A Health Care Plan Americans can Live With
Common sense health care
The following is a proposal for health care for the American Public

All citizens would be given a health care voucher. The voucher will be theirs to use at an insurance company of their choice. Each voucher will be worth $2500.

For a citizen with a debilitating condition where the citizen has maximized their own out of pocket expenses 2 years in a row the citizens voucher will be worth $5000.

For 300,000,000 Americans it will cost the US government (2500 x 300,000,000). Keeping with this the cost to the American taxpayer / year will be $750,000,000,000

How to pay for it. A sales tax of 3% using the Gross Domestic Product #s from the Bureau of Economic Analysis will bring in a revenue of 1,536,000,000,000 Over twice what it would cost Americans. The average family spending 45000 / year at 3% would cost the family $1350. The benefits of returns to the American pocket would be the ability to reduce Medicare and Medicade to Zero dollars on each paycheck and would therefore put a spending stimulus back into the American publics hands. Small business companies would not Lack employee health care.

Taking the Beaurocracy out of Health Care

Insurance companies will compete for each individual voucher. No one can be refused insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

Insurance companies would have to qualify to be a Health Insurance Provider

If a person is not comfortable with the insurance then he / she could buy supplemental insurance.

MAXIMUM COVERAGE by an insurance company will depend on how they want to entice their customers. They may sweeten the pot by offering more than the minimum coverage. It will be in the insurance companies hands to streamline and entice customers. Doctors will still have the ability to manage patient care.

MINIMUM COVERAGE by insurance companies will be as follows:

80% hospitalization Costs $15 doctor office co-pay until the persons maximum out of pocket expenses have been met. $250 co-pay per emergency room visit until the persons maximum out of pocket expenses have been met.

Lab work will be $25 co-pay per visit

Maximum out of pocket expenses for each individual is $2500 / year Maximum out of pocket expenses per immediate family (Father, Mother, Child or stepchild less than 18 or still considered a full time student in school up to age 25.) is $3500 per year.

Prescription drug coverage is as follows: $10 generic co-pay on FDA approved drugs $25 maximum co-pay on other FDA approved drugs.

Dental is covered 100% up to $100 for yearly checkup and yearly X-rays. Cost for dental work will be $25 per cavity $100 per root canal $100 per extraction $Braces or other orthodontia will be paid by the insurance company up to a maximum of $3000 per set or other work. Cosmetic dentistry will not be allowed under this plan.

Vision 100% covered up to $100 for yearly checkup One free pair of glasses up to the cost of $300 / year Lasik and other cosmetic opthamology will not be covered under this plan.

Serious conditions of the eye will fall under the medical plan listed above.

There's one major problem with this plan.....the federal government has no business in health care.

I'd feel better about a plan like this instituted at the state level.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."--Amendment X

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
James Madison, Federalist, no. 45

Poster wrote: "I'd feel better about a plan like this instituted at the state level."

I currently have coverage with the state health system, and frankly, it is VERY expensive -- as well as a high deductible, $6,000.00 before ANYTHING is covered.

If there is a public option in the new health care reform, and states can opt out -- it better be put to a vote by the public. I don't think the majority will EVER agree to be left out of a public option.

In a local department store yesterday, an elderly clerk started telling me about her health care insurance issues and how bad it is. I can't find a single person (off this forum) who is against reform and a public option.

We see people in our office every day with state health insurance and they do not have any deductible at the office and less than $200 at the hospital.

I'm curious about what state you work in and what department of the state. I think your post is bogus or else you choose to have the high deductible to save on your premiums.

I paid for Cobra for three years, and when it ran out, I was accepted into the state health insurance (private med. ins. premium via BCBS) because they have no pre-existing clause. I was denied BCBS individual coverage, due to pre-existing clause. I pay over $400.00 per month, with a $6,500.00 deductible before it covers ANYTHING -- no doctor's visits, drugs, hospital stay. Also only pays 80% of hospital bills. Thanks Blue Cross, NOT. I can tell you that every day I wonder if I should just drop it, if it's even worth what I'm paying. At some point, I probably will have to choose between eating and paying for insurance. Any suggestions? Starve or stay insured?

I think your first post was deceptive. Those reading it would not understand that you have a specialized insurance problem. Most would assume that you had regular insurance with the state and that was how bad it was.
Can you not get a job with a company that supplies insurance to all its employees?

I didn't mean for the original post to be deceptive. Just thought most people were aware of the state health care program when Cobra ends. It does have specific requirements: you have to have exhausted Cobra, cannot get it if you drop out of Cobra early or ever missed a payment. Also, you have to be denied by individual Blue Cross.

I'm a couple years away from Medicare, and that's the best I could find. I have looked for work, and do occasionally work part-time as well as do freelance-based work. At my age, it's difficult to find full-time, especially with the economy so shaky.

Mainly, I just wish there was an affordable alternative for people like me who are retired with a modest pension, but no medical insurance provided by the place we retired from. However, that seems to be an increasing problem; especially with some companies forcing older employees into retirement -- whether they want to take it or not.

I am not completely against compulsory coverage......it deepens the pool and spreads the risk.......and thus possibly lowers the cost of health care. I'm certainly not against reform. While I have great employer-provided insurance now, I realize that this won't be the case forever.

We've got to find a solution to cover the poor.....they are part of the problem in that, regardless of coverage or the lack thereof, they are treated when sick, and that at an emergency room which drives up costs astronomically.......for all of us.

