Let’s make this simple. The Government should not provide needless handouts for healthcare, but should protect against financially-catastrophic health issues.
If everyone pays a portion of their care at the time-of-service, we discourage the “any-reason” doctor’s visit. Further, with limited government-subsidy, families have some protection against financial catastrophe for unique medical situations.
Consider the following:
- Cap Coverage by Income: Individuals earning more than, $60,000+ annually would be entitled to a 50% government subsidy for their healthcare and meds. Households earning more than $500,000 would be entitled to a reduced 30% subsidy for their healthcare and meds. In either scenario, insurance companies would be allowed to provide the insurance to cover these gaps.
- Low-Income Subsidy: Households earning less than $1,000 per month, per person (up to the 60k cap), would receive a 95% subsidy on their healthcare and meds.
- Leave Room for the Insurance Companies: Face it, Insurance companies are a valuable part of our society, and no government official would endorse the elimination of an insurance industry. The above scenario would encourage middle-and-higher-income households to seek additional coverage, to cover the 50% or 70% gap noted above.
Under this scenario, a person requiring a $200,000 operation would not have to forfeit a massive portion of their retirement to cover the costs.
Using “subsidy-only”, as opposed to “free” would also discourage un-needed doctors’ evaluations, since the patient is responsible for a significant portion of their bill. This would also encourage consumer-driven pricing.
Posted under Healthcare
This post was written by PoliticsRX on January 1, 2008
