What health plan do you think would work best?

[rangerwickett]

I am not convinced that the primary plan being proposed by Congress is the best one, or even the best one that might get passed. I'm looking for other options, so that when I talk to my congressman I can say what I am [i]for[/i], not just what I am against.

Right now the two possibilities that are most compelling to me are:

1. Interstate

Comments

[melsmarsh]

I support the first one, however there are several things in there that are still not true. Employer based coverage cannot go out of state unless the company is national or otherwise pays for that. (My partner works for Seamless Technologies and the medical insurance offered by that company is state based and we are a thousand miles away from it so it's useless for us.) Also, you can deduct individual health insurance premiums on your taxes. That's what H&R Block has been doing with mine

I'm with you.

[karishi]

Insurance of any kind only works as a business strategy because the insurance company does not provide 100% value relative to the cash put in. It's no good to have an entire nation beholden to what is, at its core, a gamble where you can only win against the house when something terrible happens to you.
That said, I recognize the two benefits of insurance: peace of mind (and better incentive to go see a doctor once in a while just 'cause, which is a very real form of preventive care), and state/national financial security. When any given person is significantly less likely to suddenly go broke because something broke, communities are more stable and predictable, which is definitely a good thing from a government standpoint.
So it'd make plenty of sense to me if the government wanted to provide me with health insurance with low overhead, and I'd probably buy into that option.

[skavskril]

I like what we have here in Oz. There is government provided Medicare to everyone, but it only covers the basics. Admission and treatment in public (government run) hospitals, and limited coverage for dental and other therapies such as physio and chairo, also I think vision is limited to one eye exam per year and maybe a discount on he ugliest frames they can find. However, those who can afford it can also purchase private health insurance to cover all the extras as well as admission and treatment in private hospitals (usually nicer with lower waiting times). You do ge some tax rebate back from what you spend on private insurance because the government sees this as you paying to take pressure off their system.

There are flaws, as with any system, but I think we get the best of both worlds here. Free basic cover with the option to purchase more.

[arrovian]

A few corrections. The overhead numbers are a bit misleading. Medicare does not count the administrative costs of the ancillary branches of government it requires to function. Treasury/IRS is responsible for collecting the money (not counted). The FBI is responsible for fraud investigation (HMOs have fraud divisions). Per patient costs are nearly triple that of private insurance, and privates, on average, have 13% overhead, not 30%. Medicare also reimburses, on average, less than half what private insurers pay for services rendered, and reimbursement is scheduled to drop another 20% in December. Nor does Medicare have to maintain staff for Federal regulatory compliance matters. HMOs are, after all, a government construct. Right now, a total knee pays the surgeon ~$1200 (Medicare - less than replacing the head gasket on my cavalier), up to $3000 (private insurance). Fair market value based on a survey of patients - $5K (that's what they would pay their surgeon, in retrospect). Overall cost is, of course, higher - anesthesia