Health Care Reform "Game-Changer"?

Dear America,
Most of us know that there are, at least publicly, no disagreements on the need for health-care reform between the Democrats and Republicans. They all say that they want to make medical insurance more available and more affordable for more Americans. Democrats seem to favor letting the government run a Medicare-like plan, open to anyone who doesn't like the available private options, or who doesn't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. That, of course means socialized medicine, something the Republicans are against. They apparently favor some sort of tax credit for people to buy health insurance on the open market. Of course, we really can’t be sure, for nether party has yet to introduce any legislation.
Chances are there will be a long and ugly political battle. And eventually, we will end up with a health-care reform plan that is full of pork and hidden loopholes for special interest groups. That is, unfortunately, the American way.
But it does not have to be that way. Health care reform is not a difficult issue, but it is an issue that will impact each and every one of us in the years to come. We should not and must not limit ourselves only to options presented by our political parties.
Here in America, we have some of the smartest and most creative minds in the world. It would be easy for us to give the politicians a run for their money. We, the people of United States, certainly have the capacity to come up with an idea for the best health-care system in the world. All we have to do is get involved. So in the hope of sparking involvement, I have put together a plan of my own. And I would like invite anyone who is interested to join me to come up with a better plan.
As it stands, my plan will not only fulfill President Obama’s goals of provide affordable health-care insurance to the 46 million uninsured Americans, preserve the right of consumers to choose their doctors and lower costs in the health-care system, but also reduce the cost for individuals as well as the government in the long run, improve the overall quality of the service providers, induce personal responsibility, encourage healthy lifestyle, stimulate the economy and make United State a more competitive place to do business. Can we really have a plan that will do all that? Yes we can.
My plan is built on two of the most basic economic principles- competition and incentives.
Under this plan, the government will be responsible for creating competitive mechanisms for the business of health care. Every American will receive a stake, as incentives (in the form of “Medical Allocation Credit” or MAC), in the system.
Health care providers, under the government established competitive frame work, will automatically find ways to improve quality and become more efficient so they can thrive in their business.
We, the people, as not just the consumers of health care, but also contributors and part owners of this new system, will become more involved and responsible for our own health.
Finally, businesses in general, will become passive participants of this plan. Released from the burden of health care, they will become more competitive globally, which will be good for the U.S. economy as a whole.
Sounds good? Here is how my plan will be set up.
The Government will take the lead and do the following…
• Set basic standards, rules and regulation for health care providers. Define what constitutes minimum coverage based on proven and established medical procedures.
• Set up a Medical Allocation Credit (MAC) account, which as the name implies, will only be used for health care related purposes, for every American. Initially, MAC will be assigned to individuals based on their age. (15x Age, for example)
• Require every person living in the U.S. to purchase health insurance at the government defined minimum coverage, using their MAC as deductible.
• Set up a web site for the consumers to “rate” the services they have received from their health care providers (insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc…).
• Update and publish the result of the ratings along with additional information about the service provider such as type of service, pricing, location and hours of operation in a simple standard format on the same site.
• Purchase insurance (for people who cannot afford it) from the best consumer rated insurance provider(s) at bulk discount. The contract for insurances will be reviewed and renewed periodically (annually, for example)
• Give preventive care (such as mammogram) credit for qualified individuals.
• Give contagious disease exceptions. (Treatments for diseases such as SARS or any diseases that can potentially threaten public health will be paid for by the government.)
Health insurance providers will-
• Be required to offer minimum coverage (as defined by the government) to everyone who wants it. Extra coverage can be offered at additional premium.
• Be required to have premiums that are based on age, sex, deductible and coverage only. No one can be denied from the minimum coverage for any reason.
• Have the option to offer discounts based on only positive results of a physical examinations. (For example, provider could offer free physical to interested customer above certain age. If he/she meets a set healthy standard, the customer could use the result to apply for a discount.)
• Be required (like all other health care providers such as doctors, clinics and hospitals) to include a standard “rating” questionnaire along with every bill or invoice.
And we, as the consumers will -
• Be required to purchase health insurance with the government defined minimum coverage from the insurance company of our choice (as an individual or a family). Additional premium coverage can be purchased at individuals own discretion.
• Be able to shop for the preferred insurance companies, doctors, clinics and hospitals using the information provided on the new government health web site.
• Use the MAC as the base deductibles to lower health insurance premium.
• Have the option to further reduce our premium by purchasing insurance with deductibles greater than our MAC (but we must pay out of our own pocket before the MAC kicks in.)
• Have the option to contribute into our own MAC account via pre-tax payroll deduction thereby reduce our premium even more.
• Updated and renew our policy annually on our birth month. Premiums will be based on our MAC at the time of policy renewal.
• Have the option to barrow against our MAC to preserve the lower insurance rate.
• Have the option of withdrawing the money we (and /or our employer) put into our MAC, minus the income tax, before we renew our insurance policy on our birth month.
• Have the option to have our premium deducted directly from our pre- tax income or pay directly and have the premium be tax deductible from our income tax.
• Get assistance from the government for insurance payments for those who cannot afford it.
• Be encouraged to “rate” the service we have received from their provider via phone, internet or mail whenever we receive a bill from our service provider. The result of which will be updated and published on the government site.
Businesses will-
• Be release from the obligation of providing health insurance. But employers must first redirect, dollar for dollar, what they pay to the insurance companies to their employees.
• For those employees who select the option, deduct (pre-tax) and pay the premiums for the employee’s health care insurance from their pay check.
• Pay a fixed sum ($10 or so, pre-tax) into the general MAC fund per employee, per month.
• Have the option to deposit money, tax free, into their employee’s individual MAC account as an employee benefit. (The employee will have the option to withdraw that money on the yearly bases on their birth month, before they renew their insurance. Income taxes will have to be paid, of course.)

