Indeed, haven't many folks demanded the right to gain access to the health insurance provided to members of Congress? Congressman Broun is proposing getting the government OUT of health care. If anything, Zeke appears to be copying the Swiss model, which does not have a public option, but is still heavily regulated and much cheaper than the U.S. I don't get the impression that Broun is pushing the Swiss model. Now, I am not saying that the Swiss model is a the best plan, and President Obama definitely is not adopting Zeke's or the Swiss model.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html###
The Swiss government does not “ration care” — that populist bogeyman in the American debate — but it does keep down overall spending by regulating drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices. It also requires patients to share some costs — at a higher level than in the United States — so they have an incentive to avoid unnecessary treatments. And some doctors grumble that cost controls are making it harder these days for a physician to make a franc.
The Swiss government also provides direct cash subsidies to people if health insurance equals more than 8 percent of personal income, and about 35 to 40 percent of households get some form of subsidy. In some cases, employers contribute part of the insurance premium, but, unlike in the United States, they do not receive a tax break for it. (All the health care proposals in Congress would provide a subsidy to moderate-income Americans.)
Unlike the United States, where the Medicare program for the elderly costs taxpayers about $500 billion a year, Switzerland has no special break for older Swiss people beyond the general subsidy. “Switzerland’s health care system is different from virtually every other country in the world,” said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied the Swiss approach extensively.
“What I like about it is that it’s got universal coverage, it’s customer driven, and there are no intermediaries shopping on people’s behalf,” she added. “And there’s no waiting lists or rationing.” ###
Compare this with:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeke-emanuel/sustainable-health-care-r_b_114788.html###
The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan proposes to repair the health care system by giving all Americans a voucher to select a standard benefits package offered by insurance company. In most areas, American will be able to choose between 5 and 8 insurance companies. And the insurance companies will be required to enroll anyone who wants and cannot exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The standard benefit package is based on what Congressman and Senators receive, and is more generous than what most Americans currently have through their employers or government program. Americans will also decide if they wanted to buy additional services, say wider selection of doctors and hospitals, more mental health benefits, or coverage for alternative medicines.
The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan will be administered by a National Health Board and regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System with fiscal, administrative, and political independence to make tough decisions based on the merits, not special interest lobbying. There will also be an Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to assess the effectiveness of new drugs, devices, procedures, and other interventions. It will also assess and make publicly available data on the clinical outcomes of patients in different insurance companies. This will permit comparative shopping based on real quality results.
No one receiving Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government program will not be forced out, but there will be no new enrollees. People who turn 65 will simply stay in the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan. The special tax benefits related to employer based coverage will be eliminated and most employers will stop offering health insurance.
Maybe the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan sounds too good to be true. How much more will it cost? It will not cost any more than we are paying today. By using a standard benefits package open to all Americans, there will be huge savings from reduced administrative costs to insurance companies. The end of Medicaid, SCHIP, and coverage of state employees, will produce huge savings -- decreasing state budgets by about a third. Similarly, phasing out of Medicare reduces federal taxes. When employers stop providing health insurance, workers' wages will increase commensurately. Instead Americans would pay a dedicated Value Added Tax. "Dedicated" means it only goes to fund the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan and is not diverted to defense or Social Security or highway construction. "Dedicated" also means that not other revenue will be used to pay for the Plan, requiring fiscal discipline and providing value for money -- giving patients interventions that work rather than just more and more tests and treatments.
Under the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan, Americans will have total freedom of choice, 100% portability, and complete security that if they lose their job, get sick, or some other calamity befalls them or their family, they will never be without health insurance. Furthermore, the Plan provides the incentives for higher quality care. Forcing insurance companies to provide a standard benefit package for a fixed price and report outcomes will drive them to integrate care, emphasize quality and prevention.###
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
