Capitalism v. Socialism

[-|DDA|-Chicken]

If you vote for Universal-only, I'm dissappointed in ya'!

Why hasn't any candidate emphatically pushed for a combination of BOTH.

Example: 12 and under covered. Is this possible?

[Grape_Ape]

I'm no math whiz by any means....but YES I think this is viable in some form!
PZ...you want to weight in on this??

[Pz_MelOtt]

Ummm SCHIP that Bush just vetoed and the Republicans in the House turned down by 15 votes by not overriding the veto. The Senate was going to overide the veto. The Republicans will be losing seats over that vote.
SCHIP funds uninsured children in low income families. If you hear reference to this includes families making $83,000, that is a lie. It is a position purposely brought up by Bush to mislead. The actual figure to qualify for this program (for American citizens only) is income of $62,000 for family of four. However, any families making less, qualify first and for more. $62k is the limit. What this program does is to fund the states' Child Health Insurance Programs. Each state has different rating systems and levels of poverty. Any state program has to be approved to qualify. The $83k lie came from New York asking for a $83k limit. It was denied.

Universal healthcare does not mean you can't seek private healthcare.
The system already exists Chick through the Veterans Health Administration. Every veteran qualifies for medical care. Some qualify for more than others based on circumstances such as were you injured during the war? etc.

Medicare Plus does the samething kinda, with Medicare coverage and the option for you to get improved coverage by paying some money into the govt. health plan for retires.

Here's where the rhetoric fear of Universal Healthcare has taken us. First, denying Medicare and the Federal government to negotiate for prescription drug prices. Walmart does it. Costco does it. The Veterans Health Administration does it. But according to the "don't-take-me-down-the-slippery-universal-healthcare-slope crowd" the Feds aren't allowed to negotiate prices for medicare recipients. Instead they came up with a pharmacuetical company plan which offers reduced prices after an initial outlay and once you reach the annual limit, then you pay 100 percent of the cost, this is called reaching the "donut hole." Once you pass the donut hole, the insurance pays 100 percent. Oddly enough, statistics so far show most seniors reach the donut hole but don't exceed it.

Simply, the second most profitable corporations in the country (the first being oil) are free from free market controls because we, the major purchaser, are not allowed to negotiate a price.

[-|DDA|-Chicken]

My idea, with little knowledge on the subject mind you (right now!), would cover all income levels. None of this, "The Rich get penalized because they are rich," mindset. I can assure you... I'm not rich either.

All children ages 12 and under can be covered.

1.) This is fair to everyone. No matter the income level, a family is allowed to participate in the program. This way, there is no "cap" at which a family is cut off at.

2.) The basic principle of a Free Market system is still intact. There would be a choice to opt out of the system when preferred.

Once the age limit is reached, it is up to either the individual or the parent to provide coverage through their employer or the Market. This way, there is no constant reliance on the Gov.

Where are the flaws in my currently extremely modest proposal?

Of course, this isn't considering whether it is Constitutionally legal, which has been proposed as the reason against the idea of Universal Healthcare.

[-|DDA|-Chicken]

What if we use Health Insurance like Car Insurance?

Think about it for a minute...

Remove this employer-paid system, which I am a part of, and leave it to the market only.

In theory, this would drive down costs due to REAL corporate competition. This could lead to "cherry-picking" in a sense, however, which is the only downside I can think of right now.

This could eliminate all universal aspects from the system, with exception to the disabled and elderly. This may require healthcare to be required, just like car insurance though.

That gecko would not only do car and motor cycle insurance, but LIFE INSURANCE as well!

What do ya' think?

[SonOfThe_MorningStar]

Only problem is, when you get in an accident your rates go up. If you have to many claims you get dropped and put in assigned risk.

[Grape_Ape]

I know this is off topic a bit.....
Alot of states have made it mandatory to wear a seatbelt in an automobile.
Most of the push to do so came from the insurance companies themselves.
BUT....With so many people now wearing seatbelts...accident injuries and deaths have dropped significantly!
Where is the kickback?...Where are the lower rates for us...it's pretty clear insurance companies are making more money now because they are paying out alot less for medical costs and death benefits etc.!!!

Where are our rate decreases!!??!??


Think about it!

[-|DDA|-Chicken]

Only problem is, when you get in an accident your rates go up. If you have to many claims you get dropped and put in assigned risk.

Ah, true!

[Pz_MelOtt]

The insurance companies are corrupt. Our rates continue to go higher because they use the money to make other investments, like hedge funds. If they lose money in that or don't make enough of a margin of profit, they jack up their constant source of revenue, the insurance consumer.

Some have suggest that insurance companies should not be allowed to comingle profits or costs with other financial endeavors, while others have suggested insurance companies should only be able to use their revenues in the insurance industry and not expand to other markets like real estate, shipping or pharmas.

[-|DDA|-Chicken]

I haven't done any research into the "facts" presented in this piece, but it does shed a bit more light on the situation, if true.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/healt ... nce-people

[patsfanczar]

I think that the democrats have a thing about rewarding the poor and/or punishing the rich. As chicken said, why cant every family have benefits?

[-|DDA|-Chicken]

I don't believe this has anything to do with "rewarding" the poor. I've been rethinking my stance on this and am currently coming up with a healthcare plan that I will divulge here within the next couple of days.

I think it will address the main objective of our healthcare system, and that's one with the highest quality, accessible to all and doesn't affect responsiveness like the social programs in canada and england.