I understand the arguments against a national health care, or health insurance plan -- the gov't is not efficient enough to run the program decently....our taxes would go up....your choices would be limited, and you wouldn't get the best health care available.... Yes, I see all this, basic conservative/libertarian arguments of less government interference.
But my question is this: What do you tell the person who cannot afford health insurance? That he/she's screwed? Borrow the money for your hospital visit? As far as I can tell, unless you have a job that provides you with it, you need to make around $60,000 a year (in Texas dollars) to afford a decent health plan for a family of 4. It seems to me a question of the haves and have-nots. If you're making that much, you don't want to get taxed, and if you're not, a medical emergency will bury you financially, and you want assistance.
I'd prefer to pay some more tax than be ruined by a monster hospital bill. Lowering the Cost of Health Care
by Ron Paul
As a medical doctor, I鈥檝e seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses 鈥?but not individuals 鈥?to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government 鈥?in the form of 鈥渦niversal coverage鈥?鈥?is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone 鈥?doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies 鈥?to keep costs down. As long as 鈥渟omebody else鈥?is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief 鈥?including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums 鈥?to make medical care more affordable.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors 鈥?especially obstetricians 鈥?out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits 鈥?yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
August 23, 2006 thank you. You tell the person without insurance to go to the county hospital for free treatment. They might have to wait in line among their peers, but they will get treatment. Eat less. WOW!
I have tooth ache.
No really I do.
I don't make$ 60,000 a year even in Texas dollars lol.
I will pay to get my toothache fixed tomorrow.
I don't want my taxes raised to pay for a thumbnail,
or lunger that smoked for 50 years.
The Constitution did not say provide for the general welfare... just said promote. Define "decent". Where is the line between healthcare rights and healthcare privilage for the rich? You can't seriously say and believe that everyone should get the exact same care, can you? I mean that breaks over 10000 years of precident where the rich and powerful have the best doctors and can afford the most expensive procedures. That will not change. I know that Bill Gates will always have better health care than I do. It's the perk of being wealthy. So please help me out...where is that line? I agree with you totally about questioning what happens to people that don't have insurance - many people are even left to die without advanced care (i.e. a heart transplant). Hospitals won't or can't pay for that type of advanced care for everyone without insurance. Instead a lot of uninsured people are left to die a 'natural' death. The health care system in the U.S. needs some changes.
BUT I think the biggest problem is how high health care cost has gone. This has put the care of the patient into the hands of the insurance companies (and not the doctors) who decide what treatments can be given and for how long - even what types of medications can be prescribed. Don't you want doctors and nurses be making those decisions and not an insurance company employee?
To me, the debate as to whether there should be socialized health care is secondary. If the simple cost of practicing medicine in the first place were brought down, half the problems are eliminated. Lowering the cost of health care across the board would even make a national health care plan more realistic and cost less. As it is now, I doubt anyone in America is going to let their taxes be brought up to cover the cost of socialized health care. German citizens (which have a very good socialized health care sysytem) pay about 65% of their income into taxes. I can't see that happening in the U.S. when we complain about .01 cent raises in taxes.
As it is now, lawyers and insurance companies are making all the money in health care and driving the industry - that needs to change first. I would not want to see a national health care system, but I might not mind some type of catastrophic coverage provided by the government. In other words you would cover the first $10,000 and anything above that (per year) would be covered by a government policy. This would keep the primary responsibility where it belongs, but protect people against catastrophic bills.
This way the system is not flooded with unnecessary doctor visits and would not overburden the system.
As for what are you currently supposed to do, keep health insurance in mind when you take a job. If they offer good health care insurance, it may reduce you take home pay, but at least you are covered. I have made those choices for me and my family, so I know it is possible. It's not a question of paying more in taxes for universal healthcare. Remember healthcare will be brought to you buy the same people that have mishandled the passport mess. Canada has 30 million citizens and it takes months to get into see a doctor. Can you imagine what it would be like in the U.S.? Also, what they aren't telling us is that healthcare will be rationed. If you are over a certain age, or if you smoke, or if you are overweight, etc.......you may not get help. Nobody wants to screw the several million who cant afford insurance. The point is not to screw up the two hundred and eighty million that have the best health care in the world living in this country. Everybody talks about the downtrodden and sure we need to find a way to take care of them But let's not screw up the best health care system in the world while we're at it. And many of those without insurance can afford it. A family of four can be insured against a catastrophic illness or accident for under three hundred dollars a month. Don't believe me? Send me an email, I'll prove it. |
