I came up with this plan when Health Care was first brought to my attention when I was about 16 years old (I guess this was the 2004 election). And you know, I think it's a pretty reasonable plan: Let's make every state, city, county, whatever the same as a corporation.
Hear me out. Okay, so when businesses decide to offer insurance to their employees they start looking for the company that is willing to give the most "bang for their buck". Generally the agreement between business and employee is that both will pay half, maybe more depending. But, pretty much the business will let the insurance companies fight over who will get the deal. The bigger the business, the more higher the proportion of healthy people to not--the healthy people will end up paying for the care the non-healthy need. This is the problem with the private insurance situation--not enough healthy people buy it because they're healthy--why need it. So. The business gets the best deal, the employees pay the least price, and the insurance companies make money--trifecta of win for all.
So, here's my grand scheme. Use the same system, but with the government as the deciding factor (like the CEO ultimately decides on the insurance company of choice, so does the top Government official). The area used can really be anything--city, state, county, whatever. Just not country because that would be a monopoly and make the whole system redundant. And then we let all the current insurance companies fight over the areas. Everyone will "buy" places with really healthy people, and grudgingly take the places with all the unhealthy people. So to be fair, all areas will be ranked with proportion of obesity for the given population. The more lower ranked an area is, the higher they can take from the healthy areas (so the company that takes the "sickest" area also has access to the "healthiest")--the only rule is that by the end of the day, ALL areas must have a sponsoring insurance company. Pricing for the policies will be based on income with those who make more paying a more "traditional" price (no one is allowed to be charged more than they would pay for a traditional private policy), BUT the minimum policy is one where you get 1 free check-up a year and coverage for any bill over $2000 and a co-pay of whatever is normal for doctor/ER/whatever visits and tests. I think my parents pay $100 a month to cover 4 people with this kind of service--but I might be COMPLETELY wrong--I haven't had to buy insurance yet and haven't paid too much attention to it. The insurance company can decide on pricing. And the government (the one in charge of insurance decisions) will pay our of our taxes those costs over the amount expected by everyone to pay. For example: the insurance company sets the price of that basic policy at $100 a month, but the government decides that someone making less than $15,000 a year can only afford $50 in insurance a month--the government will pay the difference. However, the government will ONLY pay the difference between what they expect someone to be able to pay and the amount of the cheapest policy. Should a person decide to sign up for a more expensive policy, they are responsible for everything over the amount allotted (so, if they are deemed able to pay $50, and the cheapest policy is $100, but the person wants the $200 policy, they have to pay the $150 not covered by the government's $50 grant out of their pocket). The amount the person pays in sales tax should more than pay for the difference in their insurance policy.
Now, someone who makes $100,000 a year can choose to purchase the basic policy and it will only cost them $100 a month, even though the government has decided that they should be able to pay $500 a month for better service (or whatever). The insurance company decides on the prices, so it's not like they're going to lose money on this policy. And no currently held policies will be ended. The only law that affects the public is that EVERYONE must purchase an insurance policy there are no exceptions. (Okay, the Amish just claimed to be exempt, and I'm willing to give it to them since pretty much the world can "end" tomorrow and they will survive. They don't need internet or fancy hospitals. But I just looked up the Amish on Wikipedia and I think that having a church "insurance" policy is quite sufficient.)
And the government in charge of insurance will be allowed to seek a better policy yearly as part of the law. However, in all cases, no ones' policy rate can be risen by such a move. If the insurance company decides to raise it's rate, there must be 3 months notice in advance so that all parties can decide to change companies privately or choose to keep the same policy at the higher rate--those who can no longer afford the cheapest policy will get a government grant of the difference. But if the government decides to change companies, they cannot do so if it means that current policies will be more expensive (that they are choosing to go to a company which the cheapest policy is $115 when the current cheapest policy is $100 is illegal) unless the new policy offers more services, though this can be debatable as there is a minimum policy standard for a reason. However, in this case, the government will be paying the difference, so it will not cost the individuals for the payment increase.
Initially, the distribution of insurance companies nationwide will be even--in a sort of NFL draft pick like system the companies will choose with each government making the final decision. Then, after 1 year the governments can decide whether another company could do a better job. I'm less concerned about how companies are placed with an area than the way in which the policies are distributed.
However.The prices set as area prices are not available to those outside of the area. If you work for AIG, you cannot get the discount price for employees of Hot Topic, so the same standard is true for the area policies. But, of course, the individual insurance companies can decide to offer the discount price to all if they wish--or they can decide to charge a higher price to those who are "out of area". All discounts are at their discretion.