This is the outline of my plan; I know that it is far from perfect. Many details will still have to be worked out. But it is the first and the only complete health- care reform plan that is presented to the public as of today. This, of course, is not intended to be the lone alternative to politicians’ plan. This is a challenge for you to come up with a better plan.
My fellow Americans, we need not to have our fate to be determined by politicians. As a nation, we have never met a challenge that we could not overcome. Instead of just complaining and demanding help like spoiled children, we, you and I, can contribute. Won’t you join me?

Willem van Oranje, you believe Barney Frank? The man is a pathalogical liar! Even the New York Times documented his many lies over the years.

As Frank Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick were raking in millions of dollars while running Fannie Mae into the ground and kicking off the credit crisis, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd actively fought investigations into rampant corruption.

In 2003, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Google "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" and "Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point".

As Frank said: "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration’s approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush’s desk in July 2008. Twelve years of Republican rule produced no reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."

Posted by: Willem van Oranje | May 11, 2009 4:20:29 PM
====================
Nice try to spin the Fannie/Freddie situation. Democrats are squarely to blame why do you think the fact it gets buried. For example FF is paying more bonuses than AIG and is costing taxpayers more money. I bet not many people know it.

Oh here is an article in FEBRUARY 2008 where DEMOCRATS wanted to further DEREGULATE Fannie/Freddie. Nice try. Republicans requested it 20+ times between 2003-2006 after which FF spent $200 million to lobby against it.

Sorry but the facts and congressional statements are against your spin.

Federal regulators for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the biggest buyers of American home mortgages, will remove limits on the amount of loans and securities the companies can own, a step that could help bolster the weakening housing market.

Democrats in Congress and some mortgage industry officials have been calling on Mr. Lockhart to loosen controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so the companies could play a more active role in the housing market by buying bigger and more risky home loans and securities backed by those mortgages. On Wednesday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, welcomed the lifting of the portfolio caps and called on Mr. Lockhart to go even further by removing the excess capital requirement.

While Democrats have advocated lifting restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve have insisted that the companies deserve close scrutiny because of their large role in the mortgage and financial markets.

Please try to get a new set of talking points from Olbermann.

I is nice to see your another liberal who sees only with his Barney Frank colored glasses. I mean we all "know" no Democrat contributed anything to the current economic situation. After all, they cant even figure out who writes their own bills!

