We've made the first step, but there's no sense in taking the first step and not walking further. As in continue on the road for UHC, for me, there is a new development: I don't think we need a public option. I know, it's a crazy idea. But continue with me below the fold.
Here are some words that will describe our future health care system: mandates, private insurance, subsidies. Another country shares these words: Switzerland. There was a diary yesterday saying that we are now Switzerland, but I believe that is a claim that steps too far. However, we have building blocks to create a shockingly similiar system.
The current Swiss model mandates everyone to have health care insurance. Every private insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates them. They can not make profits off of their basic insurance, but may do so with supplemental plans. The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium. Insurance is not connected to employment in any way. There are public and private hospitals, as well as home care that is subsidied further.
Our future health care system mandates everyone to have health care insurance. Not every private insurer has to be involved the state exchanges, but those that do must meet regulations. Not everyone has access to these exchanges. They can still make profits off of all plans. If you, individually, make equal to or below $44,000, then the government gives insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium or you are eligible for medicaid. Employers play a role in getting health care. There are mainly private hospitals, though are community health cares which recieve federal funding (there might be public hospitals and I'm just ignorant of it though).
By reading both paragraphs, it's obvious what the similiarities are, and definitely what the differences are. And what needs fixed next are the differences. So, while I'd enjoy a public option, perhaps we don't need it. If we:
A) Expand state exchanges to a national exchange (optional, perhaps), make it available for all, require every private health care insurer have at least one plan available in the exchange.
B) Require every cent of the dollar of the premium goes to the pool for basic insurance plans.
C) Push the subsidy-entitlement income level higher, create limits on how much of a person's income can go to premiums before subsidies kick in.
D) Decouple insurance from employment. (Thanks minorityusa)
E) Aggressively expand Sanders' brillant Community Health Centers.
If we do those things, I think a commonsense universal health care system that is affordable for all Americans has been created in America. But, hey, that's just my perspective on this. What do you think about this? Would my idea work or do we still need a public option or medicare buy-in of some sort?
P.S.: I'm sorry if I got any information incorrect on either health care system. Please don't berate, just tell me what to correct.