Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond
That's not what I said.
The problem with this argument is that you keep asking all of these loaded questions.
|
He's not asking loaded questions, he's attempting to redefine your argument to fit his rhetorical liking. This is exactly what I described in above posts and why it is so difficult to have a serious discussion with him.
Anyway, I think a realistic solution to healthcare is not to destroy the current system, but the supplement it. If the current paradigm is as follows:
1) Middle and Upper class with private care
2) Working poor and lower middle class that are uninsured
3) Poor that qualify for public options
We need not trash everything, but instead insert a new solution to the gap in the middle that will not sabotage the private plans that supply excellent care and promote medical advances enjoyed by all.
My proposal is four fold:
1) Create a universal "Catastrophic Care" option to cover people in serious health conditions that require immediate lifesaving or extended life sustaining care (ex. gunshot wounds, car crashes and cancer).
2) Couple this by expanding the health savings plans started/expanded by Pres. Bush (one of the few things he did right domestically) that save pre-tax dollars and can be spent for healthcare tax-free. BUT, if the money is not spent in that year, the money is then taxed and returned to the investor with a small fine. This will encourage people to get yearly check-ups or even elect to get maintenance procedures done (stress tests, etc.). This will also allow people to negotiate with their doctors to get the best rates, because all healthcare providers are horrible payers and doctors will likely give discounts for cash/check/bank card in hand rather than waiting MONTHS or longer for payment through a provider.
3) Tort reform: The cost of malpractice insurance is killing the medical industry and causing excessive tests to be performed and rates to be exorbitant.
4) Let free market principles work FOR you, not against you: a) allow people to shop for insurance across state lines. b) instate tax benefits to pharmaceutical companies that release medicines to generic before their mandate expires c) etc.
I don't believe this option would threaten far superior and "luxury" private plans that pay for nearly everything, but it would also cover the uninsured without deemphasizing personal success/ambition, and inspire people to take better care of themselves. Now I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this plan, but keep in mind, this version is not out of committee yet... and it's only 4 paragraphs long. But I think THIS is more in the correct direction than the nonsense being proposed now, and would FAR less intrusive into private lives, but then again, I think the entire point of the current bill is to social engineer, not insure.