Should any insurance company go out of business, it's areas will immediately go back onto the national market to be picked up by the other companies in the same way as decided initially as the way of dividing the areas--unless the government has already found a new company, which should actually be the first option (government THEN back onto the national market). BUT, when this emergency change is made, for 3 months the new company must accept the previous pricing, and must give notification at the time of acquisition of all the coming changes in pricing, just as if it were a "normal" change in insurance company.
Any bills acquired during the emergency transfer of insurance company will NOT be eligible for late fees, etc. caused because of the inconvenience. The medical places must wait for reimbursement and/or the patient will be reimbursed once all paperwork is settled.
Did I miss anything? Maybe I should send this to Washington since they can't seem to not steal when it comes to health care.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Communism
After learning all about the plan Mao had in mind and how his communism almost worked, I started thinking--Communism has SERIOUSLY been misrepresented and is too easily confused with Socialism. They are to VERY different entities that shouldn't be confused. Let me explain:
Socialism is when the government takes from those who have to give to those who don't have in order to make everyone equal. Yeah. It doesn't work.
Communism involves no government. It is a totally individual run entity. And it's something that to an extent we already to--it's totally just an act of sharing within your community. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"--or so says Marx. No where does it say "You must give everything and receive it back". That is just stupid. Your neighbor needs a cup of sugar, you need a babysitter so you can run to the store to pick up some bread--that, my dear, is Communism. Expand it further as far as you need. Maybe in a society there will be a doctor who works for food and clothing because he cannot acquire for himself these necessities while caring for your child. But since the barter system has already proved itself inefficient in use, there is no reason why dollars can't be used instead.
But it's not capitalism. It's not "it cost me $5 to make this, so I will sell it to you for $25". The secret to Communism is giving things actual worth. Identifying actual costs is 95% of the crap that is wrong with our current Capitalist system. You ask anyone and "Profits" is the most important thing to ANY company. Guess what? Profits means absolutely nothing! All profits do is stuff the pockets of businessmen who happen to own the company. Look, I have NO problem with people making a wage that would astonish me (i.e. anything over $100,000 a year). Too many people defend big business because it is their "right" to make as much money as humanly possible without REALLY thinking about what they are allowing. The peons of Wal-mart don't get a pay raise when the company makes a profit--it's those who don't have a wage, but just decide to split the profits after paying the costs (i.e. the peon's wage, cost of the goods, etc.). This doesn't mean that stockholders get paid--the profits can pretty much go where ever the bosses decide. Research and Development? Ehh...I think they bill that under costs. Nope. Right into their pockets. That's where most of our money goes. What we NEED to do is make companies set wages of big bosses. It can be 25 Billion dollars a year for all I care, but I want to make sure that when they make that 26th billion, it isn't going into someone's pocket. I don't know about you, but I don't think I'll ever be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and I don't think I'd want to, but so what if my salary is limited to 25 Billion? Do I REALLY need that 26th? Nah, I'm good. How come their salary isn't limited? They sure do limit MY salary. But please, don't see this as an attack on big business--it's not at all. Every SINGLE dollar earned over cost can go to R&D--where the REAL work is done. You can't deny Steve Jobs--he designs so F@*%ing AWESOME stuff--it sells itself with a little help from the advertising department. So, in my perfect world, those big bosses get their set salary where all "profits" can be spent ANYWHERE BUT into their own pockets--unlike the current system.
That last paragraph is my defense as to why Communism won't become a major player for at least the next 100 years. Greed kills perfection bud. But if you like playing fair and creating a closer world, buy locally in small businesses. And come up with a way to do this kind of cost-benefit analysis to improve the health care system--I don't care what I have written here--so far as I care, capitalism as we know it is the ONLY way to ensure excellent care. I have no idea where to cut costs in research and there is no way in HELL I would cut the salaries in any way to doctors, nurses, whatevers. But using these resources more efficiently definitely helps. Being healthy is the BEST way to reform health care. BUT 100% of being healthy is in going to the doctor, which can't be done if it costs an arm and a leg to go. This is why EVERYONE needs insurance. As for making health care affordable, see my next post.
Socialism is when the government takes from those who have to give to those who don't have in order to make everyone equal. Yeah. It doesn't work.
