At the risk of jeopardizing my reputation as a free marketeer and anti-tax crusader, I feel it's time that someone lay out the absolute truth about the current health care crisis and provide the obvious solution which no one in government seems to have the brains or integrity to propose.
As a caveat, I do not generally advocate government solutions to problems or any program which redistributes wealth through taxation, but if we as a nation are hell-bent on keeping the quality of health care that we have now while also making it available to all of our citizens, there is only one solution which makes sense and it isn't the 1,000-page pile of idiocy that President Obama and the Congress have cobbled together.
I've had enough of the ridiculousness, because the solution to our current health care problems is simple and elegant and can be explained very briefly and does not involve mandates or nationalization or any more health care rationing than we already have now. It won't destroy the insurance industry or bankrupt the population and it won't add a cent to the deficit.
It requires only five very simple steps:
1. Tax every citizen at a rate of 10% of their adjusted income after exemptions and deductions to pay for national health care. Eliminate the Medicare tax, so the real increase in taxation is actually just around 6% for most taxpayers. Those with low incomes would pay very little, if anything, because they have little or no taxable income. This would raise about $600 billion.
2. Give every citizen a yearly $2,000 voucher which can only be used to pay for health insurance. Allow them to pay any amount they wish above that voucher for enhanced coverage or any other special services the insurance companies can sell them. This would cost about $600 billion a year.
3. Prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, but allow them to increase the cost of coverage by up to 100% above their standard rates for patients with chronic conditions.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Looks like a good plan - except for clause 3. Better to raise the tax (clause 1) to 12% and allow insurers to increase the rate by a maximum of 10% all tolled for chronic conditions.
One could add a 6th clause - a co-pay of $5 for visiting a GP, a co-pay of $20 for visiting a specialist, a minimum price of $5 for a generic scrip from a mandated pharmacopia, and a maximum of $25.
It's a damned good alternative to whatever crap Obama suggests. It's simple, short and sweet.
2 - Mark
...tell me why the proposals which the President and Congress are considering make so little sense and bear so little resemblance to this simple plan?
Because monopoly capital(ists) rule.
3 - Robert M. Barga
I actually explain the easiest way to both balance the budget and provide health care right here.
4 - Jordan Richardson
I played NationStates once and totally balanced the budget while giving my country a great health care plan AND not succumbing to attacks from neighbouring Tittiwanga.
5 - Mark
Jordan for king 2010
6 - Dave Nalle
Ruvy, this plan assumes that there will be co-pays on some plans, especially the cheaper ones, but they would be set by the market for the most part rather than legislatively.
And yes, the tax rate could be raised, but it's already set about as high as I think the American public would accept. They'd certainly balk at anything in double digits.
Bliffle seems to have gotten the point. Despite protestations to the contrary, the lack of a plan like this does mean that Obama and the Dems have sold out to the insurance industry.
Dave
7 - Lumpy
Sounds a bit like a less fascist version of the system in Singapore which is rated 6th best in the world.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
I like a lot of your points except for #5 - because if you hobble the government option, you make it a source of ridicule and fodder for subsequent political campaigns. What's wrong with the government option being equal - in quality and in price - to that of the others? After all, with the tax hike you described, the premiums would be low enough for just about everyone.
And FYI - you keep referring to Obama's 'monstrosity' of a plan. Who should you blame for that? Easy - the government that allows corporate lobbying and corporate campaign financing, because even now the health care industry is forking over $1.4M per DAY in lobbying efforts.
If you want change, then work towards getting rid of the lobbyists, towards public-financing-ONLY of political campaigns. Then, once our politicians are NOT beholden to the corporate sector, we'll see some REAL change.
9 - Clavos
If you want change, then work towards getting rid of the lobbyists, towards public-financing-ONLY of political campaigns. Then, once our politicians are NOT beholden to the corporate sector, we'll see some REAL change.
You don't really think all those pols are going to be willing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, do you Glenn?
10 - Glenn Contrarian
No, Clavos, I don't. But the point was to place the blame where it truly belongs...
...and let's not forget who it was that voted into LAW a requirement that Medicare could not negotiate drug prices as other federal agencies do. That, sir, was your Republicans - and now they all complain about how bloated the Medicare budget is.
Sheesh!
11 - Dave Nalle
I like a lot of your points except for #5 - because if you hobble the government option, you make it a source of ridicule and fodder for subsequent political campaigns. What's wrong with the government option being equal - in quality and in price - to that of the others? After all, with the tax hike you described, the premiums would be low enough for just about everyone.
The idea is for the government plan to form a baseline of minimally adequate insurance and for the private plans to start at that level and work their ways up. If you make the government option more competitive and more comprehensive then you push private insurance into a higher price range where it can make money, but takes much less risk and you put that risk onto the taxpayer instead. I prefer to make them work a bit harder.
And FYI - you keep referring to Obama's 'monstrosity' of a plan. Who should you blame for that?
Obama, because many of the worst ideas in it are ones which he specifically demanded from Congress.
Easy - the government that allows corporate lobbying and corporate campaign financing, because even now the health care industry is forking over $1.4M per DAY in lobbying efforts.
