Political/social issue

The issue of the "47 million uninsured"* is not going away in this political environment, therefore, a plan has to be instituted that will not destroy the quality of the current system and will not result in socialized medicine. Since the beginning of the election cycle for the presidency, the democrats have focused, defined and owned this concern of the American people, while the Republicans have not responded with a consistent plan to prevent socialized medicine. (This plan was initially written January 2008)

No matter what plan the democrats come up with it will involve the creation of another immortal Federal Bureaucracy, which will result in billions/trillions of dollars being funneled through Washington, D.C., thereby expanding the size of the government and the power of the Federal ruling class.

Rather than create another Federal Bureaucracy with a host of employees and endless new departments and rules and regulations, it should be left in the private sector where they are already equipped to handle new insureds/consumers. Current health insurers have the employees, facilities, computers, etc. and complex infrastructure to handle the influx of the uninsured if a plan is instituted. Therefore, it would be more efficient to leave to each uninsured in the private sector.  

Tax Incentives

Why would the private sector take on this burden?

Answer= Significant Tax Incentives.

For example, if a company, such as an insurance company, could write off $2.00 for every $1.00 it expends in insuring the uninsured, then it would be motivated to take on the uninsured and provide a policy. The exact amount of the write-off is a negotiable item, but one would not negotiate against oneself before the other side sits down at the table. Obviously, it depends on a business model and the ultimate tax burden of each company, which would have to be calculated.

The beauty of the plan would be to prevent a new bureaucracy and to lessen the amount of money going to the Federal government, which is ultimately wasted for pork projects and/or inefficiently used. It would lessen the amount of new Federal employees, and ultimately lead to more people becoming insured for each dollar expended. Is there any question that the private sector would do a better job than a Federal bureaucracy? The more of our money the Federal Government has the more power it has, and the greater potential for abuse of power.

As a practical matter, each dollar expended would be spent more efficiently, and result in more people getting the benefit of the plan. There is no doubt that the administrative costs would be significantly less than they would be if funneled through the Federal bureaucracy, a common sense point not lost on the average voter.

Staging process-- Probationary period--insurance companies & practicing physicians

Even though it is believed that this plan would work at the outset, a new implementation policy should be advocated for any new initiative. First, start it on a smaller scale for a definite time period to see if it works. After a probationary period, analyze and audit the plan to see what works and what doesn’t work.

The shortest route is to offer it to health insurance companies to see how it would operate on a corporate level. To see if it would work on an individual basis during the probationary period, allow practicing physicians to be contributors. They are the ones that would be treating the people, and there should be tax incentives for individuals to become physicians and remain in the profession.

If the insurance companies are not motivated by the tax incentive, or they do not have the tax liability for it to cover enough people, a similar plan could be offered to all companies and individuals to lessen their tax burden. However, only companies that employ the majority of its workers in the USA and that cover their own employees with healthcare insurance may qualify to contribute to the Non-profit. 

Where is the money sent, if not to the federal government?

Contributors, if not healthcare insurers, would send their money to a non-profit set up to collect the funds. These non-profits would collect the funds, process applications and negotiate with healthcare insurers and/or larger providers to pay for insurance policies.

Each State government would designate the non-profit approved to accept the donation. If desired, each State governor can appoint the Board of Directors, so that there is political accountability if the non-profit fails to act correctly. The payment of the tax money by private citizens and/or companies to the non-profits would act more like a private donation to charity than a government program.

The obvious issue would be how to limit who can give as the significant tax advantage would attract all tax payers. This can be debated, but my preference would be practicing physicians and US companies that provide insurance coverage to their employees and that have a history of charitable contributions.

How do we properly designate who is qualified?

Answer=Require anyone who is interested in the benefit to file a tax return no matter what the income level with a processing fee. (Requiring a processing fee would limit the amount of frivolous applications) This would require those who do not pay taxes to fill out tax forms stating their income, as well as answering specific questions under oath to determine eligibility. If they lie about their eligibility, then they are subject to fines and imprisonment just as those who pay their taxes.

