A Free Market(ish) Approach to fixing Healthcare
Instead of an individual mandate(which is unconstitutional) Congress may pass a tax exemption for every dollar spent on healthcare directly (unlimited, no minimum) or insurance(with a cap) by Citizens. Remove the 10% of income minimum per item on medical expenses etc..
HSA's should be exempt from capital gains and contributions should be tax exempt from income tax. Regular income schedule/capital gains should apply if taken out for other expenditures.
As we already have "Universal Healthcare" although haphazardly and terribly planned through a mandate to treat and a combination of medicaid/unpaid medical bills etc. I actually propose keeping the pre-existing condition clauses of the ACA. I realize this will increase premiums for those of us without pre-existing conditions but it should reduce the amount of money paid to the government to then pay for medicaid expenses and/or help drive down costs for unpaid bills. I also think the concept actually impedes a free market by locking individuals into their current healthcare provider thus not allowing for competition.
One size fits all policies would be eliminated. All young and healthy people should be able to purchase cheap high deductible catastrophic insurance if that's all they want to purchase. Overall, that would bring in more people into the "universal" net and reduce one of our major failures which is catastrophic bills having to be paid by the state or the hospital. This would reduce costs to the rest of us paying normal premiums.
Caps on donations to charities serving high risk pools should be reduced(think St Jude's Children's Hospital) and I actually view federal funding of research hospitals as a good thing as well as prize funds for cures/breakthroughs in research. Pure research(where you might not know what you will get) is a place where the market forces aren't necessarily great without patent or other government protection. We should also stop letting the rest of the world bully our pharma industries as we are essentially subsidizing all medical pharma research for all the "socialized" medical programs of the world. I'd probably also be fine with rolling high risk pools into medicaid but putting them on a voucher system so that they can purchase their own medical care in an open market with competition.
Open up competition across state borders for Health Insurance to help manage costs through competition. Create some standardized rules/best practices around administration etc. through use of the interstate commerce clause. We already do this in plenty of industries. Think DOT or clean air act, mandates are federal, rules are made and enforced at a state level within the guidelines of those federal mandates.
Is this ideal? Fuck no. Would it be an improvement over the current system? I think so. It's full of compromise, doesn't really touch medicaid or medicare, and is *maybe* politically feasible. Probably not in today's hyper-partisan atmosphere though.
Disagree with something? Great! That's what I've got so far. It's a working draft. I'm happy to take feedback and improve it with your help. Policy wonks welcome.
Comments
-
Some interesting ideas.UW_Doog_Bot said:As promised if a bit late. Blame Facebook's ultra shitty search function and my laziness & apathy for convincing people of politics online in general.
Instead of an individual mandate(which is unconstitutional) Congress may pass a tax exemption for every dollar spent on healthcare directly (unlimited, no minimum) or insurance(with a cap) by Citizens. Remove the 10% of income minimum per item on medical expenses etc..
HSA's should be exempt from capital gains and contributions should be tax exempt from income tax. Regular income schedule/capital gains should apply if taken out for other expenditures.
As we already have "Universal Healthcare" although haphazardly and terribly planned through a mandate to treat and a combination of medicaid/unpaid medical bills etc. I actually propose keeping the pre-existing condition clauses of the ACA. I realize this will increase premiums for those of us without pre-existing conditions but it should reduce the amount of money paid to the government to then pay for medicaid expenses and/or help drive down costs for unpaid bills. I also think the concept actually impedes a free market by locking individuals into their current healthcare provider thus not allowing for competition.
One size fits all policies would be eliminated. All young and healthy people should be able to purchase cheap high deductible catastrophic insurance if that's all they want to purchase. Overall, that would bring in more people into the "universal" net and reduce one of our major failures which is catastrophic bills having to be paid by the state or the hospital. This would reduce costs to the rest of us paying normal premiums.
Caps on donations to charities serving high risk pools should be reduced(think St Jude's Children's Hospital) and I actually view federal funding of research hospitals as a good thing as well as prize funds for cures/breakthroughs in research. Pure research(where you might not know what you will get) is a place where the market forces aren't necessarily great without patent or other government protection. We should also stop letting the rest of the world bully our pharma industries as we are essentially subsidizing all medical pharma research for all the "socialized" medical programs of the world. I'd probably also be fine with rolling high risk pools into medicaid but putting them on a voucher system so that they can purchase their own medical care in an open market with competition.
Open up competition across state borders for Health Insurance to help manage costs through competition. Create some standardized rules/best practices around administration etc. through use of the interstate commerce clause. We already do this in plenty of industries. Think DOT or clean air act, mandates are federal, rules are made and enforced at a state level within the guidelines of those federal mandates.
