A conservative solution to America's health insurance problems
America has a problem. Not everyone can get health insurance. I have a plan that takes a common sense approach to health coverage in America. Our nation can solve this problem without having to create an inefficient government program. In order to best understand my plan, one must understand my perspective as a college student, why government run universal health care cannot work, and my plan to fix America’s health insurance system.
First of all, one must view this problem through my perspective in order to best understand my thinking. I am 21 years old. I am a college student working towards an undergraduate degree in engineering. I also have a chronic medical condition called Crohn’s disease that requires a bimonthly IV treatment. This treatment can cost in upwards of $7,000 dollars an infusion. This boils down $42,000 a year. Right now insurance covers it. However, I will no longer be eligible for my parents’ medical insurance once I reach the age of 23 years old. I will not graduate until I am 24. There is a program called COBRA that allows me to extend that coverage, but one can only utilize this program for two years. This means that I would have a lapse in coverage if I were to pursue a more advanced degree. I cannot afford a $40,000 education and $42,000 in medical bills, so a graduate degree is completely out of the question for me. My problems would not stop at the end of that lapse in coverage. Assuming I can somehow come up with the money to pay for my treatment throughout a graduate degree program, after six months off of insurance, my Crohn’s disease will be a pre-existing condition. This means that even when I graduate and get insured, I will have to wait a year for my new insurance to even begin to cover any medical expenses related to the disease.
Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are always talking up a universal health care program. That sounds so perfect. Under their plan everyone would have free medical insurance. No one would have to pay for any prescriptions, hospital visits, or surgeries. This sounds great to the casual observer; however, upon further examination, it is far less beneficial than it sounds. First of all, taxes would have to be raised astronomically to fund such a program. This would place even more burden on domestic businesses where it is already difficult to compete in a global economy with current taxes and regulations. It would be even more difficult to compete because more taxes would further increase the cost for product development and production. More importantly, a universal health care system would disrupt the most powerful medical system in the world. Right now, hospitals are competing to provide the most advanced treatments to draw customers. If a socialized health care system is put in place, competition would be replaced with government regulations. This would greatly hinder future advances in medicine. Most importantly, this would result in patients receiving the cheapest treatments and not the best treatments. This is clear in the treatment of Crohn’s disease in Canada where the health care system is socialized. The government will not pay for the regular IV treatments that I receive. They will only pay for much cheaper treatments like prednisone. While prednisone is only twenty dollars, it can destroy one’s bones and liver. It also can lead to extreme anger, mood swings, weight gain, acne, glaucoma, ulcers, abdominal pain, cataracts, insomnia, horrible infections, diabetes, and hypertension. Even with all those side effects, it only works in some cases. In my case, my body did not respond to it at all. With the treatment that I am currently receiving, Remicade, I have been nearly symptom free for almost five years. Some people from Canada are so desperate to get Remicade treatments that they travel to the Cleveland Clinic to receive treatments at their own expense. This is not acceptable. I cannot even imagine having to live without my medication. My life would be absolutely miserable.
I have a plan that could fix the problem with health care without having to socialize it. The concept is quite simple. The biggest problem with America’s health insurance system is the necessity to be part of a group to get affordable coverage. As a college student, once I am off my parents’ coverage, I have nowhere to turn to. Even if I wanted to pay a premium rate, I could not get coverage. My plan would effectively get rid of that problem. The expected outcome is to allow United States citizens to purchase an individual, affordable health insurance plan through a private company. In order to accomplish that, the federal or state congress will first determine minimal standards for two types of coverage: minimal coverage and premium coverage. After that is set, they will set up a linear tax cut system. This system would provide a certain amount of tax relief to health insurance companies who provide individual plans that meet the standards set. The system would be linear because the amount of tax relief would be proportional to the number of people insured. This would encourage competition between the insurance companies to receive the maximum tax break. Competition ensures the best value for the consumers. It is also necessary for the government to require that the company offer the two plans for the same price to all members. This will help to ensure that people with chronic conditions will be able to afford coverage as well. It is necessary that a dialog take place to determine what level of tax cuts are necessary for the insurance companies to participate.
This plan would create and utilize the same capitalistic environment that has made our country such a great and powerful nation. This would make insurance companies compete for tax breaks. Any time companies are competing, the consumer wins. This would allow any citizen of the United States of America to get health coverage at an affordable rate without the creation of an inefficient government program. With the available coverage, the life expectancy and overall health of our nation will likely improve. The tax cuts provided to the insurance companies would also help to improve economic conditions. It would put money back into our economy to help create economic growth. The most important thing about this plan is that all of these results could be achieved without disrupting the operation of our globally superior medical institutions.
Comments
Posted by: Emily
Posted on: October 2, 2006 06:00 PM
I totally understand where you're coming from on this...I am 19, also in college, and also struggling with Crohn's disease. I am on remicade as well, and I often worry about insurance...and I am liking your plan. Those crazy Dems don't have a clue. They can't see the big picture.
