Tuesday, September 29, 2009

PJTV - Board Certified Doctors discuss Health Care Reform

PJTV is a great resource for deeper investigative reporting. If you want facts, check out PJTV.

This episode gives you real life exposure to Insurance companies, Healthcare, and the problem behind them... and offers solutions -

Let's listen, let's think... and let's talk solutions!

These are the recommended insurance changes:

1. Insurance companies offering coverage across state lines
2. Affinity Groups should be allowed to purchase group insurance
3. Employer Insurance should be constant if employee released

My opinion about the proposed changes:
  1. Many insurance companies are forced into state specific policies due to varying state laws (at least for automobile insurance). If states take the role of fixing the health system away from the Federal Governemnt (which they should), they should begin by relaxing or eliminating any "required" coverages. Insurance companies should be able to establish universal packages that can be modified to suit the needs of the individual... and in a cyber age, there is no reason why a Bronx NY citizen should have to pay more than a Boise ID citizen for healthcare... plans should be available should a national carier so choose to cover all areas (like cell phone companies).

  2. Group insurance is the best tool for lower rates... so why not allow, say, city councils and mayors to establish "City Plan". For instance, Seattle, with a population of ~600,000, could create "Seattle City Health" where citizens and residents of the city of Seattle can purchase insurance and join a group insurance which is not job specific, but region specific. Am I advocating for government control of healthcare? NO. Not on a federal level anyway. What I am suggesting is that towns, cities, and people within regions with the same interest (regional health) band together to offer affordable group rates for the benefit of the cities/regions. This is well within the operational bounds of the 9th and 10th amendments to the US consitution, allowing states and people to regulate themselves at a local level... National healthcare, however, is unconstitutional - in violation of the 9th and 10th.

  3. I disagree to an extent. An employer negotiates on behalf of their workforce, and often times has to cover certain costs for arbitration with the Insurance Companies. I think that if we were to have "lay-off coverage" it should be for no more than 3 months after a lay-off or until the employee finds another job or signs up for regional coverage, whichever is shorter. The coverage should NOT be rolled over if an employee is fired.

The idea here is focussed around local control, not national control... about universal personal freedoms, not government mandates under threat of fine/imprisonment... about doctor/patient relationships, not doctor/insurance company relationships...

Reform for reform sake is not progress. Progress is only so when it is universally beneficial.


  1. I think you've hit all the right notes with this one, sir. Good work.

  2. I agree with your point 3.
    I'd like it if we could purchase our health insurance through the car insurance model: you purchase privately certain levels of coverage, and it has nothing to do with your job. No mandates from the state either. You could even swing a little into Obama-land if you wanted, and require people to pay an "uninsured patient fee" of some smallish amount, to cover the mandate that all emergency rooms take everyone who shows up. See? I'm bipartisan...

  3. By the way, if you can afford it, I HIGHLY encourage everyone to subscribe to PJTV. It is only 5 miserable bucks a month, and you'd be supporting this emerging media outlet for conservative news.