Dizzykat’s 12 Point Plan for Healthcare Reform was posted on newsvine.com on 9/23/09. 

I agree with it.

 ... Dizzykat replies to an earlier post:

cs1701a: My "answer" is to pass reform. My plan would look like this: 

1. Establish national standards for a minimum basic policy.

2. The interstate insurance restriction would be abolished.

 3. States could mandate additional coverage, lower deductibles, etc...but they could not reduce the minimum standards established at the federal level.

 4. Include a real public option. I want the government to kick in some amount, say $500 billion, to get the program off the ground. This would then be run as a self sustaining enterprise...meaning premiums have to not only cover costs...but also have to pay back the start up money over time...say 15 years. The program would otherwise be non-profit, and treated like any other non-profit. It would be free to provide insurance, negotiate prices, etc. And in areas where they can't get a fair deal from existing providers, they are free to hire doctors and open their own hospitals...subject to applicable local laws. In that event, they are also free to provide services under contract to other insurance companies at rates no less than the rates they pay for similar procedures.

 5. Limitations on government negotiations for, and the re-importation of, drugs are rescinded.

 6. Insurance, either public or private, meeting the established minimum standards would be mandatory, with penalties being equal to the rate for insurance under the public option. I'm not thrilled with this, but the alternatives are either eating the cost of their care or letting them die in the street. Give me another choice and we'll talk.

 7. Subsidies for the poor would be provided. The subsidies could be used for either the public option or private insurance, at the individuals discretion, to provide coverage meeting the established minimums. The public option would receive no advantage in competing for these dollars. See additional comments below

 8. Funding for the subsidies would be provided as follows. All money currently paid to Medicaid would be diverted to these subsidies and Medicaid would be abolished. Additional revenue could be raised by a surtax on income above say $250K. After all...it's generally the rich that benefit from the low wages. Another thought would be to simply raise the minimum wage to make fewer people qualify for subsidies.

 9. Illegals would be prohibited from receiving any subsidies, but would not be prohibited from purchasing insurance using their own money, even from the public option. Simply put...it's better to allow them to buy insurance than to eat the cost of their care when they show up at an emergency room. However, I won't object if we manage to deport them all instead. But until then...we have to deal with reality.

 10. Tort reform is really a red herring to give the right a villian other than the insurance and drug companies to blame for all the problems. But as I've previously stated, malpractice premiums, including damage awards, do not even make up 1% of health care spending. But to give the right something to crow about, I'm willing to include some sort of tort reform. But it is unconscionable to claim that the victim of negligence deserves less than 2 days worth of the CEO's pay of the company at fault. So how about a sliding cap? Lets say that non-economic damages cannot exceed the larger of $250K...or a years pay for the CEO of the company at fault?

 11. Limit the ability for private corporations to take a product developed using public money, make an insignificant change so they can patent it, and then reap huge profits based on that patent. At a minimum, the underlying product should be available to other companies to make their own insignificant change, and bring a competing drug to market. If a drug company foots the bill for the research...then that's different. But allowing a company to gouge the public on a product that public money developed is simply wrong.

 12. Create some means to make insurance portable. Employer provided insurance is a burden for the employer, and a leash for the employee. However, I do like having my employer, which carries more weight than me alone, negotiate my policy. Maybe, if the rest of the plan works like it's supposed to, and people start getting better value for their money, then they will become more willing to give up their employer provided insurance. But at this point, I would maybe just allow employees the choice of opting out of thier employer plan in favor of one they get themselves.

 Finally...my plan would drive down costs by giving the private companies real competition. If the private sector is as good as some claim...then they have nothing to fear. But the reality is that real competition IS what they fear.

 We've given the right ample opportunity to do what's right by the American people. When they had solid majorities in both houses and the presidency...did they do something about the skyrocketing health care costs? No. They blew their chance and now they are determined to prevent the dems from accomplishing what they didn't and making them look bad.

 {"commentId":9673176,"threadId":"683799","contentId":"3304665","authorDomain":"dizzykat"}#4.15 - Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:33 PM EDT

...

afloatinasea...

 The post office is doing just fine. Given their private competition, the threat of electronic communications, and current economic conditions, they are doing great. Someone recently suggested that they do away with the bulk rate and charge first class for all the junk mail. That would completely eliminate their minor financial issue. But the fact that you can reliably get a few pieces of paper all the way across the country in a few days for a quarter the price of a cup of coffee...by a company that pays family wages, and would have to raise prices less than the rate of inflation to stay in the black...I'm thinking that they make a great example of how to do something right.

 As for how many people get insurance wrongly cancelled...well, my quick google search revealed a lawsuit against one insurance company (Blue Shield of CA) being sued for illegally rescinding 850 policies in one state (CA) since 2002. That's one company in one state...and those are the ones that are alleged to be actually "illegal" as opposed to the much larger number than human beings would consider to be "immoral". And CA has some of the more consumer friendly laws...so the insured in other states are likely to fare worse.

 I also recall hearing about an investigation alleging some 20,000 instances of rescission over 4 states to the tune of about $300 million, but I didn't see anything about that in my quick Google search. But feel free to do some research somewhere other than townhall.com or Faux news if you want to be informed.

 "1-Allow all insurance companies (150) to compete in all states. The Dems do not want this because they want a single payer only."

 Wrong. Consumers don't want that because they don't want insurance companies to be able to hide behind the laws of the lease consumer friendly state.

 "2-Tort reform. The Dems do not even mention this BECAUSE THE LAWYERS HAVE THEM IN THEIR BACK POCKET."

 Wrong. According to the BLS, that now tracks medical malpractice premiums (Bush gets credit for that), the 2007 total of all malpractice premiums came to just $16 billion, or a well under 1% of the $2.2 trillion we spent in 2007 on health care. And that includes the total of awards ($4 billion) and legal fees (approx $8 billion). In fact...as noted in another post, the total of all malpractice premiums ($16 billion) was less than the profit ("profit"...not "revenue") made by a single drug company (Pfizer, $19+ billion) in 2007. So...if $8 billion in legal fees spread among all of the nations malpractice lawyers is enough to buy off congress...what do you suppose $19 billion in profits at a single company could buy?

 As for caps on damages...answer this: The CEO's of the top 5 health insurance companies each received compensation in the neighborhood of $30 million per year. If negligence at that insurance company or hospital causes the permanent loss of an arm or leg, how many days worth of the CEO's pay do you consider to be too much in compensation? 1 day (about $150,000)? 2 days (about $300,000)?

 In arguing for a $250,000 cap, as has been implemented in a number of states, you are claiming that the victim deserves less that 2 days worth of the CEO's pay in compensation? That says more about you than any insult I could think of.

 Oh...I almost forgot. The states that have implemented tort reform have not had a noticeable change in medical expenses. So the proof that your disgusting limitation doesn't even work is readily available.

 {"commentId":9670228,"threadId":"683799","contentId":"3304665","authorDomain":"dizzykat"}

1 vote#4.14 - Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:59 PM EDT

back to home page