Originally published on HumbleDollar.com Go to main Forum page »
AUTHOR: R Quinn on 8/16/2024
We have multiple insurance programs – based on age and income, there are differences among the states, who pays how much is a mess – many seniors pay more than younger Americans at the same income level.
Enrollment periods and rules differ by type of coverage. Out of pocket costs frequently ignore ability to pay. Employers try to mask costs via FSAs, HSAs and HRAs – if you can afford to contribute. Trying to deal with out-of-pocket costs jeopardizes the ability to save for retirement.
We allow drug companies to market directly to consumers driving demand and costs and perhaps creating health risks.
Allowable fees paid to providers for the same service vary greatly depending on the source of payment – Medicaid, Medicare, employer coverage, private pay – thus causing cost shifting and an unfair distribution of costs to patients.
Employers continue to shift costs to workers sometimes offsetting raises.
We make our disconnected approach so confusing few can figure it out.
Make an attempt at change and we hear the cry “socialized medicine” which is nonsense as we are talking about a payment system not health care delivery system.
I hear people from other countries talk about their much better “free” healthcare system. Of course, it is not free, but the very fact they feel that way tells us the perceived value of paying via taxes and not at the point of service. Everyone is in the same risk pool.
Why can’t America do better? I don’t expect to see significant change in my lifetime, but someday we may see the light.
Sorry, there is no valid argument against a universal USA health insurance system. We have tinkered with our system since the 1960s and I was involved in trying change after change to manage costs, nothing has worked. Nothing has assured universal coverage.
I once lobbied Congress against the Clinton health care plan, I was wrong. Will any universal system be perfect? Certainly not. Will there be tradeoffs? Absolutely!
But if our system works fine for people like me – aside from premiums over $2,000 a month for us – it doesn’t for tens of millions of others young and old and the cost shifting to the middle class is getting worse.
Our goals should be universal insurance coverage, uniform management of costs, fair distribution of costs and no variations based on where you live.
Go to HumbleDollar and join the conversation. Click on Forum above.


another government bureaucracy–like the Post Office–just what we need–
don’t you just admire the arrogance of folks like brother Quinn; ” sorry there is no valid argument against a universal USA health care system”–he knows–just ask him–he probably believed Obama and his promises about Obamacare–this one man knows the truth and the rest of us should just sit down and shut up.
LikeLike
So, give us your ideas that include insurance coverage for every American.
LikeLike
My arrogance comes from being involved in health benefits and health insurance since 1963 from processing claims, to designing plans, being on the BOD of HMOs, lobbying Congress and negotiating every new trend to manage costs.
Don’t shut up, speak up. Tell us how to assure 100% coverage, spread costs across all American in an income sensitive way, fairly compensate providers and stop merely shifting costs around. I’m listening.
LikeLike
fair? Fair! Ok if you can guarantee that I will still have access to all the stuff I need, innovations for the rest of my life, at a price I deem to be fair!
However, I am confident the result will be shortages, a lack of innovation, and an ever increasing surcharge – that has been my experience under America’s “universal” system for the aged, Medicare.
show me the detail on how the system will ensure the success you suggest.
every other country relies on American innovation, for which Americans pay dearly. If you plan to raise the prices exported medicines and technology, etc. while lowering the charges in the states, somehow I believe the other countries will respond the same way Medicaid and the VA do today – providers leave, Rx is not on formulary, and costs get shifted to taxpayers
LikeLike
I don’t know about you but I have been on Medicare for 14 years, I pay IRMAA premiums plus Medigap. I have never had a problem finding a doctor anywhere, I see no lack of innovation, must costs for care have been minimal.
As always, what the better idea for universal coverage?
LikeLike
I’m not Mr. Lindquist, but I will give it a try. Leveraging existing processes and systems in place today.
All Americans are automatically enrolled in base (bronze level) health coverage at birth through the public exchange – using a Health Savings Account capable plan design. They can opt out of the public exchange coverage upon demonstrating coverage through an employer-sponsored plan or by posting a bond sufficient to cover the base level of coverage ($25,000 per year per person).
All non-citizens who are not lawfully present are excluded and must return to wherever they came from. No exceptions.
No charitable care. No exceptions.
No debt forgiveness. No exceptions.
Lawfully present does not include those who crossed the border illegally and who are residing in the US awaiting their asylum claims. Nor does it include individuals who overstayed their visas and who now claim asylum. Those individuals should be repatriated back across the border. They can wait there. No exceptions.
Those who entered lawfully and are awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims can remain, but are subject to the mandate of coverage as are any individuals who are lawfully visiting America (who have not overstayed their visa). For those who entered lawfully and those lawfully visiting America, they pay the full monthly cost of the base health coverage for any full or partial month (prorated) they are lawfully present in America. They are not eligible for federal excess insurance.
The automatic base coverage has a maximum covered charge of $25,000 a year. After the $25,000 maximum coverage charge is incurred, federal excess insurance applies to expenses in excess of $25,000. Those expenses are covered at Medicare allowable levels, with modest point of purchase cost sharing – 10% of the cost of services to be paid by the individual, up to a $10,000/year out of pocket expense maximum. So, 100% coverage applies once the covered charges for an individual reach $125,000 in any one year.