Posted by: Mike_C

=======================================

You can't do better than this?

I've never said that Democrats don't bear any responsibility. This problem was three decades in the making and started with Ronnie Reagan. The Randian "philosophy" he brought to the debate has also infected the Democrats, but not as much as it has infected the Republicans.

But the attempts to put the blame solely on Barney Frank when the GOP was in control of the House, Senate and WH while BF was in the minority is utterly disingenuous. After Frank became chairman of the House Financial Services Committee he was finally able to present the President with meaningful reform. As Frank said: "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration’s approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush’s desk in July 2008. Twelve years of Republican rule produced no reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."

Also, YOU, Willem van Oranje, you seem to be forgetting doctor-patient confidentiality with your wild statements about "who" has a "right" to "what".

Posted by: Mike_C

===========================================

This doesn't make any sense. Explain

I wonder if there is an investment tracking fund for entities that provide offshore medical procedures.

You guys seem to want to bring up the Declaration of Geneva here....

"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat. I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

This sort of arise a bit of conflict for you liberals doesn't it. After all your spewing off about torture and such and your moral standing on that issue, this statement kinds of throws you for a moral loop I would say.

Also, YOU, Willem van Oranje, you seem to be forgetting doctor-patient confidentiality with your wild statements about "who" has a "right" to "what".

"Fascist: you forgot the remind us that not only did Bush leaves with a debt twice as big as he inherited; he also left us with the worst recession post-WWII, bordering on depression.

It simply costs a lot of money to drag the US out of the ditch.

Nothing is for free.
------------------------------------
Willem van Oranje

Please try to get a new set of talking points from Herr Olbermann.

I is nice to see your another liberal who sees only with his Barney Frank colored glasses. I mean we all "know" no Democrat contributed anything to the current economic situation. After all, they cant even figure out who writes their own bills!

"It certainly is everybody's business: your employer, your colleagues, employer of your spouse or partner who needs to take care of you and has to stay home, his or her colleagues and employer: all are affected by you being sick."

To the extent that it is my employer's business, it is a matter between me and my employer. As for the others you mention, nothing you have said makes it their business to provide money for my health care, nor me for theirs.

It is my business, to an extent, whether the fellow next to me in the restaurant chews with his mouth open, but I don't expect the government to intervene to protect me from this annoyance. It is my business, to an extent, if people don't show up for work just because they want to go fishing, but what does that have to do with the government?

Posting a post I did on another site that summarizes what I see as the 3 biggest PREVENTABLE COSTS and democrats refusal to address them. These could easily be done within the current system but that wouldn't reach the utopian goal of big government making your decisions for you.

-----

Well lets talk about 3 things; tort reform, "managed" healthcare aka limiting benefits and illegal immigration.

1. Tort reform - Not including the costs of litigation and litigation insurance the US spends somewhere between 100-200 billion a year in "defensive medicine" aka CYA from lawsuits.

Why is it that democrats, the party of trial lawyers, refuses to address the elephant in the room? This could significantly reduce costs.

2. Reducing benefits - Democrats have already said if national healthcare is brought on board they will be cost controlling and limiting treatments and benefits. Why do democrats sue over "choice" in the private industry yet make different rules for the government?

3. Illegal immigration. This is a HUGE cost for medical care right now and is particularly causing problems with doctor/nurse availability.

Here is a real basic example to back up that case. If you have 20 million illegal immigrants move into the US and 0 are doctors please explain how that is not a huge burden on the industry.

Fact is democrats for the past 10-20 years have sued and sued to force health care "choice" and for insurance to pay for all sorts of treatments including "alternative medicine" not even proven to work.

Democrats have refused to address tort reform even in medical care where it is a blatently high cost.

Democrats refuse to address illegal immigration even encouraging it to get votes.

The only conclusion I can come to is democrats once efforts failed in the 90s to socialize medicine have been working to purposely drive up the costs to make government health care more attractive. A lot of the measures they are advocating FOR in GOVERNMENT health care they have been lobbying and suing AGAINST in PRIVATE health care.

