Income taxes are bad for families. No income tax codes truly reflect the importance of families and children to our future national success.
In my opinion, our nation’s future is vested in each successive generation, our children. Income taxes are bad for families since neither the United States nor most state income tax codes reflect the importance of families to the future success of our nation and our children. To put it another way, the most important business of our nation is raising our children, not business or corporate wealth. The home is the factory of the family, the family vehicles are the distribution fleet of the family, food is the fuel of the family, and washers, dryers, and refrigerators are the equipment needed to raise the next generation of United States citizens.
If my hypothesis is correct, the United States and state income tax codes should reflect the importance of the business of raising the next generation. The expenses accrued while raising the next generation should be treated in the same way that income tax codes treat business and corporate expenses. Family expenses are not deductible directly from gross income and structures and equipment used by families are not depreciable. Consequently, the United States and state tax codes are bad for families in comparison to the benefits provided by business and corporate income tax codes. The only way to correct this inequity in income tax codes would be to extend all tax benefits extended to businesses and corporations to family income taxes.
United States and state income tax codes are also great for criminals. Criminals take advantage of these tax codes to minimize their taxes on enterprises, including shell corporations, used to hide and launder income derived from criminal activities. All of the structures, equipment, salaries and benefits for criminal and legitimate employees, associated with a criminal entity can be deducted or depreciated under the business and corporate income tax codes. Obviously, most of the nefarious income derived from criminal activities is never taxed under any current tax code. Only a consumption tax would tax any significant amount of currently untaxed criminal income. Taxes would be collected when criminals purchase most of the luxury items they desire as a result of their criminal enterprises. The income tax code benefits criminals derive from their enterprises continue until the true nature of their enterprises is discovered by law enforcement and their front and shell businesses are closed.
Economists, politicians, and pundits have proposed numerous alternatives or replacements for the United States and state income tax codes. One potential solution to the unfair income tax code treatment of families raising future generations, is replacement of income taxes with consumption taxes.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Sales taxes are a potential solution to the unfair treatment of families, future generations, by our income tax codes which would require total replacement of income taxes with sales taxes, a consumption or purchase tax system. The tax system proposed is sales taxes on all transactions and purchases related to land, raw materials, capital expenditures, all securities, goods, and services. No business deductions or exemptions would be allowed under the system of proposed sales taxes. Low to moderate tax rates would be paid by the entire economy from raw material extraction to final consumption where even criminals would pay their fair share of taxes. Consequently, taxes on a box of cereal would include sales taxes on purchase or rental of farm land, purchase of crop seeds, fertilizers, water, all necessary farm equipment, sales of grain to manufacturers, all other cereal ingredients, payment for applicable independent transportation of grain to manufacturers, rental or purchase of manufacturer facilities, land, equipment, packaging, each independent transport of cereal to independent distribution centers and/or retailers, and sale of cereal to each final consumer. Consequently, sales taxes simply become part of the cost of the products, commodities, goods, or services purchased. The tax codes would be greatly simplified and investigation would be primarily accounts payable and receivable audits.
THE VALUE ADDED AND FAIR TAX
The proposed system of sales taxes system would differ from value added taxes (VAT) common in the European Union (EU). In the EU system, the amount of VAT that the user pays is the cost of the product, less any of the costs of materials used in the product that have already been taxed. Obviously, VAT require detailed cost and tax accounting at each stage from dirt to the final consumer in the cereal example. With this in mind, each step has potential for deceptive accounting.
Many economists, pundits, and politicians favor replacement of income taxes with fair taxes. In my opinion, the disadvantages of fair taxes far out way the advantages discussed in the article What Is the Fair Tax Act Explained – Pros and Cons and others. The primary disadvantage of the proposed fair tax system is that fair taxes constitute a business and corporate welfare system. Virtually all business and corporate expenses are excluded from fair taxation. The fair tax system is as unfair to families, our next generation, as current income tax codes because final consumers, families, pay virtually all of the fair taxes. In addition, the proposed œfair tax rate of 23% is an internal sales tax which is effectively a rate of 30% according to the above linked article. The effect is that businesses and corporations pay little or no taxes while consumers pay a 30% sales tax. These experts expect We the People to believe that businesses and corporations will pass all of their tax savings on to consumers, think ENRON, Bernie Madoff, the hidden fees used in the banking system, and airline corporations.
