A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Road Walker who wrote (8636)	8/25/2009 8:53:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 42652

I wrote: "If the government wanted to reform healthcare they would simply allow any consumer to purchase healthcare from any state. Consumers would choose the coverages they could afford which they needed." You wrote: So the Feds take responsibility for regulating insurance? I reread my post multiple times. It does not suggest that the federal government should become the regulator. You wrote: This is what I would like to see (in my dreams): 1. Give a one year lead time and make employer provided health care illegal. 2. Employers who provide health care as a benefit would be required to increase each employees salary by the cost of the current program. 3. Health insurance would be fully tax deductible for individuals. 4. There would be a competing public option, and co-op options (options are GOOD things). 5. Yes insurance companies could sell across state lines. 6. Yes there would be some tort reform. 7. There would be an insurance exchange established. 8. Individuals would be required to get some minimum type of policy (??? Devil in the details). The insurance companies AND the providers would really have to scramble to cut costs because there would be SO MUCH business up in the air. 1. In #4 you suggest competition is good, but you want to make one option for competition illegal? In #3 you found one option for leveling the playing field yet you want to make the option that has been traditional since wage controls forced employers to find an alternate form of compensation in the 1940's. 2. Interesting. It would force people to do what you perceive to be right. I can see your point, but am not ready to concede it. 3. A level playing field is important. Why not make it fully taxable and end the tax preference that distorts the market for health services? If you want to see medical inflation get in line with general inflation that would be more effective than trying to fix a broken system with more mandates. 4. Who funds the shortfall when the government option is mispriced? If you want charitable organizations then why do need to destroy the current layer of charitable health providers to implement ObamaCare? Governments don't compete; they either are steamrolled due to multiple forces or use their power to bury the competition unfairly. 5. One of the few suggestions on any table that could make a difference. As long as you mean they could offer insurance plans free of Balkanized mandates. 6. Another major driver of high medical costs. Getting rid of excessively defensive medicine could save 10% right off the top. (The percentage is a guess.) 7. What is an insurance exchange? Do you mean like a stock exchange? People buy and sell plans and options for plans on a daily basis? 8. The heavy hand of federal government should impinge on our freedoms and make a list of what we have to do to be good socialist citizens? A better choice would be to let states try that if they wish and people who like it could move to those states. People who don't like it could move to states without excessive mandates. We can measure how much people desire that option by observing net migration to and from Massachusetts. It does not seem to be a big winner.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next