The Health Care Reform Solution

[Paradigm]

While watching the movie Sicko the following came to me.

Often the simplest answer can be the best response to the most complex question.

What we need is a three tier system not a two tier system.

The biggest challenge is the runaway cost of medicine and research and development. The bills that are in excess of 50,000- 100,000 are the biggest concern for most Americans.

The solution is reinsurance. This solution would pass some of the cost for health care onto the American people in a shared relationship between the individual, private insurance, and the government.

This is how it would work

The government would set up a reinsurance company that would only kick in at a 50,000, 75,000, or 100,000 bill depending on the option selected by the consumer.

The companies would pay the government a portion of premiums to help fund the government reinsurance plan. This would lower their liability because the government reinssurance would kick in at the specified level.

Consumer would have a variety of plans that would available to them as they have now but they would choose at what level the reinssurance would kick in which would limit the cost of insurance for a carrier thereby dramatically lowering the premiums.

As now the poor and the working class would be fully or partial subsidized but instead of medicaid or medicare they would be subsidized to buy the plan of their choice regardless of medical condition.

The unhealthy that are more well to do would be required to pay 1.5x-2x the standard rate thereby increasing risk mitigation.

 

[GreenSky]

Too logical. Wouldn't work in a socialist world.

And what do you mean the sick should pay more? You have no compassion!

Rick

 

[IndyAgentIDTMY]

The runaway cost of healthcare has alot of factors involved, such as the costs of the uninsured, unhealthly lifestyles, overutilization by consumers and that we are such a sue-happy society.

I could see where a reinsurance program could work, but I also can think of ways it would fail miserably. Unless we address the underlying causes I mentioned above, this or any other provision will simply amount to putting a bandaid on a gapping wound and we will be in the same boat as Medicare/Medicaid in short order.

 

[Winter_123]

While watching the movie Sicko the following came to me.

Often the simplest answer can be the best response to the most complex question.

What we need is a three tier system not a two tier system.

The biggest challenge is the runaway cost of medicine and research and development. The bills that are in excess of 50,000- 100,000 are the biggest concern for most Americans.

The solution is reinsurance. This solution would pass some of the cost for health care onto the American people in a shared relationship between the individual, private insurance, and the government.

This is how it would work

The government would set up a reinsurance company that would only kick in at a 50,000, 75,000, or 100,000 bill depending on the option selected by the consumer.

The companies would pay the government a portion of premiums to help fund the government reinsurance plan. This would lower their liability because the government reinssurance would kick in at the specified level.

Consumer would have a variety of plans that would available to them as they have now but they would choose at what level the reinssurance would kick in which would limit the cost of insurance for a carrier thereby dramatically lowering the premiums.

As now the poor and the working class would be fully or partial subsidized but instead of medicaid or medicare they would be subsidized to buy the plan of their choice regardless of medical condition.

The unhealthy that are more well to do would be required to pay 1.5x-2x the standard rate thereby increasing risk mitigation.

Basically we would be hitting the more well to do twice. Once, because they are paying taxes to support the 45% who do not but consume the most services, and then they pay again when they pay higher rates for themselves because they are better off. I am somewhat okay with that within limits but the problem is that "well-off" is increasingly coming to mean anyone who is making more than $60,000 a year. A small dash of "redistribution" is okay I think. Continuing to break the middle class is not.

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

There is a simple solution. Instead of spending 62K per peson for a new system, fine tune the existing system. Let the Govt. pitch in about 1/3 of what Obama has suggested and use that for the fine tuning. We would end up with a hell of a system.

 

[somarco]

The biggest challenge is the runaway cost of medicine and research and development. The bills that are in excess of 50,000- 100,000 are the biggest concern for most Americans.

Actually, that is not true.

Most are concerned about how to pay for a simple doctor visit and cover their meds. They are never going to get really ill or have a major accident. That happens to the other people.

Rarely does someone call and say they just want something catastrophic. If they do, they just want "hospital only" coverage.

Most of the time when I ask, they want a doctor visit and Rx plan.

The idea of floating a cat plan as part of the mandate will never fly. People are frightened already at a $5,000 deductible. They think they don't have insurance until their bills hit the deductible.

Going back 30 years or so, Phoenix Mutual offered a comprehensive major medical plan with a $500 deductible then 100%. The premium was $14 per month if you can believe that.

Almost no one bought it because they failed to see the value in such a plan.

They are just as ignorant today as they were 30 years ago.

The "health care crisis" is too complex to have a simple answer, but if you want some, try these on for size.

For most people, 90% of their medical bills occur in the last 6 months of life.

So what's the solution?

Deny services to those with poor life expectancy.

Roughly 5% of the population consume 50% of all medical expenses.

Solution?

Identify that 5% and deny services.

This next one isn't so radical.

70% of total health care expenses are for chronic conditions (HTN, cholesterol, diabetes, etc.) of which 80% are preventable.

Solution?

Deny services to those who refuse to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Of course the pharmaceutical companies and public in general would revolt.

Imagine a world without Cymbalta, Zetia, or Vytorin.

The crap proposed by pundits and Washington idiots is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs and accomplishes little or nothing to really reduce the cost of health care or stem the demand.

 

[Winter_123]

There is a simple solution. Instead of spending 62K per peson for a new system, fine tune the existing system. Let the Govt. pitch in about 1/3 of what Obama has suggested and use that for the fine tuning. We would end up with a hell of a system.

