The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
How to Reduce Health Care Costs.
The problem with healthcare in America is not that it’s bad or available, but rather the high cost that makes it unaffordable for 40 million Americans without it and more expensive for everyone else. The question is how do make healthcare more affordable for the 260 million Americans and employers and find a way to add at least 25 million more to the rolls without bankrupting overburdened taxpayers. If we chase the next marginal healthcare widget, costs will spiral upwards. We need to lower costs so we can afford charity care for the remainder. Here are 4 simple ideas that would cost a fraction of the bill in Congress.
1) Tort Reform- Texas and California have enacted tort reform reducing costs by 20%. If you pay $10,000 per year that would save him $2,000 over what he pays today. Additionally this will lower malpractice insurance for doctors. For patients this means doctors will no longer need to perform a myriad of expensive tests and procedures lowering costs further. This will lead to more doctors returning to NJ which has seen an out flow due to high taxes and ever higher malpractice insurance. Added benefit is that future John Edwards’ will not be able to build 20,000 square foot homes for their love children. Better quality and number of physicians will help people like Jack Dawkins who will also see his healthcare bill go down giving him more money to spend as he chooses. Doctors would concentrate on results not covering their butt.
2) Personal Health Savings Accounts- You will be able to place up to $5,000 per year ($10,000 for a family) on a pre-tax basis into his own account. If you are in the 30% tax bracket this is equivalent to $12,500 in cash, because it is a tax credit vs. a deduction. These two simple ideas would save 260 million Americans the equivalent of $10-15,000 ($20-25,000 for a family) per year on their current bills.
3) Competition- Instead of a federal behemoth why not let you buy insurance from any insurer from any state in the country? In NJ there are fewer insurance companies than say PA This due to 2 reasons. First NJ makes you offer every insurance available. Secondly I don’t need everything that NJ mandates. For example my industry offers a low cost health option but NJ is one a few states that won’t let them do it. If you could choose from 200 companies instead a couple of dozen think about how much more you would save.
4) High deductible Catastrophic Insurance- This would particularly help the 20-40 are demographic who I’m sure you do not want to see paying his health insurance, but that’s what the current bill does. This is most healthy age group and part of the subterfuge is to squeeze them. The above idea would make healthcare more affordable to this age group adding millions to the insured rolls.
This plan doesn’t do everything but makes health care much more affordable for 85% of Americans who have insurance. It leads to savings so that we have the ability to handle the 5-7% still left out. HUMC would receive 100% charity reimbursement under this plan without one more tax dollar spent.
1) Tort Reform- Although Jack disagrees Texas and California have enacted Tort reform reducing costs by 20%. If tony pays $10,000 per year that would save him $2,000 over what he pays today. Addidtionaly this will lower malpractice insurance for doctors. For the patient this means doctors will no longer need to perform a myriad of expensive tests and procedures to cover their butt. This will lead to more doctors returning to NJ which has seen a out flow due to high taxes and ever higher malpractice insurance. Added benefit is that future John Edwards will not be able to build their 20,000 sqaure foot homes for their love children. Better quality and number of physicians will help people like Jack Dawkins who will also see see his healthcare bill go down giving him more money to spend as he chooses.
2) Personal Health Savings Accounts- you will be able to place up to $5,000 per year on a pre-tax basis into his own account.
1) Tort Reform- Texas and California have enacted tort reform reducing costs by 20%. If you pay $10,000 per year that would save him $2,000 over what he pays today. Additionally this will lower malpractice insurance for doctors. For patients this means doctors will no longer need to perform a myriad of expensive tests and procedures lowering costs further. This will lead to more doctors returning to NJ which has seen an out flow due to high taxes and ever higher malpractice insurance. Added benefit is that future John Edwards’ will not be able to build 20,000 square foot homes for their love children. Better quality and number of physicians will help people like Jack Dawkins who will also see his healthcare bill go down giving him more money to spend as he chooses. Doctors would concentrate on results not covering their butt.
2) Personal Health Savings Accounts- You will be able to place up to $5,000 per year ($10,000 for a family) on a pre-tax basis into his own account. If you are in the 30% tax bracket this is equivalent to $12,500 in cash, because it is a tax credit vs. a deduction. These two simple ideas would save 260 million Americans the equivalent of $10-15,000 ($20-25,000 for a family) per year on their current bills.
3) Competition- Instead of a federal behemoth why not let you buy insurance from any insurer from any state in the country? In NJ there are fewer insurance companies than say PA This due to 2 reasons. First NJ makes you offer every insurance available. Secondly I don’t need everything that NJ mandates. For example my industry offers a low cost health option but NJ is one a few states that won’t let them do it. If you could choose from 200 companies instead a couple of dozen think about how much more you would save.
4) High deductible Catastrophic Insurance- This would particularly help the 20-40 are demographic who I’m sure you do not want to see paying his health insurance, but that’s what the current bill does. This is most healthy age group and part of the subterfuge is to squeeze them. The above idea would make healthcare more affordable to this age group adding millions to the insured rolls.
