Health Care: Can we all live with this?

I have an idea that might work to help with the health care crisis. I came up with this while in the shower and am still working out the details. This is more of an idea for discussion.

The idea is: What if the government functioned as a health insurance company? Here is how this would work: The government would offer health insurance that was a percentage of a person's income. If, for example, a person earned $250 and their health insurance was 5% of their income, they would pay $12.50, taken directly out of their check, to the government for health insurance. The government could not deny anyone health coverage. The only elegibilty requirements are being able to work legally in the United States.

The percentage of income would vary based on the person's situation. For example, for my mom to get coverage for herself and I, she would pay a higher percentage of her weekly check than she would just to get coverage for herself. The percentages would also be variable on certain high-risk behavior choices, such as smoking. They would not, however, be variable based on pre-existing conditions. Students could also get lower rates while they are in school. The percentages would also be variable based on the coverage a person selects. A very healthy person might decide to take a plan with a higher deductible and a lower percentage. This allows people to choose the plan that suits them, instead of a one size fits all plan.

This program would also eliminate the need for Medicaid programs, which provide medical care for those who have no insurance and cannot afford it. Instead, these people would enroll in the government sponsored program (remember, the government cannot deny you). This would mean that they bring money into the system (through paying a percentage of their income) and allow it to flourish.

In addition to the government sponsored programs, the regular insurance companies would be allowed to function as normal. This means that people who are already satisfied with their insurance, or who make a lot of money (so the percentage thing would make government insurance more expensive) would be allowed to keep their plans. This keeps competition in the market and eliminates a government monopoly of health care.

I believe this program is a good compromise for several reasons:
1) It ensures that every American is eligible for health insurance. With this plan, yes your taxes will increase. But they would with universal health care too.
2) It allows Americans who do not want universal health care to choose a private insurance company and keeps competition in the market.
3) By using an income proportional system, it makes health care affordable for the poor. Many poor people do not make the same amount of money every week and this would allow them to pay less when they make less and not have to worry about losing their health coverage.
4) The plan would allow people to chose their plan (and percentage), leaving them with choices.
5) The plan does not force one person to pay for the coverage of another or the decisions of another.

And now, a rebuttal to the most obvious criticisms that will probably come up:

Doesn't this screw over the poor people too? What if they can't afford to pay a part of their check for health care and go without?
With any form of government-sponsored health care, there is no way around an increase in taxes. None. Nada. You have to pay for health care anyway, whether through a private insurer, this program or the cross your fingers and hope for the best program. Either way you are going to have to pay. I feel that health care is like food: a necessity, but something you have to pay for.

Wow, this seems like a money-losing program?
It is. I can guarantee that this is a money-losing program. I'm not trying to hide or deny that. It falls under the category of welfare. Welfare programs cost money, but exist to help society. This program eliminates the need for programs such as Medicaid, which could help save the government money.

This still means that the rich get better coverage!
What else is new? The rich will always get better coverage, even if we have universal health care. If we have universal health care, they will bribe people to get to the front of the line or simply choose to pay for better care from somebody else. We can't make everyone equal. But this will make us closer.

Won't this raise everybody else's taxes too?
It might. But by eliminating programs like Medicaid and replacing them with this, the program will lose money, but it should lose about the same amount of money as the current system. So taxes may rise, or may not rise.

Doesn't this take choice away from the poor people?
Not really. Right now, the poor people's choices are go without health care, go to a free clinic or enroll in government programs such as Medicaid. This will allow people to choose a plan (sponsored by the government), thus allowing more choice. And it doesn't force anyone to get rid of private insurance either!

In conclusion, that's my idea. It's a spark. It's just an idea, and I want it picked apart and discussed, trashed and torn. I want it to inspire people to think. I'm not saying that it's perfect. It's just something I came up with in the shower and I want your opinion. So pick it apart and criticize it. Ask questions.

Begin:

The Most Inelastic Supply

“Time is on my side. Yes it is.”
-the Rolling Stones

Uh huh. Sure.

I would like to begin by stating that I respect the Rolling Stones. I enjoy their music and listen to them on a regular basis. But is time really on our side? Is time on anyone’s side? Time has the most inelastic supply of all goods. Everything comes down to timing. Late or early? Out or safe? Finish the AP exam or have the proctor call time with a page remaining?

We talk about land as the classic example of inelastic supply. But it’s not, really. You can always build up, tack another story on to a building or tear it down and build a taller one if you need more space. But time. You can reorganize your time, but how much of it can you really control? Things start at specific pre-determined times and you are stuck trying to conform to that schedule and make it to the three places you’re supposed to be at that time.

Time is what’s lacking in my life, not lack of ambition. I’m just as smart as many of the people in the Top 20, I’ve just never had the time to do the work required to get a 4.0. I’ve been busy doing other things, some necessary, some not so necessary and some many people wouldn’t understand until they’ve been in the situation. I try to please everybody, but I can’t. I can’t manufacture enough hours in the day for me to accomplish everything I want.

I just can’t do it. I don’t know where I get these brilliant ideas of I’m going to do everything I can, but I just can’t do it anymore. Something’s got to give, and usually that “something” is me. My thoughts, my feelings, my hopes, my dreams. I want to sit down and pet my kitten and get to know this cat that will be a part of my family for the next fifteen years or so. And I, like all kids, love the cat and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what you say about it, I’m gonna keep it.

And her name isn’t Checkers.

Time and Oppertuinity Costs or I'm No Longer Even Trying to Pass AP Micro

Latley, I've been thinking that perhaps I might fail the AP Micro exam. I'm kind of lost, and every time I sit down to take an AP sample test something happens and I get distracted (like my mom's ex-husband calling my house and ringing the phone for three minutes straight during the free response. Naturally, I ignored it and was too distracted and pissed off to continue). Or I just fail. Or I'm just too stressed out to actually do anything and I don't bother because I've given up.

Knowing that my college will take only a four or a five and that I'll have to take econ in college for my Broadfield Social Studies (or I'll never have to take it if I don't do econ as part of my broadfield) I'm wondering if studying for this exam is a waste of my time. I've spent $84 on the exam; that's a sunk cost. Now I'm wondering if I want to throw more time after money that's already gone. Studying for this exam enough to do well on it (ie-get a 4 or 5) would require a lot of time and energy: two things I am currently lacking. I think I would increase my utility a lot more tonight by planning my next two week's worth of softball practices, calling my kids and letting them know when practices are, going for a run and petting my cat.

I know McDainel is going to have a beef about this blog, but I hope she sees my economic reasoning. Perhaps if I had put more effort into studying during the semester, I wouldn't be in this situation. But right now I don't have the mental energy to keep this up. Enough is enough. I am going to try my best on the econ test and maybe hell will freeze over, I'll get lucky and get that 4 or 5. Right now, however, the oppertuinity costs of studying are too great to throw time after a sunk cost of $84.