As the health care debate heats up and Congressional voting commences, I have a few comments.
First, I never thought I would say this, but Obama's most recent speech about Health Care was actually quite inspiring. He does a great job when he has a prepared speech, but struggles when he is put on the spot. I think he should stick to prepared speeches and he may have more success.
There are a number of issues that cause a lot of contention. I must say, this administration's attempt at showing us Americans how we are going to pay for this new plan is at best lousy. The new proposed bill from the Finance Committee has a price tag of $856 Billion over 10 years, with mysterious ways of paying for it. Sure, why don't we go into more debt and tax businesses and individuals more to provide free health care to the poor. There has to be a better way. Can no one come up with one?
Instead of increasing taxes on the rich or on businesses, why don't we go after people who are abusing the tax system and under-paying their taxes. Cash companies such as restaurants and laundry mats will show yearly losses on their income statements, and not report their cash in take. This is tax evasion that is obvious, but the IRS seems to turn a blind eye. Many of these small business owners have large houses with big mortgage payments, nice furniture, big TVs but all the stuff is bought by illegal cash or used as a business deduction. How is a Big-Screen TV in the business owner's home, a business expense for a laundry mat anyways? I am sure we can squeeze a few hundred million dollars in revenue by going after companies and individuals who are stealing from the IRS.
With all this debate of about a public option, I have though about it and decided that if done the right way I am not actually all that opposed to the "public option." It does have to be a free market proposition, but it is acceptable to have government oversight and regulation. I think a co-op of some sort, where Health Care providers in each state can bid for business of people who do not have access to company health benefits, would work out pretty well. It all has to do with costs. The average family health insurance plan costs $13,000 per year. At almost $1100 a month for a family that is a huge chunk out of a family's budget if a company does not support the employee.
As an idea, why can't we just get away from company sponsored health plans the way they are currently set up, and add the cost of insurance to the salary of the employee. Each family can then choose for themselves what insurance company to buy health insurance from. The government can offer tax breaks to help offset the costs for lower income workers, even exempting health care income (the average $13,000 employer health care cost) from regular, medicare, and SS income tax requirements. That can be tax free income to families so they can pay for their own health insurance. As Obama has pointed out we need competition.
Right now, employers pay a lot of money and spend a lot of time and resources working on the health benefits of their employees. By eliminating this from businesses, they can increase productivity as time is not taken away from the actual work that is supposed to be done. In my place of employment, our HR department spends a lot of time working on the health benefits of employees and works closely with our health insurance provider. This time could be spent elsewhere. Time is taken up in meetings and seminars about benefits. All time that could be spent increasing productivity.
The extra money will increase the total wages of a family and if it is possible to shop around for coverage that may cost less, a family's disposable income will rise. They would be able to spend it on other things that could boost the economy, but it could also be used to pay for any co-pays or out of pocket expenses. It could be used as a sort of health spending account that everyone gets. A tax free way to pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays, out of pocket health costs, prescription and over the counter medicine, vision care, dental care, and maybe even life insurance (I think the insurers would not mind if more people got life insurance, right?) You can add gym memberships as well.
As it stands now it is the employer that shops around for coverage but often the employer stays with the same company for many years, possibly forgoing cheaper options because of the time it takes to switch from one provider to another. By adding 40 million more people to the insurance companies list of clients that should increase their profits and enable the to lower costs.
There are many regulations limiting how many insurance companies can sell insurance in a State, but if we can increase the number of competitors in the industry it is possible to decrease costs due to increased competition for the business. Health Insurance companies have an oligarchical power over pricing, which does not help in reducing costs. This is one reason why the government wanted to have a public plan, because of the lack of competition in the insurance industry.
So, if we can increase competition to decrease costs and eliminate employer sponsored insurance coverage and just pay workers more (preferably an increase in the salaries by the cost of insurance the companies no longer have to pay), it will be possible, I think, to solve this problem.
I do think it will be important to give enough incentives for everyone to buy health insurance. Tax breaks work and creating legal requirements to have insurance may work as well. We do it for car insurance, why not do it for a much more important Health Insurance? You will have the right to NOT pay for health insurance and maybe pocket the extra income, but if you are sick you pay the full price, whether through payments plans, wage garnishments, tax levy's or any other form of forced payment. If you have no insurance and you use the emergency room you need to pay for it. The whole bill. It is unacceptable to abuse as system where doctor's and medical professionals cannot refuse care, but you can refuse to pay for it. That is outright stealing. If you are someone who foregoes the responsibility to have health insurance (especially if the government and companies assist in helping you pay for it) you should have to pay the full repercussions of not being responsible. If that ends up bankrupting you then so be it.
We need to eliminate lifetime caps in coverage and the should-be-illegal practice by the health insurers to drop coverage whenever they see fit (especially when a patient needs that coverage most). The things many insurance companies do should be illegal. To drop coverage on a cancer patient because of some fine-print legalese or some business decision is unacceptable. As long as you pay your premiums and are as honest as you can be you should be afforded all the benefits that come with your health insurance coverage plan. There should be no life-time caps. If I pay my insurance premium I should be covered. If my insurance covers for cancer, they should not be able to stop coverage because the cancer treatments cost too much. That is a breach of contract, if not a legal breach then most definitely a moral breach. It should be illegal to drop coverage for any reason as long as premiums are being paid. In fact, Health insurance companies should be the one's to step up aid as their customers suffer the most, not kick them while they are down. I would like to see an insurance company that can find the business sense to stay profitable but be able to go to the bed side of a man dying from cancer and say that they will do all they can do to help him. Wouldn't that be a health insurance company you would like to be a customer of?
There are many things we can do to make things more affordable for all Americans. I hope our leaders are smart enough and responsible enough to do things right.
