Maggie's Farm

I agree that there is no moral imperative to provide healthcare INSURANCE for everyone and, as the folks at Powerline say, those so inclined already donate millions to charities that assist those needing vital care.

We can discuss forever the benefits of healthcare programs in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, etc, but the truth is all of them are facing rising costs and restrictions on care, depending how long they have been operating. When docs are limited in the amount they can charge per visit, they tend to find a way around it: shorter appointments, multiple visits for innoculations, taking on more patients thus longer waits, etc. Any reform must meet the needs of patients and providers. We are, in fact, talking about "delivering better, affordable healthcare" and, somehow, the how goal of Congress is "insurance."

It would seem judicious to move slowly -- iin small steps that do not increase our bureaucracy (cost) and that demand our present programs under government control be streamlined and rid of corruption BEFORE (if ever) catapulting government's role to other segments of the economy.

Again, some suggestions for first steps:

1. Tort reform (brings down costs for doctors, hospitals and medical device providers),

2. Ability to sell insurance across state lines (brings down cost to those purchasing policies by increasing competition and allows consumer to purchase policy most specific to needs),

3. Movement of tax deduction to insured/patient vs. employer for both a major medical policy and medical savings accounts (removes healthcare from "place of employment" thus eliminating multiple problems; the company can still be the original place of enrollment, but the policy is not connected with continuing employment at that site. Also makes consumer more aware of the costs involved whereas now, few know what they are being charged for proceedures -- bad form as this decreases personal responsibility for one's health and the $$$ involved in treatment). Tax-deductible medical savings accounts that could be accumulated year-to-year would be an incentive for the youth to address their own health needs, even if they don't buy major medical insurance,

4. Requirement that all medical providers accept Medicare,, Medicaid, etc. payments as specified by government law (solves problem of those complaining they are not able to find caregivers, which is apparently increasing as the government trims at costs or doesn't give cost-of-liiving increases for these programs),

5. Formation of state-organized pools to treat outliers (pre-existing conditions, etc) as the above changes are implemented and uninsurable groups are identified,

6. Standardization of insurance forms (decreases administrative costs for everyone).

When these steps are analyzed for impact, other problems can be addressed. There are many, but there is no need to swallow the whole pie to see if it tastes good (my grandfather's caution).

Missed this. The UK's condition sounds a tad more critical than I suggested:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/public_option_great_britains_w.html