The Consumer Choice and Health Security Act, authored in 1994 and again in 1995 by US Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), an freer-market alternative to Hillary Care, would have done much the same thing with regular insurance, letting employers give to their employers what they spend on health coverage so they could buy what they need, requiring only a catastrophic plan purchase to enjoy federal tax benefits (there was no "mandate" to buy insurance). The same concept applies to Medicare and Medicaid, making purchasing health insurance similar to buying car insurance.
I have a seriously disabled adult son and while he does not rely upon Medicare yet, when I turn 65, he will qualify. He relies on Medicaid and health insurance through my employer, despite being over 26.
I've always been a big fan of deductibles corresponding to incomes so that the poor and disabled have more of a stake and better access to health care services, but it never happens that way. Instead, Medicaid recipients are, in many circumstances, limited to doctors willing to provide what is, in effect, charity care unless they are fortunate enough to have situations like mine (for the most part). However, sometimes holes pop out and you must pay directly. I understand this is how it sometimes works with Medicare, but I don't have enough experience to know for sure.
I don't have a solution, but programs like the ones you talk about, which I like in theory, can, as a practical effect, shut many people out of the system—not usually, but sometimes. When those things happen, the mothers get politically active and, in my experience, they are far more effective than anyone else. Probably not as effective as medical providers or AARP but they get heard too.
These are just some rambling thoughts from someone with far too much experience with health care systems without being a provider.
Thank you for that perspective, and I'm very sorry for your circumstances. I know of others in your situation. I don't see how vouchers would shut people out of a system for which they are eligible, and Medicaid was designed for people like him. I am keenly aware that Medicaid reimbursements are significantly lower than those of even Medicare, and that's a problem. I would hope that other reforms to strengthen the role of doctors in organizing care systems, as mentioned in the bill (Obamacare facilitated the movement of doctors into hospital systems, which is not the same), would result in more options, not fewer.
I'd agree with means testing. Enthusiastically, in fact.
The problem is that it would require politicians to acknowledge that it is a huge income transfer plan—a plan that I support, but it bugs me that no one acknowledges what it is so we will continue to tell polite lies.
The Consumer Choice and Health Security Act, authored in 1994 and again in 1995 by US Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), an freer-market alternative to Hillary Care, would have done much the same thing with regular insurance, letting employers give to their employers what they spend on health coverage so they could buy what they need, requiring only a catastrophic plan purchase to enjoy federal tax benefits (there was no "mandate" to buy insurance). The same concept applies to Medicare and Medicaid, making purchasing health insurance similar to buying car insurance.
I have a seriously disabled adult son and while he does not rely upon Medicare yet, when I turn 65, he will qualify. He relies on Medicaid and health insurance through my employer, despite being over 26.
I've always been a big fan of deductibles corresponding to incomes so that the poor and disabled have more of a stake and better access to health care services, but it never happens that way. Instead, Medicaid recipients are, in many circumstances, limited to doctors willing to provide what is, in effect, charity care unless they are fortunate enough to have situations like mine (for the most part). However, sometimes holes pop out and you must pay directly. I understand this is how it sometimes works with Medicare, but I don't have enough experience to know for sure.
I don't have a solution, but programs like the ones you talk about, which I like in theory, can, as a practical effect, shut many people out of the system—not usually, but sometimes. When those things happen, the mothers get politically active and, in my experience, they are far more effective than anyone else. Probably not as effective as medical providers or AARP but they get heard too.
These are just some rambling thoughts from someone with far too much experience with health care systems without being a provider.
Thank you for that perspective, and I'm very sorry for your circumstances. I know of others in your situation. I don't see how vouchers would shut people out of a system for which they are eligible, and Medicaid was designed for people like him. I am keenly aware that Medicaid reimbursements are significantly lower than those of even Medicare, and that's a problem. I would hope that other reforms to strengthen the role of doctors in organizing care systems, as mentioned in the bill (Obamacare facilitated the movement of doctors into hospital systems, which is not the same), would result in more options, not fewer.
Done right, I have to agree.
I'd agree with means testing. Enthusiastically, in fact.
The problem is that it would require politicians to acknowledge that it is a huge income transfer plan—a plan that I support, but it bugs me that no one acknowledges what it is so we will continue to tell polite lies.