To: bentway who wrote (48002 ) 9/10/2004 8:04:06 AM From: JeffA Respond to of 81568 At the center of Kerry's ideas is his proposal to have the federal government reimburse employers 75 percent of medical bills over $50,000 that a worker runs up in a year. The reimbursement would, in effect, make the government a secondary insurer and ease costs for employers, workers and private insurers. Federal Gov't reimbusrement = taxes. I know of a few people needing transplants. They are $700,000 or so. Kerry in saying that the insurance will pay $50k plus 25% of $650,000 and the gov't will pay the rest. So insurance pays, $212,500 and the gov't pays $487,500. It's a great deal for the insurance company and I would expect them to lower premiums substantially if this is how Kerry is thinking. Multiply this by oh let's say 1000 people. That's half a billion dollars out of the gov't, read you and I's, pocket. What am I doing wrong here? In exchange for the benefit, Kerry would require employers to offer insurance to every worker and to provide health programs that detect and manage chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure early enough to prevent the diseases from worsening. I see this as a huge violation of person privacy rights inre medical records.Kerry's catastrophic-illness relief plan is the only new health care proposal -- and the most expensive -- of this campaign season. It marks the first time in 12 years that a political leader has attempted to reorient the insurance market away from dodging the costliest patients and in the direction of implementing higher quality of care. I think it is expensive too.Critics say Kerry's plan does little more than shift costs from ratepayers to taxpayers. Because he intends to pay for the voluntary program by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000, analysts such as Jack A. Meyer call it a "surcharge on the rich." I fail to see how taxing these folks gives them a higher burden for the medical unless the rescinded taxes are directly deposited into a medical account, which the turns into another gov't program. Which Kerry says this is not. The cost-shift charge prompted an irate response from Kerry, who called it "a completely bogus, completely illegitimate, false argument." Such criticism, he said, does not account for the likely efficiencies of scale and more efficient administration of a federal reinsurance pool. Nor does it factor in his other ideas for controlling spiraling costs, such as electronic medical records and disease management, which relies on early intervention for chronic illnesses. Kerry seems to leave this a bit foggy."There is no new bureaucracy; this is not a government plan," he said. Kerry's approach, however, does envision a larger role for government in determining whether employers taking advantage of the catastrophic reinsurance had met the requirements to offer insurance to all workers and implement effective disease management. He has said he wants to leave the specifics to medical experts and lawmakers, though many corporate and legislative leaders say it is precisely the details that will determine the success of such a change in policy. This is contradictory. No additional bureaucracy, yet the gov't will have to get a "larger role."