Would you be in favor of a government health care plan with a sliding scale that taxed you based on you lifestyle choices?
I wouldn’t support adjusting health insurance premiums based on lifestyle choices because it would be fairly difficult to actually determine whether applicants are telling the truth. IRS agents aren’t going to be following taxpayers around 24/7 to verify that they actually go to the gym, eat their vegetables, and don’t smoke. An applicant with a modicum of common sense would just lie that they don’t smoke, they eat very healthy, and that they excercise a lot. Rather than adjusting health insurance premiums it would be more practical to have taxes or tax exemptions on products and services themselves. Cigarettes and fast/packaged foods can be taxed higher while fresh produce and gym memberships can be exempted from taxes.
Why most of government health care plans don't cover dental care?
Because usually 1 crown in the USA and your limit is up!I have many patients who even with dental insurance they prefer to pay. I don’t know, they usually have bad experiences is why, Most of the time is Anesthesia related, that they are in pain during the procedure. I use mix of Medicaine (Ariticaine) and Mepivicaine, this has a synergistic effect, as well as reinforcement shots if it said bottom tooth is infected and you apply it will you guys know here :) as the anesthesia won’t hit the infection as well because of its PH level. The shot will most likely hurt and puss will come out, but that will guarantee a painless extraction.I ask all those patients to check if they take insurance from Tijuana, Mexico and you end up getting most of your money back and can get a lot more work done.The other day I filled out an Emergency Travel Insurance form, I don’t the exact name but basically, it covers your dental wherever you are in case of any emergency. The patient got paid the next day, it’s a very simple form, no ADA codes and quick and easy. I did do a complete pre-estimate for the bottom tough, hate that sheet…. Here was the emergency, 4 crowns fused together with 3 of them broken. and 1 decent tooth with a partial.We did al this in 1 day and he was happy made sure the lab to have made the denture even lind because was a mess, the denture and that huge canine crown on the have to. So in January, 4 new bottom crowns, afterward a flexible partial and everything will be perfectly aligned.After 4 months, we will go into inplants for the top for something more fixed. What do you think the top 5 extractions and immediate denture costed him? Nice guy referred by another patient, $700 bucks for everything. The bottom will be about $1500 4 new crowns and a flexible partial.The idea is to make the patient happy IMO, that’s my main goal. My prices just IMO. So for those who say Tijuana, Mexico dentists are awful here an emergency top example of work.MAB IMPLANTS TIJUANA FB
Similar to a universal government healthcare plan, should we make a universal government plan to cover life insurances, property insurances, liability insurances, and vehicle insurances?
The primary difference between healthcare and the other insurances you named is that everyone needs it.Life insurance - don't need it if you don't have dependents who need support in the event of your death. For some people that's true for their whole lives. It's worth noting that other social safety net programs do provide some help to dependents who lose a provider's income, so life insurance is “extra”.Vehicle insurance - lots of people don't have or need vehicles.Property insurance - lots of people don't own property. The existence of fire and police service does lower the cost of insurance, though.Liability insurance - everyone with some assets does need this, though tort reform might be a better way for the government to tackle this. But the amount you need is based on your net worth so it really wouldn't make sense to have the government provide it. If you're a lefty, this wouldn't be what you want - like the mortgage interest deduction, it'd help the rich much more than the poor.Edit: Just to be crystal clear, I am saying NO, the government should not provide any of the things you name in your question except healthcare.
If you get government healthcare (healthcare.gov), and your spouse is offered a plan through work, must you switch?
The only government health care is in the VA or the military. The other programs are subsidized by the government, but the government does not deliver health care services through them. You can choose any health insurance you wish or none.
Why can’t the government write a health care plan that is affordable for all citizens?
