|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Author, economist Paul Zane Pilzer, suggests that instead of employers providing traditional group health insurance benefits, they should scrap them. In their place he suggests that employers contribute to defined contribution plans for the employees, who would use the money to get insurance at lower cost through individual plans. In my workplace column on Thursday, I opined that it is time to separate health insurance from employment. Too many Americans are falling through the cracks. Company-sponsored plans and participation in them are spotty. Rising benefit costs are cutting into corporate profitability, employee compensation and global competitiveness. And costs continue to escalate. Any suggestions? Bucket loads poured in. Most of the suggestions, though, were expressions of frustration with the current system, rather than fix-it solutions. Here’s a sample of comments from many walks of life: ■ From someone who has “worked in the health-care industry for decades”: “Basic health-care coverage should be provided by the federal government, financed by a tax on snacks — on high-fat and high-sugar foods that contribute to obesity and so many other health problems.” ■ From a former lawyer and insurance claims investigator: “Take the profit motive out of health-care insurance by providing universal health coverage funded through a single-payer insurer, supervised and audited by a Cabinet-level Social Security administrator. Premiums would be based upon income, with premiums being waived for low-income earners, full-time students, retirees and disabled persons.” ■ From a board member at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City: “Look at our Community Blue plan. It’s only part of the answer, but it’s an effort to provide more affordable coverage.” ■ From the auditor of a major city: “National health care.” ■ From a man in the insurance industry: “It seems to me that we could ease the pain by levying a partial payroll tax on jobs exported overseas. That money could be used to provide job displacement benefits (continuing health insurance, retraining, etc.) to people in the USA, (and) it might encourage some companies not to export jobs if the cost savings are minimal.” ■ From a small-business owner: “Health insurance, like car or home insurance, should be a personal matter. It shouldn’t be tied to employment, and I say this having struggled with unemployment and catastrophic-care issues myself.” ■ From “just a citizen”: “Health care cannot be run by insurance companies that are in it for a profit. It needs to be a public service like fire or police protection. It needs to be a nonprofit enterprise … but I have no idea how to make that happen.” ■ From a sales manager in a Kansas City company: “There is only one ultimate answer: Medicare or a similar plan for the entire country. … Until we step up to unified medical coverage, the current mess will only get worse.” ■ From an insurance broker: “It’s crazy to tie insurance to employment. Community Blue is a good idea, but you also need more neighborhood-type clinics, like in Osco Drug stores or something, where people can get low-cost health service. But the big problem is that we have too many claims. There’s too much adult onset diabetes, too much obesity. People need to be more responsible for their own health.” ■ From a church administrator in Blue Springs: “I’ve just started reading The New Health Insurance Solution, in which the author, economist Paul Zane Pilzer, suggests that instead of employers providing traditional group health insurance benefits, they should scrap them. In their place he suggests that employers contribute to defined contribution plans for the employees, who would use the money to get insurance at lower cost through individual plans.” ■ From a Butler, Mo., resident: “We will all — insured and uninsured — be much better off when we iron out the details of a plan which will allow workers and families to pay ‘premiums’ to the doctors, clinics and hospitals who are directly involved in providing the requisite health care, thereby eliminating the wasteful and financially draining middleman, the insurance company.” ■ From an e-mail: “Are we willing to provide limited health care to our elderly? Doing so would drastically cut the cost of health care. And are we willing to limit research for new drugs and new medical procedures that can lengthen our lives? Both could save tons of money. The problem is that we all want to live forever and we all expect the world’s best health care and we all want it for free. Turning it over to the federal government will cost us more, will give us what the rest of the world already has — terrible health care — and will allow us to all die without much concern of the government.” ■ From an ophthalmologist: “Here’s my two cents’ worth: Don’t go to the (expensive) emergency room. … Hey, they can certainly handle the initial acute care stabilization of a heart attack or stroke in progress. But that’s about it.” ■ From a man who has “studied the health-care issue for years”: “Start with a blank slate. This isn’t fixable. Start from scratch.” ■ From “a reader”: “We don’t have the political will to implement change. But maybe if we put businesses and the pharmaceutical industry and insurers at the same table and put their corporate welfare at stake, the solutions would come from them.” ■ From an Olathe resident: “Maybe businesses could be required to offer inexpensive catastrophic coverage to all employees, and then employees would have the option to purchase smaller plans for everyday coverage.” ■ From an e-mail: “If the federal government would have a tax on (let’s say gasoline) for health insurance, would this solve the problem? I think it would help. But should the illegals have this right to health insurance?” ■ From another e-mail: “I believe there are some problems with the health-care system, but there are more costly problems in the way we like to eat and drink and not get daily exercise because we are too busy!!!” ■ From a “senior citizen” in Overland Park: “It seems if senior management had to answer for all areas of the business and be paid accordingly, rather than with inflated or falsified numbers, that might help preserve some money to help pay for health care. … Big business is being allowed to dump all of their mismanagement problems back on the people who worked for them and kept them in business.” ■ From a Liberty resident: “Is it possible that we will have to adjust what seems to be an absolute assumption, that the private sector can solve all of our problems? Is it time to explore the possibility of universal health care for our American people?” Thus “the people” have spoken.
|
|
| ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR THE NEW HEALTH INSURANCE SOLUTION |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
