The rush to insurance during this healthcare summit seems to make many presumptions, such as that price fixing is good for one industry but not good for another. I am sure that the lobbyists are leading the charge to mandatory insurance for individuals and businesses, letting Congress take control of providing customers for these private businesses through mandates that take civil rights away from the taxpayers.
Being forced to buy anything is not freedom. Price fixing with a guaranteed ever increasing percent of income in perpetuity for insurance companies will not bring health care costs down. Allowing government and insurance companies an automatic draw on paychecks will not bring health care costs down. Freedom of choice and cash in hand will bring health care costs down.
Oh, but the debt load on the medical profession is huge and there is all that malpractice insurance to pay for and these payments must continue….Perhaps more structured bankrupt medical debtors this time, instead of just auto manufacturers. Where is the debt load? Who are the creditors? Should foreign companies be able to own our insurance pools?
Establish low cost clinics in neighborhoods for routine medical visits covered or not by insurance. Reasonable, available low cost health care, payment in cash or card or insurance, but always at a low cost, payment now or jump through social services hoops.
Facilities for these clinics exist in many cities in the form of unused commercial space, empty government buildings, repossessed homes and unused school space.
Insurance companies are tying up huge sums and then using these sums to get tax money to pay off their gambling losses. Now they want to mandate the continuance of this forced obligation so they can take even more money out of the system. Let government, and private enterprise offer non-mandatory insurance choices and allow the individual to seek out low cost heath care on the open market. Use stimulus money to establish the clinics and man them. Give the people the right to buy or not to buy.
Figure it out! A small clinic operating 24 hours a day would see a patient every half hour average @ $10 a visit, $4800 would be generated or $9,600 @ $20 a visit. Enough money to pay a small staff and what a boon to the neighborhood it would be.
Give the people a real chance to choose healthcare, not a series of predesigned choices that enrich others. This is far more important than more roads.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Womens Rights and Mandatory Insurance
Mr. President: I am pleased that you are an advocate of civil rights, including those of women. My mother was born before suffrage for women in the USA and I came to adulthood amid prejudice against women. I learned along the way to make my own choices, sometimes at odds with male dominated society. Forced choices do not freedom make.
In regards to insurance, I remember disliking Ms. Clinton because she would mandate I buy something, anything, but in this case it was insurance. As a free market advocate, the price fixing brought in by mandatory insurance is dangerous for the economy. As a parallel, possibly it would be decided that all must buy a car, with the prices set by the industry and the government. Let the assessments begin.
Government insurance? Go for it!
Private insurance? Let’s have it!
Mandatory insurance? Cancel it! Let the prices of health care fall to the housing levels. Use stimulus money to establish low cost clinics in neighborhoods.
A post boom-time pullback in expenditures per item. All sectors are influenced by the assumed derivative debt, not just housing. Propping up outlandish medical charges and huge outlays for malpractice insurance by mandating insurance while not allowing the direct pay preference is allowing a few to control huge sums of cash. Direct pay at a low cost in local conditions would free up all the cash held by insurance firms into the economy. Let the free market work.
In regards to insurance, I remember disliking Ms. Clinton because she would mandate I buy something, anything, but in this case it was insurance. As a free market advocate, the price fixing brought in by mandatory insurance is dangerous for the economy. As a parallel, possibly it would be decided that all must buy a car, with the prices set by the industry and the government. Let the assessments begin.
Government insurance? Go for it!
Private insurance? Let’s have it!
Mandatory insurance? Cancel it! Let the prices of health care fall to the housing levels. Use stimulus money to establish low cost clinics in neighborhoods.
A post boom-time pullback in expenditures per item. All sectors are influenced by the assumed derivative debt, not just housing. Propping up outlandish medical charges and huge outlays for malpractice insurance by mandating insurance while not allowing the direct pay preference is allowing a few to control huge sums of cash. Direct pay at a low cost in local conditions would free up all the cash held by insurance firms into the economy. Let the free market work.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Arizona State University Commencement
Dear President Obama:
I attended the ASU graduation of my son in law with the greatest pleasure in your speech to the graduates. Thank you.
The economic worries here have created much discussion at local political clubs. I have written my ideas on health care insurance reform, hereupon forwarding them to you from the great state of Arizona…
Healthcare reform can attract votes and free up capital
Healthcare insurance reform is happening. The political parties must assist in the creation of a new system of ideas. The way to achieve influence will be through the possession of new ideas and new solutions to current problems in the healthcare system. The nation must have some ideas that depart from the practices of the past that are proven business failures.
