Posted on 08/12/2009 12:55:50 PM PDT by Arguendo
With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
More likely all of the above.
What you said!
Wouldn’t Health Savings Accounts and catastrophic care work just as well for seniors as they do for us working stiffs?
I think they would if the damned Democrats would quit punishing people who have HSAs. Do you know that once you’re eligible for Medicare you can no longer contribute to an HSA? Your insurance coverage is ended, you’’re forced onto Medicare, and in the current system you have to buy new supplemental insurance. BY LAW.
I’m late on this, but I was on vacation when the op-ed was written, and I’m now getting to it.
Anyway, I hate the whole pre-existing conditions clauses.
I get very worried for my daughter (who has always been on insurance). She has lots of medical problems (brain injury, seizures, and other stuff). What is going to happen to her when she goes off my husband’s insurance? We’ll probably help fund insurance for her, but we can’t cover all of her medical expenses.
What about people who have always had coverage (from birth) that have severe medical conditions like epilepsy?
Should they be denied coverage when they go off of their parent’s plans? Should they have to pay an outrageous amount for insurance?
I guess that depends on the terms of their parents’ insurance. Where their parents paying the insurance companies to compensate for the risk that they would have to cover a disabled kid for his entire life?
Alternatively, the government could step in to subsidize people with severe medical conditions. But it makes no sense to require insurance companies to cover unprofitable customers, since this will invariably have adverse (and often unpredictable) effects on the market.
I don’t know of any insurance company that has an option to pay for risk that they would have to cover a disabled kid a for his entire life.
My daughter was born normal, and then got sick when she was 6 weeks old. She has a brain injury and epilepsy with a whole bunch of other problems.
What’s going to happen to her when she is an adult and off of our insurance? She’s got some learning disabilities, so it might be hard for her to get a job. (Not sure yet.)
My brother got cancer and was dropped from his private individual insurance. His wife got a job that had insurance, so he finally got covered.
I think it’s one thing for a person to choose not to have insurance. They are taking a risk. I think it is horrible to always have insurance and to be dropped or not covered by individual insurance.
Unfortunate, but what do you propose? You think insurance companies should be forced to cover them at average rates even though that necessarily means losses for the insurance companies?
What’s the purpose of insurance? Why have it? You don’t get insurance to pay for the every day expenses; you get it to cover the catostrophic events.
That’s why we got insurance in the first place. We had 1 healthy baby. We certainly didn’t think we would get one with lots of medical problems. We didn’t want to take a chance with not having insurance.
I know of lots of healthy people who have insurance, and then they get cancer and insurance drops them. What’s the point.
I can easily pay even up to 10K a year. It’s the 200-300K (or more) expenses that are hard.
I am definitely not a supporter of government run healthcare. I think that’s going to make things worse.
One of the big problems I see with our current system is how to treat people that have insurance that have developed problems. My daughters anti-seizure medication is $2000 a month. She’ll be on it for at least 2 more years.
What happens if my husband loses his job? You only have cobra for 18 months. I lose sleep worrying about him losing medical coverage and everyone denying us. It would be very difficult to pay for her medication without insurance. Then what happens if she has another grand mal. One trip to the emergency room in an ambulance is over $1000, not including the hospital stay. We have savings, but not enough to cover all of her problems.
I forgot to add my proposal.
I think there should be 3 rates that are determined beforehand and people fall into different categories:
1 rate for healthy people (say $5000 a year)
A higher rate for people with pre-existing conditions who have had insurance (say $10000 a year)
An even higher rate for people with pre-existing conditions who didn’t have insurance (say $20000 a year)
I also like tax breaks without limits for all medical expenses.
It’s not an issue if she maintains coverage perpetually and is on a group plan. They already can’t deny for pre-existing conditions, only set a waiting period for those who don’t have continuous coverage.
It needs to change. That’s the one thing I hope they do pass.
Individual coverage should not be restricted, period. I would be much less scared of trying to start a personal business if it wasn’t for that looming problem.
The medical issue is keeping my husband at his job. We have a lot of savings that we could use to start a business, but we couldn’t handle if anything else happens to our daughter. Frankly, we would run out of money quickly if we had to cover her medication. We thought she might be able to get off of it this year, but her EEG wasn’t clear, so it’s at least 2 more years of medication.
I know people didn’t have all the medical interventions in years past. However, I am accutely aware that my daughter would not be alive if it weren’t for medical advances.
I have a niece who skipped out on getting insurance when she was first out of college, and it bit her. She fell and broke her arm/shoulder. She didn’t have the money to pay for all the medical expenses. (Her mom paid.) I didn’t have a lot of sympathy for my niece because I felt like she made her bed. On the other hand, my brother (her dad) had insurance and then got cancer. He had a difficult time keeping coverage. I totally felt for him because he had done the responsible thing and had paid for insurance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.