Working as a doctor is in reality an awful job. Forget all the Dr. Kildare nonsense, lots of ‘patients’ are a long way removed from self- sufficient backwoods men. Anyone who is really ill is probably, at least for a while, reduced to early childhood. Let’s be frank, your average patient is quite likely to be a pain in the bum. Maybe I, as an elderly management pharmacist am getting crabby, but a majority of patients just make you want to vomit. I’m always amazed that your average nurse can put up with so much emotional strain.OK, rant over. My point is that to get people to do these awful crappy jobs you have to reward them adequately. In UK here we are having some staffing difficulties because our National Health Service doesn’t really pay enough. As a first approximation no-one in the UK health racket earns a greater amount from Her Majesty’s Government than a senior civil servant. I can never forget the high mandarin who told me, in all seriousness, of their horror that some dentists were making more than them. Pointing out that they were young, needing money for practice, brides, house, and motorcar and were thus working 12 hour days, six or seven days a week cut no ice. There are now falls in applications from British students for places at medical and nursing schools. Future staffing is beginning to be a worry.So, whatever you do, Health is going to be expensive. In UK top ranking health professionals do private work as well as working in the NHS. Only two months ago my family in NYC insisted I go to see a Professor of Cardiology, privately. It was surprisingly inexpensive. He was very reassuring but didn’t tell me anything my really excellent NHS cardiologist hadn’t already said, nor could he do anything that was not already being done.
Lyndon B. Johnson's plan for government-provided health care?
F). Johnson's administration established Medicare in 1965. In the same year it established Medicaid (medical welfare) for the poor. Johnson's administration also created, and got through Congress, the original Head Start program, food stamps, and Work Study financial aid for college students. All of these were part of the 'War on Poverty' that cut in half the number of Americans living below poverty level. Johnson had wanted single-payer universal health care. The national divide on health care was always single-payer universal (liberal scheme) vs. government-subsidized co-payer (conservative scheme) until Obama got a Demcoratic majority to pass the conservative scheme ... and suddenly, conservatives decide that government-subsidized co-payer is socialism. Interesting tidbit: the single-payer universal scheme Johnson had in mind was put in place in Canada in 1964. Today, Americans pay roughly three times what Canadians pay for health care ... and pay for health insurance on top of that. Price of freedom, I guess. Only I thought Canadians were just as free as we are....
Isn't this a great example of Government run health care. Hawaii cancels it after 7 months?
I think it’s an example of Hawaii-run health care. Other industrialized countries have universal health care, Massachusetts has a universal health care plan and the federal government runs Medicare. A better analysis of government-run health care would look at those programs and determine the benefits and the problem areas.
What is Trump's health care plan?
Fairly simple - although it’s been hard for Trump and/or the GOP to articulate because of its inhumanity.Repeal the ACA - although this battlecry is largely one of optics. Key elements of Obamacare can be easily dismantled starting on January 20th (Trump’s inauguration) - and would simply withdraw financial support (subsidies) currently being made by the federal government.Block grant Medicaid - pushing the responsibility for Medicaid administration and management to the states. Rules around eligibility and care delivery would be entirely state-based - which (at least in theory) conveniently absolves the federal government of any harsh blame.Privatize Medicare - a long-standing GOP ambition that follows the current trajectory of private insurance companies managing Medicare through Medicare Advantage programs. Like block grants to the states for Medicaid - the federal government would still pick up a sizeable portion of the cost to insure those over 65, but they’d likely change the age (older) and put more financial burden directly on seniors for their healthcare (as in regular health insurance through commercial insurers).Done.In effect - the federal government gets out of the business of healthcare - which is also to say that it can’t be blamed for any austerity or painful outcomes. It would still fund large portions of it (Medicaid and Medicare), but these payments would be capped with a fixed/annual increase tied to some index.Now - will Trump and/or the GOP succeed with this? Too early to tell - because the success of their strategy so far has been to play up the “Repeal Obamacare” battlecry without articulating the “replacement” part in any detail.Polling on Obamacare suggests strong support for most of the components - except one - the individual mandate. Not surprisingly, that’s the one that says we have to pay for all the other benefits of Obamacare. The GOP replacement part would tilt heavily toward consumers just paying more - without the benefits of Obamacare. That may not go over so well - if they manage to steamroller the legislation.
Does the government pay for Paul Ryan's and his family's health insurance?
As an employee of the federal government, Ryan, as with every other Congressman or Senator, qualifies for coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which subsidizes private insurance purchase for about 8 million federal employees and retirees as part of their compensation packages.FEHBP subsidizes something like 70% of employees' health insurance premiums, while the employee is responsible for the remainder. As with most other large employers, federal employees may choose to take individual or family coverage.Edited to add: I should clarify that I don't have personal knowledge about the Ryan family's insurance coverage. Ryan and his family would certainly qualify for FEHBP coverage since he is a Congressman, but I don't know if they accept it or make other plans.