Tweet
After reading another thread that devolved into a US healthcare discussion, I'd like to start one with the following topic.
For a fiscal conservative who accepts that the current market health care system is inadequate and accepts some degree of government intervention as necessary, what alternatives exist, and what are the merits of these alternatives to a fiscal conservative as opposed to the plans sponsored by the various Democrats.
I want to set two ground rules:
1. This is for discussing this from a conservative point of view. I do not want this to be a liberals vs conservatives thread. If you're liberal, either discuss this from a conservative point of view, or stay out please
There are plenty of other places we've discussed the liberal plans. (However, if one of the liberal plans is coincidental with something a fiscal conservative would support, that would be relevant.)
2. This is for discussing this from the point of view that something must change. Again, if you think that the current healthcare system is perfect as is, please stay out or else take this point of view for the sake of discussion.
[q="Oerdin"] I want to impliment a system where, unlike the French, the government doesn't own all of the hospitals nor are all health care workers government employees. Instead a government corporation, a la the Post Office or the Tennessee Valley Water Authority, would be a universal health insurance provider and individuals would still be able to shop around to find a private service provider they liked. Like in the Dutch or British system individuals would also be able to purchase supplimental coverage if they wanted to for what ever reason but everyone would be provided with a basic level of health insurance including preventative care just because they were Americans.[/q]
I personally support, at a theoretical level, the above plan that Oerdin suggested in another thread. I suspect our opinions of the detail would vary widely
but the basic structure is probably the best solution in my mind.
I like it because what it effectively does is reduces the overall health care cost directly (by setting the rates that competitors would have to compete against), but permits competition to still exist. The major detail that I'd be curious about is whether all providers would need to accept this governmental insurance, or if it would have incentives attached to it to ensure many would accept it. It would take years for enough people to be on the governmental insurance, I would think, for the 'number of patients' incentive to be relevant; and if the number of people on the insurance was directly correlating to the number of providers on the insurance, you'd never have enough ...
I also think that the tax rate would have to go up to pay for this, and that's going to be a hard sell. Enough of the liberal plans, even, do not involve a significant tax increase - just a rollback of previous cuts, nothing more - that I imagine this would be a hard sell. However, if the amount of the increase is small enough perhaps it wouldn't be too bad; particularly if it was explained that your insurance costs would go from $150/month per family to $0/month per family (savings annualized of $1800) for a tax increase of $1000/year (net savings of $800/year). The difficulty is the wealthy, of course, who not only largely control the decision, but are the ones who would actually pay more; and the doctors and hospitals who would almost certainly make far less under this governmental plan.
I would not support this plan if it forced all doctors to accept a low rate for their services, and thus I see this as the crux; how to have enough GOOD doctors on the plan without forcing a socialist wage system on the doctors (which would kill the incentive to become a doctor, and damage our healthcare system IMO). That balance is very fine indeed...
For a fiscal conservative who accepts that the current market health care system is inadequate and accepts some degree of government intervention as necessary, what alternatives exist, and what are the merits of these alternatives to a fiscal conservative as opposed to the plans sponsored by the various Democrats.
I want to set two ground rules:
1. This is for discussing this from a conservative point of view. I do not want this to be a liberals vs conservatives thread. If you're liberal, either discuss this from a conservative point of view, or stay out please
There are plenty of other places we've discussed the liberal plans. (However, if one of the liberal plans is coincidental with something a fiscal conservative would support, that would be relevant.)2. This is for discussing this from the point of view that something must change. Again, if you think that the current healthcare system is perfect as is, please stay out or else take this point of view for the sake of discussion.
[q="Oerdin"] I want to impliment a system where, unlike the French, the government doesn't own all of the hospitals nor are all health care workers government employees. Instead a government corporation, a la the Post Office or the Tennessee Valley Water Authority, would be a universal health insurance provider and individuals would still be able to shop around to find a private service provider they liked. Like in the Dutch or British system individuals would also be able to purchase supplimental coverage if they wanted to for what ever reason but everyone would be provided with a basic level of health insurance including preventative care just because they were Americans.[/q]
I personally support, at a theoretical level, the above plan that Oerdin suggested in another thread. I suspect our opinions of the detail would vary widely
but the basic structure is probably the best solution in my mind.I like it because what it effectively does is reduces the overall health care cost directly (by setting the rates that competitors would have to compete against), but permits competition to still exist. The major detail that I'd be curious about is whether all providers would need to accept this governmental insurance, or if it would have incentives attached to it to ensure many would accept it. It would take years for enough people to be on the governmental insurance, I would think, for the 'number of patients' incentive to be relevant; and if the number of people on the insurance was directly correlating to the number of providers on the insurance, you'd never have enough ...
I also think that the tax rate would have to go up to pay for this, and that's going to be a hard sell. Enough of the liberal plans, even, do not involve a significant tax increase - just a rollback of previous cuts, nothing more - that I imagine this would be a hard sell. However, if the amount of the increase is small enough perhaps it wouldn't be too bad; particularly if it was explained that your insurance costs would go from $150/month per family to $0/month per family (savings annualized of $1800) for a tax increase of $1000/year (net savings of $800/year). The difficulty is the wealthy, of course, who not only largely control the decision, but are the ones who would actually pay more; and the doctors and hospitals who would almost certainly make far less under this governmental plan.
I would not support this plan if it forced all doctors to accept a low rate for their services, and thus I see this as the crux; how to have enough GOOD doctors on the plan without forcing a socialist wage system on the doctors (which would kill the incentive to become a doctor, and damage our healthcare system IMO). That balance is very fine indeed...
Just that i'd like to discuss which plans would be acceptable from a conservative point of view. Anyone can assume said point of view and post 
Comment