Giuliani offers health care plan

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday offered a consumer-oriented solution to the nation's health care woes that relies on giving individuals tax credits to purchase private insurance.

Critical to Giuliani's plan is a $15,000 tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance, instead of getting insurance through employers. Any leftover funds could be rolled over year-to-year for medical expenses.

Campaigning in this first primary state, Giuliani said his goal is to give individuals more control over their health care. The former New York mayor said as more people buy plans, insurers will drop their prices, making insurance affordable to those who lack it now.

"Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself," he said. "As more of us do that, the cheaper it will become and the higher in quality it becomes."

Giuliani offered the broad outline of his plan but his campaign did not provide many specifics. Asked how much his plan would cost and how many of the people without insurance it would help, Giuliani said he won't have those answers for two or three months.

He also acknowledged that it could take years for insurers to drop their prices and make insurance affordable to those who don't have it.

Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama have proposed more detailed steps to deal with the 47 million Americans lacking health insurance. Edwards' plan has an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have coverage. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers or pay into a public program.

Edwards estimates that his plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion per year and would be financed by repealing President Bush's tax cuts on those making more than $200,000 per year.

Obama's plan calls for the creation of a public program similar to the health plan offered to federal employees, and a National Health Insurance Exchange for consumers to shop among private plans. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers.

Obama estimates his plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion per year, paid for by letting Bush's tax cuts expire on those making more than $250,000 per year.

Giuliani used his appearance to continue criticizing the Democratic candidates, contending that their plans amount to socialized medicine.

"We've got to solve our health care problem with American principles, not the principles of socialism," he said. "I know Democrats will say this is unfair, I know they'll squeal... But I'm a realist. I face reality, which is: if you take more people and have government cover it, it's called socialized medicine."

He argued that Edwards' plan would cost twice what the Democratic candidate estimated.

Giuliani also spoke in favor of tort reform, saying those who are legitimately injured by doctors should be compensated, but damages should be capped and those who file frivolous lawsuits should have to pay the physician's legal fees.

"If a person gets injured, he should be compensated, but he shouldn't get the brass ring or win the lottery," Giuliani said.

The New Yorker leads in several national polls, but trails Republican rival Mitt Romney by double digits in a recent New Hampshire survey.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_health_care [link]

[Publius]

at first glance this actually seems like a decent idea.

[JaJae]

It's refreshing to see a presidential candidate come up with an idea for healthcare that doesn't involve a government takeover.

[WickedLou9]

Is he saying that if we can increase demand for insurance that prices will go DOWN? Isn't that backwards?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Is he saying that if we can increase demand for insurance that prices will go DOWN? Isn't that backwards?

I didn't catch that on my first reading.

Maybe he is suggesting that as more Americans seek out insurance on their own, more competition in the market will develop and drive prices down?

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Is he saying that if we can increase demand for insurance that prices will go DOWN? Isn't that backwards?

A few things need to happen, if the demand is there, people need to be able to fill that demand. That means they need to remove restrictions on the ability to sell insurance. Currently, you can only sell insurance state to state with restrictions on what can be offered.

Very, very cost prohibitive.

[hsmith]

And from what I have read, this doesn't seem like a bad plan.

I don't get why the fuck at ALL that medical costs aren't tax deductible and why you can't roll over your medical flex spending accounts. The fact you "use it or lose it" is a fucking joke.

[Thorgrim]

Ok, so let me get this straight, the biggest argument, aside from cost, is that our medical offices would be packed with people and there would be long lines, because so many people would have healthcare

So Guiliani is trying to create a system that gives huge amounts of money to give a big boost to the number of people who can partake in healthcare, and then hopes prices will fall, so even more people will partake in healthcare

And after all these Americans get healthcare, there won't be any crowded medical rooms or long lines that conservatives are supposedly so scared of...?

