Fox News stipulated specific reforms were being implemented in England relating to such procedures as hip replacement and how it was the intent of the Public sector to cut health care costs. The cost was cited at some $56.million I believe. Being curious, I went on to the BBC
What was stated via the internet was that the Hip and Knee replacements shall be denied for those overweight over 30 BM which may be logical. It does not state, as it was commentated this morning that all such Knee and Hip Replacements shall be considered elective. Yet there were articles pertaining to a woman who used the system to have breast replacements which in the US are strictly elective for those who require it.
England appears to be doing much what the United States is considering with a two year pay decrease for public servants (except for an increase for the military). Consideration is made for those who are in a lower pay scale to allow 21,000 pounds a year cutting the other wages by some 28% for a 1.7. million pound savings. There is concern like here about public pay pensions as well as the pump prices for petro. Also rebates to be provided in urban areas. I watched Chancellor Osborne's video which was most enlightening.
I view England’s situation as one facilitated with a tried and proven public health care plan. I so believe that the health care plan I submitted previously which most probably may not fathomed or discarded, includes elements of the public sector working with private insurers in providing coverage for all based upon Major Medical issues which require hospitalization and surgical procedures or emergency care for such critical and chronic diseases as Cancer, Renal Disease, Heart Disease, Kidneys and the like. At one time the US had major medical and regular doctor visits, and general procedural and accident policies through the private sector..
In brief I suggested that then there be privatization of Hospital Visits, Accidents and non Major Medical issues which may be a separate insurance policy purchased from the Private Sector Insurers
As to the Public Sector premiums such would be based upon a percentage of one's income. And from what I understand from Chancellor George Osborne’s video the increases for the standard shall be from 5% to 6% of one's salary whereas the higher incomes would necessitate an increase from 17% to 20%. The mistake most make in the United States is that one does not consider actuaries of the private sector to determine the actual cost of health coverage aside from the fringes utilized by some.
My other suggestion is that the Public does not administer or handle the actual insurance but it instead would be facilitated through a newly formulated risk pool combined with both public and private company board members. Since we are only beginning the consideration of health care, those with higher health risks would be assigned to various private companies to have a balance between high and low risk. It may be that those of higher risk health issues may pay just a bit more after determination is made based upon the pooling of risks and the law of large numbers by actuaries..
My concern is that actuaries may provide the correct statistics but they have not been used to their capacity. In fact although statistics in general are just that and not exacting because it picks random poles. Our country has sufficient actuarial information from insurance companies which should provide a better balance in making such a determination of its cost.if based upon the law of large numbers of all who are working and residing in the United States to be covered. Currently our private insurers are increasing their pricing and as I understand at least two major companies have left the marketplace. What not has been learned from historical events relating to Windstorm insurance? By taking away private carriers who are unwilling or unable to write such insurance, we again become dependent upon Government to provide a health care plan. In accepting the Health care plan as proposed, we will lose more insurers and if government mandates any more changes to actual insurance principles, insurance will not be affordable or available.
Although England appears to be concerned about the increases in health care, the US with its private insurance appears to be far in excess of 17 or 20% of one's paycheck. Let's use the $21,000 in pounds (because England’s wage seems to be higher) and just state it is $21,000 in dollars which if we divide it by 12 months it provides for a gross monthly income of $1,750 (80% net after taxes) for a net income of $1400 a month.
Based upon just a $500 premium per single working individual this would mean we are paying almost 36% of our earnings for medical care. And if one considers the gross amount it is still 29.4% which is alot considering everyone has food, shelter including electrical water and refuse pickup and petro. English law and prior actuarial studies seem far superior to our statesmen even accomplishing such a thing Yet I ask, when is it government’s sole business to dictate insurance principles and pricing to insurance companies whose profession is to write competitive insurance based upon those principles by law?
My plan would eliminate the problems we have for providing free health-care services to illegal immigrants. Those without green cards, if working and paying taxes and insurance premiums, would receive health benefits. Those who do not would not receive benefits. No profiling or discrimination intended just simple logic and rulings..
This issue of health care and reform has become a thorn in everyone’s side. I know a plan devised between government and private insurance carriers would work to the benefit of all. I have two such further explanation on my Author’s Den site, Yet the basis is included herein as an attempt for your consideration.. I have forwarded information previously to the republican committee but I am uncertain if it may have been read because I am one mere individual with a passion for the rights and fairness of all. I can honestly state if the existing plan by President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may not be repealed in its entirety, any such reforms contemplated will not decrease the pricing thereof under the contemplated existing plan. Lowering taxes to the Bush era is only a small percentage to that which is necessary for health care. Business today has no idea as to how to set their budgets or what may be done to facilitate additional jobs; lest they have a surprise not anticipated in being required to carry health care benefits for employees. And by providing a tax reduction alone to businesses who provide such health care, that alone will not assist the dilemma. Yet even if health care is mandated for all individuals, those exemptions to certain large business and to congress does not allow the principles of the law of large numbers to operate with any reasonable solution. If all are to be included, there may be no exceptions.
On the private side, what businesses did to retain some salary for employees was to place them on a part-time basis. When doing so they were no longer obligated to pay 50% or more of the health care cost for neither those part-time employees nor their families if such health care was required or necessary to sustain a quality of life. Those part-time employees, instead, working at less pay, had to essentially pay all of the health care premiums required to carry health insurance for themselves and their families, based upon a lower pay scale and upon a part time status.
I have seen more than one individual when selling insurance cry out about their inability to have anything left over after paying premiums of in excess of $1200 or $1600 for family coverage. And the premiums at the time provided by the insurers were based upon pre-existing and continuing conditions which were in effect if one did not previously carry insurance.. The President and Congress taking away the pre-existing conditions clause has constituted chaos among insurers because it contemplates adverse selection; Thus the insurer’s exit from the healthcare marketplace with others to follow.
In any event my frustration and aggravation of those who complain but may not come up with another plan which may work by utilizing insurance professionals in the field is not acceptable. Further only considering the additional "pork" to be eliminated is not an acceptable solution to reform.
Until someone tells me that it would not work I am unwilling to budge from my convictions. Not only would Government not have full regulation but such regulation of the marketplace would be shared by private companies with knowledge and experience working in conjunction with the government for the equitable assignment and distribution of premiums for health care. And should it be elected to have such insurance premium collections by the IRS, then the premiums over and above such administration costs of the assigned risk pool governed by the public and private sector would be going directly to the private insurers to be held in surplus after minimum profit and administrative and claims costs. This taxation percentage, of course, I suggest only for Major Medical procedures and not for doctors visits and the like. And it certainly will not take 30-50% of one's pay or more if all are required under the law of large numbers to carry the same insurance without exceptions.
Doctors Visits and those procedures not construe d as chronic or critical (Major medical) would be handled by Private Insurance Companies. Not only would the offerings be more competitive and unique dependent upon the localities but it would allow elective premium payments to private insurers which would in general assist commerce. I still remain perplexed of those issues which have been implemented by those who govern who have not utilized the principles of insurance nor do they have a grasp of such reasoning. This plan I propose is not sealed in concrete but the terms and conditions to this type of plan has much more leeway for a better formulation of a health care plan than that which is currently proposed and it shall be less costly to those who secure benefits. Not only that, again we are facilitating business in the private sector as well as providing additional jobs.