If insurance is to pay half of these catastrophic costs, that suggests the deductible would average $30,000 -- obviously very high by today’s standards (but less so when you consider that the average insured household contributes well over $20,000 per year into our current system, even before considering deductibles and co-pays). It would make sense for this to rise with age, too, starting at $10,000 for younger people and capping somewhere around $50,000 for older people. Because all Americans would be eligible for health loans, no one would ever be unable to pay the deductible; rising deductibles would merely reflect the longer period of time that people would have had to accumulate health savings.
This is the first in a series of three excerpts from his new book ...(snip)... to be published Jan. 8 by Alfred A. Knopf.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. [Article 25, Paragraph 1; Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
At the other end of the spectrum -- let’s say all people 35 and younger -- individuals would be required to put some percentage of their pretax income into their health savings accounts. (The amount would probably be at least 15 percent.) They would pay their own deductibles, but they would also be entitled to health loans -- advances on their future contributions. This group, in other words, would be fully enrolled in the new system.
David Goldhill is the president and chief executive officer of the cable TV network GSN.
What's wrong with that?
Unfortunately, the most common solution -- to improve efficiency through better central planning -- isn't working. Last week, a New England Journal of Medicine study that showed no impact on hospital-acquired infection rates from a Medicare program to penalize poor performers was the latest blow to administered process solutions in addressing health care's myriad issues of quality, cost, and efficiency.
That's a great incentive....provided you pay taxes that can be credited.
The analysis challenges some common assumptions about C-sections, including that wealthier women are more likely to opt for a surgical birth.
of the five hospitals in California with the highest C-section rates, four were for-profit hospitals in poorer parts of Los Angeles County, where the African-American and Hispanic populations are above the state average.
“There are factors that are attractive to hospitals in terms of training and staff and facilities,” he said. “It’s a lot easier if you can do all your births between seven and 10 in the morning and know exactly how many operating rooms and beds you need.” Vaginal births are unpredictable, creating inefficiencies that can hurt the bottom line.
« Older Huell Howser, best known as the host of California... | Is it right to imprison people... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt