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.