SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (48002)9/10/2004 7:51:40 AM
From: JeffARespond to of 81568
 
I like the idea of the lager health insurance pool. However, and you are not going to like this, I think Bush's idea is closer to my line of thinking.

My family has always been self employed. Employing only a handful of people has made offering insurance to employees almost impossible. However, in our latest endeavour, we are a franchisee. I would like to see the franchise offer a health care plan encompassing all the stores. Thus the insurance pool would be in the thousands of workers instead of 6 or 8. I think, as I read your article, that this aligns more with the Bush policy. Smaller companuies being allowed to pool for insurance. The Kerry policy would allow us to join some insurance pool handled by someone and benefit with lower premiums.

I don't understand why the Dems have to pick on the people who make a certain amount of money. Haven't they earned it? Why should they be penalized for being successful?

Also, the gov't being the re-insurer disturbs me. That money would come from you and I, yes? I don't earn anywhere near $200k a year. So, in effect, aren't I being held to higher premiums also through the re-insurance pool and paying for catastrophic illnesses over $50k a year?

You article is the first on-topic detailed outline of the health care proposal I have read. I need to re-read it. Thanks. Finally something not related to Vietnam......



To: bentway who wrote (48002)9/10/2004 8:04:06 AM
From: JeffARespond 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."