And do we shut down lobbying from unions, NGOs and citizen advocacy groups? No more UAW, AARP, NEA, NRDC, Sierra Club or NRA lobbying? Because their influence is JUST as destructive.
If you want change, then work towards getting rid of the lobbyists, towards public-financing-ONLY of political campaigns. Then, once our politicians are NOT beholden to the corporate sector, we'll see some REAL change.
I'm just not ready to shut down free speech yet. There are lobbyists to reperesent every possible interest and they are well funded on both sides of most issues. In most cases they balance each other out pretty effectively and they make our wishes known to the legislators in a way which is much more effective than just voting.
Dave
12 - Paul
Surely you know that it is not fair to tax everyone equally Dave. The "rich" simply must continue to pay disproportionately higher rates, and the poor must continue to pay, um, well, receive more free stuff from the rich. Just look how fair it is now. On second thought - I really like that plan of yours.
13 - Bliffle
Dave says:
"I'm just not ready to shut down free speech yet."
You don't have to: the guy with a million dollar amplifier and speakers already does that by drowning out the other voices.
"There are lobbyists to reperesent every possible interest ...."
Where do I sign up? I want the lobby that will institute a society that worships 72 yr. old elders, lives in a beautifulplace with a moderate climate. Oh, and I could use a comely Shulamite to warm my bones at night.
"...and they are well funded on both sides of most issues."
BOTH sides! Good thing no issues have more than two sides.
14 - Bliffle
Oh, Dave, I also need a $10million PA system set up in DC so that I can exercise my Free Speech rights in proper proportion to my wisdom and virtue.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Paul -
Ever hear of tax breaks and exemptions? If you'll check, even though America has the second-HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world, the actual percentage of tax income RECEIVED is something like the second-LOWEST in the world.
Also, if you check, the top marginal tax rate in the 1950's was 91% (including during the entirety of the Eisenhower administration) - back in the days when there were not so many tax breaks and exemptions.
If we were to propose even a 50% top marginal tax rate today, the entire conservative bloc would howl in anger and outrage because they'd be SURE that this would wreck the economy...
...but when we had a 91% top marginal tax ratge, how was our economy? It was the envy of the world. Not only that, but we were able to pay off the federal debt from WWII, which was proportionally even greater than what we have now.
So there's your choice, Paul - go with conservative thought and Republican talking points, or go with the hard evidence we see in history.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Good reply. I disagree with much of it (of course), but you did make good, thoughtful points.
On the 'minimally effective' government health care plan, let me riposte with a rather uncomfortable metaphor...but one that a Texan like yourself would understand better than I.
What's the biggest resource of any country? The people, of course. Just as a rancher's biggest resource is his cattle, just as a sheepherder's biggest resource is his sheep, a country's biggest resource is its people.
The healthier the cattle and the sheep are, the wealthier the rancher and the sheepherder will be. Same thing with a country - the healthier the people are, the more work they will do, the more they will accomplish, the more taxes they will pay in to the national kitty.
Now, what would happen to any rancher or sheepherder who wasn't watching over the health of one-sixth of his herd? He's not going to be able to compete well against his competitors - just as we're losing our competitive edge against the other modern industrialized democracies of the world.
It's not about whether it's 'socialized' or 'unAmerican'. It's about what keeps our most important resource, our greatest source of money, healthiest and best able to produce and to achieve. We're losing against our competitors - and the twenty-seven of our competitors who are more successful than us in this arena all have UHC of one sort or another.
They're taking care of their most important resource. They're ENABLING their most important resource. Why the richest nation in the world provide free education but not provide for the health care that would enable someone to put that education to use...is beyond me.
This is a matter of pragmatism, of practicality. UHC works and it's proven to work. Keep your resource healthy, and your resource will provide for your future. It's true with ranchers, with sheepherders...and with governments.
Also, I would remind you that on the health care debate, there is no one able to match the lobbying funding that the HMO's and big pharma are shelling out.
17 - Dave Nalle
Also, I would remind you that on the health care debate, there is no one able to match the lobbying funding that the HMO's and big pharma are shelling out.
Sure there is. The unions and the AARP have very deep pockets.
As for your analogy, it's fine, if you accept the premise that we want our government to be responsible for determining how we live and when we die. I don't like the idea at all.
Did you hear about the euthanasia provisions in the healthcare bill?
Dave
18 - Paul
Glenn, your history lesson missed a few important points. While the top marginal tax rate was still above 90 percent well into Kennedy's term, he pushed for tax cuts, which were enacted in 1964 after his assassination. The top marginal tax rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. What followed was a major expansion in the economy. Real gross domestic product rose in the four years after the tax cut by an average of 5.1 percent per year. Unemployment averaged 3.9 percent, compared to a 5.8 percent average in the four years prior to the tax cut.