I do no want the federal government involved in this. This should be a state issue if for no other reason that the Constitution relegates the fed to the humblest of roles.......which includes not involving itself in health care or other things not specifically mentioned in that document.

This should be carried out at the state level. Each state has different needs. Florida, for example, has many more retirees and thus different needs than, say......North Dakota with its handful of people.
Densely populated areas such as New York would be forced to balance health care needs with other services that voters in such areas have come to expect......we shouldn't be forced to subsidize that situation here in Alabama as we tend to demand low taxes and fewer services.
You have economically depressed areas such as West Virginia, where wellness programs could be especially beneficial as opposed to areas not so afflicted by obesity as it is.

In essence, each state could likely do a better job of this based on conditions in that state......and such a program is much more controllable by a smaller number of voters.

So, for example, if the voters of California truly do want reform, and demand compulsory coverage, they might have to settle for less environmental terrorism in order to pay for it. The citizens of Illinois might have to settle for a little less government corruption in order to fully cover its population. The folks here in Alabama might have to do without a dome if they want to cover everyone.

Remember this.....most states MUST balance their budgets. If we turn this over to the federal level where such is not the case we will have even more deficit spending......requiring higher taxes from all regardless of whether we have a successful state program or not. States that might successfully pull this off would end up subsidizing those who do not.

It would be funny if not so serious.....every pitch I've heard Democrats make down through the years in favor of government health care included this particular point of justification: "America spends more on health care than any other nation on earth." Now, Obama wants to spend even more. That makes no sense.

Reform of the insurance industry is the way to more affordable health care. Perhaps managed competition among a consortium of insurance companies within each state?

It's all up to the states. And the local areas too. I wholeheartedly approve of ALL our state legislature and local government representatives do. I've NEVER been disappointed in a single thing they do. I adore and worship them, amen.

(P.S. You're a fool if you think the state can manage health care any better than the federal government. However, if we are forced to go that route, then I suggest we NOT accept any federal aid whatsoever. No subsidies for farmers, no disaster relief, you-name-it. If put to a state vote, do you REALLY think a majority would want to NOT take ANY federal aid? Don't insult my intelligence by saying you do.)

QUOTE: "It's all up to the states. And the local areas too. I wholeheartedly approve of ALL our state legislature and local government representatives do. I've NEVER been disappointed in a single thing they do. I adore and worship them, amen."

Your sarcasm is duly noted.....and shared. I don't necessarily expect you to be familiar with my views on local government, so perhaps I should have expounded on that as well, yet let it be noted that I support a wholesale cleanup of the party system.....and the people within it.

QUOTE: "P.S. You're a fool if you think the state can manage health care any better than the federal government."

I'm not a fool, so go easy there. Do you think the federal government can manage health care better than the state governments? At any rate, it does not matter. The federal level is not granted authority by the Constitution to engage in this matter anyway.....and recognition of that fact is paramount to fixing all of our problems.....as that is more often than not the basis thereof.

QUOTE: "However, if we are forced to go that route, then I suggest we NOT accept any federal aid whatsoever. No subsidies for farmers, no disaster relief, you-name-it."

There should exist no such thing as federal aid. If states were able to keep the money sent to Washington D.C., we'd have money available to do what we need to do.

QUOTE: "If put to a state vote, do you REALLY think a majority would want to NOT take ANY federal aid? Don't insult my intelligence by saying you do."

Your question belies the notion that we must accept the power structure as it now stands.....that has to be done away with first. Corrupt parties and corrupt officials with our money and power concentrated in their hands taints everything we do.....and that has to be corrected for ANYTHING done by way of government to succeed. That's a tall order, I realize. Yet until we are willing to take back control of our governments at all levels, which includes divesting politics of the Spirit of Party, then we might as well just go along with their program.....because that's gonna be the end result anyway.

I approach the question about health care from two different points. I tend to believe that business has no business in health care.....business is in business to conduct business. The federal government, as has already been shown, has no authority to engage in it as well. Thus, that leaves either state government.....or perhaps even better, no government at all. What I propose is a state-government regulated insurance company consortium to make health insurance available to all comers.....within their respective states. In that, you would have voter participation to help keep insurance companies from running amok......and you would have voter ownership of the state regulated health plan. Doctors would make decisions about care.....not bureaucrats. Yet it must also be stipulated that tort reform is a necessary piece of the solution as well. We're going to have to accept caps on damages.....and lawyers are going to have to find honest work to do for a change.

Even better, perhaps......just perhaps......if we took Washington's taxing finger out of our asses, we'd have enough money to take care of our own health care issues at the family level. That would be the best option of all.

It's a top down problem, connected in every way to the hold that federal government has on states, and us as individuals. Again, until we decide to change that by NOT voting for the same old tired parties presenting us with the same old tired choices, agendas, and platforms, we need not expect anything different from that which we are served up every election cycle.

LovetheSouth said...."the federal government has no business in health care."

Just curious if you plan to not accept Medicare when you reach age 65???

QUOTE: "Just curious if you plan to not accept Medicare when you reach age 65???"

Medicare won't likely be around when I turn 65. Yet if that's the only option available, then of course I would accept it......I've funded it over the last 30 years or so of participating in the workforce.

...bought & paid for by BCBS congresscritters & senators.