Richard,

Very good idea.

On Aug 5, 10:53 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]>
wrote:
> We have attempted to make our pension benefits portable.  The same
> idea is important for healthcare, though the implementation is a bit
> different.  I think that the combination of a government clearing
> house for small employers and individuals along with a federal
> exemption similar to ERISA would provide a bsais for the capacity to
> create a more portable system.  Any person teminated could gain access
> through the clearing house and any person changing employers would
> have the same capacity.  It would eliminate much of the need for
> insurers to have pre-existing condition clauses because the size of
> the group would be large enough to limit the risk of adverse
> selection.
>
> On Aug 5, 10:46 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Richard,
>
> > That you have. Nor was my question to you loaded. I do not believe we
> > have to copy the system of any one nation, not France or germany or
> > the Swiss, etc. I feel we should, and should have been doing this for
> > years, carefully examine the systems or several of the nations that
> > seem to have the most effective systems and "borrow" the best ideas
> > from each of them and adopt them to our own country. There is, I
> > believe, no one  "magic bullet". One thing, and one thing only, that
> > would help a great deal is to not link health insurance to one's
> > employer. A working man/woman should be able to retain the same
> > insurance he/she has AT THE SAME PRICE from employer to employer
> > without interuption of coverage or benefits. Let a county, state,
> > whatever take competitive bids from competing insurance companies to
> > insure perhaps either all it's citizens or perhaps just those not
> > already covered by Medicare. Let the premium be paid out some sort of
> > interest bearing fund owned by that entity and have safeguards in
> > place that prevent that fund for being used for ANYTHING else. Fund it
> > by taxes levied on all the citizens of that entity. Sure there will be
> > administrative expenses. Thik we're NOT paying for the administrative
> > expensives of the insurance companies? Well managed (hopefully) the
> > interest accumulated by such a large fund should off-set a goodly
> > portion of those administrative costs.
> > that is ONE idea only, and pretty much just off the top of my head.
>
> > And FORCE Medicare and Medicaid to go out on competive bids for all
> > the drugs and other supplies. You want to be on the list of approved
> > suppliers of "XYZ" medications? You better have the best price. if
> > Walgreens or CVS does not want to buy from that company? Well to bad,
> > guess some other drug store will get all the medicare business. Hell,
> > how many people would start a drug store just to have all the medicare/
> > medicaid reciepents in a city, county or state?
>
> > And I like many of the ideas that you propose. Your thinking, and
> > that's more than i can say for most people here and in our government.
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:49 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hollywood -
>
> > > I would hope that I have earned enough of your trust to merit an
> > > honest reply to my question.  I do not believe it was loaded and it
> > > reflected what I think is a significant issue.  I would like your
> > > reply.
>
> > > As to the question you asked, (I hope this is an adequate answer),
> > > from my perspective it is pretty simple.  We need to do the following:
>
> > > First, you let the government create a clearing house for small group
> > > and individual purchases.  That would give those the capacity to
> > > obtain insurance at group rates and would require little time to
> > > implement or a significant bureaucracy for oversight.  In fact, much
> > > of the cost could be directly passed to the insurers.
>
> > > Second, you allow the federal government to exempt insurers from state
> > > laws and thus make
> > > them free to sell across state lines.  That would increase competition
> > > and reduce prices.
>
> > > Third, you utilize tax incentive to encourage employers to provide a
> > > minimal level of coverage while disincentivizing them from providing
> > > the "Cadillac policies".
>
> > > Last of all, you focus on assuring that all Americans have
> > > catastrophic coverage and flexible spending accounts so that they can
> > > self-insure against minor health needs and still be protected against
> > > the biggest risks and thus make them healthcare consumers.
>
> > > It would take about FOUR pages to draft my bill and most would
> > > understand it and it would
> > > actually reduce the cost of healthcare.  Obviously, I am opposed to
> > > ALL government bureaucracy without a very good reason.  But, I
> > > recognize they can help in some ways.  I just think it is best to
> > > limit their involvement to those rare areas where they can add
> > > value.
>
> > > Please let me know what you think of the ideas.
