Thank you for your comments. I am heartened to see that at least some folks who do not think that government health care is the answer actually have at least a go at a solution. I think that, for the most part, you are right. Co ops, however, are not the answer. How about this then?
If you work for a company with thousands of employees and your company contracts with, say, Aetna for coverage, they pay a certain rate. If a company with 10 employees wants coverage with Aetna, they have to pay a much steeper rate, because they have so few employees. What if we were to say that Aetna (and all other insurance companies) have to pool ALL of their clients together and charge everyone that same low rate? After all, if they can justify a lower cost for a company with thousands of employees, wouldn't it follow that they should be able to insure EVERYONE for that much less?
The U.S. government has not shown any ability to run anything well, and pretty much all of us know that. This country is pretty famous for innovation. I cannot see why the folks trying to hash out some kind of health plan can't look at all of the different national plans on the planet, pick out what works, toss out what doesn't, and mangle it all together to come up with the best system on the planet. Just my take.
Read the comments, folks. And please, if you desire to add your own, be as thoughtful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, the reason why your Aetna example doesn't work is because I think it should go by the health of a particular group. The coop idea is good because the people who take good care of themselves, eat right, exercise, and otherwise keep them selves in the best shape possible (like me) could join together and negotiate a better coop rate than say a coop of chain smoking, buffet eating, couch potatoes.
ReplyDeleteIf you want a better rate on your insurance, get off your butt, eat a salad instead of that moon pie, and throw those cigarettes away, and join a better coop. It incentifies people to get healthier, which has the biproduct of incurring less costs to the health care system.
The assumption here is, I assume, that the company with thousands of employees only uses people in good health, while the company with 10 employs only people in poor health. So... My wife, who eats right, exercises, does not smoke or drink, should get a better insurance rate than someone like, say me, who smokes, drinks, refuses formal exercise, and eats anything not fast enough to get away?
ReplyDeleteBefore you answer that, realize that my wife is constantly sick, while I am almost never sick.