Bipartisan discussions are necessary. Respecting others opinions within the party is necessary. Ideally, individuals who prevent voices from being heard should be relegated to observer status while others discuss these critical issues. Since this is not an ideal world, politicians must have some good health care insurance reform ideas that will garner attention and votes in order to assist in the reform process. From a financial standpoint, considerable capital could be freed up to circulate in the economy, jobs would be created and the employed would have control of their insurance funds in the form of cash if all this required insurance money were turned over to the private sector.
Call for position papers on health care insurance reform. This is not the only idea out there. Campaign contributors cannot control this reform process. Proponents of some reform ideas predicate insurance. Choice of offered plans is not freedom of choice.
An analysis of the present healthcare insurance system reveals some basic facts:
Insurance concerns collect huge sums of cash from the populace
Insurance concerns pay out some of the cash for medical expenses
Insurance concerns invest large sums of cash
Some insurance concerns have required bailout cash from the Feds
The Feds offer medical insurance now
Malpractice insurance is expensive
Insurance takes a discount from stated medical rates
Insurance can pay less or more for a given procedure than is charged the cash customer
Fraud and inflation of costs have been problems in the present system
Mandatory insurance takes several forms: health, automotive, home…
Mandatory health insurance: offered through the employers who must pay for it or pay for a portion of it
Mandatory automotive liability insurance: passed by legislature
Mandatory car and home insurance at the insistence of lienholders
Insurance companies and medical personnel have agreed to slow down rising costs
Now back to ways to attract votes.
Business leaders may be glad to dislodge health insurance requirements from the workplace. Forcing businesses to provide health insurance is tying up huge sums of cash that could be circulating in the economy. Let me say that individual choice is the most sustainable way to have an insurance program. Business votes.
So say that business is relieved of the responsibility of providing health insurance providing the payment that had gone to the insurance company now goes into the worker’s pay as a raise. The worker will have the power to decide to buy insurance or to patronize low cost walk in clinics situated in neighborhoods. The government offers a low cost insurance for claims exceeding x amount, which would leave the patron with a substantial deductable to meet, but the low cost clinic format allows for affordable health care. Private insurance could operate just as now, except that employers will not be obligated to provide customers for them. Private insurers could compete in rates and coverage, just as now. Clinics could compete for customers as well.
The business benefit of this plan is that wages and salaries once again become a predictable expense instead of expenditures at the mercy of insurance companies who now promise to slow down the pace of cost increases. The establishment of low cost walk in clinics has already begun in many neighborhoods. This idea could be expanded to private enterprise and public health clinics through the government. People could purchase health care when needed or would rely on private insurance plans or opt for the low cost, high deductable health care program through the government. There would be choice on the part of individuals and businesses, which should drive the costs down in both insurance and health care.
The costs of malpractice insurance has become self defeating in that the cycle of inflation in health care costs is bolstered by these huge lawsuits. Perhaps legislation can be passed that enables patients to sign legal waivers or limits in lieu of paying exorbitant malpractice insurance rates. Some element of trust should remain between doctor and patient. Once again, the patient is not permitted to decide whether or not to buy malpractice insurance. Patients are forced to pay for it as expressed in the high service rates charged.
This is leading up to the idea of “personal insurance”. Individuals should be able to buy
insurance on themselves (and dependents) that covers various scenarios like accidents, malpractice, cancer and any other insurance they deem necessary. Patients insure themselves or not, as they choose. Doctors are free of insurance demands. Healthcare and insurance costs go down. People regain the right to choose. Government and private enterprise offer affordable routine health care.
Entering indigent care would be like bankruptcy and individuals who claim indigent status will be the subject of social services investigation and payment plans will be developed if warranted. The expense of indigent care will always be there and must be absorbed, just as it now. A forward looking taskforce to avoid increases in indigents must be developed. Claiming indigent status in order to claim free health care is not to be a frivolous step easily taken.
As far as automotive insurance goes, the legislature in Arizona requires it of all motorists. I suggest that free choice be such that an individual can buy or not buy insurance on themselves and dependents to cover accidents, repairs, theft and so on. Auto loans and lienholder agreements on insurance are private enterprise.
The problem with insurance today is the huge sums the insurance institutions are controlling. Abuses of the system include various schemes aimed at ‘investing’ premium money, loses of investor money, high paid executives, bailouts and the taxpayers paying to reimburse the insurance companies for the premium money lost gambling. Mandatory insurance equals loss of control of your own money. Pooling money is a good idea but not if the holding company only has to keep less than 10% of it on hand, while gambling the rest away.
