No one disputes that everyone deserves access to good health care. 

However, the argument is not about the availability of good healthcare it is about affordability of health insurance which provides the access to it. 

We already have government run health care through our Medicare/Medicaid system. It already is not working, people are already not getting the care they need and the systems are bankrupt. Why would you promote creating an even bigger system when you can’t handle the current ones you are already responsible for?

First, our primary issue with the cost of health care is centered on hospitalization. When you look at how health insurance is structured you see that it is not focused on Hospitalization but standard care. So the first thing that has to happen is to change the focus. Do you realize that most people only go to the doctor 1 to 2 times a year on average? Yet they contribute to a standard care premium, several hundred dollars a month, or $2400 or more a year, for the privilege of paying $20/visit when they see the doctor. If they paid the doctor up front, based on two visits a year then they would have a bill for $200 to $500 total. So tell me why we are paying $2400/year or more to save $500?

Secondly, health insurance is so costly because we are not able to compete on a national level due to current state laws. If just this change were made, the cost of insurance would be reduced drastically. Everyone knows that insurance rates are based on the ability to spread the risk. The larger the population pool the better rates that can be achieved.

Third, the employer based health care system that we are so erroneously focused on is another reason that costs are so high. Insurance companies look at an employer as a single unit in the full risk evaluation, so that the full population is not truly counted. Therefore, if we leave this system and start to purchase as individuals, costs will be reduced because everyone is counted as opposed to a fraction of the population. This does not mean that an employer cannot compete for the best employees through their benefit package as they do now; it just means that it will be handled differently.

HSA Plans allow an individual to save money for health related costs and if the money is not used in one fiscal year, it can be rolled over for use the next. Let’s face it, the average American typically does not have large medical expenditures year after year; but there are exceptions.  An employer can contribute to the individual’s HSA every year in the same amount as they do now. This is a win:win because Employers won’t have to deal with the constant changes that occur but more importantly they can never meet everyone’s wants and desires with the plan they choose so this gets them out of that business and allows them to focus on what they do best.

With hospitalization insurance or high deductible plans there is a deductible of typically $5000/year. Once this dollar amount is met, the plan becomes a 100% plan. Currently, most plans are 80/20. If you are hospitalized and the cost is $50,000 then on a hospitalization plan you’re out of pocket expenditure is $5000; on the current employer based plans your out of pocket is $10,000. Obviously, any larger of a bill on the current plan means a whole lot more hurt than the high deductible, where you’re out of pocket never changes. The average current cost, due to minimal competition for the high deductible plans is about $150 to $200 per month per person or $1800 to $2400/year. I would have to believe that national competition would bring this cost down substantially. However, let’s compare this cost to the current contributions that people are already making as described above. If you assume that the employer is depositing at least $5000/year into the HSA instead of paying directly for insurance everyone would be coming out ahead of the game even before the reductions.

Fourth, states can require that minimally everyone have a high deductible hospitalization policy, just as we require car insurance.

Fifth, general care doctors no longer have to deal with insurance and can reduce costs because of the administrative savings they will achieve by removing this obstacle and allowing people to vote with their feet who they will use based on price. There are doctors that now only charge their patients $79/month which includes tests and standard preventative and diagnostic procedures.

Sixth, all individuals currently receiving benefits due to low income status will have money contributed in the same way so that they will have a hospitalization plan as opposed to Medicare/Medicaid. This means that we are paying $7500/year or less for someone’s medical issues instead of the astronomical cost currently in place per person through our current system. This allows and empowers individuals to be self sufficient as much as possible while still providing assistance. They would access this though a medical debit card that does not allow expenditures that are not coded for health. This reduces the cost to our current budget as opposed to adding costs.

Seventh, all federal, state and elected officials need to be on this same plan. Those that live off the people need to live as the people do.

This is not rocket science it is common sense and I believe the current regulations need to be revamped so that they don’t inhibit creativity in solving our problems which is what our current laws do now.

This plan does not require government to run it just to endorse it and let the positive results appear.

Subsidizing does not solve problems it creates them!

I completely disagree with CAP & TRADE LEGISLATION!

First, Cap and Trade is only a shell game being put forth to strip more money from the people you are suppose to be serving; as opposed to actually coming up with something that will make us energy independent and at the same time provide good environmental policy. It does not reduce anything just moves it from one column to another.

Second, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant it is a necessary element that is part of our photosynthesis process. Did you hear the latest about how aerosols are now considered better for the environment than the alternative that we now use because we were told aerosols were a danger? Let’s be a little smarter this time.

Third, this is not an energy plan; this is the lazy man’s way to deal with an issue while not really dealing with it at all.

Good Energy policy would be:

1.       Drill for our own resources, instead of allowing China to drain our reserves off our shore. How does not drilling help the environment when someone else is still doing it? Additionally, we are much more environmentally conscious than any other country; so our processes will provide a higher level of assurance that drilling will be done responsibly.

2.       Implement turbine construction along our entire highway system including solar collectors. This does not require taking large green spaces to accomplish a change and uses an already industrial focused land use to its highest ability. The electrical infrastructure is already in place so minimal investment for retrofit is required, as opposed to starting from scratch. The energy captured from this implementation can offset the housing demand as it is the lowest demand area.

3.       Focus on diesel technology for transportation. Everything I have read shows that diesel burns 40% cleaner than our current fuel and it naturally achieve higher mpg ratings. The car companies already have access and use this technology so an entire retrofit of their industry is necessary. And diesel can be created from resources other than fossil fuel.

4.       Invest in clean coal, natural gas and nuclear to address industry demand; and where possible use geothermal energy in developments that require large land mass such as research parks, office parks, university and shopping malls just to name a few.

5.       Change building codes to require alternative energy usage in commercial developments over a specific size.

Now that sounds like a plan!