The Reagan tax cuts of 1981 dropped the top marginal rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, with additional cuts in the tax on capital gains. The top marginal rate was further reduced to 28 percent by 1988. The result was again an increase in growth in the economy. Real GDP grew by .9 percent per year between 1978 and 1982, and grew by 4.8 percent per year from 1983 to 1986. The unemployment rate was 9.7 percent in 1982. It fell to 7.0 percent by 1986, and was 5.3 percent in January of 1989.
By the way, although I am fiscally conservative, I am not a Republican.
19 - Silas Kain
You know what? We need to spend less time debating Reaganomics and the mistakes of past Administrations " both Democrat and Republican. I've thought long and hard about this health care debate and there's one thing that has become crystal clear. Congress is working in tandem with the health care industry in maintaining a capitalistic approach to the same.
Bill Maher asked a very good question the other night on his show concerning when did health care become a for profit enterprise? He's right. I've said many times before that there was a time when religious organizations (especially Roman Catholic)provided incredible health care to the neediest of our people. And somewhere along the way the corporations saw an opportunity, paid off a bunch of legislators and what we've got left is a grand cluster f__k.
Those on the Far Right talk about morality and family values. What is immoral about a health care system that operates on a not for profit basis? What's immoral about teaching our children preventative care and ramping up the pressure on those companies that feed us pure, unadulterated crap for our diets?
Maher also made a point to quote FDR who said "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster." This concerned World War II. Can we say today that no millionaire has been created out of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again? Somewhere along the way we have our definition of "morality" screwed up. It isn't about who you sleep with in the bedroom. The same people who vociferously scream morality are the same ones who propagate an immoral system.
Not one member of this Congress has closely read the Heath Care bill. And, let's call a spade a spade. The majority of those we have sent to Congress don't have the intellect to comprehend the structure of legislation much less its content. We need an honest dialog in this country that excludes the health care providers, insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals. When a pharmaceutical company which specializes in age defiance drugs and plastic surgery performs better in the stock market than a company which can provide a cure for cancer, that's immoral. When insurance companies like Aetna, Blue Cross and Cigna can arbitrarily reject claims using racial profiling (don't kid yourselves, it goes on every day), that's immoral. When a member of Congress accepts campaign contributions from insurance, pharmaceutical and financial PACS and forgets why they were sent to Congress in the first place, that's not only immoral, it borders on criminal.
There is plenty of legislation being shoved down our throats these days by a cowardly Congress and a media savvy President. Abraham Lincoln said "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." Well, that government is on life support, folks. It's in a deep coma and needs something to wake it up. If we don't do something now, then when?
20 - Clavos
Silas,
You make some good points in your comment #19.
However, I think this one:
When a pharmaceutical company which specializes in age defiance drugs and plastic surgery performs better in the stock market than a company which can provide a cure for cancer, that's immoral.
...is not a reflection on the pharma company so much as it is on the American people in general. That pharma is doing well selling those kinds of remedies to them, which is why it performs well on the stock market. I don't see it as immoral that they manufacture those kinds of meds, do you?
21 - Silas Kain
Point well taken, Clavos. That being said, Americans really need to rethink their priorities. What good is a face lift, age defying drug or breast implant if your body is going to be ravaged by liver disease or cervical cancer? There are some very inexpensive treatments for Hepatitis B which can't make it out of clinical mouse trials because pharmaceutical companies see no profit in manufacturing the vaccine due to the low cost of manufacture. That, my friend, is immoral.
22 - Clavos
Well, Silas, I've always though that our pharma industry was skewed in a number of ways. One of the most egregious ones to me is the fact that all the meds which actually work are prescription only -- this is not the case in many other countries, where most meds are available without a prescription.
Just changing that one aspect of how we do business would lower costs, if only by the fact one would not have to see a doctor first in order to obtain say, an arthritis drug, or metformin for a diabetic, etc.
23 - Silas Kain
I agree, Clavos. For example, I take coumadin because of a genetic blood disorder. Every month I fill my prescription, the cost changes depending on the mood of my provider. Secondly, I have to be tested twice a month which costs $440 per month. I have been fighting to get my own monitoring machine now for 6 years. The cost of the unit is $4,000. If I were allowed to monitor my Coumadin levels daily I could keep a better control on my dosage. I've been on it long enough to know what dose to take. At one time my doctor had it arranged whereby I could call the lab for my test results and adjust my dosage accordingly. Then the suits at the hospital stepped in and said no way. Had I been given the opportunity, I could have saved my insurance company over $25,000 in the last 5 years.
24 - Dave Nalle
...is not a reflection on the pharma company so much as it is on the American people in general. That pharma is doing well selling those kinds of remedies to them, which is why it performs well on the stock market. I don't see it as immoral that they manufacture those kinds of meds, do you?
Not only that, but it's a matter of marketability. There is a small market of people who have cancer, but there's a huge market of people who have erectile disfunction or are fat. The good thing is that the cancer drugs often have their costs underwritten by the profits of the trendy self-improvement drugs, and that is what is good about the for-profit system.
Dave
25 - Silas Kain
Perhaps that point has some validity, Dave. But again, why should our collective health system be for profit? Even in a free marketplace there can be civility and morality. Enough is enough. Whatever health care plan passes, it is destined for complete failure.