Communism involves no government. It is a totally individual run entity. And it's something that to an extent we already to--it's totally just an act of sharing within your community. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"--or so says Marx. No where does it say "You must give everything and receive it back". That is just stupid. Your neighbor needs a cup of sugar, you need a babysitter so you can run to the store to pick up some bread--that, my dear, is Communism. Expand it further as far as you need. Maybe in a society there will be a doctor who works for food and clothing because he cannot acquire for himself these necessities while caring for your child. But since the barter system has already proved itself inefficient in use, there is no reason why dollars can't be used instead.
But it's not capitalism. It's not "it cost me $5 to make this, so I will sell it to you for $25". The secret to Communism is giving things actual worth. Identifying actual costs is 95% of the crap that is wrong with our current Capitalist system. You ask anyone and "Profits" is the most important thing to ANY company. Guess what? Profits means absolutely nothing! All profits do is stuff the pockets of businessmen who happen to own the company. Look, I have NO problem with people making a wage that would astonish me (i.e. anything over $100,000 a year). Too many people defend big business because it is their "right" to make as much money as humanly possible without REALLY thinking about what they are allowing. The peons of Wal-mart don't get a pay raise when the company makes a profit--it's those who don't have a wage, but just decide to split the profits after paying the costs (i.e. the peon's wage, cost of the goods, etc.). This doesn't mean that stockholders get paid--the profits can pretty much go where ever the bosses decide. Research and Development? Ehh...I think they bill that under costs. Nope. Right into their pockets. That's where most of our money goes. What we NEED to do is make companies set wages of big bosses. It can be 25 Billion dollars a year for all I care, but I want to make sure that when they make that 26th billion, it isn't going into someone's pocket. I don't know about you, but I don't think I'll ever be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and I don't think I'd want to, but so what if my salary is limited to 25 Billion? Do I REALLY need that 26th? Nah, I'm good. How come their salary isn't limited? They sure do limit MY salary. But please, don't see this as an attack on big business--it's not at all. Every SINGLE dollar earned over cost can go to R&D--where the REAL work is done. You can't deny Steve Jobs--he designs so F@*%ing AWESOME stuff--it sells itself with a little help from the advertising department. So, in my perfect world, those big bosses get their set salary where all "profits" can be spent ANYWHERE BUT into their own pockets--unlike the current system.
That last paragraph is my defense as to why Communism won't become a major player for at least the next 100 years. Greed kills perfection bud. But if you like playing fair and creating a closer world, buy locally in small businesses. And come up with a way to do this kind of cost-benefit analysis to improve the health care system--I don't care what I have written here--so far as I care, capitalism as we know it is the ONLY way to ensure excellent care. I have no idea where to cut costs in research and there is no way in HELL I would cut the salaries in any way to doctors, nurses, whatevers. But using these resources more efficiently definitely helps. Being healthy is the BEST way to reform health care. BUT 100% of being healthy is in going to the doctor, which can't be done if it costs an arm and a leg to go. This is why EVERYONE needs insurance. As for making health care affordable, see my next post.
Yemen
I'm watching some of the older videos on my hulu account that are about to expire--namely Colbert and Jon Stewart. Of course, the top news for January 4th or so was still the underwear bomber. Here's what I don't understand:
WHY THE HECK IS YEMEN A NEW COUNTRY OF TERROR?!?!? DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER 2000 WHEN THAT WAS THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF THE BOMBERS OF THE USS COLE?!?!? Or is that only relevant to one small 12 year old who remembers seeing the faces of the 17 dead on the front page of the paper and reading the stories of their lives. How about walking into a classroom and having a teacher mention that she had taught one of the 5 dead who grew up in and around Norfolk? I'm actually disappointed by Stewart and Colbert to not have picked up on this--it makes me sadder that the 17's deaths were in vain. RIP.
WHY THE HECK IS YEMEN A NEW COUNTRY OF TERROR?!?!? DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER 2000 WHEN THAT WAS THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF THE BOMBERS OF THE USS COLE?!?!? Or is that only relevant to one small 12 year old who remembers seeing the faces of the 17 dead on the front page of the paper and reading the stories of their lives. How about walking into a classroom and having a teacher mention that she had taught one of the 5 dead who grew up in and around Norfolk? I'm actually disappointed by Stewart and Colbert to not have picked up on this--it makes me sadder that the 17's deaths were in vain. RIP.
