Dazed and Confused,

Steven in FL

P.S. Happy thanksgiving again everyone!

The upcoming leaders are also planning the nationalization of the health care system and shutting down any industries that emit carbon dioxide including coal fired powerplants, thus putting millions of coal miners, engineers, and management out of work. All in the name of "man-made" global warming.

When we make ourselves so powerful that we think we can, through our technology, change the climate of the Earth, aren't we making ourselves wiser than God? As Bradford saw in the philosophy of Plato pertaining to property, don't we also follow this philosophy when we think we can change the Earth? It is interesting that there is a prediction that a meteor will strike the Earth in 2018. Could this be God's way of showing us that we are nothing but quarks in the ultmate scheme of things. As the scientist put forth at the global warming conference, since there is nothing you can do about global warming, spend your time and money on what you can fix.

Ms Schechner is dead on. Insurance is not the solution to our difficulties in financing health care. It is, in fact, the problem.

Insurance and health care simply do not mix. We pay for other insurance based on fixed agreements: Life insurance policies pay out a set amount upon one’s death for a certain premium. Automobile insurance pays an amount up to the total value of the insured vehicle after a wreck. Both figures are agreed to in advance and figure prominently in the determination of premiums. Who would buy their auto insurance from a company that never “totals” a vehicle, but instead must go to the most extraordinary lengths and expense to restore it to working condition not matter how terrible the collision or great the abuse? Conversely, what owner of such a policy would hesitate to demand that the insurer of their beloved ’65 Volvo wagon be made whole again after a run-in with a cement truck? And we wonder why premiums are going up?

Society needs to look at health care for what it is – a commodity. When we need a commodity we have two choices. We either buy it with money saved, or, having failed for whatever reason to have accumulated enough to buy it outright, borrow the money and absorb the penalty of interest in paying it back. So it should be with our healthcare, albeit with a little help from the feds, as given the extraordinary expense and importance of this particular commodity, and the government’s stake in a healthy and thus productive citizenry, there is a role for Washington, but only as an enforcer of savings and ultimate guarantor of loans.

Here is the way a Health Savings and Loan Plan could work: When a person is born or becomes a citizen it is mandated that a savings account be opened at an approved financial institution (a true “lock-box”) with a certain minimum deposit. The account would be tied to the individual for life, with account number combining say, the last six digits of his or her Social Security number with four additional numbers. Interest earned would be tax-exempt and withdrawals could be made only for health-related reasons. Deposits into the account could occur at any time and in any amount from any person or institution and would be tax deductible. Monies in the account could be used to cover the health care expenses of others, or transferred into the health care accounts of others. In the case of families, the parents would have control over the accounts of their children, with certain limitations, until they reach their majority. Obviously, the wise would contribute often to their accounts, enjoy the tax benefits, and have a sizable cushion against future problems, as well as funds for preventive medicine. Unfortunately, wisdom is not universal, and for even the wisest, catastrophic illnesses could occur early in life while the personal fund is still small. In a great many cases, other personal funds would not be sufficient to cover these costs. Here the second pillar of government support comes in, guaranteeing, or perhaps granting low interest loans on generous terms. The loans would be easy to secure, but very difficult to default on as repayment would be guaranteed by the possible use of payroll deductions, exemptions from bankruptcy protection, and liens against property and estates. The program would have to phased in over time in order to protect those relying on the current system.

Obviously, this would involve the winding down of a major industry and the inevitable howling this would produce, and there would be some very thorny and expensive issues to deal with in running parallel health care systems during the 70 or so years of the phase in. However, the benefits for the health care system, and society in general would dwarf these drawbacks. A Health Savings and Loan program would bring back two crucial forces that are being slowly leeched out of the current system: personal responsibility and market forces. A person contributing to his or her account regularly and living a healthy lifestyle will be rewarded; those that do not will be penalized, but financially, and not at the expense of their health. Since the money being spent would be that which has been saved or must be repaid, the account owner will be more circumspect in his choice of providers than if under a third payer system. This will return market forces to the equation and lower prices for everyone. Medical providers will be disencumbered from a huge amount of paperwork, having only to bill and collect fees from patients. To the great relief of doctors, there will be no outside advisors directing the treatment of their patients – those decisions will return to where they should be, between doctor and patient with a careful, but not fearful, eye toward cost. The vast amounts of money being siphoned off for insurance operating costs would be redirected toward patient care and the inflationary pressure of third-party payers would cease to exist. Charitable and benevolent entities would find their conduits to those in need greatly streamlined and more secure as funds could be deposited directly into an individual’s savings account with the assurance that they would be used only for the purpose intended. The same holds true for gifting situations; for example grandparents wishing to provide more than just toys at Christmas time could help to vest their loved ones’ financial health with a simple deposit into this dedicated account.

Ultimately, and perhaps even more importantly, placing the responsibility for their most precious possession upon the shoulders of individual citizens will heighten their sense of responsibility in other areas of life as well. For example, would it be such a terrible thing for a young couple or single person contemplating parenthood to also have to consider the immediate requirement of, say, $1000 to fund their child’s health care account? Perhaps those who need to think twice about such an undertaking would thus be encouraged to do that very thing.

The institution of a program as outlined above would do much to change the relationship between government and citizen. Unlike other government programs, it is clear-cut, transparent and easily understood. Its reliance on personal responsibility underwritten by a benevolent but resolute government would confer on both parties the dignity that is now being eroded from both.

So what you're saying is that the free market and Child Labour is waht made the colony strong. They are the values that made the USA great – exploiting the weak. First children, then slavery.