The Purple Health Care Plan

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,806
Likes
62,568
#1
Not enough detail to fully evaluate but an interesting view - gets rid of Medicare, Medicaid, insurer-based coverage and single coverage to create a voucher-based system.

What I like is that it maintains an insurance private choice model rather than government run and finally delinks insurance from employment.

I think it also has the potential to separate essential care coverage from "nice to have" coverage.


The Purple Healthcare Plan | The Purple Health Plan

Thoughts?
 
#3
#3
In the past I had always thought that coupling health care to employment would encourage people to get a job. Now that our economy is shifting from a manuacturing base to more of a service based one, then there are much more people vying for the fewer "premium" jobs with good coverage than there are actual jobs. There does need to be an alternative.
 
#4
#4
Sounds like a plan to me, although I do enjoy my employer cadillac plan that I pay almost nothing for.

There may be a part of the population upset because they worked hard, got a job that pays for excellent coverage, only to have it taken away and replaced by something like this.
 
#5
#5
Count me in among the iaccoca "why does health insurance coverage have to be shoved on business to begin with?"

The advent of employer provided care came about to circumvent wage freezes in WWII. Private coverage among small firms hardly makes sense anymore.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
rjd970 said:
Sounds like a plan to me, although I do enjoy my employer cadillac plan that I pay almost nothing for.

There may be a part of the population upset because they worked hard, got a job that pays for excellent coverage, only to have it taken away and replaced by something like this.
Click to expand...


Yep - on the other hand it will change cost structures for companies and they will have to pay for talent in other ways. Lot's of shifting to be sure but my guess is that those who earn their pay will see it coming in other bennies or salary as opposed to HC plans.
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
Not enough detail to fully evaluate but an interesting view - gets rid of Medicare, Medicaid, insurer-based coverage and single coverage to create a voucher-based system.

What I like is that it maintains an insurance private choice model rather than government run and finally delinks insurance from employment.

I think it also has the potential to separate essential care coverage from "nice to have" coverage.


The Purple Healthcare Plan | The Purple Health Plan

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

"Vouchers" always make my spider sense tingle, as these are almost always a method of transfering public wealth to private hands in inefficient ways.

Numbers 5 and 6 look promising, but this keeps the private system - which we have already demonstrated has no incentive for efficiency - in the ballgame, and the purple plan also admits this is the case.

I would have to look at the plan in detail, and find out the mechanisms, whether it would truly provide comprehensive care for every American, etc. Already though, it just complicates what is very easy for almost every other First World country.

And "vouchers" are notoriously inefficient in the first instance, and are generally just wealth transfer mechanisms to cronies.
 
#9
#9
Has the word demonstrated been changed to mean that we have unequivocally shown the opposite?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
BigPapaVol said:
Has the word demonstrated been changed to mean that we have unequivocally shown the opposite?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The fact that you both are quibbling about this word is proof of what I speak.

It is so ingrained into you how the "ownership society" is supposed to work, we can't even get our heads around 2nd grade vocabulary anymore.
 
#14
#14
volinbham said:
Yep - on the other hand it will change cost structures for companies and they will have to pay for talent in other ways. Lot's of shifting to be sure but my guess is that those who earn their pay will see it coming in other bennies or salary as opposed to HC plans.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is why I, personally, might be ok with it. If my HC benefits get taken away in lieu of something like this, and compensation is in another form its all the same to me. If my company wants to pay me more and let me be on my own for coverage it wouldn't be the worst thing.
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
If you haven't figured it out by now; every word, thought and deed directly supports if not outright proves Gibbs views. Duh.
Click to expand...

He certainly does know how to derail a thread.

Anyhow, I think parts of this may be on the right track. The problem I've noticed with most voucher systems is the failure to increase the size of the voucher with the increasing rate of health care costs.

I'm still a personal fan of single-payer universal. To try and put it simply as possible (I can rap on this with anyone if they want): Whether you like it or not, you already are paying for, and must pay for the poorly or completely uninsured. The question then becomes to pay for their check-ups and physicals or trips to the emergency room.
 
#16
#16
rjd970 said:
Exactly. That is why I, personally, might be ok with it. If my HC benefits get taken away in lieu of something like this, and compensation is in another form its all the same to me. If my company wants to pay me more and let me be on my own for coverage it wouldn't be the worst thing.
Click to expand...

Again, Iaccoca school of thought there. Employer-provided health care had its time and place during WWII, but it's detrimental to the market now.
 
#17
#17
milohimself said:
He certainly does know how to derail a thread.

Anyhow, I think parts of this may be on the right track. The problem I've noticed with most voucher systems is the failure to increase the size of the voucher with the increasing rate of health care costs.

I'm still a personal fan of single-payer universal. To try and put it simply as possible (I can rap on this with anyone if they want): Whether you like it or not, you already are paying for, and must pay for the poorly or completely uninsured. The question then becomes to pay for their check-ups and physicals or trips to the emergency room.
Click to expand...

Here's where I see vouchers being the better choice on the cost side.

Universal single coverage is a one size fits all plan. The program sets coverage policies (what's covered, how much) and applies to all.

We already saw coverage creep in ObamaCare raising the "essentials" to include Viagra, fertility treatment, etc.

In effect, the one-size fits all has to have a high level of coverage to meet all the diversity of needs.

With vouchers and private insurance, people can choose the coverage that fits them and overall we don't have the same total coverage. You could even build in an incentive via HSAs or rebates to reward people for just choosing programs that fit what they want covered.

For example, the whole minimal actuarial of ObamaCare being set at 60% I believe will raise costs because prior too that people had coverage that was less BUT THEY WERE SATISFIED. This is why we've seen the 1000+ waivers.
 
#18
#18
milohimself said:
Again, Iaccoca school of thought there. Employer-provided health care had its time and place during WWII, but it's detrimental to the market now.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it sure is nice from my end. When we had our first child it basically cost me $20 out of pocket.
 
#20
#20
utgibbs said:
"Vouchers" always make my spider sense tingle, as these are almost always a method of transfering public wealth to private hands in inefficient ways.

Numbers 5 and 6 look promising, but this keeps the private system - which we have already demonstrated has no incentive for efficiency - in the ballgame, and the purple plan also admits this is the case.

I would have to look at the plan in detail, and find out the mechanisms, whether it would truly provide comprehensive care for every American, etc. Already though, it just complicates what is very easy for almost every other First World country.

And "vouchers" are notoriously inefficient in the first instance, and are generally just wealth transfer mechanisms to cronies.
Click to expand...

milohimself said:
He certainly does know how to derail a thread.
Click to expand...

How exactly did I derail this thread?

We might want to assign responsibility where it belongs which would be those desperate to score points (after so many woodsheds).
 
#21
#21
Because you're always quick to declare who is right and wrong, or award yourself points. Taking an antithetical view to somebody else is fine, but doing it in the manner which you frequently employ isn't going to challenge anybody's belief. It will rile them up. It's pointless.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#23
#23
milohimself said:
Because you're always quick to declare who is right and wrong, or award yourself points. Taking an antithetical view to somebody else is fine, but doing it in the manner which you frequently employ isn't going to challenge anybody's belief. It will rile them up. It's pointless.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm quick to point out what the real world outside the back door says sure. Do I often weigh in on threads where my analysis differs? Sure. That's why any of us deign to post here.

And yet, none of what you say appears in my OP.

And if you check, it usually never does. However, when someone wants to be a smartazz back to me, I do figure it's game on. I can hardly be blamed for that, can I?

PS - I am never notching the bedpost. It would be rather laughable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top