Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr. Superbad · 03-11-2003, 11:43 AM

Quote:

As Vermont�s governor, Dean helped boost the state�s health program to guarantee health insurance for almost all resident under 18. He now hopes to bring that success to the rest of the nation.

�The U.S. is the only industrialized country that doesn�t offer health care,� Dean said. �I think we can do better, and we ought to do better.�

His proposal calls for Medicaid, a federal program administered by the states, to cover citizens under the age of 25, while placing seniors directly in the hands of the federal government.

�It is dirt-cheap to take care of people under 25,� Dean said. �This is how we did it [in Vermont]. It doesn�t cost much.�

Adults under 65 will be insured through the current, employer-based system, Dean said. Vouchers should be given to benefit the self-employed and those who are not given health benefits from their employers, he said.

Dean admitted there were drawbacks to his proposal and said it is inevitable that �some [people] will fall through the cracks.� However, he stressed the need to quickly pass insurance legislation and then work within the existing infrastructure for further reform.

�This is not a perfect system ... but it can pass,� Dean said.

Dean, who considers himself a political moderate, said his health-care plan is open to compromise. If elected, he will pass the necessary health-care legislation in portions, he said.

�Try for reform, get as much as you can, and never settle for zero,� Dean said.

Dean�s proposal to finance his initiative is simple, he said. �The cost of this is about one-half of the President�s tax cut. Need I say more?� Dean added that he would use the remaining money to alleviate the nation�s budget deficit.

Am I crazy, or does this actually sound feasible? Would this piss off insurance companies for some reason? It seems like as long as they get paid, they would be happy. The voucher idea seems like a good idea, in that it doesn't seem like it would have the stigma of being socialised medicine.

The coverage for people under 25 sure would have helped me out a few times while I was moving between different jobs without any health insurance. If he had ran in an earlier election he would have probably gotten my vote on that issue alone.

Can anybody give the pro's and con's of such a system?

Loren Pechtel · 03-11-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Superbad
Dem hopeful speaks at NYU

Am I crazy, or does this actually sound feasible? Would this piss off insurance companies for some reason? It seems like as long as they get paid, they would be happy. The voucher idea seems like a good idea, in that it doesn't seem like it would have the stigma of being socialised medicine.

The coverage for people under 25 sure would have helped me out a few times while I was moving between different jobs without any health insurance. If he had ran in an earlier election he would have probably gotten my vote on that issue alone.

Can anybody give the pro's and con's of such a system?

Medicaid is crap coverage.

Mr. Superbad · 03-11-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Medicaid is crap coverage.

I bet it's better than no coverage.

Jolimont · 03-11-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Medicaid is crap coverage.

You are probably right, but it's better than nothing. My business partner hurt her foot the other day, slowed our small business down considerably. She doesn't have insurance so she didn't see a doctor about it. She worried about the cost of x-rays and all that. Now tell me, what's so good about having the best medical care in the world if you can't afford to see a doctor even when you need it? Go Dr Dean!

Loren Pechtel · 03-11-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jolimont
You are probably right, but it's better than nothing. My business partner hurt her foot the other day, slowed our small business down considerably. She doesn't have insurance so she didn't see a doctor about it. She worried about the cost of x-rays and all that. Now tell me, what's so good about having the best medical care in the world if you can't afford to see a doctor even when you need it? Go Dr Dean!

However, if it were available to all those under 25 you would find them not caring about getting decent insurance. Government costs would go up and the quality of care they would get would go down.

What I think would make more sense is to make anyone on unemployment also eligilble for medicare.

Jolimont · 03-12-2003, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
However, if it were available to all those under 25 you would find them not caring about getting decent insurance. Government costs would go up and the quality of care they would get would go down.

What I think would make more sense is to make anyone on unemployment also eligilble for medicare.

There are lots of people without insurance, and not just the unemployed. My business partner is self employed. It's a new business and we don't pay ourselves much at all, let alone pay for private medical insurance.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by those under 25 not caring about decent insurance. Government costs do tend to go up, but that can be contained, don't you think?

JerryM · 03-12-2003, 08:29 AM

All US residents should have at least a basic level of health insurance. I think the easiest way would be to expand Medicare to everyone regardless of age. I've read a little bit about how health care is financed in Germany, and I think it's interesting. There are several government administered "sick funds" established regionally. When each person is born, they are enrolled in their region's sick fund, and each employer and taxpayer pays to support the funds. The fund in turn, pays medical bills for each enrollee. Perhaps we could adopt something like this. To control costs, the benefits would probably have to be fairly basic, and there should still be co-payments or deductibles to avoid excessive utilization. Have private insurance still available for those who want "Cadillac" care, experimental treatment, high-tech transplants, etc. Possibly some private organizations could establish charitable funds to cover co-payments or deductibles for the very poor. But instead of the individal and employer paying for private insurance, they would pay into these funds which could provide a basic level of care for everyone, even those not employed. I also like the idea of administering it regionally, rather than nationally. Determining what basic benefits will be available to everyone will be difficult, and could smack of rationing, but maybe that's the trade-off for providing everyone with some form of health insurance.

Loren Pechtel · 03-12-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jolimont
There are lots of people without insurance, and not just the unemployed. My business partner is self employed. It's a new business and we don't pay ourselves much at all, let alone pay for private medical insurance.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by those under 25 not caring about decent insurance. Government costs do tend to go up, but that can be contained, don't you think?

The point is that if medicare were available to the employed then the under-25's wouldn't care about getting insurance. The government would bear the whole burden. I think the insurance situation in general for low-wage workers would get even worse. Companies could get away with not offering insurance--effectively discriminating against those over 25.

Loren Pechtel · 03-12-2003, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JerryM
All US residents should have at least a basic level of health insurance. I think the easiest way would be to expand Medicare to everyone regardless of age.

Result: The middle class gets dragged down to the level of coverage of medicare.

Mr. Superbad · 03-12-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The point is that if medicare were available to the employed then the under-25's wouldn't care about getting insurance. The government would bear the whole burden. I think the insurance situation in general for low-wage workers would get even worse. Companies could get away with not offering insurance--effectively discriminating against those over 25.

Not necessarily. If medicare coverage is looked upon as bare minimum coverage (crap, but better than nothing), then the kind of jobs that offer health care coverage would still offer private plans to draw in qualified people.

It would also be dependent on the restrictions to the plans and a bunch of other things that don't get outlined when describing a health care plan in three-to-four sentances.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2003, 08:29 AM	#7
JerryM Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO. Posts: 1,100	All US residents should have at least a basic level of health insurance. I think the easiest way would be to expand Medicare to everyone regardless of age. I've read a little bit about how health care is financed in Germany, and I think it's interesting. There are several government administered "sick funds" established regionally. When each person is born, they are enrolled in their region's sick fund, and each employer and taxpayer pays to support the funds. The fund in turn, pays medical bills for each enrollee. Perhaps we could adopt something like this. To control costs, the benefits would probably have to be fairly basic, and there should still be co-payments or deductibles to avoid excessive utilization. Have private insurance still available for those who want "Cadillac" care, experimental treatment, high-tech transplants, etc. Possibly some private organizations could establish charitable funds to cover co-payments or deductibles for the very poor. But instead of the individal and employer paying for private insurance, they would pay into these funds which could provide a basic level of care for everyone, even those not employed. I also like the idea of administering it regionally, rather than nationally. Determining what basic benefits will be available to everyone will be difficult, and could smack of rationing, but maybe that's the trade-off for providing everyone with some form of health insurance.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.