Return the money spent on insurance to the people to invest in what healthcare they need on a cash basis or to purchase healthcare insurance. The money now controlled by insurance companies would be reduced. The consumer would have more disposable income to circulate. Businesses would be free of paperwork and obligation except for industrial insurance.
Business opportunities in the form of low cost health clinics would prosper. A labor pool exists from laid off healthcare workers, job freezes in the healthcare field, plus new graduates who cannot get a job. Private insurance would have opportunities to form money pools addressing the high deductable cost of government insurance. Private insurers could open their own clinics.
Private enterprise would prosper under this plan.
Crucial elements in time order:
Use stimulus money to refurbish vacant buildings into low cost health clinics located every x number of population near transit lines. This action would have several needed results, the establishment of more clinics plus short term construction jobs and long term health care jobs plus utilization of vacant properties. Clinics must be in place, either government or private enterprise, before the rest of the plan is implemented.
Develop guidelines for personal insurance in various categories. Rescind mandatory insurance and watch the market adjust to the new conditions of more circulating capital and more freedom of choice in business and for the individual. The clinics accept business and the people get affordable health care.
Attracting votes with policy change is an old ploy but this reform idea would attract votes from businesses struggling under an insurance load, the worker who wants more money in his pocket, the voter who wants freedom to choose on insurance, unemployed healthcare workers, people who do not have insurance and civic leaders who favor clinics. This could be a popular idea. Did I say the populist word?
I attended the ASU graduation of my son in law with the greatest pleasure in your speech to the graduates. Thank you.
The economic worries here have created much discussion at local political clubs. I have written my ideas on health care insurance reform, hereupon forwarding them to you from the great state of Arizona…
Healthcare reform can attract votes and free up capital
Healthcare insurance reform is happening. The political parties must assist in the creation of a new system of ideas. The way to achieve influence will be through the possession of new ideas and new solutions to current problems in the healthcare system. The nation must have some ideas that depart from the practices of the past that are proven business failures.
Bipartisan discussions are necessary. Respecting others opinions within the party is necessary. Ideally, individuals who prevent voices from being heard should be relegated to observer status while others discuss these critical issues. Since this is not an ideal world, politicians must have some good health care insurance reform ideas that will garner attention and votes in order to assist in the reform process. From a financial standpoint, considerable capital could be freed up to circulate in the economy, jobs would be created and the employed would have control of their insurance funds in the form of cash if all this required insurance money were turned over to the private sector.
Call for position papers on health care insurance reform. This is not the only idea out there. Campaign contributors cannot control this reform process. Proponents of some reform ideas predicate insurance. Choice of offered plans is not freedom of choice.
An analysis of the present healthcare insurance system reveals some basic facts:
Insurance concerns collect huge sums of cash from the populace
Insurance concerns pay out some of the cash for medical expenses
Insurance concerns invest large sums of cash
Some insurance concerns have required bailout cash from the Feds
The Feds offer medical insurance now
Malpractice insurance is expensive
Insurance takes a discount from stated medical rates
Insurance can pay less or more for a given procedure than is charged the cash customer
Fraud and inflation of costs have been problems in the present system
Mandatory insurance takes several forms: health, automotive, home…
Mandatory health insurance: offered through the employers who must pay for it or pay for a portion of it
Mandatory automotive liability insurance: passed by legislature
Mandatory car and home insurance at the insistence of lienholders
Insurance companies and medical personnel have agreed to slow down rising costs
Now back to ways to attract votes.
Business leaders may be glad to dislodge health insurance requirements from the workplace. Forcing businesses to provide health insurance is tying up huge sums of cash that could be circulating in the economy. Let me say that individual choice is the most sustainable way to have an insurance program. Business votes.
So say that business is relieved of the responsibility of providing health insurance providing the payment that had gone to the insurance company now goes into the worker’s pay as a raise. The worker will have the power to decide to buy insurance or to patronize low cost walk in clinics situated in neighborhoods. The government offers a low cost insurance for claims exceeding x amount, which would leave the patron with a substantial deductable to meet, but the low cost clinic format allows for affordable health care. Private insurance could operate just as now, except that employers will not be obligated to provide customers for them. Private insurers could compete in rates and coverage, just as now. Clinics could compete for customers as well.
The business benefit of this plan is that wages and salaries once again become a predictable expense instead of expenditures at the mercy of insurance companies who now promise to slow down the pace of cost increases. The establishment of low cost walk in clinics has already begun in many neighborhoods. This idea could be expanded to private enterprise and public health clinics through the government. People could purchase health care when needed or would rely on private insurance plans or opt for the low cost, high deductable health care program through the government. There would be choice on the part of individuals and businesses, which should drive the costs down in both insurance and health care.
