"The Denninger Plan" is at http://market-ticker.org/archives/1420-H....

The other two options are obvious :)

You may only vote for one, and only vote once.

Note: If you are coming from The Ticker, you must be signed in to vote. If you do not see the options to vote above, please either log in or use "Register" to obtain a login ID. Registration is free.

I vote for the "The Denninger Plan"

ThroxxOfVron Votes in favor of the Denninger "Health Care Reform Act of 2009".

Ish votes for the Derringer plan.

For some reason, I can see the results of this poll easily. :)

Karl,
maybe you could open up this one poll to the 'non- donators' so we can get a larger sample?

nevermind- I thought you had to have a star to take the poll

I vote "other"... oh wait that was not a choice in this push poll.
I like John Mackeys' "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424....

I voted for your plan Karl, but why did you leave out this part?

Quote:

All "insurance" companies must offer a true insurance policy covering only unlikely-but-catastrophic events on the same terms as their "full service" policies.

There's some good steps in there, but nothing worth getting too excited about.
for my two cents, i think taking the gov out of healthcare to the maximum extent possible (including medicare/medicaid) is the best solution...I mean ya at some point someone will prolly die b/c they didnt get some procedure, but that happens. it would improve things for the vast majority, and from a utilitarian perspective, thats what counts. but like i said, some good ideas in Karl's plan, but needs more

Also, I wanna know why nobody has brought up the idea to have some kind of national PT test? If im gonna have to pay for some fat lazy SOB to have health insurance under some ****ing government plan, they better be taking care of themselves, and if they arent...no coverage. I guess I know damn well why no one has proposed it, but they damn well should!
Take that fat ass!

As a small business owner that ALREADY pays 100% for insurance for a very small pool of employees (<10) I vote for the Denninger plan.

Denninger

Denninger plan.

I think I'd like an addition though. Employees should be able to take their health benefits (in equivalent dollar amounts to the cost of the official plan) as a direct contribution to an Health Savings Account. And then use that money to shop for their own provider, or even to just pay for their own care out of the HSA as needed.

Ticker plan.

Pricing and competition needs to happen yesterday. Having a committee in DC decide what something should cost isn't going to help. Because regulatory bodies are o so incorruptible.

Thats the number one problem among everything. When preventive care is too expensive to promote you're encouraging greater diseases later on. That is assbackwards.

All three choices fall outside the United States Constitution so I will not vote. Any plan that is in violation of the United States Constitution is DOA.

Medicare/Medicaid - close them down and put the old folks on the same insurance as everybody else. That'll stop the cost-shifting.

A natural free market isn't going to work in this case, precisely because insurance interferes. The availability of deep, private pockets ensures lawsuits will continue and temporary spikes in prices are made permanent by the availability of big money, i.e. insurance just jacks up its rates to pay for the higher prices. It's doomed to become unaffordable.

Plus the Genesis plan isn't free market at all, it's got quite a bit of government interference. Plus it doesn't get rid of Medicare which is most of the problem and expense that needs to be fixed.

If the government pays it will wipe out most of the health insurance companies and remove that overhead immediately (why it isn't being done). A few of those people will go to work for the government. The government will make its job squeezing down the prices. Because the health care providers will have almost no other customers they'll have to trim fat, lots of fat and revamp completely how they do business.

So health care will be cheap. Those who can afford it can buy extra premium service like, a private room or nurses with big melons. The essential care won't be any better but certain perks will be available for private purchase.

The doctors, drug companies, hospital supply companies and insurance companies are going to fight back, but that's where the costs are. That has to be addressed or nothing is going to change.

But since my idea isn't on the ballot, the Genesis plan is a close second and much better than what we have now.

Genesis Plan ---Why is THAT so hard? And a Helluva lot less than 1000 pages too.

Agree with you Karl. I also had the same idea about creating a public database for doctor's records, and only allowing gross negligence cases to be pursued.
In fact, I think the data in the public database should be used to help set the cost structure for the doctor's malpractice insurance as well.
Good record - discount!
Bad record - points off your license to practice. Over the limit and a process to remediate or forfeit the license to practice begins.

The lack of any free market ideas being applied to this "problem" is perhaps the best commentary on where we are heading...

Noe of the above.

Shut down Medicare/Medicaid and return the purchase of health care insurance to the consumer following the life insurance model. End health care subsidies through .gov or employers.

I would vote for the Denniger Plan. Best wishes

Of the three choices, I voted for the Ticker plan, but only because we had to vote for the Obama plan as presented. The major deal killer in the Obama plan is that health insurance is mandatory. Anytime the government mandates anything without funding it, it's bad. If the Obama plan did not have the mandatory clause in it, I would have voted for it instead.

The best plan would incorporate elements of both the Ticker and Obama plans, leaving out the mandate of course.

My concern with the Denninger plan is the first provision for the same rates to be charged across a state and open to anyone who wants to pay them.

This approach completely eliminates the ability of an insurance company to charge different rates based on expected loss. It would smooth these higher rates across the group and increase the coverage cost for many.

If you live in a flood zone, on the coast, smoke, have speeding tickets, etc you pay more in insurance premiums. Why should it not be the same for health insurance? I’m not very interested in subsidizing higher insurance premiums for people that smoke, don’t care of themselves, are injured riding a motorcycle, *need* 7 different prescription drugs, want to be on anti depressants, etc.

In general, I’m not in favor of paying more for what I get so others can enjoy the same service at a lower rate than they would have to pay in an open market. This is called wealth redistribution.

OPTION 4

The Eighty plan would call for all people to carry catastrophic coverage only with an annual deductible around 5000. In other words, you pay for the first 5000 of health care expenses out of your pocket and you use insurance only to insure against unexpected and expensive events. This is exactly what insurance is designed for. Insurance is not there to cover daily expenses. Eliminate all insurance coverage for expenses up to 5k and people will 1) make damn sure they need the service before they pay out of pocket and 2) will force the providers to compete on price outside of managed care plans.

Quote:

This approach completes eliminates the ability of an insurance company to charge different rates based on expected loss. It would smooth these higher rates across the group and increase the coverage cost for many.

No it doesn't.

It requires that the health insurance company charge you the same as it charges anyone else under identical circumstances.

If a company pays a level premium, you must be able to as well. If the company is individually rated (and many are) you must be too, but the insurer may not require individual medical exams to rate you unless they also do that for their corporate customers under the same plan.

My plan requires that all corporate plans be "open enrollment" for anyone in the state. That's all. Whatever the company is offered, you have to be able to buy, whether you work there or not.

My last message was modified to include an Option 4.

Under the current model, companies may be dropped from insurance coverage or have their rates raised based on past history. KD, I'm sure you've seen this in the past running a business. While the companies that employed 75 people of which 3 had premature twin sets in the prior year think it sucks, it does allow the insurance company to modify the pool, lower perceived risk, and offer lower rates to the rest.

In your comments are you saying an insurance company would be free to charge different rates to sub groups inside a state based on medical risk factors like age, weight, etc as long as these rates were consistent across the state?