Friday, October 3, 2008

KoryCare- Revisited


I want to make a slight addendum to my health care program: I think I've found some middle ground in this debate.

It's no secret that socialized health care would be a disaster- but people in extreme circumstances need help. Hence I propose the federally managed health disaster insurance- it's extended to those that have had extreme misfortune befall them.

The nationalized medical program would not cover dental (unless it's a form of cancer), or regular health issues- people need to pay for those themselves, it's a part of life- but the kind of disease that can debilitate a person, their finances and their family should be insured.

I don't know anyone that would argue with paying money into a National Health Care plan that assisted with severely stricken patients. Especially since none of us knows when we might become one of them.

20 comments:

adam said...

I love it.

However, wouldn't Glenn Beck say you are "flirting" with socialism here?

Salt H2O said...

Maybe, but I can't see the difference between the government assisting with natural disasters like hurricanes and fires- and health disasters.

The government doesn't come and help you if you flood your own home, but if floods hit your neighborhood they at least try make sure you come out alive.

Steve said...

Hey, sounds like you are voting for Obama then since this is similar to what he is offering. Stick with what you have or take the govt's option if you can't or don't want it elsewhere!

Salt H2O said...

What Obama offers is far too comprehensive. I'm in favor of insurance in disaster only.

Steve said...

He isn't going to take away what you already have! He is going to offer it to 47 million that don't have it and anyone else that wants it. It'll be a take it or leave it option, nothing forced or nationalized like everyone is "scared" of.
So you then you prefer McCain's then!?!? Oh wait, he doesn't have a healthcare plan. My bad! ;-)

Salt H2O said...

First- the 47 million people with out healthcare is WAY off base.

9.487 million of those are not US citizens

38% of the uninsured have incomes over $50,000 a year.

20% of the uninsured have incomes over $70,000 a year.

Just under another 20% of that number are going to be insured within the next few months because they are changing jobs.

I'm against a system that will permit people to buy their SUV's and expect their neighbors to foot their health bill.

As for the system Barack is proposing, it is almost IDENTICAL to what was implemented by my own personal favorite- Mitt Romney. And guess what's happening in Mass. no one is going to pay for health insurance when they can get it for free and their tax dollars are subsidising it anyhow.

Mass is in some serious financial trouble because everyone is going to the free healthcare system.

Which is why a disaster only system is the median of both worlds.

Steve said...

How is your system different than welfare? Or unemployment assisted health insurance?

And why should 20% ALWAYS be w/o healthcare just b/c they are changing jobs. Should someone not take a job or further their career b/c they are going to be out of healthcare now? I've known plenty of people where healthcare coverage makes or breaks taking or changing a job. That shouldn't be the case.

Now, I do agree that people shouldn't be driving SUVs, really ANYONE, but especially dumb, broke people. I think there can be a compromise here. You set an acceptable percentage of someone's pay that should or has to if you want to go that route as going to healthcare, much like we ALL have to do now Medicare and SSI. You can only opt out if you prove that you already have private or employee provided insurance. And it will have to be subsidized, kind of like housing, for lower incomes. Seems pretty simple and easy enough to implement w/o reinventing the wheel, while still covering those that fall or at risk of falling through the cracks.

Allie said...

I was going to say that sounds a bit like Obama's plan too.

We've had to opt out of my Mister's employee plan. A few employs with health issues have made the premiums way too much- we're okay with private insurance as long as nothing major happens. (although we don't have maternity coverage, which makes for some very expensive babies- we could almost adopt for less, which is tempting)- anyway, with Obama's plan, the premiums for all employees at my Mister's workplace wouldn't skyrocket because of the health concerns of a few.

We don't have dental or vision either, we just pay for those ourselves.

Salt H2O said...

Either I'm not very clear- or I'm the only one who has read Obama's healthcare plan.

Read Page 6 of his plan- it's far too comprehensive and there is no reason anyone would choose to pay out of pocket if these programs were availble. (See Massachusettes)

Salt H2O said...

Steve-
The difference between this and welfare is that welfare covers both those that choose to live the government welfare lifestyle and those that really do need help.

This system would only cover those that really need help as you can't fake cancer. Unemployment assisted healthcare insurance covers a vast amount of non-life threatening issues.

As for those changing jobs- Cobra is always an option. It's not like there is nothing availble.

Lastly I can get on board with this if you have it you don't pay for it- I wish the government would give us the same option for Social Securiy.

ray said...

Obama's take-it-or-leave-it plan is going to kill corporately provided health care, which is how a lot of people are covered. Why would a company pay for private insurance for their employees when they can get it on their own for free? The stiffed employees will then be left with the choice of paying more for the private insurance on their own or going with the government crap.

This is similar to the public education system. It's easy to say, "hey, you can pay for your own schooling, or go with the free school the government provides". But you have to pay for the government's school either way, and the quality is really poor. Mr. Obama, thanks, but no thanks.