The costs of malpractice insurance has become self defeating in that the cycle of inflation in health care costs is bolstered by these huge lawsuits. Perhaps legislation can be passed that enables patients to sign legal waivers or limits in lieu of paying exorbitant malpractice insurance rates. Some element of trust should remain between doctor and patient. Once again, the patient is not permitted to decide whether or not to buy malpractice insurance. Patients are forced to pay for it as expressed in the high service rates charged.
This is leading up to the idea of “personal insurance”. Individuals should be able to buy
insurance on themselves (and dependents) that covers various scenarios like accidents, malpractice, cancer and any other insurance they deem necessary. Patients insure themselves or not, as they choose. Doctors are free of insurance demands. Healthcare and insurance costs go down. People regain the right to choose. Government and private enterprise offer affordable routine health care.
Entering indigent care would be like bankruptcy and individuals who claim indigent status will be the subject of social services investigation and payment plans will be developed if warranted. The expense of indigent care will always be there and must be absorbed, just as it now. A forward looking taskforce to avoid increases in indigents must be developed. Claiming indigent status in order to claim free health care is not to be a frivolous step easily taken.
As far as automotive insurance goes, the legislature in Arizona requires it of all motorists. I suggest that free choice be such that an individual can buy or not buy insurance on themselves and dependents to cover accidents, repairs, theft and so on. Auto loans and lienholder agreements on insurance are private enterprise.
The problem with insurance today is the huge sums the insurance institutions are controlling. Abuses of the system include various schemes aimed at ‘investing’ premium money, loses of investor money, high paid executives, bailouts and the taxpayers paying to reimburse the insurance companies for the premium money lost gambling. Mandatory insurance equals loss of control of your own money. Pooling money is a good idea but not if the holding company only has to keep less than 10% of it on hand, while gambling the rest away.
Return the money spent on insurance to the people to invest in what healthcare they need on a cash basis or to purchase healthcare insurance. The money now controlled by insurance companies would be reduced. The consumer would have more disposable income to circulate. Businesses would be free of paperwork and obligation except for industrial insurance.
Business opportunities in the form of low cost health clinics would prosper. A labor pool exists from laid off healthcare workers, job freezes in the healthcare field, plus new graduates who cannot get a job. Private insurance would have opportunities to form money pools addressing the high deductable cost of government insurance. Private insurers could open their own clinics.
Private enterprise would prosper under this plan.
Crucial elements in time order:
Use stimulus money to refurbish vacant buildings into low cost health clinics located every x number of population near transit lines. This action would have several needed results, the establishment of more clinics plus short term construction jobs and long term health care jobs plus utilization of vacant properties. Clinics must be in place, either government or private enterprise, before the rest of the plan is implemented.
Develop guidelines for personal insurance in various categories. Rescind mandatory insurance and watch the market adjust to the new conditions of more circulating capital and more freedom of choice in business and for the individual. The clinics accept business and the people get affordable health care.
Attracting votes with policy change is an old ploy but this reform idea would attract votes from businesses struggling under an insurance load, the worker who wants more money in his pocket, the voter who wants freedom to choose on insurance, unemployed healthcare workers, people who do not have insurance and civic leaders who favor clinics. This could be a popular idea. Did I say the populist word?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Healthcare Insurance Reform
Healthcare insurance reform can attract votes and free up capital
Healthcare insurance reform is happening. Republicans must assist in the creation of a new system of ideas. The way to achieve influence will be through the possession of new ideas and new solutions to current problems in the healthcare system. Republicans must have some ideas that depart from the practices of the past that are proven business failures.
Bipartisan discussions are necessary. Respecting others opinions within the party is necessary. Ideally, individuals who prevent voices from being heard should be relegated to observer status while others discuss these critical issues. Since this is not an ideal world, Republicans must have some good health care insurance reform ideas that will garner attention and votes in order to assist in the reform process. From a financial standpoint, considerable capital could be freed up to circulate in the economy, jobs would be created and the employed would have control of their insurance funds in the form of cash.
Call for position papers on health care insurance reform. This is not the only idea out there. Campaign contributors cannot control this reform process.
An analysis of the present healthcare insurance system reveals some basic facts:
Insurance concerns collect huge sums of cash from the populace
Insurance concerns pay out some of the cash for medical expenses
Insurance concerns invest large sums of cash
Some insurance concerns have required bailout cash from the Feds
The Feds offer medical insurance now
Malpractice insurance is expensive
Insurance takes a discount from stated medical rates
Insurance can pay less for a given procedure than is charged the cash customer
Fraud and inflation of costs have been problems in the present system
Mandatory insurance takes several forms: health, automotive, home…
Mandatory health insurance: offered through the employers who must pay for it or pay for a portion of it
Mandatory automotive liability insurance: passed by legislature
Mandatory car and home insurance at the insistence of lienholders
Insurance companies and medical personnel have agreed to slow down rising costs
Now back to ways to attract votes.
