Wednesday, December 16, 2009

And here I thought the federal government was going to bankrupt if SPENDING wasn't reigned in.

But, no. Our Dear Leader says that it's health care costs that will bankrupt the federal government, and that only if mandatory Medicaid (which would increase costs, and decrease the effectiveness of even the current system) isn't passed.

All right. There is no way the retard in the White House is going to read this, but I'm going to lay out a few things that would cut federal spending on health care.

1. Pass legislation that requires states to permit citizens to shop for health insurance nationwide, without minimum coverages required on plans. Not everyone needs (or can afford) the Bugatti Veyron of health insurance. Some of us are quite happy with the tiny little high-deductable, catastrophe-only Honda Civic plans.

2. Pass legislation that sets a cap on "pain and suffering" awards in malpractice suits. I don't have a problem with incompetent doctors or hospitals replacing lost income, and/or paying for continued treatments; however, I do not think that a parent who has lost a child through a doctor's negligence can put a value on that baby's life (which has a value far beyond money).

3. Warn the states that in 1 year, the federal government is getting out of providing free health care to the indigent, that it's the states' responsibility, and they need to get systems in place within that year. I'll even accept the federal government partially funding it: hand a set dollar amount (even adjustable by population) over to the states, with the warning that this is all they get for the year, and get the federal government out of the charity business.

4. Offer federal income tax credits to those who purchase their own insurance plans. I don't care whether or not this is paired with taxing as income insurance plans that are provided through work, just give those of us who are responsible enough to have a plan regardless a bit of a break.

These four simple steps will save the federal government a significant chunk of money that I'm sure the administration would prefer to spend elsewhere. What it doesn't do is shove us that much further toward a fully totalitarian government-controlled society--which is why my solutions would never be seriously entertained.

3 comments:

  1. Of all the things that I have blogged/commented on health care the one think that I have not said is I LIKE MY PRESENT MEDICARE PLAN/SITUATION.

    Like any insurance, I don't like premiums, but that's 'insurance life'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're lucky. My mother-in-law's doctor decided she no longer needed thyroid medication strong enough to keep her functional and didn't need tests to prove otherwise as soon as she got on Medicare at 65.5. (Needless to say, she's looking for a different doctor.) My mother and sister, both on Medicaid through disability, can't find doctors that will take the time and spend the effort to treat them.

    My husband, son, and I spend about $250/month on our premiums. That's about what a lot of families our size spend eating out per month. Health insurance for people our age is not completely unaffordable, despite what we have been told. We just have to go out and look for it.

    Now, people YOUR age, on the other hand... ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  3. MY SISTER (AGE 63) has a Blue Cross plan that costs her (new rate) $550.00 a month! (With a
    $3K deductible)...

    It does have an RX plan.

    She take $600 a month in diabetes meds, supplies etc.

    It costs her a $100 co pay--getting $500 covered.

    In a reality, she gets a good major medical at the cost of her drugs.

    Cash is cash.....

    ReplyDelete