Again according to the above linked article, the fair tax proposal would also create a new entitlement described as follows:
(The) “prebate” “ or annual consumption allowance ¦designed in part to relieve poverty-level Americans by providing a monthly check that would essentially offset all of their sales tax expenditures. The amount of the allowance would be based on poverty-level guidelines and would increase for larger families. Though the “prebate” is geared toward poorer families, everyone would receive monthly checks, regardless of income. The “prebate”¦ is the most expensive element of the entire plan¦. (It) would be the largest entitlement program in American history, and would constitute a welfare payment, even for those without a need.
To me, the idea of a prebate has two disqualifying problems. First, what are they thinking? We do not need to create the largest entitlement program in American history while attempting to replace our current income tax system. Second, everyone in the United States should contribute to the costs needed to promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity¦.
CONSUMPTION TAX
In addition to the pro-family benefits of the proposed system of sales taxes, the tax system would result in a drastic reduction of the size, power, and influence of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) resulting in major government cost reductions. The only possible function of the IRS with the system of sales taxes, purchase or consumption taxes would be auditing purchase and sales accounting of businesses and corporations. This impact on the IRS is similar to the reduction or elimination of the IRS resulting from the proposed fair tax system.
A solution, to the unfair treatment of families by income taxes, is replacement of income taxes with a consumption tax system.
In contrast, the proposed system of sales taxes, would require a periodic tax payment directly to the appropriate government entity by the purchasing business or corporation. As a result, it may make more sense to call the proposed system a purchase tax system. The proposed taxes would be based on total cost of all purchases of each type product or service accrued during the relevant tax period. Businesses would simply be required to account for the total cost, purchase cost plus purchase tax, of products and services purchased and pay the appropriate tax. For example, if a business bought 1000 widgets a month costing $100 each with a purchase tax rate was 5%, the business would spend $100,000 for widgets and pay $5.000 in sales taxes monthly. The total monthly cost for widgets would be $105,000 which would be added to the other costs accrued in manufacturing their final product. The sales price of that product would be calculated in a manner that would ensure competitiveness in their market and adequate profit to remain in business. The process would be repeated at every step of the manufacture or industry cycle until the final product or service was purchased by the end consumer. Free market competition for goods and services at every level would ensure the lowest final consumer price.
My preference would be a flat tax rate for all businesses and corporations. However, if necessary for implementation of the system, a progressive tax scale could be developed. Taxation rates could vary based on the cost of living, land, labor , and capital where the product or service is produced or purchased. The business or corporation segment of the economy or position in a given supply chain within a given economy segment could also be used to determine tax rates. National indices are available to determine local, state, and regional costs of the majority of the segments in the economy. These indices would be used to set local, state, or national progressive rates for sales taxes on purchases and consumption in the proposed system.
If progressive tax rates are needed, my suggestion would include no more than four tax brackets. Small localized entities would pay the lowest rate while state, regional and national entities could be taxed at increasing rates. If the four proposed brackets could not produce sufficient national revenue, the bracket for large national businesses and corporations could be further divided into two or three brackets based on comparative entity size.
Use of the proposed system of sales taxes to retire the national debt is another potential benefit of the proposed system. This could be accomplished with a temporary increase in the tax rate on national businesses and corporations or at all levels of the economy. For example, with a base tax rate of 5%, if a temporary rate increase on national entities of 2% would eliminate the national debt in 20 years, the tax rate would decrease from 7% to 5% after twenty years. For this idea to work, two critical changes in the national budgeting process would be required, a presidential line item veto and a balanced budget. The only way to ensure that this idea would retire the national debt is through the constitutional amendment process or laws requiring the presidential line item veto and a balanced budget. Although constitutional amendments would provide the best assurance that the debt would be retired, laws would probably suffice if We the People held politicians to account.
