Posted on 01/17/2012 5:26:26 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
Despite the bravado exhibited by the GOP presidential candidates—each angling to outdo the other when promising to enter the White House with guns ablazin’ for the Affordable Care Act—their rhetoric is fraught with some very real dangers to their party—not to mention the nation—when it comes to actually pulling the trigger.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
[facepalm] Yeah, we might get some of that dangerous, you know, ....freedom! Then we'll start expecting it, and then DEMANDING it from those statist jackasses we pay to live in Washington. Just turribul. We can't risk THAT.
This is about principles, and freedom, not some short-sighted approach to medical economics. Liberal solutions are almost always dictatorial, without regards for personal freedom and choice.
Although the economic realities of slavery are debatable, moral human beings eradicated slavery because it is morally wrong. One could make the case that enslaving the entire medical profession and making them all work for minimum wage - and making medicines all generic without any patent protection - would save the country lots of money. One could make the same case for farming, or any other line of work. Sadly, there are plenty of people in the US at this point in history that would support these approaches.
“So here is a thought — if you are one of the many Americans who favors the idea of guaranteed issue at fair prices yet despise the government’s requiring you to buy the insurance coverage that is necessary to make it all possible, consider asking your friendly, local GOP presidential candidate how he can support the death of the insurance mandates and still deliver on giving Americans those parts of Obamacare that they like.
I know I’ll be anxiously awaiting the answer – and so should you as you are likely to discover that you should be much more careful with what you wish for.”
What I would do, is split the baby. Continue with the children on their parents health plan until 26, if the parents are agreeable to do so for their children, as they will still be paying the extra dollar amount to cover their child, and the insurance companies thus lose nothing; in fact they gain the extra premium.
As to pre-existing conditions, unless someone can come up with a cheap way to do that, then it will revert back to what it was before Obamacare changed it, otherwise it ends up with mandated insurance payments by everyone in order to pay for those with pre-existing conditions. Unfair as it may seem to some, I think the answer will just have to be a high risk pool being established for those people with pre-existing conditions and an inability to easily get insurance elsewhere. It is not the job of federal gov’t to level the playing field of fairness for everyone in society. Besides, no one currently is turned away from the hospital door if they can’t pay. They are still treated through the emergency rooms. Hopefully, some brilliant politician(s) will come up with a less expensive “cure” to this particular issue.
I write on politics with a 'specialty' in health care policy from my home in Santa Monica, California. My interest in the field began with an experience fifteen years ago in a hospital in Los Angeles that has led me to my current life where I consult a number of government officials and health care advocacy groups in addition to my strategic consulting work with noted health insurance "whistleblower" Wendell Potter. In addition to my contributions to Forbes, I write a political column at The Washington Monthly. On Saturdays, you can find me on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network.
This liberal idiot seems to believe that we must keep Obamacare because there are a few parts Americans like. We can repeal it and craft new legislation to address specific problems. We don't have to change the entire health care system to fix them.
Like it or not, those are the choices —and the only choices.
This author is such an arrogant prick, that he, and only he, can understand the deep nuances of health insurance.
We have only "the inability or unwillingness to grasp the truth". What an ass and it's too bad all of my guns were lost in the great canoe sink.
These are not the only choices, they are the only choices that the author will recognize.
The one choice that he doesn't mention is the free market solution.
Let Americans make their own decisions, pay their own way, and live with their choice.
The path to affordable healthcare includes:
Tort reform to remove the practice of defensive medicine and lower malpractice insurance rates. (saves $250 Billion/year)
(Defensive medicine is the practice of ordering unnecessary tests and procedures for fear of law suits.)
Allowing interstate competition among insurance companies could reduce premiums 10% to 15%.
Which is why the passing of Obamacare was such a dark and sad event in the unfolding of the country's demise.
“despise the government’s requiring you to buy the insurance coverage that is necessary to make it all possible”
He starts with a false premise - that the requirement is necessary to make it all possible.
“then it will revert back to what it was before Obamacare changed it,”
Which is really that we all chip in for the freeloaders. (ie we suffer higher premiums to pay for the losses on those who cannot or will not pay).
Of course everyone here wants to rail on the author, etc. But I think politically, he’s got it right.
When we hang around places like FR, welose touch with how socialistic the general population really is. It’s not just the OWSers, it’s the guy next door too.
Tough to do...
* State Insurance law(s) demand a physical presence/ State Regulators in every State they do business in and we have a 10th Admendment question here...
* Anti-Trust Laws, Baseball and Insurance are exempt, how do we work around that one...
It has seemed to me that the interstate competition means the Congress can invoke the Commerce Clause.
I welcome an in-depth explanation of how we keep Congress from taking control of policies/premiums if they are effectively nationalized and offered across state lines.
I hate the mandate and all the other aspects of zer0care. We pay through the nose, even with one of us on Medicare with a supplemental policy. I hate that we are limited to a $5500 deductible while premiums rise. I really hate that basic tests are limited as to coverage. I am fearful of age-related triage based on societal values of an individual life. We are already seeing medicines unavailable, but will they now become unaffordable, as well?
Those high risk pools are unaffordable. How do we not end up with a huge number of folks on Medicaid and/or SSD?
This writer does make a point.
This sentence should be on FR's home page, in boldface, 40 point font.
This would mean getting rid of a law called EMTALA.
It's the law that requires hospitals to treat anyone that comes to their doors, regardless of pre-existing condition or ability to pay.
It was passed by a GOP House and Senate by the way, and signed into law by one R.W. Reagan.
I don't see any constituency outside the Libertarian party for repealing this law. and neither I think did Newt, which is why his idea of requiring financial responsibility (NOT an insurance mandate) was a good one considering the circumstances.
In my view, Ungar is an example of the thinking on health care that would dominate policy under a Romney administration. It would be “Campaign promises are one thing, but governing is another, just as I discovered in Massachusetts. We need to compromise.” I can hear it now.
This is the real problem with the system. The pricing model is broken in that there are different prices allowed for the same product or service. Sellers are permitted to overcharge some in order to recoup the concessions made to others.
I welcome an in-depth explanation of how we keep Congress from taking control of policies/premiums if they are effectively nationalized and offered across state lines.
__________________________________________________________
Page 13
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-16.pdf
Not true, it's emergency medical care which is why so many hospitals have closed their emergency rooms.
Example, you have a bad heart attack and go to an emergency room, and have no insurance of any kind.
They stabilize you but have no requirements to do long term care, replace the heart or use any other devices to prevent future attacks.
Once the initial effects of the attack are finished, you are discharged and good luck.
In LA there are three major hospitals that closed their emergency rooms because they were forced to provide so much abusive coverage {people coming in for normal doctor care e.g.coughs and colds} that they were losing too much money.
There is a third option: You don't have to buy insurance, but, if you can't pay, the ER doesn't have to treat you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.