Fix health care - keep it private but out of insurance hands
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:08 amI believe health insurance is for the most part a scam. Health savings accountant and flexible savings account offer a more reliable alternative for 90% of the adult working-age population. At the moment they're mostly insignificant and secondary plans attached to cafeteria plans, but I believe with some legislation changes (the "use it or lose it rule" being abolished, allowing part of the funds to be covered by low-risk interest-bearing accounts) can make them competitive with regular health insurance.
Think about your average American: relatively healthy with some yearly hiccups. Four doctor visits a year, at most? One or two prescriptions that may need to be refilled for six months tops? If you're paying $2,000 a year, plus all of the other associated fees for doctor's visits, why not simply save up money in these accounts? With an estimated $150 billion subsidizing different health care agencies under Obamacare, why not instead provide a progressively-inclined rebate that matches contributions up to a certain amount? Say you get .50 cents for every dollar you contribute if your salary is $50,000. If you save up $1,000, then you get an extra $500 by the government that can only be put in these accounts. For an average 20-30 year old, that's all a person needs. It will probably be too much and will roll-over into the next year. For a family of 4, let's say you save up about $5,000; then you get $2,500. This can be adjusted and played with so that infants are also provided with an additional rebate protection.
Out-of-pocket prices will deflate as insurance companies lose out in the market. The attractive HSA options gives complete control over use to the individual or family; private sector job growth would grow in the issuance and tracking of purchases to make sure they're reasonable health expenditures, but that will be (again) in competition with health insurance job growth.
Meanwhile combine Medicare/Medicaid into one public option that is offered for seniors, the disabled, severely sick, and qualified poor and work out how to fix the prices by lifting price controls on foreign drugs, allowing seniors to shop outside of the U.S., and raising the qualification age. Heck, you can even implement a new tax bracket for those making over $800,000 and come up with nearly $10-20 billion in additional revenue depending on the going rate and enforcement patterns. Structure the public option so that it's beneficial for doctors and hospitals to enroll voluntarily: it can provide less profit-per-customer but the customer base is much larger. With all other current insurance models out of the way, this becomes even more attractive.
Basically, relegate health insurance to the public option and terminal care. Monthly expenditures would decline to the going rate of vision care (about $10/month). Most people between the ages of 18-50 are merely providing a profit to the insurance companies. The insurance model is built on getting more money out than what consumers put in. It's a giant scam unless you really, really need it, and even then why not offer terminal insurance and the public option if a pre-existing condition?
Think about your average American: relatively healthy with some yearly hiccups. Four doctor visits a year, at most? One or two prescriptions that may need to be refilled for six months tops? If you're paying $2,000 a year, plus all of the other associated fees for doctor's visits, why not simply save up money in these accounts? With an estimated $150 billion subsidizing different health care agencies under Obamacare, why not instead provide a progressively-inclined rebate that matches contributions up to a certain amount? Say you get .50 cents for every dollar you contribute if your salary is $50,000. If you save up $1,000, then you get an extra $500 by the government that can only be put in these accounts. For an average 20-30 year old, that's all a person needs. It will probably be too much and will roll-over into the next year. For a family of 4, let's say you save up about $5,000; then you get $2,500. This can be adjusted and played with so that infants are also provided with an additional rebate protection.
Out-of-pocket prices will deflate as insurance companies lose out in the market. The attractive HSA options gives complete control over use to the individual or family; private sector job growth would grow in the issuance and tracking of purchases to make sure they're reasonable health expenditures, but that will be (again) in competition with health insurance job growth.
Meanwhile combine Medicare/Medicaid into one public option that is offered for seniors, the disabled, severely sick, and qualified poor and work out how to fix the prices by lifting price controls on foreign drugs, allowing seniors to shop outside of the U.S., and raising the qualification age. Heck, you can even implement a new tax bracket for those making over $800,000 and come up with nearly $10-20 billion in additional revenue depending on the going rate and enforcement patterns. Structure the public option so that it's beneficial for doctors and hospitals to enroll voluntarily: it can provide less profit-per-customer but the customer base is much larger. With all other current insurance models out of the way, this becomes even more attractive.
Basically, relegate health insurance to the public option and terminal care. Monthly expenditures would decline to the going rate of vision care (about $10/month). Most people between the ages of 18-50 are merely providing a profit to the insurance companies. The insurance model is built on getting more money out than what consumers put in. It's a giant scam unless you really, really need it, and even then why not offer terminal insurance and the public option if a pre-existing condition?