Individuals can purchase coverage for that initial $25,000 liability through a public exchange, or their employer can provide such coverage. This includes everyone – individuals currently covered in the public exchange, individuals covered by Medicare, individuals covered by the VA, individuals who are uninsured and individuals who are currently covered under an employer-sponsored plan. No preexisting condition exclusions, no eligibility requirements. For coverage purchased in the exchange, current premium rules apply. No older individual can be charged more than three times what a younger individual is charged. The current taxpayer subsidy features apply where the cost of coverage for a single individual exceeds 8.39% of household income, but with a minimum monthly premium based on the current Part B and Part D baseline: about $210 in 2024 (Part B =174.70, Part D = 34.70). The employer coverage can also back-fill the point of purchase cost sharing for federal excess insurance expenses.
The applicable large employer requirement is eliminated and every employer must provide access to “affordable”, “minimum essential coverage” of “minimum value” (as currently defined) to every employee and their children and spouse (those who would otherwise qualify for a federal tax exemption) or pay the current IRC 4980H(B) penalty tax that is part of the employer mandate – prorated based on the number of hours worked each month (130 in the denominator). The penalty tax applies even if the individuals who were not offered such coverage did not enroll in the public exchange and receive a taxpayer subsidy. Both eligibility and the penalty tax for employer-sponsored coverage is determined monthly and applies regardless of the hours of work scheduled.
Where a worker has access to employer-sponsored “affordable”, “minimum essential coverage” of “minimum value”, they would not qualify for any taxpayer subsidy should they decide to forego the employer-sponsored plan and enroll in the public exchange.
Costs in excess of $25,000 are covered by federal insurance, and funded by taxpayers from general revenues and continuation of the existing Medicare Part A taxes (FICA-Med). Provider charges for services once the $25,000 limit has been reached are limited to Medicare allowable amounts – which are approximately 40% higher than Medicaid, and perhaps 15% higher than the VA. Providers must continue to provide services for patients who reach the $25,000 threshold – no interruption of the patient – provider relationship.
Parents are responsible for paying for coverage for their children under age 18 and themselves. Where the household has no income, the cost of public exchange coverage will be $210 per person per month, accumulated as taxes due, and will be part of an IRS levy against future earnings, welfare or other entitlement – recovered by offsetting $.10 per $1 (from any member of the household, including a child with wages, or those who leave the household upon reaching the age of majority). The $.10 per $1 offset changes to $1 for $1 once the income, welfare or entitlement reaches the applicable federal poverty level, prorated month by month, until fully recovered.
Why this structure?
Every individual should be responsible for health care coverage – no exceptions.
For employers, it is unreasonable to expect an employer to pick up more than $25,000 of expenses for any individual worker or family member of the worker. Where the $25,000 per covered individual limit applies, the monthly cost to provide “affordable”, “minimum essential coverage” of “minimum value” requirement is a burden every employer should be able to shoulder – likely only a modest addition to current minimum wage requirements.
Medical costs in excess of $25,000 per person should be a liability born by society (taxpayers).
And, retaining the individual and employer financial responsibility should dampen excessive utilization of universal coverage which would be the most likely outcome from proposals by idiots like Bernie and Kamala.
LikeLike
And you feel that is simpler, easy to understand and fair across the entire economic spectrum, use of an HSA is practical for everyone? Why is any of that better than phasing people into a Medicare like program not the Sanders version)?
LikeLike
good for you Jack–a proposal that obviously would be re-worked but there is meat on the bone–appreciate your effort–I know it took time–good work.
if Medicare is in big financial trouble and it becomes universal what does that do to the finances?
In numerous foreign countries certain types of care are not allowed after certain ages I am told–the wait for joint replacement in some countries can be very long–at some point we would emulate them.
I have little faith in the government and their ability–the college loan system is still a mess and students are unsure of how much they can borrow due to changes instituted over a year ago by Dept. of Ed.–we hear about the looming problem of Social Security and Medicare–these folks want to run the health care system?
LikeLike
Well…. I, like millions of other people, like it just as it is. I and my wife have very good health and prescription coverage through my employer. Yes, the co-payments continue to increase each year; but they are manageable. What’s the downside? The excellent coverage motivates me to continue to work into my upper 70’s. But it’s worth it in more ways than one. I realize that’s not your cup of tea for many who retire much earlier. But I sleep very very well at night knowing our health care needs are well taken care of. No buracratic hassles!
LikeLike
Phil wrote:
This comes across as selfish. YMMV.
LikeLike
Even as late The US system grew up with the medical profession which is relatively young in the scheme of things. Yeah there was so called medicine being practiced but it wasn’t anything we would care to be around. Even as late as the 40s and 50s there were doofus ideas in medical practice. At any rate, we have been forced into paying by a haphazard agglomeration of plans that developed recently in historical terms. Just like medicine it’s relatively new
What’s this all got to do with a federal mandated health plan? Only that 50 states and various special interest groups and the medical providers have their ideas of what should be. Sort of like herding cats. After all, this is their bread and butter.
In any massive change, the devil is in the details. Look no further than the Social Security program. It’s a plain old retirement check system. But wait, why do people constantly discus how to deal with it. Can we put up with another program that requires an annual sum of spending but the politicians argue over how much incessantly?
LikeLike