This plan doesn’t do everything but makes health care much more affordable for 85% of Americans who have insurance. It leads to savings so that we have the ability to handle the 5-7% still left out. HUMC would receive 100% charity reimbursement under this plan without one more tax dollar spent.
1) Tort Reform- Although Jack disagrees Texas and California have enacted Tort reform reducing costs by 20%. If tony pays $10,000 per year that would save him $2,000 over what he pays today. Addidtionaly this will lower malpractice insurance for doctors. For the patient this means doctors will no longer need to perform a myriad of expensive tests and procedures to cover their butt. This will lead to more doctors returning to NJ which has seen a out flow due to high taxes and ever higher malpractice insurance. Added benefit is that future John Edwards will not be able to build their 20,000 sqaure foot homes for their love children. Better quality and number of physicians will help people like Jack Dawkins who will also see see his healthcare bill go down giving him more money to spend as he chooses.
2) Personal Health Savings Accounts- you will be able to place up to $5,000 per year on a pre-tax basis into his own account.
Views: 5
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on
-
Medicare Part A-f you work you are covered with no premium.
Medicare Part B- Can go up by federal COLA (like Social Security). 3 out 4 Amewricans will recieve no increase this year, vs. the rest of us.
Medicare Part C: Essentially is Part A and B combined. This can offered by private insurance companies.
If you don't like what the insurance companies offer pick Part's A and B instead. Maximum cost for B is $110 per month. I'll take it in a heartbeat. Again costs can only go up COLA which is true for me or most Americans.
-
-
Incognito: As I've said you can always choose Medicare A and B as an alternative. If you believe that Humana offers you a better plan than the government then take it. If not don't. I don't care how much money someone makes. All I care about is whether or not something is cost effective to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Antonucci on -
Tort reform has not entered into the federal health care debate because too many of our politicians are lawyer and don't want to decimate their profession. in Europe what you can get out of a lawsuit is very limited and some of the things Scott talked about are evident there ie no cover your butt tests. They also are more willing to "open the comono", document an analize their processes to reduce errors. Here, doctors are still writing things down in paper files so mistakes are hard to find and easy to hide. Did you see what the Israli's were doing in Haiti with technology? Anderson Cooper did a report on it. They are so far ahead of us in terms of technology and I think tort is a driving factor.
Also in Europe, they don't cover everything and they cover some things that we are foolishly contemplating not to cover. They don't cover things like acne, orthodonty, erectile disfunction as albeit these things are considered illnesses here, they are not life threatening so they are not covered. If you have a tooth ache, they will fill it but if you need a root canal to save your tooth, they will pull it. I have had family come here for dental work. They cover abortions because, from the states point of view, it's much better not to have an unwanted child than it is to support one through welfare and the criminal system for ever.
The Republicans are backed by the insurance companies that don't want a system as described above. The insurance companies want people to have extra tests and additional procedures upon which they can justify greater and greater premiums.
Scott, the reason why you can't open it up so that a person can buy from any state is you'd end up with a couple of different scenarios depending on some important details. Right now there are 5 states in the union (NY, NJ, NH, MA and VT) that require insurers in those states to offer a policy to everyone who applies. They can exclude a pre-existing illness for 12 months but then they have to cover it. As a result those 5 states have much higher premium costs than other states. For example, my insurance is a little over $400 a month. For the same policy in Ohio, it would be around $125 because in the state of Ohio they can exclude people who have expensive illnesses like diabetes or a history of heart desease or can cancer. The law also has some rules that make sure they are not charging a rate so high it's equivalent to not offering it to someone with a pre-existing condition. So for example, if a cancer patient applies and they are currently spending $25,000 a month in healthcare costs, the insurance company cannot charge them $30K a month. That's why my insurance is $400 because about $300 is going to cover costs for people in the plan who have serious illnesses.
I agree wholeheartedly on the HSA point. People don't realize what they are missing out on. HSA money goes in tax free, grows tax free and comes out tax free. They are like ROTH IRAs. The member gets a tax benefit which basically offsets the higher deductible + they get a great savings vehicle where they will enjoy a secondary tax benefit as they used the money while we (in the case of public employees and taxes) save money on healthcare premiums.
These are state laws. NJ also has relatively few insurance companies here as a result of it's non exclusion rules. If this wasn't changed, NJ would get all the people who couldn't get insurance elsewhere and either no insurer would operate in NJ or the other 4 states mentioned or they would go bankrupt.
-
-
Incognito: Obviously consumers know what they have (or should know). Medicare A and B costs $110 per month if you work or have worked. Take a look at what benefits you are offered. 22 insurance companies offer additional coverage. Obviously enough consumers checked out all 22 and compared it to A and B and decided for themselves that extra services justified any price differences. Humana obviously offers consumers good value (otherwise people would switch) and now pays even more taxes to the federal government. I call that a win, win scenario.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by 
.