Excellent article
Seriously. Read this article about why people vote against reforms. To be fair--that health care bill is a piece of work and a half, but don't those congressmen add in all their special interest BS BECAUSE their constituencies would be FURIOUS that an honest congressman would say he would support a bill that gives health care to Nebraska without giving his state of Oklahoma some kind of benefit. Yay for being a "Christian Nation" who doesn't give a S#!T (excuse my French) about any state other than the one that we live in. Just because I live in Southern Virginia (which should be a completely different state than Northern Virginia because they are crazy), doesn't mean that I won't allow our Governor to pass laws that affect the whole state--like seat belt laws. I won't even say that in order to allow it, the governor has to give money to Norfolk to pay for a light-rail system (which is a FAILURE of EPIC proportion!).
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Fox News on Hulu.com
Okay, I know I sent a LOT of annoying emails to various fox personalities complaining that there is no access to Fox News for me (I like to know what the enemy is saying). Yeah...they complied, but not in a good way. I figured that they would just stream their current programs on the "television" site, but instead, I'm not sure what they did. The media is from at least 2008 (I quit adding to my queue once I hit the election, so there may be more). But they actually took the time to make it look like the news has always been online--a commentator at the beginning to introduce it as "Fox News on HULU.com"...HULU is HUGE on the first screen. I need to pay more attention to whether that intro is the same commentator though the rest of the clip. But since I know that at least part of it is fake, I have no idea what to think about the rest of this--how was this news used a year and a half ago?!? Is the commentary totally new, made to look like Fox News made better news then? I'm so confused! Or rather, I'm so annoyed. ABC news was also recently added to the site--they only have the past 2 weeks or so. Why does Fox News need to be special (ed.)?
By the way--WOOO! For Mrs. McCain for standing up for gay right to marry. I KNEW I liked her!! She should totally run for president!
By the way--WOOO! For Mrs. McCain for standing up for gay right to marry. I KNEW I liked her!! She should totally run for president!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Paying the hospital bills
Seriously! I can't wait to have a situation where I need to pay a hospital bill of $1000 or so. My dad was telling me about all his experiences paying for bills which insurance didn't cover. All he had to do was sign a contract saying that he would pay what he could afford per month (in this case, $20--which was very true as now father of 2, making a combined $30,000 a year with my mom in 1990). Then he would pay whatever he could out of his paycheck every week even though it came out to be well more than the $20 a month (though rarely amounted to more than $100 a month).
The hospital had the gall to get impatient for his money and sent the bill to a bill collection agency. My father, keeping his own records, refused to pay said agency because he was abiding by the contract and he wasn't going to pay the interest that the agency could charge. By LAW medical bills cannot collect interest, but once it's sent to an agency it can, because the agency pays off your debt to the hospital and then it's just regular debt. This made for what I consider a FUN development. My dad continued to send his payments, weekly, to the hospital, even though they weren't sending him a bill. SINCE he was abiding by the contract there's not a dang thing they could do about it--can't take him to court for not paying his bill; can't instruct him to pay that agency for the same reason. The hospital had to deal with all the paperwork--sending the information to the agency, and paying all those people and no one was collecting that interest.
THAT, my dear, is sticking it to the man AND why I think medical bills are awesome--why WOULDN'T you want to pay them, haha.
But, a $1000 bill to be paid off in a year is one thing. That's what was left after insurance pays. EVERYONE MUST have insurance or spending one's life sending $20 a week to pay off a million dollar bill will be a waste to ALL.
The hospital had the gall to get impatient for his money and sent the bill to a bill collection agency. My father, keeping his own records, refused to pay said agency because he was abiding by the contract and he wasn't going to pay the interest that the agency could charge. By LAW medical bills cannot collect interest, but once it's sent to an agency it can, because the agency pays off your debt to the hospital and then it's just regular debt. This made for what I consider a FUN development. My dad continued to send his payments, weekly, to the hospital, even though they weren't sending him a bill. SINCE he was abiding by the contract there's not a dang thing they could do about it--can't take him to court for not paying his bill; can't instruct him to pay that agency for the same reason. The hospital had to deal with all the paperwork--sending the information to the agency, and paying all those people and no one was collecting that interest.
THAT, my dear, is sticking it to the man AND why I think medical bills are awesome--why WOULDN'T you want to pay them, haha.
But, a $1000 bill to be paid off in a year is one thing. That's what was left after insurance pays. EVERYONE MUST have insurance or spending one's life sending $20 a week to pay off a million dollar bill will be a waste to ALL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)