Here is my continuing update detailing, in greater depth, various points of “The Plan” designed to address the reasoning behind these ideas and the objections some have voiced.
(1) All persons must have health insurance from the private sector or government sponsored plans.
Many have objected to this as a violation of personal choice and freedom. However, I would suggest that it is a dereliction of civic resonsibility (if such a thing still exists in America) to force others (fellow citizens, doctors, hospitals, insurers, government – i.e. taxpayers) to pick up the tab for you when you become very sick or injured (as you WILL at some point in this life). By mandating coverage with penalties, just as we do for auto insurance, we put personal responsibility back in the equation. It has been far too long since that was the case as the government in particular, along with big labor and big business to varying degrees, have sought to remove responsibility from the individual and to displace it to some other entity.
(2) Proof of insurance would be required to get any type of license, enroll in school, apply for job, yearly confirmation will be required, etc. just as with automobile insurance.
Like all mandates, those without teeth fail. Therefore, there needs to be a “stick” which can be applied in the course of daily life, as opposed to a medical emergency (when no person will be denied care). The suggestion here is that all persons would be effected by these type of requirements and therefore the need to make sure that they have health coverage would be a strong driver for compliance.
(3) Fine of $1,000 if presenting to Doctor, Hospital, etc., for service without insurance, and must pay all expenses for services.
This item is potentially more problematic, but only in the case of a TRUE emergency. It would also require the cooperation of health care workers, doctors, offices, hospitals, clinics, etc. to report offenders. This is not necessarily the ideal scenario, however, along with point number 2, it forms the basis of a credible strategy to ensure compliance with point number 1, which, after all, is the real goal.
(4) The truly financially disadvantaged should be folded into the current Medicaid system with revisions; in that they should pay needs based premiums. As such, Medicaid, Medicare, disability, workers compensation, Government employees, Veterans, Retirement and children’s programs would not be significantly changed.
Here we get to one of the major issues, coverage (and access) for those without means to acquire private coverage in the marketplace. There is much to debate about each of the programs mentioned here. Many things can and should be changed about how these programs work. However, if we try to fix ALL issues in the system at once, the most major items of reform will not occur. Therefore, we MUST focus on what is achievable and provides the most benefit within the framework of our currently established free market/government based system. Expansion of these current forms of tax payer subsidized coverage should continue for the near term. Over time, some of these programs can be merged, rearranged or even eliminated without affecting the base of coverage provided.
(5) All company-sponsored programs would be phased out over three years (better than a tax break).
This will strike some as a major politically incorrect proposal. However, if we are to restore personal responsibility back to the system we must do so by removing the need for businesses, which are clearly not in the health insurance business, from it. Business should not be in the health business, but in business. The morass created by having to have benefit coordinators (who spend most of their time on health insurance matters) instead of focused on traditional benefits (retirement, vacation, leave etc, etc.) is inefficient and costly. By eliminating the need for businesses to carry these costs, they will receive a markedly reduced overhead, which is even better than a tax break to expand their current coverage systems.
(6) Minimum wage increased by $2.00 per hour so low income workers would have no excuse to offer for not having coverage.
Again, there will be resistance in many quarters to this proposal. As we well know, the minimum wage is in the process of being increased as we speak ($6.55 effective July 24, 2008 and then again rising to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009). However, a further increase as suggested beyond this is a better format than asking businesses of all sizes to carry the full load for providing health insurance, which should be a personal responsibility. For a full time worker, this $2 increase translates to more than $4,000 per hear ($2 x 2080 hours). That is more than sufficient for workers to purchase their own health care coverage within the context of the full plan as outlined here.