I'm thinking - the answer is in having a simple, cheap safety net paid for by the public -- meaning things like limits on use of expensive meds, limited access to doctors, with most care provided by residents and other trainees, wards rather than semiprivate or private hospital rooms, and so forth. Long waits, too. In other words, this adds up to creating a somewhat lower standard of care - as opposed to the current situation, when everyone is expected to be treated the same.
This would be a fairly profound change... but the current system is unsustainable. It would have to be unattractive, as welfare should be.... it should make people want to earn more money and to be able to purchase insurance.
i think it is important to distinguish between those who truly cannot afford coverage and those who willfully choose not to purchase even minimal coverage...
obviously, hospitals are required to treat patients if they present, so i think one other piece of the puzzle is to have gov't reimburse the hospital for the coverage given, and then, go after the patient for collection, garnishing wages if necessary, if he has the ability to pay....that policy alone would prompt individuals to maintain some type of coverage....the moral hazard part of our current policies would be eliminated and you would get voluntary compliance |
