Health Care Reform - Striking a balance between the political divide

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!

 

Yes. So if a plan covers all injuries no matter where you are when the injuries happen why have the employer cover an additional insurance for that?

Because as I stated before, workman's comp Aslo protects the worker from losing his/her job while they are unable to work, And to continue receiving their pay. Neither of those are benefits of health insurance.

reply to post by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!


Okay. So in the plan I propose it would include the overhaul of workers compensation benefits and unemployment insurance benefits. In other words, both would be combined, reducing administrative costs. Basically, if you can't work you'll receive unemployment benefits no matter what. To me it makes no sense to have wage benefits for all sorts of different types of conditions that cause you to lose time at work. One system to cover unemployment, one system to cover injuries is the point I'm making.

In addition Obama is clearly moving closer to this proposed plan than at the outset. Removing the public option is a good choice. The Federal governments role is a capitalist society is to curb business practices that are not good for Americans overall. In the insurance business there is a lack of regulation concerning how they may conduct business. This proposed plan, allows cost savings by the government and business by streamlining charges and administrative costs, reducing the scope of government and allowing benefits that are non hassle type benefits.

The crazy thing is we already have a plan to cover the uninsured, it's called medicaid. The problem is if you have a job you're almost guaranteed to not get it, even if you make dirt wages. If the goal is to really help the uninsured middle class, which from this administration I highly doubt it is, why not just relax the restrictions on wages some. Say make it up to 40K per yer or something along those lines. In this way people who are paying for the benefits by payroll taxes and the like, can actually take part in the program. As it is now it's simply a reward for not having a job as those who work pay for it but can;t take part. This is a real simple way to take care of the problem without a huge bloody mess of increased government interventionism. Don't change medicaid at all in any way but to increase the minimum allowable wage. That's the simplest explanation, the problem though is the program is already broke, as such we've proven that even limited as it is, the government can;t handle it responsibly. Any increase whatever in government manipulation of health care is only going to achieve the same bad results we've seen for years. If however we're determined to throw money at the problem expand health savings accounts, if you put in $100 per paycheck the government will match that, then you can take the money out for the healthcare you want, be it homeopathic, western, or otherwise. Match that with tort reform and not allowing corporations to get away with murder through immunity from lawsuits and you've got a chance at getting something which actually benefits the people. Put the power back into the people's hands rather than the bureaucrats, they'll only screw it up worse.

Originally posted by gaborn415
The problem is if you have a job you're almost guaranteed to not get it, even if you make dirt wages. If the goal is to really help the uninsured middle class, which from this administration I highly doubt it is, why not just relax the restrictions on wages some. Say make it up to 40K per yer or something along those lines.
Don't change medicaid at all in any way but to increase the minimum allowable wage. That's the simplest explanation, the problem though is the program is already broke, as such we've proven that even limited as it is, the government can;t handle it responsibly. Any increase whatever in government manipulation of health care is only going to achieve the same bad results we've seen for years.

40K seems a bit excessive to me.
25K sounds a lot more reasonable, maybe up to 30K, but if you can't afford health care insurance over 30K, you have a problem with money management. Seems like there are too many people trying to live above their means.
I still don't understand Why they cannot keep Medicaid and Medicare going But they Can spend Billions more for this Health care reform?????????

reply to post by gaborn415


You bring up an excellent point regarding just adjusting the minimum qualification standards for medicare. Honestly, this is what should be done immediately and I doubt either party would object at this point. If we all can sit around on some forum and come up with real ideas that our representatives can't, then it is proof to me our representatives do not have American interests in mind.

reply to post by ExPostFacto



I have written to both of my senators asking the same question. Why don't they just raise the income level for Medicare and Medicaid.
The response?
We support Obamas Health Care Reform.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
To your point of the obese person receiving some operation, or the smoker with lung cancer...this is why the plan I propose above specifically left out the major type coverage. If you want to live an unhealthy lifestyle and you want medical treatment you should find a private insurance plan and pay for it. Injuries are a different matter entirely. You break your arm, that should be covered as far as I'm concerned.

If you break your arm while performing risky behavior, you shouldn't be covered either. That rock climber that falls and breaks something shouldn't be covered since that is a high risk behavior, and an unhealthy lifestyle.