>
> > > On Aug 5, 9:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Richard,
>
> > > > I'll counter that with a question of my own. Do you really think that
> > > > American's are the ONLY modern, industrialized nation in the world too
> > > > corrupt and/or stupid to be able to figure out a system to supply
> > > > universal health care  for their citizens?
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 9:18 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hollywood -
>
> > > > > I did not read through the entire thread and I have no idea what you
> > > > > may have said in prior posts.  With that said, I have a question for
> > > > > you.  Do you think that the federal government will more efficiently
> > > > > administer the healthcare in our country?
>
> > > > > On Aug 5, 9:05 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > frankg,
>
> > > > > > If the car dealers lay off people, if the car manufacturers lay off
> > > > > > people, if the banks that make car loans lay off people,if the
> > > > > > suppliers of those car dealers and manufacturers and banks lay off
> > > > > > people whose money do you think will be used to pay for unemployment
> > > > > > checks, food stamps if they need it, etc?
>
> > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:42 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Mark,
>
> > > > > > > No kidding. I'm willing to bet I can drive the sales up on just 
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > anything by offering to help pay for it with someone else's money.
> > > > > > > What's the point?
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:49 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > auto sales are up over 25% in europe under an identical 
> > > > > > > > program....it is
> > > > > > > > working
>
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:37 PM, VT VirtualTruth
> > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I got news for you, the fact that the program was depletedr 
> > > > > > > > > an identical
> > > > > > > > > program....it is working.
> > > > > > > > > so quickly shows there was a need and as a stimulus
> > > > > > > > > the earnings numbers for the auto industry says
> > > > > > > > > it worked.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 1:17 pm, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >                Doc,
>
> > > > > > > > > >        You and VT should take the advice of Senato sales or 
> > > > > > > > > > Schumer (
> > > > > > > > > D-NY )
> > > > > > > > > > who said of the cash for clunkers program " don't fix what 
> > > > > > > > > > ain't broke
> > > > > > > > > > " . Health Care ain't broken , it just needs a little 
> > > > > > > > > > adjustment, but
> > > > > > > > > > guys like Obama and his ilk want to crush it !
>
> > > > > > > > > ***************************************************************************­­­­­­­­********************************************************************­*­*­*­*­*­*­*­*************************************************************­**­**­**­**­**­**­**­***********************
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 1:00 pm, DOC828NDF <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Hmm.... I would love to agree with you, but the 
> > > > > > > > > > > Republicans may be
> > > > > > > > > > > onto something when they say "what's the rush"... I mean, 
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > example... What if we were to rush into a war without 
> > > > > > > > > > > thinking it
> > > > > > > > > > > through? No diplomacy, and no planning... What if 
> > > > > > > > > > > something goes wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > and its not as easy as we initially thought? Do we really 
> > > > > > > > > > > have aan
> > > > > > > > > > > exit strategy? We need to take some time to think this 
> > > > > > > > > > > thing through.
> > > > > > > > > > > After all, its not like anyone's dying for healthcare
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 3:58 pm, VT Sean Lewis 
> > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Health Care Reform is NEEDED NOW!
> > > > > > > > > > > > The Republican party is becoming the party of hatred 
> > > > > > > > > > > > and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > destruction of the American dream.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sean Lewis
> > > > > > > > > > > > August 3, 2009
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Minimal basic coverage for the unemployed and 
> > > > > > > > > > > > uninsured.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Preventative care to lower future costs
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Restructure Medicare and Medicaid so they don't go 
> > > > > > > > > > > > bankrupt.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Who could possibly be against this reform?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Republicans!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Republicans had control of the last 8 years of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > US political system, with Bush having veto
> > > > > > > > > > > > power for all eight and the GOP control of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Congress for 6 years. The result was the almost
> > > > > > > > > > > > complete destruction of the US economy.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The country was on the brink of complete collapse
> > > > > > > > > > > > the last quarter of the Bush Administration. An
> > > > > > > > > > > > Administration and party that was in complete
> > > > > > > > > > > > denial there was a problem with the economy.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It was with the last minute infusion of over $1 Trillion
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a single quarter that saved the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to