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?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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
Friday, March 27, 2009
Ripoffs and Civil Unrest
I see on the news today that insurance executives have received hairy threats as a result of the publicity surrounding bonuses to them while people invested in their company have lost money.
It appears that civil disobedience stems from lost expectations, cash, opportunities, or from excessive debt and penalties. Pretending that debt is a product will not make it so, but Bernanke and Geithner cannot see another option other than propping up debt derivatives. Just who is benefitting by the continuation of the sale of debt derivatives? Are they or their families in a position of power that influences policy decision making, rather like the Madoff family and the SEC? Debt derivatives produce nothing but brokers fees and insurance obligations. What were the terms of the insurance obligations? 100% of expected profit from the derivative investment? The principal invested in the derivative? What?
Credit card schemes with excessive penalties, automatic interest rate hikes based on other accounts, the punitive attitude taken by these lenders and their predisposition to extend credit to undocumented borrowers has created a mountain of debt. Much of that kind of debt is an obligation plus penalties that are unearned income for lenders and unplanned debt for borrowers on the credit card scene. Bailing out the credit card firms is ridiculous but can turn fraudulent if the bailout funds include unearned lender income projections based on extending credit to anyone. Payday lenders and credit card companies are in the same category, preying on the foolish and desperate in many instances.
Attacks by the ripped off on the wealthy who benefitted by the scam will easily gather steam. Announcement of hearing and indictments would take the edge off, but I can’t help but wonder if returning the principal to the investors might be cheaper than bailing out all these unregulated funds and insurance obligations, particularly foreign entities.
Globalization has turned into a massive fraud perpetuated on the USA taxpayers by domestic and foreign banks and insurance firms who invested in derivative garbage based on fraudulent contracts all the way from the inflated appraisals and undocumented borrowers, the creation of derivatives with unresearched ratings and lax regulation when present at all. Why are USA taxpayers stuck with this tab? Insurance schemes overseas bankrupted a company holding assets obtained through mandatory insurance and retirement accounts in the USA, drained these assets and then demanded more from the US government. Their demands were met at our expense.
I think that insurance is a racket. Legislators have foisted mandatory insurance off on the people and now these insurance firms are using the pool money to gamble and pay themselves huge salaries. They have gambled away retirement funds, IRA accounts and any other money they could get their hands on, even to the point of bankrupting the company and funneling our tax money overseas.
Were members of AIG really brokering these derivatives to banks and then insuring these same derivatives through AIG, receiving a handsome brokers fee in the process? Are the retirement accounts of House and Senate members held by AIG?
Whatever it is, this financial scam and the incredible debt load has created unemployment and anger on the streets of this nation. Were the boomtime profits and the high compensation of irresponsible developers and executives worth the social cost? Are the members of the boards who approved the excessive contract amounts for executives receiving sweetheart loans from the very same companies they represented? How many political figures received cheap loans from these companies? Who sat on the boards of Fannie and Freddie and others when ‘bonus’ schemes were approved? How much were these people paid to rubberstamp any wild scheme the executives deemed a good investment?
And above all, why not review the figures and see if returning the principal might be cheaper than bailing out all these wild schemes? People are angry because their money has been stolen and gambled away, not just the boomlet money but also the principal in many cases.
Civil unrest is not good for the nation.
It appears that civil disobedience stems from lost expectations, cash, opportunities, or from excessive debt and penalties. Pretending that debt is a product will not make it so, but Bernanke and Geithner cannot see another option other than propping up debt derivatives. Just who is benefitting by the continuation of the sale of debt derivatives? Are they or their families in a position of power that influences policy decision making, rather like the Madoff family and the SEC? Debt derivatives produce nothing but brokers fees and insurance obligations. What were the terms of the insurance obligations? 100% of expected profit from the derivative investment? The principal invested in the derivative? What?
Credit card schemes with excessive penalties, automatic interest rate hikes based on other accounts, the punitive attitude taken by these lenders and their predisposition to extend credit to undocumented borrowers has created a mountain of debt. Much of that kind of debt is an obligation plus penalties that are unearned income for lenders and unplanned debt for borrowers on the credit card scene. Bailing out the credit card firms is ridiculous but can turn fraudulent if the bailout funds include unearned lender income projections based on extending credit to anyone. Payday lenders and credit card companies are in the same category, preying on the foolish and desperate in many instances.
Attacks by the ripped off on the wealthy who benefitted by the scam will easily gather steam. Announcement of hearing and indictments would take the edge off, but I can’t help but wonder if returning the principal to the investors might be cheaper than bailing out all these unregulated funds and insurance obligations, particularly foreign entities.
Globalization has turned into a massive fraud perpetuated on the USA taxpayers by domestic and foreign banks and insurance firms who invested in derivative garbage based on fraudulent contracts all the way from the inflated appraisals and undocumented borrowers, the creation of derivatives with unresearched ratings and lax regulation when present at all. Why are USA taxpayers stuck with this tab? Insurance schemes overseas bankrupted a company holding assets obtained through mandatory insurance and retirement accounts in the USA, drained these assets and then demanded more from the US government. Their demands were met at our expense.
I think that insurance is a racket. Legislators have foisted mandatory insurance off on the people and now these insurance firms are using the pool money to gamble and pay themselves huge salaries. They have gambled away retirement funds, IRA accounts and any other money they could get their hands on, even to the point of bankrupting the company and funneling our tax money overseas.
Were members of AIG really brokering these derivatives to banks and then insuring these same derivatives through AIG, receiving a handsome brokers fee in the process? Are the retirement accounts of House and Senate members held by AIG?
Whatever it is, this financial scam and the incredible debt load has created unemployment and anger on the streets of this nation. Were the boomtime profits and the high compensation of irresponsible developers and executives worth the social cost? Are the members of the boards who approved the excessive contract amounts for executives receiving sweetheart loans from the very same companies they represented? How many political figures received cheap loans from these companies? Who sat on the boards of Fannie and Freddie and others when ‘bonus’ schemes were approved? How much were these people paid to rubberstamp any wild scheme the executives deemed a good investment?
And above all, why not review the figures and see if returning the principal might be cheaper than bailing out all these wild schemes? People are angry because their money has been stolen and gambled away, not just the boomlet money but also the principal in many cases.
Civil unrest is not good for the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)