Business leaders may be glad to dislodge health insurance requirements from the workplace. Forcing businesses to provide health insurance is tying up huge sums of cash that could be circulating in the economy. Let me say that individual choice is the most sustainable way to have an insurance program. Business votes.
So say that business is relieved of the responsibility of providing health insurance providing the payment that had gone to the insurance company now goes into the worker’s pay as a raise. The worker will have the power to decide to buy insurance or to patronize low cost walk in clinics situated in neighborhoods. The government offers a low cost insurance for claims exceeding x amount, which would leave the patron with a substantial deductable to meet, but the low cost clinic format allows for affordable health care. Private insurance could operate just as now, except that employers will not be obligated to provide customers for them. Private insurers could compete in rates and coverage, just as now. Clinics could compete for customers as well.
The business benefit of this plan is that wages and salaries once again become a predictable expense instead of expenditures at the mercy of insurance companies who now promise to slow down the pace of cost increases. The establishment of low cost walk in clinics has already begun in many neighborhoods. This idea could be expanded to private enterprise and public health clinics through the government. People could purchase health care when needed or would rely on private insurance plans or opt for the low cost, high deductable health care program through the government. There would be choice on the part of individuals and businesses, which should drive the costs down in both insurance and health care.
The costs of malpractice insurance has become self defeating in that the cycle of inflation in health care costs is bolstered by these huge lawsuits. Perhaps legislation can be passed that enables patients to sign legal waivers or limits in lieu of paying exorbitant malpractice insurance rates. Some element of trust should remain between doctor and patient. Once again, the patient is not permitted to decide whether or not to buy malpractice insurance. Patients are forced to pay for it as expressed in the high service rates charged.
This is leading up to the idea of “personal insurance”. Individuals should be able to buy
insurance on themselves (and dependents) that covers various scenarios like accidents, malpractice, cancer and any other insurance they deem necessary. Patients insure themselves or not, as they choose. Doctors are free of insurance demands. Healthcare and insurance costs go down. People regain the right to choose. Government and private enterprise offer affordable routine health care.
Entering indigent care would be like bankruptcy and individuals who claim indigent status will be the subject of social services investigation and payment plans will be developed if warranted. The expense of indigent care will always be there and must be absorbed, just as it now. A forward looking taskforce to avoid increases in indigents must be developed. Claiming indigent status in order to claim free health care is not to be a frivolous step easily taken.
As far as automotive insurance goes, the legislature in Arizona requires it of all motorists. I suggest that free choice be such that an individual can buy or not buy insurance on themselves and dependents to cover accidents, repairs, theft and so on. Auto loans and lienholder agreements on insurance are private enterprise.
The problem with insurance today is the huge sums the insurance institutions are controlling. Abuses of the system include various schemes aimed at ‘investing’ premium money, loses of investor money, high paid executives, bailouts and the taxpayers paying to reimburse the insurance companies for the premium money lost gambling. Mandatory insurance equals loss of control of your own money. Pooling money is a good idea but not if the holding company only has to keep less than 10% of it on hand, while gambling the rest away.
Return the money spent on insurance to the people to invest in what healthcare they need on a cash basis or to purchase healthcare insurance. The money now controlled by insurance companies would be reduced. The consumer would have more disposable income to circulate. Businesses would be free of paperwork and obligation except for industrial insurance.
Business opportunities in the form of low cost health clinics would prosper. A labor pool exists from laid off healthcare workers, job freezes in the healthcare field, plus new graduates who cannot get a job. Private insurance would have opportunities to form money pools addressing the high deductable cost of government insurance. Private insurers could open their own clinics.
Private enterprise would prosper under this plan.
Crucial elements in time order:
Use stimulus money to refurbish vacant buildings into low cost health clinics located every x number of population. This action would have several needed results, the establishment of more clinics plus short term construction jobs and long term health care jobs plus utilization of vacant properties. Clinics must be in place, either government or private enterprise, before the rest of the plan is implemented.
Develop guidelines for personal insurance in various categories. Rescind mandatory insurance and watch the market adjust to the new conditions of more circulating capital and more freedom of choice in business and for the individual. The clinics accept business and the people get affordable health care.
