A Tentative Health Care Proposal - Political Forum

Tane · 07-20-2007, 06:12 PM

I have been thinking about the problem of health care costs and the competing pressures of quality of care, which comes from profit incentives, widespread distribution of care, which comes from an absence of profit and finally the ever-growing national debt and the crisis it could bring about in the future. It seems to me that, on the one hand, attempting universal government health care coverage for all or nearly all illnesses and injuries is not within the federal budget and also that full nationalization of any part of the health care sector, such as insurance, would cause shortages and lowered quality care for all. A hybrid system seems the sensible choice. I'm also not too keen on the basic idea of wealth transfer for its own sake and accompanying medical benefits.

On the other hand, I think that we have a moral obligation not to desert the elderly and disabled, and I think that taking away the benefits of a person with a serious chronic illness or disability simply because they find work sends the wrong message. Here is a possible solution. After raising the Social Security eligibility age, thereby changing the definition of who is elderly, provide, through vouchers, all elderly and disabled persons, regardless of employment or income status, with full treatment for a list of serious illnesses (including psychoses) and injuries. "Disability" should be defined not by a lack of functioning but rather by a lack of a given ability. A blind person who has a job is no less disabled than a blind person who does not, and taking away medical benefits from such people if they find employment makes them dependent on the government. One unusual addition to this proposal is that I would allow recipients of these vouchers to sell them for the same health care needs of others, allowing more market forces to work. I'm sure that none of this is original to me, but I am curious about the viability of such a plan and which politicians, if the plan is viable, support a similar plan. Thanks.

Bradgriff · 07-20-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tane

I have been thinking about the problem of health care costs and the competing pressures of quality of care, which comes from profit incentives, widespread distribution of care, which comes from an absence of profit and finally the ever-growing national debt and the crisis it could bring about in the future. It seems to me that, on the one hand, attempting universal government health care coverage for all or nearly all illnesses and injuries is not within the federal budget and also that full nationalization of any part of the health care sector, such as insurance, would cause shortages and lowered quality care for all. A hybrid system seems the sensible choice. I'm also not too keen on the basic idea of wealth transfer for its own sake and accompanying medical benefits.

On the other hand, I think that we have a moral obligation not to desert the elderly and disabled, and I think that taking away the benefits of a person with a serious chronic illness or disability simply because they find work sends the wrong message. Here is a possible solution. After raising the Social Security eligibility age, thereby changing the definition of who is elderly, provide, through vouchers, all elderly and disabled persons, regardless of employment or income status, with full treatment for a list of serious illnesses (including psychoses) and injuries. "Disability" should be defined not by a lack of functioning but rather by a lack of a given ability. A blind person who has a job is no less disabled than a blind person who does not, and taking away medical benefits from such people if they find employment makes them dependent on the government. One unusual addition to this proposal is that I would allow recipients of these vouchers to sell them for the same health care needs of others, allowing more market forces to work. I'm sure that none of this is original to me, but I am curious about the viability of such a plan and which politicians, if the plan is viable, support a similar plan. Thanks.

Why are the hairs on the back of my neck tingling? I have this feeling that I've heard all this before.

While you're macro-knowlege of heathcare is beyond me, I thought of attempting to give you my honest appraisal because the question you posed is really which politicians support something similar to your plan. It might revive my faith in the possibility that something actualy can be done if there are multiple plans by multiple politicians out there. But since I'm not a politician and I don't know of any with healthcare plans, I have no idea what to say.....and YOU came here to learn?

Tane · 07-23-2007, 01:45 PM

Based on what I looked up at ontheissues.org, of all major party 2008 Presidential candidates, Rudolph Giuliani has the health care plan closest to the one I proposed above, though to be honest I don't trust him to do what he promises.