Posted by: Leo
Posted on: January 20, 2007 02:15 PM
The problem of reception Medical and health insurance for unemployeds interests WBR LeoP
Posted by: Leo
Posted on: January 20, 2007 04:40 PM
You can advise as to receive Individual Health Insurance and also as Compare health insurance quotes WBR LeoP
Posted by: Leo
Posted on: January 20, 2007 05:52 PM
What does at means the International health insurance? Travel medical insurance specialists providing affordable travel health insurance, visitor medical insurance and so on WBR LeoP
Posted by:
Posted on: February 6, 2007 09:23 PM
I too feel you my friend. I am 23 years old, barely hanging on to insurance, and whenever I have had some government-handed insurance, it has been worthless. I have multiple chronic conditions that cost in the tens of thousands a year and I will be lost in a pit of debt if I were to somehow finance medical bills. I do have some hope for you though. I was hospitalized last year for several days because I have an inferior frontal lobe tumor and had several seizures. After the hospital stay and tests it cost close to $25,000. My mother and I wrote a letter explaining that we could not pick up the several thousands of $s leftover after "crappy insurance" and a charity paid almost all of my care. I had to pay $50 for a $25,000 bill. I don't know if it was luck or God helped me, but if it had not happened, I would be in horrible financial trouble. Good luck my friend.
Posted by: fxpyctzl lnehtxir
Posted on: February 14, 2007 09:50 AM
kxedju jmgbnqtz jmsth jydtrw dxvebhi nyjxouiq nmwth
Posted by: Jon
Posted on: July 8, 2007 11:30 PM
I am trying to get a conservative digg alternative going called GOP Hub (GOPHub.com). Anything you can do to help with this effort would be awesome. Plus feel free to submit any articles you write here on your blog :). Take care and have a great week!
Posted by: Chris Matteo
Posted on: July 9, 2007 01:58 PM
You guys need a public health service like we have here in Great Britain. Sure it has its faults, but nobody goes without treatment if its urgent and they need it. There is absolutely no cost - if you need the treatment and its available, you get it.
Posted by: Create
Posted on: August 3, 2007 08:56 AM
I feel for you my friend. You should take a few minutes to research the health system here in Australia. Not perfect by any means, but I feel is a lot better than the system you have there. Best wishes.
Posted by: Jay Forbo
Posted on: August 13, 2007 06:26 AM
Really nice post, now I want to see the movie sicko and anyone interested in this article may have already. Great doco.
Posted by: Insurance Policy
Posted on: August 17, 2007 07:20 AM
It makes you wonder how Mark Twain could ever say about insurance that, "I have had people come to me on crutches with tears in their eyes to bless this beneficent institution."
Posted by: Health Lover
Posted on: October 21, 2007 11:14 AM
United States is a huge and wealthy country. On one hand, there a lot of extrememly rich people, whereas on the other hand, there are still somebody who can not afford their medical insurance. By comparison with Europe, although Maxism has not been realised in Europe, European countries have adopted some ideas from Maxism. For example, high taxation for rih people, then better social benefits for ordinary citizens. So far it has worked quite well.
I think your plan is good. Probably you could also try to write to some statemen who are concerned with such issues as well.
Good luck my friend.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: November 15, 2007 02:39 PM
Canada has long had a socialized medicine plan that gives all the basics that we need. I know that there are a lot of people in the US that are against the term socialized but it is a fact that for 40 years we have had a very stable system.
I believe that to get the medical system to work a bit better in the states (if you are not happy with it) it would be best to just "socialize" low profit care or even emergency care where the insurance companies would not be too concerned with losing an unprofitable part of the market.
Posted by: hector
Posted on: November 22, 2007 10:35 AM
I understand you...I am 25,in college, and also struggling with Crohn's disease . I am on remicade as well, and I often worry about insurance...and I am liking your plan. they don't have any idea. They can't see the big picture.
Posted by: Mary
Posted on: November 23, 2007 01:31 PM
What else are you doing rather than just taking such an expensive treatment?
Have you eliminated dairy?
Have you eliminated carbohydrates (bread, sugar, rice, grains, flour)?
Do you avoid alcohol?
Do you take probiotics to assure enough helpful bacteria?
Do you take supplements that help to reduce inflammation: omega oils, tumeric, chromium, etc?
Perhaps you could take control of your symptoms rather than exhausting your insurance.
Posted by: Manfred
Posted on: November 27, 2007 08:43 AM
Most countries have these problems. In Europe they have other problems.
