I propose a government run corporation insurance company that competes to provide health insurance. And, all lower forms of insurance companies that do not provide emergency care are banned.

Basically, I don't want the government to allow insurance companies to say, "We'll pay $5,000, and that's it" and then have some clause for every occasion that might occur which would leave the person who bought the insurance uninsured.

Then I would like the government to provide a minimal service. I would like them to provide health insurance to anyone willing to pay what ever it costs (the cost will be a low as possible). I would expect this to turn a profit, a small one, but enough to run a charity for those who cannot truly pay for their own health insurance because of some problems they have. The insurance will cover the person for minor things like colds and sickness and emergency care. If anything chronic were to come up, the person would have to go through enough health insurance agency.

What this would do is keep people from being under insured, which people often are. And it would not completely destroy an industry. I suspect that quality health insurance agencies would still exist. It would be like the government is setting a bar. I also think it would be much like the mail industry. There's the U.S. Post office, but there's also FedEx, and UPs.

I agree with your proposal. I am for a government insurance plan that allows private insurers to compete.

My only confusion with your post is here:
Could you clarify please?

__________________
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson

There's also AAFES. The Army-Air Force Exchange Service. Its a government run corporation that is in charge of all the PX's and BX's on every base. It would be a good example of how such a thing could be run.

__________________
sputterman: "Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."

Ah, that was a typo. I meant that if anything chronic were to come up, they would have to go through another health insurance company.

I have no idea what that is or what it would mean.

An excellent proposal!

Though I don't see why all forms of insurance that didn't provide emergency care would need to be banned. Having the government compete for a low profit would force the industry to lower its profit standards, and if it was too much, then they would go out of business but still leave the government system functional. I also have the same question that Badger had, did you mean "another"?

On top of your proposal, I would add that the government profit should go to care for people who were born with chronic illnesses and those who cannot work because of it. Those people are put into hardship the moment they're born, and then they can't even work. Those people do deserve something from the government, and this would be the best way to provide it.

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping

The chronic illness part confuses me. They would have to go elsewhere, but what other agency would cover them if they have a chronic condition? Personally, I'd rather have it that this government insurance does NOT cover minor things like colds, etc. but does cover chronic problems.

I like the approach of trying to find the best of both worlds, keeping the private market alive and having the government set the par. I brought up a similar idea before with how I understand the Australian system works. My understanding is they have a basic "almost" universal healthcare plan, but those seeking all of the conveniences of private care can opt into a private insurance which the government then subsidizes 30% of the cost for. This is as opposed to canada which practically outlaws private practices, which I don't like. Most get insurance through their employer.

In any event, again I like the approach. While I may get labeled a socialist, I certainly see the value of a healthy capitalism.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

The three of us have different intentions. My intentions are to get everyone insured while keeping the best systems alive. My system doesn't care as much about those people who have chronic illness because I believe that is more their problem. My idea basically covers the common cold and any accidents. For example, if you got into a car crash and broke your arm, the cost could be very high. I want people to be insured for those types of things. However, if you hurt your back and wanted to get treatment every week, you'd be on your own.

I think it comes down to how I define chronic, and how all of you are defining chronic. I see it as something reoccurring. Anything that can be fixed in 4-5 treatments is not chronic.

That would do several things. It would actually make the system work. It would help to make other insurance companies more profitable. It would actually help turn a profit, which of course will be giving back to those who can't afford it.

I'm being realistic about this. There would also need to be large co-pays and people who go more frequently would probably still have to pay more. It wouldn't eliminate the problem completely, because many people would still blow off their responsibilities, but it would cost the government next to nothing, and if they charge the cheapest possible price for health insurance and people still can't pay for it, there's aways subsidies.

What would you propose to do about people who are born with a chronic incurable illness that makes them unable to work?

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping

To my knowledge, welfare takes care of them. Can you really name a chronic diseases that keeps a person form working their whole life? I'd say the people who get AIDs and cancer are probably the worst off through my system. They would need better care. But if you got cancer, wouldn't you want the best care? That is where other privet insurance companies come in.

Actually, I see your point. That's not fair to those who have those diseases, but through the current system those people with diseases, while they still pay more, are supported by those who do not. That is a large reason it doesn't work.

Is it really right to make a person pay their own way? Or is it really right to make other people pay for them? That's the question.