An interesting article.
This makes sense to me.
Right now, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it costs $13,575 to insure the average American family for one year.
Using my own made-up numbers (but consider them generally accurate for argument's sake), lets say that in order to pay for this new Healthcare Plan, your family's taxes go up $500 per year.
Then, through a complete streamlining, modernizing, and simplifying of the American health care system (read the article above) — which is what the deep-down, unread-by-anybody-but-experts, inner guts of this new Healthcare Plan do — the cost of a family's insurance is lowered by $1,000 per year. In addition, the current cost (paid by the insured) to provide health care to the uninsured is estimated by Center for American Progress to be an additional $1,100 per family... which will also be subtracted. So, for $500 per year in taxes, the average American family would see their insurance expenses go down by over $2,000 per year. Seems like a good deal to me.
I'm not the biggest fan of taxes and government spending, but I'm not so hidebound about the notion that I would militate against paying $500 in taxes to lower my expenses by $2,000. (I can see how the most dogmatic Libertarian types would be against that... fair enough... but that's not me.)
I really know very little about this Healthcare Plan, but I am a fan of order and efficiency. I'm pretty sure that as things stand right now, the American health care system could use some upgrading. This certainly seems like a good time to do it.
Well, think about it this way: Without any fixing (and nobody, especially insurance companies, seems inclined to do any fixing voluntarily), in 10 years Kaiser estimates that the insurance that costs $13,575 now will cost $30,083 per family. Is that a cost that you and your employer are willing to pay? If not, fixing the problem now might be the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In the early 90's, the government foreclosed on the Mustang Ranch, an internationally known legal whorehouse in Nevada.
The govt failed at running it.They couldn't sell sex and whiskey.
Consider the US Postal Service and AMTRAC. Both government run, and both fantastic money losers.
The govt claims the stopping the Billion Dollar a year fraud in Medicare will offset costs on the proposed programs.
Why not stop the fraud first, with the laws already on the books?
EVERY program the government sponsors loses money. The problem is "solved" by dumping more money into the sinkhole.
Which of the Presidents czars have ever RUN a business?
Notice, I didn't say "successful" business, because even managing a losing business provides experience and a track record.
Mike Farrell
Cagayan de Oro
Your Mustang Ranch sex-and-whisky analogy is interesting: Think about the sex-for-sale industry in America. It's a brutal, heartless, drug-infested, opportunistic business that exploits women. No government regulation, and where it is government regulated (by the State of Nevada) those things don't exist (as much). Now look at alcohol... government regulated. Not so bad compared to years ago when people were going blind, and gangsters were running things. (Granted, that's a straw man argument, but I'm in a bit of a hurry to get back to work.)
The US Postal Service and AMTRAK are bad examples. They are both money losers not because the government runs them, but because private companies will not provide the service, and nobody would use the service if the government provided it at a cost that would create a profit. How many people would send postcards or birthday cards if they had to use FedEx? How much extra would be tagged onto your cable bill and electrical bill and bank statement if it had to be sent by DHL?
I just read an interesting article about how private enterprise will be providing college and technical educations at an extremely low rate over the internet.
I believe the private colleges will adapt and adjust more quickly than the state (government) universities.
It seems that another bailout is on the horizon.
Mike Farrell
Cagayan de Oro
Socialized Healthcare.
If you think waiting in line at the local United State Post Office or Motor Vehicle Department is bad,...
-Wait until they get a hold of our Healthcare System.
=D
Siuyoung,
I don't directly disagree with you, but indirectly.
The government is getting into the insurance / administrative / financial side of healthcare, not the clinical / practical side... at least that I am aware of... or only inasmuch as insurance is involved with those aspects.
Obviously, when everybody has insurance, everybody is more likely to go to the hospital when they are ill, so yes... more people will be waiting for care. So I agree with the result. However, (a) if the government can mandate a streamlined health services administration (and achieve it), and if (b) Government-sponsored insurance is no more or no less complicated than any other insurance, and (c) as I said, the Government is not getting directly involved in the performance of clinic visits, diagnostics, or procedures, then I don't see how they would directly (again, indirectly, yes) affect health care delivery speed or efficiency.
My company pays for 100% of my medical insurance. Tell me how a $500 tax is going to help me again ?
Frank,
That's true, and you are right.
It's great that your company is willing to pay the entire $13,575 per year for your insurance. I won't argue that you have it far better than many Americans... and good for you. Perhaps you'll get lucky and when that insurance costs $30,083 per year, your company will still be willing to pay for it.
Is your company hiring?
Sounds to me that it a better way to spend tax payer money than on bailing out businesses that ran themselves into the ground by giving illogical loans to people they knew could possibly afford to repay them. I mean at least in healthcare the people get something for their tax dollars unlike in those bailouts.
Post a Comment