Initially, certain income levels and needs can be set and, depending on the response requesting coverage, the pool of eligibility can be modified.

Each person receiving benefits under the plan would be required to acknowledge the contribution of the individuals/companies that have provided free healthcare insurance. The manner of the “Thank You” can be discussed, but the current system allows politicians to take the credit, as opposed to the hard working US taxpayer.

Companies could use this plan as part of their marketing strategy. 

Since the program would be run by non-profits (501(c) (3)'s), the federal and state governments would have power to audit and prosecute fraud. Having a system that is not run by Federal employees would decrease fraud and waste. When was the last time a Federal or State employee was fired or prosecuted for fraud or wasteful spending?

Obviously, particulars need to be added, but as a general framework, it is a win -win for all involved. People insured who weren't before, and companies and individuals with a lesser tax burden. It would serve as a stimulus to the economy for the tax breaks, and lessen the amount of money that the federal government can control. The more money it has, the more power it has. The more power, the greater chance for abuse. It is an abuse of power to take private citizens money and then waste it, even if it is for the best of intentions.

Requiring all who want the coverage to fill out an IRS form under oath and pay an application fee will also determine how many people really need the benefit. I am sure that a significant percentage of the "47 million" can afford to pay for health insurance, but they choose not to make it a priority. This would clarify that number.*

Based upon my review of the other health care plans put out by the democrats, which will continue to be a major issue that may ultimately decide the election, I think this plan strikes the right balance. (I wrote the Plan in January 2008).

* I saw an outstanding video on the subject at freemarketcure.com, which confirmed my thought that the "47" million number is exaggerated and represents many who do not make insurance coverage a priority even though they can afford it.

The people of this country are the most charitable in the world. It is time to reward their contributions and sacrifice in working hard for their money by lessening the ever increasing tax burden the federal, state and local governments are putting on their backs every day.

Tax incentives for the poor and uninsured won't work. The truly needy don't have the money to get the benefit of the tax break.

Excellent Point for Uninsured
written by (name withheld) February 08, 2009

I know here (and I'm sure it happens elsewhere) that public hospitals are not allowed to turn potential patients away when they arrive at the emergency room. Each person that comes in gets examined and provided a treatment regardless of proof of insurance. Currently, the burden of nonpaying customers falls primarily on the paying customers through ever increasing healthcare costs. I think you have a point. Since the hospital is mandated to take in all requests at the ER, they should be given a certain amount of credit for provable out of pocket expenses acquired through performing medicine on the uninsured. Extend that same concept to general practitioners and primary caregivers and you have a national privately run healthcare system that can provide benefits to everyone. Not a bad idea. Thanks for sharing it.

WORDS AT THE BRANDENBURG GATE BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WEST BERLIN

June 12, 1987

Thank you very much. Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the city hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.

We come to Berlin, we American Presidents, because it's our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we're drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer, Paul Lincke, understood something about American Presidents. You see, like so many Presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: "Ich hab noch einen koffer in Berlin." [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]

Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, I extend my warmest greetings and the good will of the American people. To those listening in East Berlin, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same -- still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly -- here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.

President von Weizsacker has said: "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed."

Today I say: As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.

In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation thousands of miles away; the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State -- as you've been told -- George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos."

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the Western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium -- virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty -- that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany -- busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance -- food, clothing, automobiles -- the wonderful goods of the Ku'damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on Earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But, my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on: Berliner herz, Berliner humor, ja, und Berliner schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner schnauze.] [Laughter]

In the 1950's, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind -- too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent -- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides. Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days -- days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city -- and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then -- I invite those who protest today -- to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.

While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend -- on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.

In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations a technological revolution is taking place -- a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.

In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete. Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safer, freer world.

And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement. And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world. To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.

With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation. There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same. And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.

One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea (South Korea) has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West?

In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You've done so in spite of threats -- the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life -- not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love both profound and abiding.

Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere -- that sphere that towers over all Berlin the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.

As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner, "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.

And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.

Thank you and God bless you all.