Good, better, best.
Vermont signs ambitious health-insurance law |Reuters.com
Good: "Massachusetts' plan has also been touted as a possible national model by requiring all residents to obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face possible tax penalties."
Better: "A new subsidized health-care plan called Catamount Health will be offered by insurance companies and paid for in part with a hike in the state's cigarette tax and a fee on employers who do not offer health insurance to their workers."
Best: Putting the responsibility for the rise in health-care costs on the insurance companies and the medical industry. I haven't seen anyone discuss that yet. Too much ve$ted intere$t in keeping the money in in$urance, medical admini$tration and pharmaceutical$, I $uppo$e...
The problem with Massachusetts' plan is that they want to essentially FINE people $1000 if they don't get medical insurance...and yet (in my case) the cost of health insurance for my son is over $380 a month or over $4500 a year. I'll take the $1000 fine and use the remaining $3500 for my son, thank you. (PS: in Maine, to get full medical coverage, on your own, is over $1000 a month...that's over $12,000 a year!)
The problem with Vermont's plan is that it can potentially put too much financial burden on SMALL companies that cannot afford to give its employees health care.
The problem with MY plan is...well, there IS no problem with it. Except it means less profits for insurance companies, hospital administrators, and the pharmaceutical companies...which CAN lead to less money for R&D (but tell that to the CEOs with their 10,000 square foot mansions, 100 foot yachts and fleets of Lexuses...Lexus's...Lexi...whatever). God forbid. Malpractice insurance (from frivolous lawsuits) doesn't help any, either; and jacks up the price for just getting a doctor, let alone hospital care.
Also, the high (and ever-increasing) cost of health care is going to put a huge tax burden on working citizens--including the very wealthy--when baby boomers are set to retire around the end of this decade. So it is in the best interests of even the fat cats in the medical industry to curtail the cost of health care before even they end up suffering.
Good: "Massachusetts' plan has also been touted as a possible national model by requiring all residents to obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face possible tax penalties."
Better: "A new subsidized health-care plan called Catamount Health will be offered by insurance companies and paid for in part with a hike in the state's cigarette tax and a fee on employers who do not offer health insurance to their workers."
Best: Putting the responsibility for the rise in health-care costs on the insurance companies and the medical industry. I haven't seen anyone discuss that yet. Too much ve$ted intere$t in keeping the money in in$urance, medical admini$tration and pharmaceutical$, I $uppo$e...
The problem with Massachusetts' plan is that they want to essentially FINE people $1000 if they don't get medical insurance...and yet (in my case) the cost of health insurance for my son is over $380 a month or over $4500 a year. I'll take the $1000 fine and use the remaining $3500 for my son, thank you. (PS: in Maine, to get full medical coverage, on your own, is over $1000 a month...that's over $12,000 a year!)
The problem with Vermont's plan is that it can potentially put too much financial burden on SMALL companies that cannot afford to give its employees health care.
The problem with MY plan is...well, there IS no problem with it. Except it means less profits for insurance companies, hospital administrators, and the pharmaceutical companies...which CAN lead to less money for R&D (but tell that to the CEOs with their 10,000 square foot mansions, 100 foot yachts and fleets of Lexuses...Lexus's...Lexi...whatever). God forbid. Malpractice insurance (from frivolous lawsuits) doesn't help any, either; and jacks up the price for just getting a doctor, let alone hospital care.
Also, the high (and ever-increasing) cost of health care is going to put a huge tax burden on working citizens--including the very wealthy--when baby boomers are set to retire around the end of this decade. So it is in the best interests of even the fat cats in the medical industry to curtail the cost of health care before even they end up suffering.
posted by xanadian at 10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home