I write here with the United States on my mind. And while I haven't completely finished my thought process, here are a couple of the best ideas my simple mind can grasp and a little commentary on them.
THE PUBLIC OPTION-I know that "big insurance" and "big medicine" are against what is being called the "public option" in President Obama's efforts to reform health care in this nation. And I know why--it's all about the money they fear losing. Personally, I don't believe we need a new public option. At least 51 already exist in the form of Medicare/Medicaid. Rather than create a new governmental agency to develop a public option, it makes sense to me that the more efficient way of providing the "public option" is to let the federal government just funnel money to each state and let the states administer any "public options." They already have the infrastructure in place. They are, ahem, shovel-ready to provide a "public option." Even more important to note in identifying the efficiencies of state-administered health service is this term: reasonable and customary. That term describes the amount insurance companies base their payments to health-care providers. If you choose a provider whose rates are significantly above what similar providers charge in the same area, then you pay the extra cost. This is important because what is "reasonable and customary" in, for example, Huntsville, Alabama, is going to be far different that what is "reasonable and customary" in Manhattan. On a recent visit to Kentucky, I visited a general practitioner who does not participate in my health insurance. So I payed 100% of the bill myself. It was $40. Here in Manhattan, a visit to a GP or internist is at least $100--and that's for the cheap ones. So, in summary, the easiest and most efficient way to provide a "public option" is to use what is working already and fund it. Am I missing anything important with this argument?
FLAT TAX-A second great idea is not mine, but I am a fan of its goal: the flat tax. Pick a percentage, and the economists can determine what percentage works, and tax EVERYONE'S income (all income) at that level. Salary, capital gains, inheritance, lottery winnings, interest income, gifts--all income, one percentage. But it will never happen. Why not? Well, first of all, the IRS would have to fire a lot of people. Companies like H&R Block would have to close. Many, many CPA's would have to find new careers. But, oh how efficient that would be. Automatic deduction of 10% from any money you receive (just a percentage used as an example) from anyone. No more rushing to the post office on April 15. No more quarterly filings for the self-employed. No more hours of pouring over receipts and trying to determine what is deductible and what is not. Indeed, a great idea--but a political "third rail."
POSTAL SERVICE-As a bonus, here is a third great idea. Again, not mine, but well overdue: no regular postal delivery on Saturday. Liberals and Conservatives both should be jumping all over this! Why? Well, first of all, reduced FTE's (full-time equivalent; a measurement of payroll expenses). Secondly, it helps the environment by having 52 additional days a year without postal vehicles polluting the air. (Rural areas still have mail carriers driving from mailbox to mailbox.) And finally, if you absolutely must have something on Saturday, the Postal Service can arrange for pick-up at your nearest post office or charge a premium for Saturday delivery--like the private sector! (As an aside, Social Security checks never get scheduled for Saturday delivery. They are due to recipients on the 3rd day of the month. If the 3rd falls on a Saturday, the checks are scheduled to arrive on the Friday before. Isn't that amazing?) All great ideas for putting the Postal Service back in the black.
Okay, I have shared enough of my brilliance for now. I will give you a chance to digest this and I will expound again in a few days. Enjoy!
