Saturday, January 30, 2010

Paying for Health Care

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.

No comments: