Medicare for All is the answer
The description of the Valley Health Alliance appears to be a great step forward to reduce healthcare expenditures and insurance premiums.
However, the problem I have with this approach as well as other similar alliances that have had mixed results around the country is the following:
In an attempt to lower costs, these alliances add another layer of administrative expense to health care. Even if they are not for-profit, someone has to pay the salaries of the people who will negotiate with private insurance companies and who will deal with how patients, doctors and hospitals utilize health care.
Essentially, companies will pay money to the alliance which will contract with an insurance company so they can pay the providers. These insurance companies have a 20-25% overhead to pay their workers, advertising and make a profit for their shareholders.
So how about instead of your employer paying $20,000 a year for your family health plan, they give you that money as salary?
Even if you pay half in taxes to fund Medicare for All (the middle-class tax increase the press talks about), you still pocket 10 grand.
This works because Medicare has a 2% overhead.
This hardly seems like an evil socialist plot.
Dr. Michael Marek
Aspen and Fort Lauderdale
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.