As with VAT, the primary criticism of the proposed tax system is that it could increase end consumer costs since taxes at each stage of the process would be passed on to final consumers. This criticism is true. However, the same criticism is true for business and corporate income taxes. The costs of income taxes, tax accountants, tax and compliance attorneys, and business and corporate tax loophole lobbyists accrued at each stage of every product or service cycle are currently passed on to consumers. Free market competition would ensure minimization of all such costs. In my opinion, careful evaluation of total costs of the current system of business and corporate income taxation are probably higher than the total costs associated with the proposed system of sales taxes on purchases and consumption.
Finally, under the proposed system, the sales tax rate paid at the end point of the product or service chain would revert to a standard sales taxes paid by the final or retail consumer and transmitted to the appropriate government entity by the final seller or retailer as with current sales taxes. This is the point in the system where employees and criminals would be taxed. Final consumption is also the point where progressive tax rates may be most appropriate although my preference would be the lowest possible fixed tax rate. If progressive rates were necessary to institute the system, my suggestion would require that basic low cost goods and services necessary for a moderate standard of living would be taxed at the lowest rate. The tax rate would increase with two or three brackets between the base rate and luxury taxes for every category of products, goods, and services. Depending on the price range of luxury goods, products and services, luxury items could have a variety of luxury tax brackets. For example, men’s denim jeans below $50 might be taxed at 1%, from $51-$100 at 2%, from $101-$200 at 4%, the luxury tax from $201-$500 at 6%, and above $500 the luxury tax rate could be 10%. From my point of view, this consumption tax system is fair to families and every person in the United States of America. Everyone would participate in financing the benefits derived from the blessings of citizenship, living in, and spending time in our nation. The system would also derive revenue from visitors and guests in our nation.
The retail and final consumer sales taxes are the only point where excessive profits from criminal enterprises would be taxed. Most criminals seek a life of crime for the life style and luxury easy money provides. Everything in life that they desire and crime provides would be taxed at luxury rates including their food, clothes, homes, appliances, cars, entertainment, electronics, leisure activities, vacations, and etc. would be taxed at luxury rates. The taxes paid by criminals through a system of sales taxes would automatically result in a significant increase in tax revenue, in my opinion.
Profits on the sale of stocks, bonds, commodities, and etc. would be taxed at end consumer rates paid by the seller eliminating capital gains taxes. Profits would be calculated using the current cost basis system used in conjunction with the current IRS Schedule D Form for taxable income from sales of stocks and bonds, etc. The consumption tax on these transactions could be progressive and based on the profits derived in the sales transaction. The brokerage institution handling the transaction should collect the taxes from the seller and pay the appropriate government entity.
Alexander Hamilton, Founder and first Treasury Secretary, preferred the consumption tax.
A FOUNDER’S TAX VISION
In conclusion, some historical perspective on taxation seems appropriate. The power to levy taxes is a sensitive issue. The Frames of the Constitution knew they had to balance the necessity for a national government that had all the powers requisite to the complete execution of its trust with the people’s disdain for oppressive taxation and taxation without representation. In The Federalist No. 35, Alexander Hamilton discussed this critical balance writing,
There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or to sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome. There can be no doubt that in order to a judicious exercise of the power of taxation it is necessary that the person in whose hands it is should be acquainted with the general genius, habits and modes of thinking of the people at large and with the resources of the country.
Hamilton also favored a progressive, wealth based, taxation policy. In The Federalist No.36, he wrote:
Internal taxationmust naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions, which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its power, coincides with a proper distribution of public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression.
One important consideration is implied by Hamilton’s support for progressive taxation. He suggests that those who stand to lose the most if the nation fails should provide relatively more in taxes to ensure that government succeeds and protects their wealth and enterprises from external and internal danger.
