Health Care
rosskolnikov
location: Far end of the Group W bench
listening to: The Tony Rice Unit
registered: 2005.05.24
posts: 1822
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
Had a thought pop into my head last night about health care, and I'm curious what people think. It's been acknowledged by business and government that the cost of US health care is too high for the benefit rendered. Reasoning for high costs gets blamed on inefficiency, excessive profits in insurance and drugs, non-payers using the system, too many expensive (perhaps unnecessary) treatments, an aging baby boom population, and more. Probably all of these factor in to some degree.But businesses are screaming to lower their burden in order to remain competitive. Patients are tired of 5-10% (or higher) premium increases each year, which quickly exceed the rate of inflation. The government would like to see better and more consistent primary care so as to head off more serious conditions that then require more money in treatment. Patients worry about bureaucratic red tape from a nationalized system. They worry that lack of profit motive will kill the medical procedure and drug innovations that have defined the good parts of the US system. They worry about using their tax dollars to pay for bad health decisions made by other citizens. So my idea was: what about a hybird or tiered system. That is, have the government institute a nationalized primary care-only system that would cover everyone who is a legal resident (and only legal residents) with primary care up to a certain level. This would help keep the cost of the government-based plan down. More exotic care, such as advanced cancer treatments, organ transplants, etc. could then become its own private insurance based after-market. [Yes, I wonder if this would be a sustainable business model]. The increase in public availability of primary care would surely improve basic health care and would allow for catching problems before they snowball. People who demand more personalized care could opt out and take a tax credit (although perhaps not for the full value). People who want advanced procedures or life support services or transplants, etc. could buy in to supplemental insurance in a similar way that life insurance works today. Yes, this would create a financially tiered level of health care. But it would also tread a middle ground between freedom of choice and the benefit of improved basic coverage for all. And it would take the teeth out of the argument of higher-bracket tax payers that they would end up paying more than their fair share for poorer folks (who, let's face it, tend to make worse personal health decisions). Am I completely off base here? Or is it an idea worth consideration?
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
R
rosskolnikov
(view)
Had a thought pop into my head last night about health care, and I'm curious what people think. It's been acknowledged by business and government that the cost of US health care is too high for the benefit rendered. Reasoning for high costs gets blamed on inefficiency, excessive profits in insurance and drugs, non-payers using the system, too many expensive (perhaps unnecessary) treatments, an aging baby boom population, and more. Probably all of these factor in to some degree.But businesses are screaming to lower their burden in order to remain competitive. Patients are tired of 5-10% (or higher) premium increases each year, which quickly exceed the rate of inflation. The government would like to see better and more consistent primary care so as to head off more serious conditions that then require more money in treatment. Patients worry about bureaucratic red tape from a nationalized system. They worry that lack of profit motive will kill the medical procedure and drug innovations that have defined the good parts of the US system. They worry about using their tax dollars to pay for bad health decisions made by other citizens. So my idea was: what about a hybird or tiered system. That is, have the government institute a nationalized primary care-only system that would cover everyone who is a legal resident (and only legal residents) with primary care up to a certain level. This would help keep the cost of the government-based plan down. More exotic care, such as advanced cancer treatments, organ transplants, etc. could then become its own private insurance based after-market. [Yes, I wonder if this would be a sustainable business model]. The increase in public availability of primary care would surely improve basic health care and would allow for catching problems before they snowball. People who demand more personalized care could opt out and take a tax credit (although perhaps not for the full value). People who want advanced procedures or life support services or transplants, etc. could buy in to supplemental insurance in a similar way that life insurance works today. Yes, this would create a financially tiered level of health care. But it would also tread a middle ground between freedom of choice and the benefit of improved basic coverage for all. And it would take the teeth out of the argument of higher-bracket tax payers that they would end up paying more than their fair share for poorer folks (who, let's face it, tend to make worse personal health decisions). Am I completely off base here? Or is it an idea worth consideration?
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
