Blog
Health Care
Let's have a talk. Better yet, let's have a discussion. One of the big issues of the Summer has been what to do about health care reform. There is little doubt that we need some reform but what kind and how much are the issues that are driving people mad. I recognize that many people are distrustful of the government and believe that President Obama is leading us down that dark path to socialism. These people are opposed to a single-provider system and have created an irrational and unsupportable fear that death panels are going to begin engaging in euthanasia.
I'm going to avoid recriminations against either those who support President Obama's proposals or oppose them other than to note that the Republicans haven't really proposed any realistic alternatives. The Grand Old Party appears content to use scare tactics to make the Democrats look bad and hope that the President falls on his face. That strategy might be good for the Party but certainly isn't good for the Country.
I have a suggestion or two, just for argument sake, that might create a significant improvement to the current problem without people having to give up their personal freedoms.
The first thing is to note the issues that are most important (at least to me). These issues are: (1) the large number of uninsured Americans; (2) the impact that catastrophic injuries or diseases can have on people and families financially; and (3) how to provide our senior citizens with affordable long term care. Is there a way to do this without bankrupting the Country? Maybe.
What if we were to allow the government to set up an insurance program that addresses all of these issues. The program would provide basic medical care such as pre-natal care, early childhood treatment, vaccinations and flu shots, as well treat most common diseases and illnesses. The program could also provide for catastrophic care and provide for basic long-term care of seniors. There might have to be limitations and these would likely involve using actuarial tables to determine whether treatment was really effective. This might mean that some people who have spent a lifetime abusing their bodies (whether through drugs, alchohol, food or otherwise) might not qualify for some treatments. For example, an individual who is suffering from cirrhosis of the liver from years of alcohol abuse might not qualify for a heart and lung transplant. Also, the poor might not qualify for liposuction and breast augmentation but they generally can't qualify for those procedures now.
We would, of course, have to pay for this program with taxes but the individual savings from lower insurance premiums and the other cost savings highlighted by President Obama and his supporters should be acceptable.
The way my suggestion differs from Obama-care is that private providers can continue but they will offer an alternative to the basic coverage provided by the government. They can either offer a complete alternative and allow a person to opt out of the governement program or, more likely, purchase additional coverage from a private carrier. For example, if a person wants to continue with their own doctor(s) or to expedite elective surgeries, they can purchase supplemental insurance that will cover such additional benefits. These insurance premiums should be relatively low because the insurers wouldn't have to handle the expenses involved in catastrophic and long term care.
Now I know that the ultra-liberals will object to this on the basis that this allows the wealthy to obtain better medical treatment than the poor. My response would be - so what? Why is it wrong for people who can afford it to obtain better medical care? Is this really so different than what we currently do with our educational system. The government currently provides basic education for K -12. If someone can afford better educational opportunities for their children, and wants to spend their own money to do so, they can. They send their kids to private schools and hire private tutors. I haven't heard any claims that private schools are unfair to the poor.
In any event, this is just an idea and an invitation to discuss and converse. IIf you want to comment on this or rationally discuss it further, please feel free to e-mail me at kevin@lubylaw.org.
I'm going to avoid recriminations against either those who support President Obama's proposals or oppose them other than to note that the Republicans haven't really proposed any realistic alternatives. The Grand Old Party appears content to use scare tactics to make the Democrats look bad and hope that the President falls on his face. That strategy might be good for the Party but certainly isn't good for the Country.
I have a suggestion or two, just for argument sake, that might create a significant improvement to the current problem without people having to give up their personal freedoms.
The first thing is to note the issues that are most important (at least to me). These issues are: (1) the large number of uninsured Americans; (2) the impact that catastrophic injuries or diseases can have on people and families financially; and (3) how to provide our senior citizens with affordable long term care. Is there a way to do this without bankrupting the Country? Maybe.
What if we were to allow the government to set up an insurance program that addresses all of these issues. The program would provide basic medical care such as pre-natal care, early childhood treatment, vaccinations and flu shots, as well treat most common diseases and illnesses. The program could also provide for catastrophic care and provide for basic long-term care of seniors. There might have to be limitations and these would likely involve using actuarial tables to determine whether treatment was really effective. This might mean that some people who have spent a lifetime abusing their bodies (whether through drugs, alchohol, food or otherwise) might not qualify for some treatments. For example, an individual who is suffering from cirrhosis of the liver from years of alcohol abuse might not qualify for a heart and lung transplant. Also, the poor might not qualify for liposuction and breast augmentation but they generally can't qualify for those procedures now.
We would, of course, have to pay for this program with taxes but the individual savings from lower insurance premiums and the other cost savings highlighted by President Obama and his supporters should be acceptable.
The way my suggestion differs from Obama-care is that private providers can continue but they will offer an alternative to the basic coverage provided by the government. They can either offer a complete alternative and allow a person to opt out of the governement program or, more likely, purchase additional coverage from a private carrier. For example, if a person wants to continue with their own doctor(s) or to expedite elective surgeries, they can purchase supplemental insurance that will cover such additional benefits. These insurance premiums should be relatively low because the insurers wouldn't have to handle the expenses involved in catastrophic and long term care.
Now I know that the ultra-liberals will object to this on the basis that this allows the wealthy to obtain better medical treatment than the poor. My response would be - so what? Why is it wrong for people who can afford it to obtain better medical care? Is this really so different than what we currently do with our educational system. The government currently provides basic education for K -12. If someone can afford better educational opportunities for their children, and wants to spend their own money to do so, they can. They send their kids to private schools and hire private tutors. I haven't heard any claims that private schools are unfair to the poor.
In any event, this is just an idea and an invitation to discuss and converse. IIf you want to comment on this or rationally discuss it further, please feel free to e-mail me at kevin@lubylaw.org.