Right, just give everyone a 5,000 tax credit as some of the republicans proposed and work out some kind of equivalent kicker for those who do not pay taxes. This would bring the system up to a higher level of functioning and then re-visit it in a couple years to see what the next step needs to be.

 

[Professor Leads]

While watching the movie Sicko the following came to me.

Often the simplest answer can be the best response to the most complex question.

What we need is a three tier system not a two tier system.

The biggest challenge is the runaway cost of medicine and research and development. The bills that are in excess of 50,000- 100,000 are the biggest concern for most Americans.

The solution is reinsurance. This solution would pass some of the cost for health care onto the American people in a shared relationship between the individual, private insurance, and the government.

This is how it would work

The government would set up a reinsurance company that would only kick in at a 50,000, 75,000, or 100,000 bill depending on the option selected by the consumer.

The companies would pay the government a portion of premiums to help fund the government reinsurance plan. This would lower their liability because the government reinssurance would kick in at the specified level.

Consumer would have a variety of plans that would available to them as they have now but they would choose at what level the reinssurance would kick in which would limit the cost of insurance for a carrier thereby dramatically lowering the premiums.

As now the poor and the working class would be fully or partial subsidized but instead of medicaid or medicare they would be subsidized to buy the plan of their choice regardless of medical condition.

The unhealthy that are more well to do would be required to pay 1.5x-2x the standard rate thereby increasing risk mitigation.

I stopped reading at "the government would set up . . .".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Right, just give everyone a 5,000 tax credit as some of the republicans proposed and work out some kind of equivalent kicker for those who do not pay taxes. This would bring the system up to a higher level of functioning and then re-visit it in a couple years to see what the next step needs to be.

What he said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The problem with most solutions being proposed is they all revolve around the Marxist concept of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

 

[ins.dave]

The Health Care Reform Solution Go to Top
While watching the movie Sicko the following came to me.

Often the simplest answer can be the best response to the most complex question.

What we need is a three tier system not a two tier system.

The biggest challenge is the runaway cost of medicine and research and development. The bills that are in excess of 50,000- 100,000 are the biggest concern for most Americans.

The solution is reinsurance. This solution would pass some of the cost for health care onto the American people in a shared relationship between the individual, private insurance, and the government.

This is how it would work

The government would set up a reinsurance company that would only kick in at a 50,000, 75,000, or 100,000 bill depending on the option selected by the consumer.

The companies would pay the government a portion of premiums to help fund the government reinsurance plan. This would lower their liability because the government reinssurance would kick in at the specified level.

Consumer would have a variety of plans that would available to them as they have now but they would choose at what level the reinssurance would kick in which would limit the cost of insurance for a carrier thereby dramatically lowering the premiums.

As now the poor and the working class would be fully or partial subsidized but instead of medicaid or medicare they would be subsidized to buy the plan of their choice regardless of medical condition.

The unhealthy that are more well to do would be required to pay 1.5x-2x the standard rate thereby increasing risk mitigation.


------------------------------------
Paradigm Planning Services
http://Paradigmplanning.com

------------------------------------

Owners and non owners.
What a load of nonsense.
I guarantee the only thing that is going to happen is a slight push towards preventative care and perhaps a subsidy, paid for by the feds.(yep, our tax dollars) that helps out the gimps who can't qualify for medically underwritten plans.
The irrespondsible who own nothing and don't save / invest will continue to be just that as they continue to show up at the e/r in need of help and the rest of us will continue to pay for it in the form of the hidden tax that exists now. The broke people will continue to receive some level of care vis a vis emtala, etc. So what the problem is? Business as usual basically, with a couple of amendments. Just a matter of time. They are scrambling to find as graceful an exit as possible.

 

[bobson]

Actually, that is not true.

Most are concerned about how to pay for a simple doctor visit and cover their meds. They are never going to get really ill or have a major accident. That happens to the other people.

Rarely does someone call and say they just want something catastrophic. If they do, they just want "hospital only" coverage.

Most of the time when I ask, they want a doctor visit and Rx plan.

The idea of floating a cat plan as part of the mandate will never fly. People are frightened already at a $5,000 deductible. They think they don't have insurance until their bills hit the deductible.

Going back 30 years or so, Phoenix Mutual offered a comprehensive major medical plan with a $500 deductible then 100%. The premium was $14 per month if you can believe that.

Almost no one bought it because they failed to see the value in such a plan.

They are just as ignorant today as they were 30 years ago.

The "health care crisis" is too complex to have a simple answer, but if you want some, try these on for size.

For most people, 90% of their medical bills occur in the last 6 months of life.

So what's the solution?

Deny services to those with poor life expectancy.

Roughly 5% of the population consume 50% of all medical expenses.

Solution?

Identify that 5% and deny services.

This next one isn't so radical.

70% of total health care expenses are for chronic conditions (HTN, cholesterol, diabetes, etc.) of which 80% are preventable.

Solution?

Deny services to those who refuse to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Of course the pharmaceutical companies and public in general would revolt.

Imagine a world without Cymbalta, Zetia, or Vytorin.

The crap proposed by pundits and Washington idiots is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs and accomplishes little or nothing to really reduce the cost of health care or stem the demand.

Health lifestyles are the death of big pharma. They love chronic conditions that can be treated with pills. Can you imagine if someone found a simple cure to cancer?

Do you think the head of the American 'What-ever disease' Association wants a simple cure to 'what-ever' disease? How would he be able to run all over the country flying on private jets and playing celebrity golf tournaments to raise money?