Is this ideal? Fuck no. Would it be an improvement over the current system? I think so. It's full of compromise, doesn't really touch medicaid or medicare, and is *maybe* politically feasible. Probably not in today's hyper-partisan atmosphere though.
Disagree with something? Great! That's what I've got so far. It's a working draft. I'm happy to take feedback and improve it with your help. Policy wonks welcome.
In before HFS. -
-
Good shit @UW_Doog_Bot. I don't know if this is your own personal proposal or something already put forward by someone else, but it's the first time I've seen it.
I dig the compromise. Keep the pre-existing condition protection and further incentivize smart health finances like HSAs (though inevitably a chunk of people will fail to utilize this, it'll still have a material impact on cutting costs). The state "competition" idea should be a political no-brainer, I honestly have no idea why that's not brought up more. The easiest way to slash costs quickly would be to implement a system where you don't need 50 different entities of the same insurance company. No shit you have admin bloat when you have different rules and pricing structures every time you cross state lines.
Anywise, I'd 100% get behind this kind of system. Obviously it's far from a cure-all, but it's the kind of incremental progress that good legislation needs to look like. -
This is good. I've been sparring with Sledog and my IQ is down a few points. I want to go rest for a few hours and re-read this and give it the response it deserves. Seriously. I already have a few questions.
-
You really want to put some sanity into providing affordable health coverage, you’d consider declining benefits towards end of life.
What is the stat? Something like 75% of medical cost incurred in the last three weeks of life....that’s just fucking stupid to pump that kind of jack into keeping granny around for another couple days. Actuarially, somebody is covering those costs and it sure as fuck isn’t the old dead people - it gets passed on to the rest of the insurable pool. -
My mom asked us to kill her if she ever had to go to the home
We didn't and she spent 6 years in memory care. She had that covered with her investments but I'm sure her medical insurance took plenty of hits.
We need better end of life management. I actually feel bad that we didn't do it
She may have lost her memory but she was pissed. Wouldn't talk to me
Something to look forward to for you kids -
I watched my mom take care of her mom .. a process that was virtually 24/7/365 for a little over 4 years. Siblings didn't bear their share of the burden - I think that happens a lot. It took its toll and embittered her for a period of time. Not easy. I can see it. Agree. We need better.RaceBannon said:My mom asked us to kill her if she ever had to go to the home
We didn't and she spent 6 years in memory care. She had that covered with her investments but I'm sure her medical insurance took plenty of hits.
We need better end of life management. I actually feel bad that we didn't do it
She may have lost her memory but she was pissed. Wouldn't talk to me
Something to look forward to for you kids -
My work. Ty. It's developed over several years of discussion.GreenRiverGatorz said:Good shit @UW_Doog_Bot. I don't know if this is your own personal proposal or something already put forward by someone else, but it's the first time I've seen it.
I dig the compromise. Keep the pre-existing condition protection and further incentivize smart health finances like HSAs (though inevitably a chunk of people will fail to utilize this, it'll still have a material impact on cutting costs). The state "competition" idea should be a political no-brainer, I honestly have no idea why that's not brought up more. The easiest way to slash costs quickly would be to implement a system where you don't need 50 different entities of the same insurance company. No shit you have admin bloat when you have different rules and pricing structures every time you cross state lines.
Anywise, I'd 100% get behind this kind of system. Obviously it's far from a cure-all, but it's the kind of incremental progress that good legislation needs to look like. -
Not sure where this falls into the discussion - but I noticed this article today about new rules for Health Reimbursement Accounts and loosening on other rules for obtaining health insurance
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/19/trump-just-revolutionized-health-care-and-nobody-noticed/ -
The main reason that's the case is because the people receiving that care aren't directly paying for it. If people had medical savings accounts to cover their healthcare costs, that they contributed to their entire working years and the money in those accounts could be invested and passed on as an asset when the person dies you'd see a lot more people choosing to forego those end of life medical decisions.PurpleThrobber said:You really want to put some sanity into providing affordable health coverage, you’d consider declining benefits towards end of life.
What is the stat? Something like 75% of medical cost incurred in the last three weeks of life....that’s just fucking stupid to pump that kind of jack into keeping granny around for another couple days. Actuarially, somebody is covering those costs and it sure as fuck isn’t the old dead people - it gets passed on to the rest of the insurable pool.
What's the incentive for someone to not spend as much money as possible in their last few weeks of their life now? It's not coming out of their pocket.