Finally, Alexander Hamilton was a strong proponent of consumption or sales taxes. In The Federalist No. 12, He wrote,
In America it is evident, that we must a long time depend, for the means of revenue, chiefly on such duties (customs and commodity taxes). The pockets of farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands (property taxes). And personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way, than by the imperceptible agency of taxes on consumption [sales taxes].
In The Federalist No. 21, Hamilton continues his support for consumption, or sales taxes, as follows:
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption [sales] that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed “ that is the extension of revenue. If duties are too high they lesson the consumption [sales]“ the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens, by taxes of this class, and it is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Alexander Hamilton provided some interesting arguments for consumption, or sales, taxes which seem relevant to the taxation questions currently under discussion in our nation. Although progressive taxes are currently favored by the political left as a means of wealth retribution, my preference, as a staunch conservative, is for fixed tax rates. Conversely, Hamilton offers a good argument for progressive taxation as a means of proportionally funding protection of their status and maintaining support for government by the lower and middle class citizenry.
Hopefully, this discussion of the proposed system of consumption, or sales taxes, which provides equity for families, stimulates consideration of alternatives to the current income tax codes and other alternatives.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Since Islamic terrorists are at war with the world, the United States of America should declare a radical Islamic terrorism war.
Since radical Islamic terrorists are at war, Jihad or holy war, with the world, the United States of America should declare a radical Islamic terrorism war. Many contend that the Islamic world would consider declaration of an Islamic terrorism war as a declaration of war against all of Islam. Although it is my intention that all Islam is not the target of the proposed declaration of war, it would serve to emphasize that Islam must be an active part of the solution to the Islamic problem, radical Islamic terrorism, which is a cancer in Islam and the rest of the world. These terrorists justify Jihad using the Quran and Hadith, two Islamic holy books. It is my contention, that if so called moderate Islam, is not part of the solution, all Islam, including nation states that allow teachers or institutions that support the theocratic, Islamist ideology, used to justify Radical Islamic Terrorism within their borders, is the problem.
Islam has been at war with the world for 13 centuries. After defeat of the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic nation, during WWI, Islam was subdued until the reestablishment of Israel in 1948. Subsequently, Islamic countries in the Middle East went to war with Israel and were also defeated. Modern radical Islamic terrorists began their Jihad because of this defeat. Israel was the first target of Jihad, but Jihad has expanded to other countries in the Middle East, much of North Africa, Europe, regions of Asia, southwest Pacific Islands, and North America. No single battlefield or theater of operation exists in the Islamic terrorism war being. These terrorists have bases of operation on five or six continents. From their bases of operation, radical Islamic terrorists strike both hard and soft targets including innocent civilians, law enforcement officers, and military personnel and targets.
Islamic terrorism war should be declared against terrorists who justify their acts of terrorism citing passages contained in holy books of Islam, claim to follow the tenants of Islam and teachings of Mohammed, and call themselves Muslims. radical Islamic terrorism is an ideology or philosophy of war waged against all who do not follow Mohammed. Radical Islamic terrorists do not have a single, unified, political, economic, theocratic, military, national identity, leader, or command structure. These terrorist do have a shared theology and Islamist ideology. They include both Sunni and Shiite Muslims who are also engaged in a sectarian, civil war, a Jihad for each side against the other. This civil war has also raged for about 13 centuries.
