<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Making a Plan and Not Sticking To It</title> <atom:link href="http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/making-a-plan-and-not-sticking-to-it-3494/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/making-a-plan-and-not-sticking-to-it-3494/</link> <description>Nationally Acclaimed Politics, Science and Culture Coverage</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:00:17 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: David Rosenfeld</title><link>http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/making-a-plan-and-not-sticking-to-it-3494/#comment-602</link> <dc:creator>David Rosenfeld</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:42:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gridserver.com/2009/08/31/making-a-plan-and-not-sticking-to-it/#comment-602</guid> <description>All of the issues here increase the argument for single-payer health insurance, which would eliminate the need to charge people different rates based on the probability they would get sick. In an ideal system, all Americans would be covered automatically and the costs would be shared based on each person&#039;s ability to pay, meaning income and wealth. The simplest way to do this would be through a mechanism we already have: taxes. We could still have choice of health plans, as contractors to the government, which could then be apportioned certain amounts of money based on the relative risk of their particular pools in the same way premiums are determined today. But our politicians have completely blocked any debate of this simple and fair approach.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All of the issues here increase the argument for single-payer health insurance, which would eliminate the need to charge people different rates based on the probability they would get sick. In an ideal system, all Americans would be covered automatically and the costs would be shared based on each person&#8217;s ability to pay, meaning income and wealth. The simplest way to do this would be through a mechanism we already have: taxes. We could still have choice of health plans, as contractors to the government, which could then be apportioned certain amounts of money based on the relative risk of their particular pools in the same way premiums are determined today. But our politicians have completely blocked any debate of this simple and fair approach.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: www.miller-mccune.com @ 2012-02-12 22:00:27 by W3 Total Cache -->
