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.

[Reaganite Republican]

***ping***

[Himyar]

I remember when Reagan was running my liberal sisters said the main problem was he had simple solutions for complex problems. Duh! I sure think giving folks money to buy private insurance makes more sense than a huge government program.

[Sirius Lee]

Instead of paying the insurance companies off for their losses with taxpayer money, wouldn't it have been cheaper to cut out the middleman and subsidize the hospitals for their losses? Not that the federal government has any business doing either.

Insurance is not healthcare.

[umgud]

How about we get rid of 20 million illegals first. Maybe 20 million of their anchor babies will go with them. Does America really need 320 million inhabitants?

[Reaganite Republican]

“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong”

-Ronald Reagan

[Reaganite Republican]

NO

No, we don’t

[BitWielder1]

That's what I said four years ago, when there were supposedly only 30 million "uninsured".
Now there are more and even those who have Health Insure are hurting.
So instead of fixing the problem they made it much worse.
Nice train wreck 0bama, Pelosi. You can't say we didn't warn you.

[Born to Conserve]

Simple rules for a stable, healthy society:
If you pay more in government tax than you receive in government benefits, you get to vote.

[stephenjohnbanker]

This is about controlling a large chunk of the economy.

[Don Corleone]

This is Cloward-Piven to the max. One step on the road to total destruction of the economy and the installation of the Marxist utopia!

[TomGuy]

With all of the $billions that have been spent on Obamacare related, only a small number of those pre-Obamacare uninsured do have insurance now.

The Dems tried to sell Obamacare as aimed to insure the uninsured. So far, it has fallen far short.

[buckalfa]

"Instead of paying the insurance companies off for their losses with taxpayer money, wouldn't it have been cheaper to cut out the middleman and subsidize the hospitals for their losses? Not that the federal government has any business doing either."

Little known fact is that Federal and state governments have been doing this for years under Medicare and Medicaid. Since the government requires hospitals to care for emergent patients without regard to ability to pay, there are provisions in the laws that pays hospitals who have a disportionate share of self pay patients. Known as DISH. It does not cover all losses but it helps many smaller hospitals stay afloat. DISH is to be gradually phased out under the ACA as the uninsured is supposed to decline, creating fewer losses for hospitals.

[GeronL]

it was designed to fail while messing up the healthcare system so badly that the sheeple will clamor for “single payer”

that was the plan

[punknpuss]

Why not just make all medical expenses and health insurance a tax write-off?

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

There are advantages and disadvantages of such a commonsense plan is as follows:

The typical welfare dollar has 72 cents of administrative load. Meaning, 28 cents gets through to the recipient.

But such a scheme bypasses the insurance lobby.

I’m not prepared to issue much of a comprehensive thesis on the dynamics, but IMO the Dems have Grubered out that they will be able to divert tremendously more money out of the economy AND preserve their voter base AND preserve their ins lobby contribution by keeping in place the already-existing insurance edifice.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“Instead of paying the insurance companies off for their losses with taxpayer money, wouldn’t it have been cheaper.....”

Yeah, most likely. But the government has not the slightest interest in what might be “cheaper”. It’s actually exactly contrary to what they want. The more expensive government programs are, the more control over the private economy they obtain.

[logi_cal869]

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

Because it wouldn't funnel crony $$ to RAT supporters...not to mention the 'loss of power' and 'reduction in government'.../s

[Cry if I Wanna]

They would just spend the $200 bucks and still show up at the ER anyway.

[muir_redwoods]

Raise the threshold for Medicaid from 133% of the poverty line to 150% or 167%. Open up all commercial healthcare plans to competition across state lines. Provide catastrophic coverage at government cost to anyone who slips through those cracks.

To reduce costs, begin deportation of any illegals caught.