Can we get some insurance reform please?

I am all for insurance reform. The cost to the average american taxpayer is becoming unbearable. I would love to see a public option put in place to allow everyone to participate.

I am not referring to the healthcare reform that is threatening to be pushed on us right now. The insurance reform I am speaking of is CAR insurance.

Every state in the union requires car insurance. The minimum standards change from state to state but everyone must have some level of insurance. I wish I could come up with a product and have the government mandate that everyone must buy it. I wouldn't have to worry about the quality or the cost.

Car insurance largely became mandatory state by state throughout the 1980's and 90's. Prior to that time car insurance might have cost $300.00 per year as insurance companies competed with each other to show value in their product to the consumer. Now, in Michigan, basic coverage can cost $500.00 to $1500.00 per year, or even more. This is only for basic coverage which provides little to no value to the insured other than compliance with state law. Much of that cost comes from the insured absorbing the cost of the uninsured. The uninsured take the risk because a ticket for no insurance may cost a couple hundred dollars. If you are ticketed once a year on average, the cost is significantly less than being insured. If your vehicle is totaled in an accident it was likely already a beater and is easily replaced. If someone else is hurt in the accident, that is what the basic coverage is designed to provide for. The uninsured runs the risk of being sued for medical costs in that case, but like many other areas of life for the poor, the prohibitive costs offer few alternative options. Even with the new driver responsibility fee of $200 per year, on top of the ticket for no insurance, the cost is still cheaper than carrying basic insurance coverage.

(As a side note, you would have to be blind to see the driver responsibility fee as anything other than another tax that is designed to bolster the insurance companies and provide revenue for a failing state economy.)

Lets assume for the moment that the government really does devise laws and financial mandates for our betterment and not to cover their own ineptitude.

I propose that if we had a "public option" to meet minimum state requirements we could ensure full compliance with the law. We could wrap up the cost of the basic coverage in the cost of car fuel. That way you contribute to the insurance as you drive. The bigger users of gas will likely be the ones at the most risk of an accident due to their longevity on the road, therefore the contribution ratio becomes the most evenly divided when paid for through fuel cost. This would also promote "green" cars which is another political drive by the government for our own good.

We would have to lock down the use of the funds to cover the cost of the insurance to ensure that the government would not be allowed to dip into the funds for other reasons as they are prone to do.

This "public option" for car insurance would also still allow private insurance companies to continue their benevolent work of providing comprehensive coverage at an affordable and competitive rate. Car loan providers would still require comprehensive coverage to protect their investments, but the consumer would benefit from competitive rates as insurance companies try to win the customer with the best value. This can only happen when the consumer is not mandated to buy their product.

And best of all there is no reason to fund abortion through car insurance so even this congress should have no problem getting this passed.

As always I am open to alternative thoughts on this. What do you think?

More on healthcare

Ok, so taxes are indeed higher in France with their healthcare system. What about the cost comparison between the average premium payment for a family of four and the proposed added tax on a family of four? Considering the bulk buying power that could come from a large customer base such as the government, I would have to anticipate that the added tax would be lower than what I am currently paying on my insurance premiums. Not to mention the incredible cost of medical bills that are not covered by my insurance. My mounting debt could certainly be influencing the appeal to healthcare reform.

Consider this, We pay taxes to cover other emergency costs such as Fire, Rescue, and Police. I know emergency rooms must give you basic life saving care but it's not like those costs are just absorbed and forgotten by the hospital. Is it unreasonable to expect basic healthcare to be covered by the government as well? I am certainly not suggesting that we allow the government to cover all "healthcare" such as elective surgery, i.e. abortion, mole removals, augmentations, etc.

So where would the dividing line be? I don't know. The current level of debate on this is far too early. We have government provided services in place already that we can look at for precedence on what should be covered, but there is much to look at. This issue is not ready for a vote. It is not even ready to be drawn up in a bill yet. The fact that it is being rushed through is of grave concern to me. Only corruption can come when there is a reluctance to have full disclosure and debate.

Our system of checks and balances was put into place to make the act of passing laws a very slow process. There is good reason for it. We need time to digest the facts and take in all the information. We need time to set up checks and balances within any new law. We need time to investigate the ramifications of any new law. No good law comes easily.

Do I actually support universal healthcare?

I don't watch the news. I don't read the newspaper. I develop my viewpoints by asking myself questions and then researching my answers. I find that my conclusions most often line up with conservative right-wing viewpoints. So I am surprised to discover that I am actually considering the idea that universal health care may be the right way to go.

I have seen the studies that reflect how poorly things are going for Canada and I have experienced first hand how medicaid is more of a hassle to deal with then simply dying. But I have recently been looking at France's health care system and I am struggling to understand why it would not work here. The WHO has rated them as the top health care system in the world. I don't see the WHO as having any moral compass whatsoever so I always take their statistics with a huge grain of salt. They have been known to have questionable methodology in gathering their data, but the fact that they rated them number one made me want to know why.

I have only begun to research this so I admit I am a novice but I can usually find the holes fairly quickly if the liberals really like something. This time I have not been able to find any negative on the surface with France's health care system. A doctor visit will net a cost of about $28.oo in France. I, on the other hand, have medical bills flying out of my ears. The quality of health care does not seem to be suffering as I would have suspected. There don't appear to be any long waits in line. I can't find evidence of any rationing of health care. About 75% of the doctors and hospitals accept the government health care system in France. I have to search for days with my insurance to find the few doctor's that are not out of network. France also has private health insurance that can supplement if you are not satisfied with the government level of care.

I always assumed that privatized health care drove innovation and competition. Somehow that does not seem to be stopping the French. My gut tells me that there is something that I have not yet uncovered. There must be a negative. Perhaps the taxes are outrages, I haven't looked into the cost yet. I know I pay a pretty penny for my private insurance. I know the French are paying about $7.00 per gallon for gas, but I don't know how much of that reflects on their health care system, if any.

We have no problem paying taxes for Fire and Police protection, I am not sure why doctor care doesn't fall under that same umbrella.

I do know that their government regulates cost. A doctor can expect to make $50 - 100,000 per year. That sounds like a great salary from my perspective but I am not in favor of limiting someones ability to make money. I hold no envy for the Gates, buffets, and Hefner's of our society. They have taken the risks and done well, they should absolutely benefit from their entrepreneurship.

Leftists have been disingenuous by suggesting that we don't want health care reform or that we want things to stay the way they are. My daily phone calls from collectors and my ever-draining bank account tells me that my health coverage is not adequate. But Obama and Pelosi have not suggested a system on par with France. Their solution scares me quite frankly. It seems more on par with what Canada has, and their system is in real trouble.

I also cannot support a system that is intent on supplying the funds to kill hundreds of thousands of children per year. I will gladly take my growing debt over the guilt of coercively partaking in such destruction. Obama has been offered many solutions from the right to make his plan more palatable but he has balked at every one.

Do I want universal health care? I think I actually might.

Do I want what Obama has proposed? I am almost certain that I don't.