Consequently, an expanded definition and declaration of war is needed to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism. The proposed declaration of war should strategically define the stages and nature of victory. Such a declaration has significant foreign policy implications and potential problems related to the fact that radical Islamic terrorism leaders and bases of operation are spread throughout the world. Therefore, the proposed declaration of war must contain careful limitations. The most significant limitation to the Islamic terrorism war declaration must be a requirement that the United States first seek cooperation and permission of the government of countries where radical Islamic terrorist leaders or bases are located. Countries where radical Islamic terrorist leaders or bases are located could also request the assistance of United States forces in their efforts to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism in their country. On the other hand, the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration should also declare that countries harboring radical Islamic terrorists would be considered radical Islamic terrorism countries, if they refuse to allow the United States to attack any radical Islamic terrorism leader or base participating in an attack against the United States, our citizens, or allies. Careful delineation of these two issues would alleviate many of the potential problems arising from the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration. It would also clearly define the potential consequences for any country harboring Radical Islamic Terrorists that attacked the United States, our citizens, or allies. Congress and the Commander-in-Chief should clearly define the consequences for countries refusing to cooperate in strikes against radical Islamic terrorists or bases located in their countries. Drone attacks, air strikes, and limited, proportional Special Forces raids like the Ben Laudon operation should be authorized by the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration in uncooperative countries. Invasions and large scale military land operations against any country should require a declaration of war against an uncooperative country or alliance.
At the same time, the proposed declaration of war would allow great latitude regarding location, timing, method, and level of force used to combat radical Islamic terrorism. With the cooperation of the world and countries where radical Islamic terrorists are located, the Islamic terrorism war declaration would allow the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military and our allies to attack radical Islamic terrorists swiftly, proportionally, and decisively anywhere in the world. It is my opinion, that such a Islamic terrorism war declaration would be a catalyst to unite the world against the cancer of radical Islamic terrorism. Decisive leadership of this nature could convince many countries of the world to add their military to accomplish the goal of eradicating radical Islamic terrorism. Such a world coalition could finally end the insanity and carnage caused by radical Islamic terrorism.
In my opinion, every sound and important strategic decision made regarding foreign policy and the defense of the United States of America should consider every reasonable alternative. The question is, whether or not this proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration is reasonable.
To paraphrase a recent successful political candidate, since what we have been doing since the 9/11 attack and before has not worked very well to defeat radical Islamic terrorism;
What the h do we have to lose?
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
No true free market healthcare insurance market exists in the US today.
None of the existing or proposed healthcare plans are actually free market systems; and none of the healthcare insurance proposals are free market systems. Contrary to popular opinion, government is involved in employer paid healthcare plans both through regulation and through subsidies to both employers and employees. With Obamacare, government involvement in individual healthcare insurance became the law of the land. Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare were already the law of the land. Currently, government controls every aspect of healthcare. Nothing remotely resembling a healthcare free market exists in the United State of America.
A brief history of insurance provides context for this discussion. Marine insurance covering ships and cargo, one of the first types of insurance, appeared in the early 13th century. Originally, groups of marine shippers cooperated to underwrite, or insure, the ship owners in the group. By 1712, a group of about 150 shippers met at Edward Lloyd’s Coffee House in London to underwrite the groups shipping efforts. The first fire insurance predates marine insurance by about 100 years. While the predecessors of life insurance were offered in 1588, it took about 100 years for the first life insurance company to start the industry. By the middle of the 19th century, life tables were the basis of premiums, life insurance was offered as an employment benefit by a few companies, and companies started selling individual policies available to all who could buy them.
Healthcare insurance started as a means for employers to cover the costs of on-the-job injuries to their employees by about 1875. In the United States, the first employer paid healthcare insurance was for Texas teachers. Initially, individuals established and funded prepaid hospital accounts to cover major healthcare costs negotiated for the teachers. By 1929 the idea evolved into the first Blue Cross plan. The healthcare insurance industry grew rapidly immediately before and during WWII when the National wage freeze was enacted. Employers were allowed to offer healthcare insurance as an employee benefit to attract and keep employees. The employers were allowed to deduct to cost of the programs as an expense, and the cost of the benefit was not added to employee taxable income. These tax benefits are a government healthcare insurance subsidy or entitlement. Both employers and employees continue to benefit from this government entitlement.