Attracting votes with policy change is an old ploy but this reform idea would attract votes from businesses struggling under an insurance load, the worker who wants more money in his pocket, the voter who wants freedom to choose on insurance, unemployed healthcare workers, people who do not have insurance and civic leaders who favor clinics. This could be a popular idea. Did I say the populist word?
Healthcare insurance reform is happening. Republicans must assist in the creation of a new system of ideas. The way to achieve influence will be through the possession of new ideas and new solutions to current problems in the healthcare system. Republicans must have some ideas that depart from the practices of the past that are proven business failures.
Bipartisan discussions are necessary. Respecting others opinions within the party is necessary. Ideally, individuals who prevent voices from being heard should be relegated to observer status while others discuss these critical issues. Since this is not an ideal world, Republicans must have some good health care insurance reform ideas that will garner attention and votes in order to assist in the reform process. From a financial standpoint, considerable capital could be freed up to circulate in the economy, jobs would be created and the employed would have control of their insurance funds in the form of cash.
Call for position papers on health care insurance reform. This is not the only idea out there. Campaign contributors cannot control this reform process.
An analysis of the present healthcare insurance system reveals some basic facts:
Insurance concerns collect huge sums of cash from the populace
Insurance concerns pay out some of the cash for medical expenses
Insurance concerns invest large sums of cash
Some insurance concerns have required bailout cash from the Feds
The Feds offer medical insurance now
Malpractice insurance is expensive
Insurance takes a discount from stated medical rates
Insurance can pay less for a given procedure than is charged the cash customer
Fraud and inflation of costs have been problems in the present system
Mandatory insurance takes several forms: health, automotive, home…
Mandatory health insurance: offered through the employers who must pay for it or pay for a portion of it
Mandatory automotive liability insurance: passed by legislature
Mandatory car and home insurance at the insistence of lienholders
Insurance companies and medical personnel have agreed to slow down rising costs
Now back to ways to attract votes.
Business leaders may be glad to dislodge health insurance requirements from the workplace. Forcing businesses to provide health insurance is tying up huge sums of cash that could be circulating in the economy. Let me say that individual choice is the most sustainable way to have an insurance program. Business votes.
So say that business is relieved of the responsibility of providing health insurance providing the payment that had gone to the insurance company now goes into the worker’s pay as a raise. The worker will have the power to decide to buy insurance or to patronize low cost walk in clinics situated in neighborhoods. The government offers a low cost insurance for claims exceeding x amount, which would leave the patron with a substantial deductable to meet, but the low cost clinic format allows for affordable health care. Private insurance could operate just as now, except that employers will not be obligated to provide customers for them. Private insurers could compete in rates and coverage, just as now. Clinics could compete for customers as well.
The business benefit of this plan is that wages and salaries once again become a predictable expense instead of expenditures at the mercy of insurance companies who now promise to slow down the pace of cost increases. The establishment of low cost walk in clinics has already begun in many neighborhoods. This idea could be expanded to private enterprise and public health clinics through the government. People could purchase health care when needed or would rely on private insurance plans or opt for the low cost, high deductable health care program through the government. There would be choice on the part of individuals and businesses, which should drive the costs down in both insurance and health care.
The costs of malpractice insurance has become self defeating in that the cycle of inflation in health care costs is bolstered by these huge lawsuits. Perhaps legislation can be passed that enables patients to sign legal waivers or limits in lieu of paying exorbitant malpractice insurance rates. Some element of trust should remain between doctor and patient. Once again, the patient is not permitted to decide whether or not to buy malpractice insurance. Patients are forced to pay for it as expressed in the high service rates charged.
This is leading up to the idea of “personal insurance”. Individuals should be able to buy
insurance on themselves (and dependents) that covers various scenarios like accidents, malpractice, cancer and any other insurance they deem necessary. Patients insure themselves or not, as they choose. Doctors are free of insurance demands. Healthcare and insurance costs go down. People regain the right to choose. Government and private enterprise offer affordable routine health care.
Entering indigent care would be like bankruptcy and individuals who claim indigent status will be the subject of social services investigation and payment plans will be developed if warranted. The expense of indigent care will always be there and must be absorbed, just as it now. A forward looking taskforce to avoid increases in indigents must be developed. Claiming indigent status in order to claim free health care is not to be a frivolous step easily taken.
As far as automotive insurance goes, the legislature in Arizona requires it of all motorists. I suggest that free choice be such that an individual can buy or not buy insurance on themselves and dependents to cover accidents, repairs, theft and so on. Auto loans and lienholder agreements on insurance are private enterprise.
