<link>

Those of you not accustomed to Glenn Beck may have to suppress your gag reflex. I know, it's tough but try to do it for six minutes and thirty-nine seconds. I'm glad, however, that John Stossel is on board. (And I've gotten used to Beck's emotional delivery.)

I think the plan he proposes is pretty impressive. He's not proposing it as a national plan merely putting it out there and lamenting the fact that he legally can't do it. Here are the highlights:

-You get $5000 at the beginning of the year to spend on your health

-You're covered in case of catastrophic events

-Any money left over at the end of the year is rolled into a retirement account

Not bad. But legally he can't do it probably because of the link between health and retirement accounts (my speculation). Assuming that road block were bulldozed what's wrong with this plan?

Understand something first. $5000 a year is a pretty nice budget. It's a Cadillac budget. Other smaller companies/CEOs could put aside smaller amounts to better suit employees and businesses.

So if this proposal were available to companies and not road blocked by legal matters what would happen to the so called "need" for national health care? This puts choice back in the hands of the individual and not in government bureaucrats. This encourages the patient to deal with the doctor and find an appropriate fit. Good God, that sounds like freedom of choice!

What are we to make of this plan?

(By the way, I think the idea of rolling over unspent medical expenses into retirement accounts is fantastic.)

Never happen.

You see..........Obama and the DEMS wanna take from you...........to give to welfare criminals and illegal aliens.

And this plan doesn't address that..........so its a goner.

Yeah I know that. It's a goner as the politics stand now. But. . .

The real power is in the fact that this particular plan sounds sooo much better than anything from Capital Hill. And the real power is in wondering. . .what other smart plans are out there in this great land of America that also sound sooo much better than Obamacare?

This is just one plan from one guy. And it's a damn good plan too. I'd love to hear about other plans out there that sound as good or even better and have absolutely nothing to do with government intervention.

It's America. Big place. Lots of people. There are other good ideas out there.

There are good ideas out there..........and your post may be one of them.

Consider this:

Obama......NancyPelosi......Pi­nky Reid.......................exc­ellent ideas will remain in the domain of speculation for the forseeable future.

But don't let that stop you from making your point.

I assume the idea is that you will use that $5,000 per year directly to pay for healthcare costs, as opposed to, say, using it to buy health insurance. Here's the problem.

Assume that you and I go to the same doctor, with the same flu, to get the same prescription. You have health insurance and I have a checkbook flush with this $5,000.

Your insurance company will pay $x for the doctor visit and $y for the prescription.

I will pay something like $6x and $6y for the same privilege. In some cases it is a lot more. The reason is (a) the providers know for sure that the insurance company's check is going to clear, and they don't know that with me, and (b) the insurance company, with its superior bargaining position, has negotiated the low rates with the providers.

This fact is why universal health care coverage in some form or another is a key to actually saving money. Lest you think that you and I aren't paying for the high cost of providing retail medical care to those who can't actually pay those bills, think again. Government subsidies and tax deductions cover a portion, and the rest is built into the negotiated insurance company rates. We are paying for free care for the medical-induced bankrupted families. The fact that Beck does not recognize this calls into serious question how well he understands the problem.

Worse yet, I may not even get to see the doctor, because many refuse to accept patients who don't have insurance that covers the services they provide most. This is not going to change under a scenario like Beck proposes. Providers will still not know who the good risks and the bad risks are, and providers will still have no incentive to give sweetheart prices to anyone other than an insurance company. I'll be back at the emergency room..... and so it goes.

Tea partiers and town hall participants brought us to this "Great Delay" in passing (or choking off) Obamacare and at that point. . .they didn't even have an alternative! We just knew we didn't want this particular piece of Washington doo.

Having plans, all of which sound better than Washington's, is a force multiplier.

I'd love to hear more plans from more people.

The video seems to disagree with you. Dealing with insurance companies means overhead means you pay more.

I don't think (a) is an issue--no more than it is an issue for Amazon, or Target, or Walmart or. . .

And (b) is negotiable as the vid points out.

This fact is why universal health care coverage in some form or another is a key to actually saving money.

How do you say that and keep a straight face?

I may not even get to see the doctor, because many refuse to accept patients who don't have insurance that covers the services they provide most.

Others do. Free markets work when you let them.

I've seen the medical bills -- many, many of them. Insurance company overhead is an issue, to be sure, but it's a matter of percentages. The mark-up to "street retail" for the uninsured is a matter of multiples.

Dealing with insurance companies means overhead means you pay more.

How do you say that and keep a straight face?

Others do. Free markets work when you let them.

Ironic. Now which one of us is limiting patient choice?

(By the way, I think the idea of rolling over unspent medical expenses into retirement accounts is fantastic.)

Better idea: Roll it over into the next year's health account. That way, the health account gets bigger as the employee ages (and his her health expenses inevitably increase, even if only by way of mammograms and prostate checks).

$5000 might not be much for someone getting regular chiropractic care (for instance), but it would at least significantly reduce out-of-pocket expenses.

All in all, not too bad; I've always supported the notion of HSA's. Indeed, I've always wondered if there could be a way to combine the best features of an insurance plan with the best features of an HSA, wherein you could always be covered for necessary procedures, or technically "elective" procedures that are really necessary (hernia repairs, for instance), and for catastrophic events, but regular doctor visits and preventative care would be covered on a more finite basis, depending on how one was vested in the plan, and how much actual resource had been set aside.

. . . those people are in this country, many of them doing our work, all of them making use of public facilities. It's in OUR interests to keep them healthy.

That doesn't mean, of course, that they need to be on the same plan as those who are working (a good number of whom, it should be noted, have no insurance and no access to affordable healthcare [largely because affordable health care no longer exists]).

That is to say, this plan could take the burden off of government to make up for the shit poor insurance most employers offer, and allow them to focus on those who aren't provided insurance by their employers and can't afford it on their own dime . . . for whatever reason.

prove anything that is even remotely true!" --DarthAngel Homer Simpson

Best of luck with attempts to penetrate the cognitive dissonance shields (on full power) of determined self-exiles from the Reality-Based Community™ like the one you address above. Based on personal experience, I sadly predict abject failure.

I stopped just short of suggesting that employees could pull out money from their (defered tax) retirement account without a penalty to spend on medical events.

It's effectively what you're saying. You'd take the $5000 and put it into a money market account which would grow bigger every year. You would also have the option of investing that money in something with a higher rate of return just like in a regular 401(k) or IRA. Regardless of whether you invest in money market, stocks, bonds or whatever you should be able to pull the money out for medical reasons sans tax hit.

Damn! Good ideas popping up all over the place!

. . . not all employers offer retirement plans. Otherwise, that's reasonably sound.