ard government and away from private insurers and out-of-pocket payments. Individuals and businesses would pay the same amount for health care, on average, but the payments would be in the form of taxes. The taxes contributing to the plan can be found for businesses, for instance, by adding up the amount spent currently by business for health care. This would approximately add up to a 9% tax increase for midsize and large employers . Hospitals and clinics would receive a global sum on a yearly basis, in addition to allowances for new technology. Funds would be distributed to physicians and other health care workers in one of three ways: through fee-for-service arrangements with a simplified billing schedule, through capitation, paying health care providers on the basis of how many patients they serve, or through global budgets established for hospitals and clinics employing salaried health care professionals. The debate stands now between letting the states run health care or continuing control by the federal government. Both make valid points as to why they are the way to go, but my stance after careful thought is one of compromise. Let the federal government standardize health care while the state governments fund it on a state to state level. With a national standard to follow prices would be forced to keep the same through out America. Procedures for problems would not be questioned. Finally there will be less paperwork. Making the state governments fund their own health care system at first lance seems to be cost inefficient. At another look and a explanation I can dispute that. With the government in total control it had one big pile of money it had to divide to all the states and no real way to determine how to divide it. With the individual states involved in funding health care, they know the size of their population, who needs care in their population and can do a more efficient job on a smaller scale. Also by letting the gov...