The problem with insurance today is the huge sums the insurance institutions are controlling. Abuses of the system include various schemes aimed at ‘investing’ premium money, loses of investor money, high paid executives, bailouts and the taxpayers paying to reimburse the insurance companies for the premium money lost gambling. Mandatory insurance equals loss of control of your own money. Pooling money is a good idea but not if the holding company only has to keep less than 10% of it on hand, while gambling the rest away.
Return the money spent on insurance to the people to invest in what healthcare they need on a cash basis or to purchase healthcare insurance. The money now controlled by insurance companies would be reduced. The consumer would have more disposable income to circulate. Businesses would be free of paperwork and obligation except for industrial insurance.
Business opportunities in the form of low cost health clinics would prosper. A labor pool exists from laid off healthcare workers, job freezes in the healthcare field, plus new graduates who cannot get a job. Private insurance would have opportunities to form money pools addressing the high deductable cost of government insurance. Private insurers could open their own clinics.
Private enterprise would prosper under this plan.
Crucial elements in time order:
Use stimulus money to refurbish vacant buildings into low cost health clinics located every x number of population. This action would have several needed results, the establishment of more clinics plus short term construction jobs and long term health care jobs plus utilization of vacant properties. Clinics must be in place, either government or private enterprise, before the rest of the plan is implemented.
Develop guidelines for personal insurance in various categories. Rescind mandatory insurance and watch the market adjust to the new conditions of more circulating capital and more freedom of choice in business and for the individual. The clinics accept business and the people get affordable health care.
Attracting votes with policy change is an old ploy but this reform idea would attract votes from businesses struggling under an insurance load, the worker who wants more money in his pocket, the voter who wants freedom to choose on insurance, unemployed healthcare workers, people who do not have insurance and civic leaders who favor clinics. This could be a popular idea. Did I say the populist word?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Budget Crisis
Ideas to Solve the Budget Crisis
Solution sets for solving the budget crisis now include generalities like cutting programs, layoffs, and tax increases, which are aimed at preventing money being spent or at gaining more money.
I like the approach of spending less money but not the idea of layoffs. The only solution set for this dilemma is that of cutting the amounts of all these salaries and wages and benefits that are paid by the taxpayers. Given the economic slowdown, demanding more taxes from the people creates a hardship in meeting these new demands for the same or less services. Boomtime pay cannot continue during economic slowdowns. The need for what these people do continues but are they up to do the job for less money? Must the government entities go bankrupt in order to dodge union intransigence?
This is a moral issue. Do these people want us to scrape up more for them so they can continue as they are now? What about the idea that if everyone takes a pay cut, maybe not so many will be fired? These people are paid from taxes. It is not right to take money from one to give to another for no increase in productivity. They are actually promising less productivity instead of more.
There simply is not the money there was during the boom. Sin dinero ahora. Bloated salaries and benefits crowd the budget. We’re being taxed to pay consultants, directors and other bureaucrats. We’re being taxed to build more and more roads when public transportation is the need and would also provide cleaner air and local long term jobs instead of boom construction. We are taxed to provide benefits for government workers when privatizing benefits would relieve the state of insurance responsibilities and would probably result in lower costs for consumers because of competition among insurers or clinics.
People do not want to pay more taxes. Cut the pay of the workers paid by the government, ease off on layoffs whenever possible and use attrition instead for cutbacks in personnel. Keeping money in the hands of more people will result in a more predictable, broad based spending pattern and less unrest among the unemployed and also provides beneficial cuts in unemployment payments and welfare demands. Recent statistics on CNBC might begin a trend to lower prices for consumer goods. Maintaining the standard of living would then be possible after pay cuts if a devaluation trend in USA prices is established. * Debt renegotiation continues in the form of foreclosures, defaults and other failures.
Cutbacks can be made in agencies and programs using a checklist that is doubtless incomplete. Every agency and program and every employee should be subject to cost scrutiny according to this checklist.
Agency and Program cost analysis
Administration: cost amount and as percent of total expenditure
Consultant costs
Employee costs in amount and as compared to program costs as a %
Pay grade analysis as to distribution
Program and agency goals and objectives
Progress achieving those goals and objectives
Union contract demands and renegotiation Etc.
Individual employee charges
Pay grade
Travel
Relocation
Mileage
Cars
Insurance: amount and percent of total costs
Phones
Memberships
Per Diem Ect.
Duties
This same analysis would apply to all the schools, including higher education.
The public schools could be given the responsibility for paying for busing out of the existing budget. This is a positive thing in that this would force the school districts to reconsider busing in an attempt to cut costs. Busing could be mostly eliminated in favor of small schools in neighborhoods, which would cut exorbitant transportation costs now subsidized by the state. Analyze the budgets to obtain amounts spent on busing: insurance, fuel, replacement units, maintenance, and personnel. Give this cost back to the districts. How much would that save?
