Why Not Just Subsidize All 48M Uninsured @ $200/mo -Take it or Leave It- + Fully Repeal Obamacare?

Reaganite Republican ^ | 23 November 2014 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

$200 monthly subsidy x 48M uninsured = $115.2 billion/year

I don't want the government to pay that, but it's cheaper than Obamacare... 

And everybody would be covered- that would have probably got you most of a policy before this clueless regime wreaked havoc upon our health care system by nationalizing 1/6 of the US economy, anyway.

Now, Obamacare = 130 billion $/year -a bit more- AND the CBO itself says this will only be covering 13M new people, leaving 35M still uninsured (!) That's not very good, is it?

So not only does Obamacare not even come close to obtaining it's own stated goals -which were rammed down our throats as some moral imperative-
but it undermines innovation/discovery, destroys medical careers, annihilates personal privacy... and for what?

If we just subsidized the uninsured for some reasonable amount -not that I'm for that sort of thing in principle- and allowed interstate free-market competition among insurers -along with some sort of clause re. insurability of those with pre-existing conditions- it seems to me we have all we need to replace Obamacare with... there'd be nothing left to miss of it. And not in 2016, this winter: Let the progs try and explain what else this monstrosity does for us- talk about a hard sale... the rest is entirely negative, as far as I can see.

If we MUST cover some quantity of uninsured people at government expense in order to make repeal politically palatable, we could perhaps just spend
-say- just $50B/year on expanding coverage somewhat while introducing the benefits of free-market capitalism into the health insurers' world- wouldn't be long before they'd be fighting it out on price nationwide, making coverage more affordable for all.

Frankly, I'm for any less expensive replacement that reverses the government takeover of the industry. And if we effectively covered everybody -while Obamacare will only cover 13M of the 48M uninsured nationally- I'd really like to see Obama justify a veto.

If we did a $50B/yr bill, the government would save $800 billion (of O-care's $1.3 trillion over ten years)- and that's real money. All the numerous other drawbacks inherent in the federal takeover of the healthcare industry would vanish. Government would get its nose out of our most personal business, and the consumer would be delighted... having only the GOP to thank for it: rates could settle back down while interstate competition among insurers would reduce costs while widening choices. Truth is, Americans' expectations are so suppressed after Obamacare's epic anticlimax, anything we offered would look like an improvement.

And coverage for illegal immigrants? I'd be willing to provide travel insurance for the bus ride back... mebbe.

HEY, Boehner... wake up and do something! 

What's so complicated about getting rid of this rotten-to-the-core Obamacare? If you came up with a package that made enough sense, you might even pass it veto-proof... never know until you try. Voters hate it and plenty of Dems would like to find a way to shield themselves from that- Obama's not their friend now -he's not going to do anything for them in 2016- and they know it.

I don't know if this is the ideal solution, but we need something for this Congress to do... sure am sick and tired of being told we got to live with this disaster, and don't think we should have to until 2017 or later, either.

[Mason]

You’re ignoring the multiplier effect. You know, the one where every government program multiplies the salary of bureaucrats and their taxpayer supported pensions.

[sten]

why am i giving people $200/mon again?

how about HELL NO on all of it.