Salt, I like your catastrophic universal coverage idea, but i think it would be hard to define "catastrophic".

Steve said...

Salty - Have you ever PAID for COBRA? It's hundreds of dollars a month! It's not a realistic option for 90% of the people that need it. Hell, if I had to pay for it, it'd be a huge chunk of my pay and I make above average amounts!?!?!

But how are you going to decide who needs it and who doesn't? Isn't the main reason conservatives want govt out of everything anyways, this irrational fear that govt is going to deny coverage more so than money hungry insurance companies?!? There is all this talk about coming up with the cost to cover things (my old major in college, actuarial science), but that is exactly what insurance companies do now to come up with the premiums and deciding on what percentage to cover or which procedures. I'm not saying the govt program wouldn't take such measures into account, but I'm willing to bet the govt/system would be more patient and doctor friendly than the current one.

Salt H2O said...

"I'm not saying the govt program wouldn't take such measures into account, but I'm willing to bet the govt/system would be more patient and doctor friendly than the current one."

One word for you- Medicare.

Steve said...

Case in point, try telling a 65+ person you are taking away Medicare and see what kind of reaction you'd get! I'm not saying it is perfect, my grandmother has some good ideas about it, if only she had a blog, but for many it is the ONLY option when living on a fixed incomes. But essentially, it doesn't sound or seem much worse than the private insurance I have had over the years.

ray said...

this irrational fear that govt is going to deny coverage more so than money hungry insurance companies?!?

This is not why conservatives oppose government healthcare. I oppose it because I fear it will become a bloated, inefficient, poor quality program just like pretty much everything else the government tries to run. It happens beecause the government worries less about a bottom line (either you tax for the money like Obama would, or run up a huge deficit like Bush does) and has no motivation ($) to supply what the customer needs.

I'm willing to bet the govt/system would be more patient and doctor friendly than the current one.

Like the government education system is more student and teacher friendly?? Sorry, I'm not taking that bet.

Kamilli Vanilli said...

Having grown up in Canada and experienced socialized medicine first hand, I can attest to the fact that government-run healthcare is the last thing any of us want or need. Taxes will skyrocket--guaranteed, the system will become overburdened and overused, quality of care will decrease, and it will only promote mediocrity and general dissatisfaction in doctors practicing medicine because there is no incentive to be good only to be paid peanuts for it. (just like what is happening in Canada). I personally know several Canadian doctors who are absolutely fed up with the whole thing.

It is such a complex issue, it's hard to know what the real solution is, but very rarely would I ever say that more government is the answer. Government screws more things up than it EVER fixes.

I kind of like your idea of catastrophic coverage for those who needed it. It would be an interesting compromise I think. People need to take more accountability for their own health and quit expecting the government and everybody else to take care of them. What is so frustrating is how many health problems are so avoidable. If people would get off their arses, quit smoking, and take care of themselves, we wouldn't be in half the mess we are. We ALL pay for their irresponsibility and lifestyles.

adam said...

I appreciate some Canadian input here. We all like to opine about Canada, but it's nice to have someone with some actual experience living there.

Having lived in Japan (with universal health care), there are problems with it, but I think the good (everyone has health care) outweighs the bad (quality of care lessens for some, higher taxes, etc. etc. ect.)

Salt H2O said...

I really should post "why medicare is of the devil"

Government healt insurance at it's finest: Man is attacked by a rotwhiler. The surgeon spends 6 hours in surgery saving the man's right arm and leg. It would have been easier to amputate, but the surgeon is gifted, does this work and saves the man's livelyhood.

The surgeon submits the surgery to Medicare for reimbursment and it gets rejected- because the surgery was too complex. Had the surgeon simply amputated the man's limbs he would have been paid.

This is a minor minor example of the government's healthcare at it's finest.

adam said...

I'm looking forward to that post. Anything comparing anything else to the devil is automatically interesting to me, for some reason.

Being someone who has to deal with Medicare at work on an almost daily basis, I couldn't agree with you more! I could really go off here, but lack of coverage for couples and family counseling is a start. Or other gov't stuff like kicking my clients off employment-finding assistance programs if they take a part time job in the meantime.

Allie said...

I don't think we necessarily have to go to a "socialist" health care system, but we probably all agree that some changes need to be made.

Gov. Huntsman suggested making all of utah one "group" to balance out those who hike up rates for the rest of us througout the entire state.

Similarly, in Obama's plan he'd help offset those in small business group plans who hike up the rates.

Two ideas to help bring rates down.

I also really think that if we could get some basic coverage for all people, legal or not (although ideally, we wouldn't have people here illegally- that's another issue), then we wouldn't be paying for uninsured people to get seen for their cold or strep throat in the emergency room. That's a huge waste of resources.

I think a national catastrophic care program would be very beneficial.