Before healthcare insurance was available to the majority of the U S population, healthcare was practiced in a basically free market environment. Patients negotiated the cost of care with the doctor providing care on a case by case basis. Hospital and clinic costs were established, but patients could negotiate costs and or payment plans when they were not able to pay the costs when treatment was completed. Patients could easily determine all the costs for the doctor care, medications, supplies, and hospital or clinic. Patients could also learn about the quality of care provided by their physician and the hospital or clinic they used. This is a simplified description of a true healthcare free market. Nothing like this has been the general healthcare experience in the United States for at least 100-150 years.
Establishment of a true free market patient based healthcare insurance system would require drastic changes. The first and most critical change would be to provide individuals and families complete control over the choice of their healthcare insurance plan. This would require elimination of employer provided healthcare insurance as part of employee benefit plans. Consequently, all healthcare insurance would consist of individual and family healthcare insurance plans. To accomplish this, legislation must require that employer contributions for employee healthcare costs be added to employee gross income at the start of the program. This change in the healthcare insurance system would be an important first step in establishing strong patient doctor healthcare relationships and patient centered healthcare.
The second, and equally critical change in our healthcare system, would be a means of ensuring that the young and healthy contribute to the financial stability of healthcare insurance pools without imposing œmandated healthcare insurance. One idea to accomplish this is “The Healthcare Responsibility Act.”The idea is that every individual or family would be responsible to ensure that they have the ability to pay for all of their healthcare costs either with their personal assets, appropriate insurance, or a combination of the two. Enactment of a healthcare responsibility law like this would make every individual, family, or their estate legally liable for payment of their entire healthcare costs without bankruptcy relief. With severe consequences like this, people would be far less likely to avoid securing adequate healthcare financing or insurance. Finally, the linked discussion of healthcare responsibility ends with this statement, Every good and effective economic plan should consider all the alternatives, including the wild and crazy idea that everybody should be financially responsible for their healthcare and the healthcare of their family.
A third requirement or change necessary to ensure viable free market healthcare insurance would be the requirement that each provider attract a group of young, healthy clients consistent with the proportion of these clients in the general population. This should ensure that insurance providers would have adequate financial stability to provide unlimited healthcare coverage for life. Under this concept pre-existing conditions would not be an issue since the individual and family carry their healthcare insurance for life. The same continued insurance provisions required for employer based coverage existing now would continue for people changing from plan to plan under the new individual based system. Pre-existing conditions would not be an issue. Under this concept each healthcare insurance provider would be required to provide a range of catastrophic healthcare insurance plans and healthcare saving and investment accounts for this critical group of clients. The saving and investment accounts should require a minimum balance in each savings account, a top rated bond account segment with a required minimum account principle, and allow an account for more aggressive investing. This idea would allow individuals to grow their personal healthcare savings account quickly to the required level. This group would also be eligible for traditional healthcare insurance plans.
The fourth change necessary to establish a truly free market healthcare system would be abolishment of pricing contracts between service providers and healthcare insurance providers. This change would allow each individual or family to shop for providers based on the price and quality of healthcare services. This change would also result in real provider patient based care. Providers would have to publish the costs of their services for patients to compare with other providers. In addition, information regarding the quality of care provided by each practitioner, hospital, and clinic would have to be easily available to the general public. This concept would result in open competition for healthcare services creating true free market competition among providers. The result would be an overall reduction in the costs of healthcare. Two healthcare segments currently operate with a system of this nature, Lasik and cosmetic surgery although they are not insurance financed.
Replacement of employer based healthcare insurance with individual and family system and required personal financial responsibility for the cost of personal healthcare are unlikely changes to the healthcare system in the United States. It is my opinion, however, that without these changes nothing resembling a true œfree market healthcare insurance system is possible. These changes would be rejected by those on the left seeking single payer government healthcare who would also consider the harshness of the proposed personal responsibility as extreme and heartless. The healthcare insurance industry, physician groups, and conglomerate owners of hospitals and clinics would also be opposed to these ideas. Fiscal conservatives and other capitalists would probably applaud these ideas.
