Bryce makes some very good points. At one point does a disease or condition become 'self-inflicted'? If you don't go to the gym and you get high blood pressure or gain 10 lbs, which leads to a knee injury, should you be blamed? Or maybe it's the person's fault that sold you the cheeseburger?!?! I find the whole 'pre-existing condition' to just be another cop-out for insurance companies to opt out of doing thier jobs and/or to charge insane amounts for coverage, which I do agree is a fundamental Christian and human right. Afterall, Christ was a socialist. It's pretty clear to me. Socialism doesn't equate with lack of agency or self-restraint and can actually require more since society is dependent on your actions and motives. Besides, have you EVER heard of ANY insurance company going out of business?!?! Exactly.

Jeri10 said...

I'm voting for Kory for President.

Robin said...

Okay - I have read Korycare everyday now for 6 days and I have it memorized. Please post a new post to entertain me! Please!

Have you been sick? Usually you post a few times a week. I am worried about you.

Salt H2O said...

I'm sure I have very cleaver answers and responses to the comments that were left while I was on vacation but

1- All I can think of right now is sandy beaches and warm clear water

and

2- I don't think any one is still reading this thread.

Swieda said...

I'm still reading this thread. I just don't know how I arrived here.