[DosEquis]

That plan is a joke. Insurance companies are going to love it I guess. Talk about your ultimate corporate welfare. A tax credit does not address the problem. The problem is that medical costs and insurance are ridiculous. Trying to make ridiculous costs affordable by indirectly subsidizing insurance costs with tax credits is not a solution to the problem. It is a bandaid that will fall off after only a few years. In a few years when the tax credit isn't enough anymore, then what? We have to address the problem... the problem is cost and we have to look at ways of cost reduction.

His plan is stupid.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by hsmith

And from what I have read, this doesn't seem like a bad plan.

I don't get why the fuck at ALL that medical costs aren't tax deductible and why you can't roll over your medical flex spending accounts. The fact you "use it or lose it" is a fucking joke.

There is a new plan where I work. I forget what it's called but it's sort of like that HSA thing.
It's called a high deductible plan. You pay 100% of your costs up front until you reach some limit. I think it's either 2500 or 3000 dollars. something like that. After that your expenses are covered 100%. To accompany this is something like the HSA but it allows you to keep the money. It earns interest and it's deducted from your paycheck pre-tax. You can use that to pay for all medical expenses. So that 3000 dollars is actually more like 2000 since it's pre-tax.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Is he saying that if we can increase demand for insurance that prices will go DOWN? Isn't that backwards?

I thought the whole idea of group Insurance was to pool large amounts of people? Some will pay more than they use, while others will be covered in need well beyond what they have paid in premiums.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's refreshing to see a presidential candidate come up with an idea for healthcare that doesn't involve a government takeover.

Unionized healthcare workers won't go for it. This is a major government takeover they have been working on. If done in anyway that makes the government a healthcare provider it will be a hand over fist money and power grab and there will not be any reversal once it is in place. Any reform after the fact and you will hear the screams "They are taking away your healthcare!" They will move us toward the Clinton "no choice" operation with small steps. The stakes are very high with these experiments.

We don't have anywhere else to go like the Canadians!

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Publius

I didn't catch that on my first reading.

Maybe he is suggesting that as more Americans seek out insurance on their own, more competition in the market will develop and drive prices down?

He might also be assuming that the increase in premiums paid will outweigh increase in payouts.


The idea has its flaws, but hell... Getting to keep more of my own money in order to pay for my own medical expenses? It's such a good idea that I refuse to believe it came from Giuliani. Maybe I'm missing something at first glance.

[Joe_Cool]

Questions that occur to me right off the bat: Does this medical tax credit apply to everybody equally? Or is it only for those who will spend it on insurance, and/or families only?

[thomez]

Subsidizing the cost does not fix the problem, in fact it may add to it. Also, the cost of such a program will be enormous. Republicans should not be expanding the size and scope of government.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by thomez

Subsidizing the cost does not fix the problem, in fact it may add to it. Also, the cost of such a program will be enormous. Republicans should not be expanding the size and scope of government.

A tax cut (in effect) is expanding the size and scope of government?

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

A tax cut (in effect) is expanding the size and scope of government?

The huge tax credit puts government in a position that they are indirectly paying (subsidizing) for the health care of millions of Americans. That's an increase in the scope of government regarding health care, where their presence is already much of the problem.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by thomez

The huge tax credit puts government in a position that they are indirectly paying (subsidizing) for the health care of millions of Americans. That's an increase in the scope of government regarding health care, where their presence is already much of the problem.

It's obviously not a perfect solution, but it's a damned sight better than "Trust us, we'll take care of you whether you like it or not". It's a start.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

It's obviously not a perfect solution, but it's a damned sight better than "Trust us, we'll take care of you whether you like it or not". It's a start.

It's a step in the wrong direction. Increased federal grants and loans for college has increased the cost of college at astronomical rates, there is no reason to believe that subsidizing health care will lower the cost of care (though it might lower the cost of insurance slightly, with more people on insurance). Sure, this plan is better than a socialized system, but neither is a good idea in my opinion.

[DosEquis]

Thank you my libertarian friend.