Posted by: Lewis Alexander
Posted on: January 28, 2008 12:00 PM
Hi All,
The posts seem very similiar with views in the Uk apart from the obvious state benefit differences over the pond here. Alot of our clients contact me due to bad health issues that have caused personal debt problems and at present in the Uk the government has promissed to take a look at the very low caring benefits offered to parners who care for their spous etc. Some are not eligible due to savings, harsh but true,
Regards to all
Lewis
Posted by:
Posted on: February 10, 2008 04:36 AM
This text is true.
Posted by: Affordable Insurance
Posted on: March 21, 2008 06:54 PM
Universal health care as proposed is a very risky and expensive disaster. The Government can't run much of anything efficiently. What makes them think that they can run the health care system?
Posted by: Sarah
Posted on: March 24, 2008 03:07 PM
It is very true that many goverment insurance programs are useless. This can clearly be seen with the government issued dental insurance. This insurance has very poor coverage. Most goverment dental plans don't cover much more than getting teeth pulled and routine checkups. Many people actually need more coverage such as deep cleanings,periodontal, root canals etc. Many people are better off getting dental discount programs rather than trying to get a government plan even if thier income qualifys. Dental discount programs like Ameriplan are actually very cheap and offer great coverage. There are charity programs that cover medical costs such as community care however they are not easy for everyone to get so its actually better to try to invest in a good insurance plan.
Thank you
Posted by: roger
Posted on: April 15, 2008 01:44 PM
i am myself also suffiring crohns disease, and i can imagine if you do not have health insurance, you have a big problem.
my thoughts are with these people!
Posted by: Digestive Disorders
Posted on: April 29, 2008 05:25 AM
The issue is a tough one I suffer from a number of disorders mainly problems in my digestion and pretty bad arthritis. I work and have been denied any decent insurance. I still do not believe universal health care is an answer in any way shape or form. I had to settle with a high deductible and high premium, but at least this way I know I can receive decent care.
Posted by: mike
Posted on: May 1, 2008 07:42 PM
I, in almost all cases, oppose government regulation on industries. I have however wondered if requiring that companies charge equal rates for all members would really fix the problem. I tend to believe that it might but I do wonder what undesired "side effects" this might cause. The truth is that "insurance" is supposed to spread the risk equally among members. If individuals are charged different rates based on pre-existing conditions it does defeat the purpose of "insurance". I think people should really look into john mccain's healthcare plan. If you really look at the "market" for healthcare in this country, there is none. The end consumer is completely removed from the equation. Since employers usually offer only one plan, or plans from only one insurer, people can't reasonably choose to pass on the offered plan in favor of another more highly rated or more "friendly" plan. More importantly, no one even knows how much their medical bills are! How much did your last physical cost? How much do your medications cost? Noone knows. Even IF we're paying far too much, we don't know. If we don't know how much we're being charged then we don't know if we're being ripped off or not. Most likely we are, but it looks like we're not because we never actually pay the bill. Anyhow, I believe that even more important than the health insurance problem we have, is that regardless of the benefit we may reap from having "free" care, our current tax situation is out of control. The very first income tax in this country was 1%. That was only on incomes of $3000 or more. Which in 1913 was the equivalent of roughly $50000 today, which is not all that much, but it is a bit beyond average individual income in this country. It was approved by the majority because it would only affect the minority. Now our total effective tax rates are about 40%. If you add in the healthcare tax increase, our total tax burden would be 52%+. If you ask me, or any sane person, it is unacceptable for us to put greater than 50% of our economy in the hands of the government. For me personally, that is the definition of socialism. While many people advocate socialism, Karl Marx defined socialism as the midpoint in a transition to communism. This isn't really about healthcare for those who oppose socialist care. It's about our slow and steady march toward a socialist state. There's noone in this land that thinks its ok for the sick to go untreated, but there are those that realize that our republic (not democracy) is steadily moving toward the "nanny state". It is imperative that we do not fall victim to the fate of EVERY democracy in history. There is a reason this country was created as a republic and not a democracy. In a democracy it is entirely possible for the majority to "vote away" the rights of the minority. While we weren't created that way, the fact that we were all taught that the people know best has created a problem. We now think that we know what's best for us. Really, we need to stick with the constitution and keep the government out of our business. The pillar of a free country is one thing, property rights. If you consider the money you earn your property, then having 52% stolen by the government is unacceptable. 40% is bad enough, let's not make it any worse for ourselves. If you really, truly believe that a socialist system is better, move to canada, move to europe, move anywhere, but please get the h*** out of here because this is NOT a democracy, it's a republic and you can't just change the rules because the majority agrees. The constitution wasn't written by a majority, it was written by men that were well aware that pure democracy always fails, always. If you believe in socialism, this place is not for you. You're not the stuff America is made of. We're opportunists, we're capitalists, we work hard, we play to win and we're better because of it. Thank you and sorry for the super long rant.
Posted by: Maggie
Posted on: June 24, 2008 11:02 AM
You should switch from engineering to Political Science! That's really a good idea. Good luck and maybe you'll be able to get a graduate degree part time later on. :-(