Healthcare Agenda
As the 2008 campaign rages on, I continue to refine my thoughts on how healthcare can change. This is important, because it is clear that between reality of healthcare, the media, and the secular progressive mindset of the country at the moment, a new healthcare agenda is going to be set for the country starting in 2009. Below are my current thoughts on how real change can occur.
First, take the purchase of healthcare out of the hands of employers. I believe that individuals always make the best decisions. As an employer, I am making the healthcare insurance decision for my employees. Yet, I can’t but help to think that it would be best if each person could make their best deal by purchasing their own insurance in a competitive environment. Also, it would be great to see insurance companies price their policies based on healthy lifestyles. For example, if you want to smoke, great and good for you. Yet, your insurance carrier may charge you more, which would be their right.
Also, it certainly is a cost burden for employers to shoulder such a large cost of healthcare insurance. With an Obama Presidency (or Hillary) I feel sure my corporate and personal taxes are going to go up. Having relief as an employer in the area of healthcare would certainly help me grow the company, thus creating more jobs and ultimately revenue (isn’t that the idea anyway?).
Second, I believe we need to require all American’s, by law, to purchase Healthcare insurance. I know, this is simply something my most conservative friends disagree with, and significantly. Yet, Americans seem to always choose their cell phone over healthcare, and for those of us that have to pay for the uninsured, it just does not seem fair to me. I would prefer that the government have no involvement, but a new era of Big Government is now upon us with the current congress and a more probable Obama presidency. Thus, having the government support private insurance, is much more preferable to a government ran single payer system.
Third, and this is the federal government’s big role and only real role, provide a voucher system to American’s on a sliding scale that would allow the purchase of healthcare insurance for the most disadvantaged or disabled. This is in direct support of the second point above. In response, insurance companies will via the free market develop cheaper policies focused on simple coverage. In my mind, vouchers are the only way in the end to keep the government out of the private sector.
Fourth, develop a risk pool for highly at risk individuals that need coverage. Insurance companies would then bid on the business from the pool. For Insurance companies to maintain their business license in any given state, they must pay a small amount of all premiums into the pool. I will have more on this later in other posts. The basic idea however, is that all insurance companies contribute to the risk pool for the at most risk individuals. The Tenncare fiasco in Tennessee during the 1990s should make everyone stand up and pay attention to setting this up correctly. Who is at risk or not being accepted by insurance companies would have the potential to be a gross mess if not administered properly. Of course, given the opportunity, government will make a mess.
Fifth, we need major tort reform. It is time we get lawyers out of healthcare. As mentioned above, I watched the Tenncare mess in Tennessee turn into a healthcare system ran by the lawyers. They were always trying to require more coverage. I don’t think we are all entitled to gold plated healthcare, but basic healthcare insurance is something we should all purchase. Also, law suits in many cases are just out of hand, and medical providers need relief, which in turn will help reduce healthcare costs.
There is more that can be done than just the above, but I believe it would be a good start. What are your thoughts?
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
I can’t even begin to agree with #2. How in the world could this be enforced? What are the penalties for not having health insurance? Why should the government be making decisions for me? I’m an adult, and I should be the one choosing what is right for my family and our circumstances. The decisions I make regarding healthcare only affect me and my family.
When you buy a house with a loan, the mortgage company adds the taxes and insurance into your payment so that you have that amount in escrow. Will the fed just garnish our wages to make sure we have enough money in escrow to cover our health insurance? What’s considered the minimum coverage?
I think the problem with healthcare is insurance. To me, insurance is there to protect you in the event of a major life event. In other markets, let’s say home owner’s insurance, you are paying to cover your home in the event it gets destroyed. You’re not paying your insurance company to come to the rescue when you have a leaky faucet. This is essentially the system we’ve established for healthcare. All of us will be sick at some point in time and I don’t think it’s the insurance company who should be paying for me when I get a runny nose.
This is why the HDHP + HSA makes so much sense to me. I’m responsible for $5000 and then my insurance picks up the rest. Have I hit the $5K mark yet? Nope. If I do, then something bad is going down and I’m going to need some help. Meanwhile I’ve been saving so that I can cover the $5K regardless of my financial situation at that time. It’s a good balance. If a member of my family gets sick, then it’s my responsibility to cover those costs just like anything else.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 am
Since I’m feeling particularly feisty this morning, I have one more thing to add. I agree with #1. I wish the health insurance market was more free and open. I should be able to shop around insurance companies with my good health and negotiate a lower rate based upon the fact that I’m healthy. I can do the same thing with auto and home insurance. I can also do this with credit card companies and other lending institutions, so why not health insurance?
Maybe this would encourage insurance companies to require yearly physicals just to check up on their investment. This would have an extra benefit to the consumer to catch chronic illness earlier and improve treatment opportunity. Also, it would be nice to know that my insurance company (and therefore my pool of available providers) wouldn’t have to change if I change jobs. I want to make those decisions for my family.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Hi Josh, thanks for the comments. Item # 2 we share more in common on than you might think based on your comments. I would not garnish wages for that mandate, it would be more like auto insurance where it is simply required. Hillary Clinton wants to garnish wages and Obama does not. That is a major difference in their plans.
I would rather the government stay as far away from me as possible. The problem is that the government is about to get heavily involved in healthcare. I believe if we can preserve the private insurance model of coverage, we can head off a single payer system like Canada.
In the end, we all pay for people that are uninsured via higher premiums. I am looking for universal coverage, not universal healthcare.