Different Slants

Seeing the World from a New Angle

A U.S. Healthcare Proposal – RGM

Filed under: Social Policy and Justice — Rick at 6:54 pm on Thursday, January 25, 2007

The United States, as a compassionate society offers universal healthcare to everyone within its borders. Any person who gets hit by a car, or passes out on the street due to diabetes, will be taken to an emergency room and treated. We do not allow people to die from neglect in public places.

What the U.S. lacks, is a sane method for financing universal healthcare.

Because healthcare expenses for individuals can be unpredictable and devastating, those who can get healthcare insurance usually do. Most people are insured through thousands of group plans sponsored by their employers. Many elderly people are covered by government plans. But 47 million Americans, for a variety of reasons, have no health insurance at all. As a result, the U.S. has the most expensive, but not the most effective, healthcare system in the world.

Employers got into the role of providing healthcare insurance in a time of wage freezes during World War II. There were labor shortages and companies needed a way to compete for workers. Since they could not offer more money, they began offering healthcare insurance. Today, such insurance affords little competitive advantage to recruiting companies but does offer considerable cost. As the cost of insurance has risen, companies have tried to pass more of the cost on to the employees while shoping for less expensive plans which usually come with reduced benefits and poorer service. The employees have bad experiences and tend to blame the employers. Employer sponsored healthcare insurance is now more likely to detract from worker perceptions of the company than to add to them.

Insurance companies like to sell insurance to groups, the larger the better. This makes sense because the purpose of insurance is to spread risk. The larger the group, the more predictable the risk. However, someone who is not part of a group is evaluated base on their own risk of requiring healthcare expenditures. If they are young and healthy and have no medical history whatsoever, they can buy insurance. But if they are over 30 years old, have ever been in a hospital (like when they were born), or require any medications, insurance companies are free to decline them coverage. Why should they take on a bet they are likely to lose?

The president’s recent proposal to change the way healthcare insurance is taxed is, as they say, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

What America needs is larger risk pools. These pools could be constructed at the state or federal level. Since Americans are fairly mobile these days, I would suggest working at the federal level. Here is the Munden plan:

Put everyone in a single pool. Everyone is covered. No one can opt out because we don’t let anyone die on our streets. This means everyone gets to pay. Of course not everyone can afford to pay the full value but most people can so we can deal with that. One thing the government is efficient at is collecting money. This does not have to be deluxe healthcare insurance. It has to cover preventive care and it has to cover catastrophic events. People would be free to buy better coverage from private companies as they see fit just as Medicare recipients do today.
How should the plan be administered? Based on our experience with Social Security, not by the government! A few, not thousands, of insurance companies could compete for the business. They could offer several, not hundreds, of plans that families could choose between. As a nation, we can calculate our costs fairly accurately. With a single pool, the risk is spread thin enough that costs per family should be reduced. Finally, when everyone is covered, medical care can begin at the preventive level where it is most cost effective.

Being compassionate does not have to lead to closed emergency rooms and bankrupt hospitals.

Could this plan work? Tell me what you think.

6 Comments »

2

Comment by Robert M.Katzman

January 26, 2007 @ 11:25 am

What about prescription drugs, dental care, and glasses? I realize that braces and contacts are a luxury, but drugs can bankrupt a family quickly, like my family the has eleven prescriptions a month, none of which are optional. Neglecting essential dental care and gum diseases can lead to serious illnesses and glasses are a basic necessity to drive, work etc.

Does the Munden Plan include these three items or are they considered to be the individuals responsibility? A person who needs any of the three items above, and doesn’t receive them could quickly become a public burden instead of a contributor to the common pool. Do you agree?

I would like to read your thoughts about this, please.

3

Comment by Don Larson

January 26, 2007 @ 11:33 am

I generally agree that healthcare should be universally available. The problem comes with paying for it and the managing of the program. One thing I would like to see is that everyone using the program, pays taxes for it.

In our current tax system, we allow certain groups of people to avoid taxes. Some are very rich, some are very poor. But, people in those groups use services, so they should pay taxes.

The issue is how to have people pay taxes. I’m for a flat tax or a value-added tax and eliminate the IRS.

I don’t know how to manage the health system. I’ve seen too many government programs misused and mismanaged including fraud on a huge scale.

Don

4

Comment by Rick

January 26, 2007 @ 2:03 pm

Robert,

Yes I would include prescription drugs, vision care, and basic dental care as part of the plan. I would also include mental healthcare and treatment forr substance abuse. The plan would not include coverage for optional tratments such as cosmetic surgery, hair transplant, etc.

Rick

5

Comment by Rick

January 26, 2007 @ 2:14 pm

Don,

I can imagine a system in which everyone earning (regardless of the source of income) between $x1 and $x2 pay y1% toward their medical care until the premium is paid. Thos earning between $x2 and $x3 pay their full premium plus y2% toward Social Security (or, perhaps, whatever replaces it) until that is paid up. Those earning more than $x3 pay their full medical and S.S. premiums plus y3% to the general fund. Any kind of tax breaks or deductions apply only after emdical and S.S. is fully paid. A flat tax on income sounds fine to me. The simpler, the better.

Rick

6

Comment by Don Larson

January 26, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

With respect to taxes…

When I worked for a management consulting company, I discovered that when tax laws were being proposed, companies like the kind I worked for helped craft the laws or at least lobbied for wording in the law.

After the new tax laws were put into effect, management consulting companies could then sell their services to clients (BigCo’s) to find ways to end-run the new tax implications using the built-in loopholes.

I came to realize that as long as the IRS system is in-place, all tax laws will have loopholes. The only way to eliminate loopholes is to have a tax system where everyone pays taxes that earns any kind of income starting at $1.00. No exemptions, no tax deductions, no loopholes.

The trick is to find a way to generate the the funds this country needs for itself.

I realize people have different views of what this country needs. Some would want drastic reductions in some programs and huge increases in others. But that’s a different debate.

As a corollary, I came up with this idea for voting in national elections to determine the focus of expenditures…

Let’s just focus on voting for a President. As it stands today, a President is elected and begins to work on the platform they were elected upon.

Instead, we vote for a person to be President and we also vote and rank up to 100 areas we want the person elected as President (no matter who it is) to work on those 100 ranked areas. The 100 areas are somehow correlated and ranked according to the popular submitted selections in the final vote tally

In that way, regardless of who is President, they have to follow the popular will of the majority of the people for the top 100 areas of citizen interest in the order of priority 1 to 100 of that list.

I doubt this election process will happen, but that’s my 2 cents on the way the process should work, in my humble opinion.

Don

7

Comment by RGM

February 2, 2007 @ 7:24 pm

When I vote for president, I am happy if the candidate has a sane philosophy about what is good for the country (meaning he agrees with me) and puts the good of the country above other considerations. I don’t have the time or the smarts to micromanage anything near as big as the federal government. I also fear that we have to improve public education a great deal before giving too much power to the people. Just look at the candidates they elect.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>