Several questions must be answered in order to determine the level of cuts in pay that could best assist the budgeting process. These are generalities which would generate base data. What % of the budget is pay and what % is benefits? How much could be saved at ascending percentages of pay cuts?
Another problem is the existence of various budgetary entitlements, some of which are scheduled to infinitely increase. The legislature must work together to devise some way to handle non critical entitlements during times of a budget deficit. The schools budgets needs a complete overhaul and a refocus on the learner instead of the bureaucrats raking in top salaries and benefits at taxpayer expense while test scores remain mediocre at best.
Tax money is precious and should not be wasted. Tax money is also finite.
*Prices as a % of income, whatever the unit of measure is used. Stabilized petro prices are to our benefit, it appears.
Solution sets for solving the budget crisis now include generalities like cutting programs, layoffs, and tax increases, which are aimed at preventing money being spent or at gaining more money.
I like the approach of spending less money but not the idea of layoffs. The only solution set for this dilemma is that of cutting the amounts of all these salaries and wages and benefits that are paid by the taxpayers. Given the economic slowdown, demanding more taxes from the people creates a hardship in meeting these new demands for the same or less services. Boomtime pay cannot continue during economic slowdowns. The need for what these people do continues but are they up to do the job for less money? Must the government entities go bankrupt in order to dodge union intransigence?
This is a moral issue. Do these people want us to scrape up more for them so they can continue as they are now? What about the idea that if everyone takes a pay cut, maybe not so many will be fired? These people are paid from taxes. It is not right to take money from one to give to another for no increase in productivity. They are actually promising less productivity instead of more.
There simply is not the money there was during the boom. Sin dinero ahora. Bloated salaries and benefits crowd the budget. We’re being taxed to pay consultants, directors and other bureaucrats. We’re being taxed to build more and more roads when public transportation is the need and would also provide cleaner air and local long term jobs instead of boom construction. We are taxed to provide benefits for government workers when privatizing benefits would relieve the state of insurance responsibilities and would probably result in lower costs for consumers because of competition among insurers or clinics.
People do not want to pay more taxes. Cut the pay of the workers paid by the government, ease off on layoffs whenever possible and use attrition instead for cutbacks in personnel. Keeping money in the hands of more people will result in a more predictable, broad based spending pattern and less unrest among the unemployed and also provides beneficial cuts in unemployment payments and welfare demands. Recent statistics on CNBC might begin a trend to lower prices for consumer goods. Maintaining the standard of living would then be possible after pay cuts if a devaluation trend in USA prices is established. * Debt renegotiation continues in the form of foreclosures, defaults and other failures.
Cutbacks can be made in agencies and programs using a checklist that is doubtless incomplete. Every agency and program and every employee should be subject to cost scrutiny according to this checklist.
Agency and Program cost analysis
Administration: cost amount and as percent of total expenditure
Consultant costs
Employee costs in amount and as compared to program costs as a %
Pay grade analysis as to distribution
Program and agency goals and objectives
Progress achieving those goals and objectives
Union contract demands and renegotiation Etc.
Individual employee charges
Pay grade
Travel
Relocation
Mileage
Cars
Insurance: amount and percent of total costs
Phones
Memberships
Per Diem Ect.
Duties
This same analysis would apply to all the schools, including higher education.
The public schools could be given the responsibility for paying for busing out of the existing budget. This is a positive thing in that this would force the school districts to reconsider busing in an attempt to cut costs. Busing could be mostly eliminated in favor of small schools in neighborhoods, which would cut exorbitant transportation costs now subsidized by the state. Analyze the budgets to obtain amounts spent on busing: insurance, fuel, replacement units, maintenance, and personnel. Give this cost back to the districts. How much would that save?
Several questions must be answered in order to determine the level of cuts in pay that could best assist the budgeting process. These are generalities which would generate base data. What % of the budget is pay and what % is benefits? How much could be saved at ascending percentages of pay cuts?
Another problem is the existence of various budgetary entitlements, some of which are scheduled to infinitely increase. The legislature must work together to devise some way to handle non critical entitlements during times of a budget deficit. The schools budgets needs a complete overhaul and a refocus on the learner instead of the bureaucrats raking in top salaries and benefits at taxpayer expense while test scores remain mediocre at best.
Tax money is precious and should not be wasted. Tax money is also finite.
*Prices as a % of income, whatever the unit of measure is used. Stabilized petro prices are to our benefit, it appears.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)