I went to the Wikipedia piece on that Geneva declaration, and all I found was this:

"I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient..."

Who is "I" in that averment? Is anyone bound by it who does not swear to it? Can a declaration from Geneva impose a duty on all the doctors in the United States? What is the "duty" referred to in the declaration?

MayBee...

I still pay a significant amount in premiums. As does my employer.

A friend of mine had sharp stomach pains and they told her it could be something serious! Thousands of dollars later.... They gave her a laxative. She was constipated.

They don't care about keeping costs down. They are like the medical equivalent of Halliburton.

Posted by: blip
================================
One word answer to the primary reason for this: litigation.

Democrats get HUGE money from lawyers so don't expect tort reform.

WvO:It certainly is everybody's business: your employer, your colleagues, employer of your spouse or partner who needs to take care of you and has to stay home, his or her colleagues and employer: all are affected by you being sick.
===========

If you are going to make the argument that it is everyone's *right* to get health care, that is a very different argument than the one you've made that I quoted above.

"the Declaration of Geneva for the medical profession for why EVERYBODY has a right to health care, regardless of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, 'social standing' or 'any other factor.'"

No one has a "right" to anything unless someone else has a duty to provide it. I haven't read this particular declaration from Geneva, but I'd be interested to know whom it identifies as having that duty, and by what authority it assigns that duty.

I think it would be a good idea if we all put our cards on the table here: would those of you who are among the forty percent of American adults who pay no income taxes at all please identify yourselves as such? It really helps sharpen the focus to know just who is asking for someone else entirely to take care of them.

MayBee, read the Declaration of Geneva for the medical profession for why EVERYBODY has a right to health care, regardless of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, *social standing* or *any other factor*.

Since NOBODY may be denied health care, it is economically the most beneficial to provide health care as soon as possible.

the auto industry is teetering for real and there’s not much hope that the Chicago Way will be able to keep the GM bondholders in line.

add to this the link from dwp #8 and I’m preparing for a major market correction and a frantic reshuffling of the deck chairs on SS Titanic, I mean SS United States of Obama.

Why are there no advocates for Single Payer or Universal Health Care included in your discussions of health care reform?

=========================================
One, because it is politically a bridge too far for the US, I'm afraid.
Second, there are basically two systems that lead to Universal Health Care. Single Payer or Beveridge-type is one (Canada, UK); Bismarck-type systems or Regulated Private Insurance systems (Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany) is the other.

Monday, May 11th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Last but Not Least – The Final Installment of the FY 2010 Budget
Peter R. Orszag, Director

“Deficit projections. OMB projects that the deficit will be about $90 billion higher in FY 2009 and also in 2010 than it did in February. The deficits in these years, now projected to be 12.9 percent and 8.5 percent of GDP, respectively, are driven in large part by the economic irresponsible administration.”

and

“Treasury now estimates that overall federal revenue will be less than was projected in February by between $30 billion and $50 billion in each of this year and next. We also have more information about the severity of the financial crisis facing the nation, and this is reflected in new, higher estimates for the cost of financial stabilization efforts undertaken through TARP and by the FDIC.”

I remember when insurance companies where not ubiquitous/universally required .

Doctors/hospitals charge crazy rates for anything and everything these days only because insurance companies will usually pay without question whatever the doctors/hospitals bill them for ,and the insurance companies subsequently just raise their rate unilaterally whenever profits start to lag ,a perfect circle of unacceptable tomfoolery and money-grubbing.

It is utterly disgusting and completely unethical to turn health care into a fat cat investment profit farm ,where sickness is to be, if not promoted , blatantly commercialized into a catch 22 pseudo-ponzi scheme that keeps most Americans struggling mightily just to get proper health care day-to-day.

Unacceptable.

Fascist: "It is by no means anybody else's business wthether I burden myself or my family with my troubles,"

It certainly is everybody's business: your employer, your colleagues, employer of your spouse or partner who needs to take care of you and has to stay home, his or her colleagues and employer: all are affected by you being sick.
And it is statistically proven that the earlier you seek medical attention, the sooner you are back in the market.