Innovative health care reforms shut down by the government

As I’ve said before, if you think you have a plan that optimizes the common welfare by modifying insurance legislation, then put it up for honest debate. Just don’t call it charity or invoke the name of Jesus in doing so, and don’t make it a false dichotomy of supporting Obama vs. being a greedy bastard.

And keep in mind that there are many ways we could improve health care in this country without handing it over to the government, paying for abortions and more.

Here’s an example. As outlined at Right Klik: Health Care Pain? Government IS The Problem.  Go read it all. 

 Innovative people can always find a solution. The government can always find a way to interfere. Here’s a perfect example from the New York Post:

 The state is trying to shut down a New York City doctor’s ambitious plan to treat uninsured patients for around $1,000 a year.

 Dr. John Muney offers his patients everything from mammograms to mole removal at his AMG Medical Group clinics, which operate in all five boroughs.

“I’m trying to help uninsured people here,” he said.
His patients agree to pay $79 a month for a year in return for unlimited office visits with a $10 co-pay.
Great idea! The patients were happy, the doctor was happy, everybody was happy, but…
[His] plan landed him in the crosshairs of the state Insurance Department, which ordered him to drop his fixed-rate plan – which it claims is equivalent to an insurance policy.

0 thoughts on “Innovative health care reforms shut down by the government”

  1. Reading the article, I see that the definition of “insurance” is coverage for an unplanned procedure.

    Wow! Using that definition, everything is “insurance.” I don’t know about you, but I rarely plan on going to the doctor (other than an annual check up). Who plans on getting sick or having an accident?

    I think his mistake might have been calling the $10 payment a “co-pay.” Change that wording to “administrative fee” and he might be back in business.


  2. Can we all move to one state that recognizes it’s Constitutional sovereignty over all matters not appropriated to the Federal government and it’s limits to all matters protected for the individual?

    Then we won’t have to deal with such idiocy.

    I frightened of starting a company for fear of the government shutting it down for any number of pointless, mindless, idiotic rules.


  3. I read a book called, I think it was “The Death Of Common Sense In America” about ten years ago and it was full of just such as this. He profiled a Catholic charity that wanted to help the homeless by purchasing an abandoned building in New York. The whole thing was ultimately shut down because of the expense, which could not be waved, of bringing the building into accordance with the American Disabilities Act. Better that 50 homeless sleep under a bridge than for one to not be able to climb a flight of stares. We who are willing to look beyond the window dressing know that this will be the way of our future health care system.


    1. Great example, Dan. President Obama says we need to act now! My response is, “No problemo. I just don’t think we need to act on his suggestions but on all these other good ideas.”


  4. His patients agree to pay $79 a month for a year in return for unlimited office visits with a $10 co-pay.

    I’m puzzled. In what way is this not an insurance scheme? It sounds exactly like an insurance scheme.


    1. Mekur

      The doctor cannot perform many procedures. He’s not open on weekends or even nights. You’re paying for being able to visit his office as often as you need – but only for the procedures he can perform and when the doctor is “in.”

      Insurance does not work that way. They pay for all procedures, nights or weekends, for many different doctors.

      Big difference. And – I might add – for a lot more money that $79/month.


      1. You have a very strange idea of what constitutes insurance. All insurance plans specify terms – what procedures are covered, the duration of the insurance, etc. The principle of insurance is a flat payment which covers all potential future costs by distributing the risk over a wider range of potential customers. And that’s exactly what this doctor is doing, as far as I can tell.


      2. Mark, can I recommend that you read a little bit more about what insurance actually is before you try to discuss it in public? Because what this doctor is offering is insurance.


      3. I hope the message doesn’t get lost here. Even if this qualified as insurance in some sense, it is very inexpensive insurance! The point is that there are many creative ideas that Obama & Co. have deliberately ignored (i.e., the “talk to the hand” response since last APRIL, despite his claims to want to listen). And we can act on these things now!


  5. OK, this plan is almost like an insurance plan but only for this doctor. I do not see a lot of common sense here. More over I do not think that everybody could play insurance company.


    1. He’s not playing insurance company. He is offering his services for a flat fee. That is not what insurance does!

      For the people that require his services many times per month, this is a great deal!

      See my response to Mekur for other information.


  6. So what if this guy’s idea falls under the exact definition of “insurance”? He’s offered something in which people decided on their own to take part. Unless something unethical or harmful can be found, leave the guy alone.


  7. There is a very similar group of clinics here in the Puget Sound (the great liberal north wet) and I think it is a great idea!! Get the Insurance middle man out of the Patient and the Doctors pockets


  8. Wow, some people are totally missing the point. I thought the whole point was to provide medical care for the uninsured. $1000 for a year, that’s less than $100 per month!
    molesskincancer and merkur, you need to think outside the box. If you have a problem with this doctor because it DOES conflict with New York law, you may want to question those laws in the first place. I know it’s a stretch, thinking that maybe, just maybe less red tape could be the answer.

    To sum up their opinion – solving the uninsured problem through more government spending/regulation = GOOD.
    Solving the uninsured problem through someone’s own ingenuity = BAD.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s