On the other hand, these changes could be a catylist for creation of a true œfree market healthcare insurance system. Other suggestions by conservatives for creation of a œfree market system could follow quite logically. High risk healthcare insurance pools should be an option if catastrophic plans do not provide adequate overall financing. Allowing interstate healthcare insurance markets to exist would increase competition and reduce insurance costs and possibly preclude the need for individual healthcare insurance purchasing pools. Allowing localized individual purchasing pools or cooperatives could provide for greater purchasing power if interstate plans do not adequately reduce costs. Perhaps the best application for creating pools of individuals would be to increase the purchasing power of the groups for prescription medications. However, taking advantage of insurance provider’s experience to negotiate prescription medication prices for their clients would be appropriate due to the large number of prescription medications and producers.
Three additional groups of healthcare clients must be discussed in relation to a true œfree market healthcare insurance system. The first group is senior citizens like me covered by Medicare. In my opinion, we should be included in the individual and family healthcare system being proposed. To be viable, current Medicare participants should be guaranteed that their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles would not increase. Since this system would increase the number of participants paying premiums in the individual healthcare insurance pool, it should increase the funding of the pools. Although seniors have high rates of catastrophic and chronic health issues, around $500,000 in my case, most of my friends and associates are relatively healthy. The actual cost benefit analysis of including this group in the general pool rather than a high risk pool would determine the feasibility of this idea.
The second remaining group deserving special consideration regarding formation of the proposed individual healthcare insurance system is veterans who fall into three distinct groups. The first group is veterans like me who are eligible for veteran’s medical benefits but never registered with the Veterans Administration. In my case, I had employer provided healthcare insurance for most of my adult life until becoming eligible for Medicare. The second group of veterans worthy of consideration for the proposed individual and family healthcare insurance system is veterans not suffering from injuries, illnesses, or conditions directly related to military service currently receiving their healthcare through the Veterans Administration. Moving this group into the proposed individual system would reduce the burden on the Veterans Administration healthcare system and increase the number of participants in the proposed individual healthcare system adding to the financial strength of the system. As with Medicare, this change in veteran’s healthcare must ensure that veterans do not pay any costs that they do not pay under the current Veterans Administration system. This change would also increase funding and personal available to care for the third group of veterans. Veterans who have documented conditions related to their military service. This would allow the Veterans Administration to concentrate on veterans with significant injuries or conditions requiring specialized treatment and care unique to combat and military service. These veterans deserve the best specialized healthcare available in the United States.
The final group to consider is individuals and families who require financial assistance to secure healthcare insurance. Most of these individuals are currently uninsured or are in the Medicaid system and receive government subsidies that pay most or all or their healthcare costs. This group should also be part of the proposed individual healthcare insurance system. Their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles should be subsidized at the level of their financial need without any increases in their present costs. This group, in accordance with their ability, should be required to enroll in the healthcare system or be held accountable for the cost of their healthcare even though government pays most of their costs when enrolled. Including this group in the individual healthcare insurance would also increase the size of the overall insurance pool providing a stronger financial base which should reduce overall participant costs.
Currently, most insurance is licensed and regulated state by state. States should have the latitude to develop their healthcare insurance system in accordance with the overall health of their population, cost of living, and economy. However, the system developed by each state must be compatible with the minimum national healthcare system requirements. The proposed system must require state to state healthcare insurance portability including pre-existing condition coverage guarantees and adequate cost information for participants to make informed decisions regarding interstate moves or transfers. Given these considerations, most of the systems detailed development and administration should occur at the state level, and most of the national funding should also be distributed to the states. This would allow states to adapt their systems to the needs of the citizens of each state.
Realizing how audacious it is for a young geezer like me to suggest a complete overhaul of healthcare in the United States of America, this œfree market healthcare insurance proposal is made without apology. Major changes to one sixth of our economy, affecting all of our citizens should consider all the alternatives. This proposal is an alternative to the mess of government control currently offered in Washington DC.
We the People need Washington DC to fix the system. Just Geter Done Right.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
