Posted on 01/15/2017 7:20:50 AM PST by Kaslin
Repealing Obamacare is all but a certainty. It’s the "replace" part that has everyone hung up. Democrats hilariously claim if Republicans “break it, they’ve bought it.” That’s like accusing someone of breaking the picture on a jigsaw puzzle.
Still, the matter of replacing this abomination presents Republicans with serious problems, not the least of which is the concept of government interference in health insurance has long been ceded.
Were this a pre-Obamacare world, implementation would be easy to stop – people can’t miss what they never had. But it was implemented, and millions of people are used to what Obamacare has “given” them.
This is particularly true of the millions of people who’ve been put on the Medicaid rolls.
Medicaid was supposed to be a program to help the poor – the real poor, not those who have to postpone the purchase of a new 70-inch TV until they find a better sale price. Since its inception, what qualifies as “poor” for the purposes of Medicaid has been creeping up. Obamacare accelerated that trend.
Republicans now have to figure out what to do with a family of four that makes $80,000 but still suckles the government teat by taking health insurance designed for people who are incapable of obtaining it for themselves. What do you tell them?
Calling them losers won’t win any votes, but anyone firmly in the middle class who is comfortable with leeching off taxpayers so they don’t have to address their personal responsibility is unlikely to vote Republican anyway.
Whatever Republicans eventually coalesce around will arm Democrats with people who have no qualms leaching off the government and are more than happy to be trotted out as examples of people “suffering” under the cruel GOP action. So what?
Republicans have to focus on getting the policy right, or as right as they can on an issue with which government never should have gotten involved.
Getting it right means getting the government out of it as much as possible. Republicans can’t concern themselves with who “wins” or “loses,” or if there will be “pain.” Frankly, there has to be pain. Pain should be a cornerstone of what is proposed as a replacement.
The solution to replacing Obamacare isn’t to cobble together a different big government solution, it’s to empower individuals to make the best choices for themselves and get the hell out of the way of everything else.
Among the many changes, there likely will be competition across state lines for health insurance, which will be good and drive competition. And tax credits to buy it. All well and good. But there has to be consequences for choosing not to do so.
The individual mandate must be repealed. The federal government has no business forcing the Americans people to purchase something they don’t want. But there should be serious consequences for not at least buying some catastrophic coverage.
It’s usually young people who don’t buy health insurance. They are least likely to need it and end up essentially subsidizing wealthier older people anyway. They should be free to opt out of that pyramid scheme.
But if, God forbid, someone 37 years old get sick after they’d chosen not to buy insurance, they should not be absolved of the ramifications of that choice.
I’m not saying they should die on the streets. They should get treatment. But they should have to pay for it. Maybe not all of it, but a significant portion. If they own a house, they should have to sell it. Their wages should be garnisheed until a significant but fair portion of their tab is satisfied.
They would have made a bet and lost, and they shouldn’t get to walk away from a bet just because they lost.
Significant pain, or potential for it, would encourage people to do the right thing while affording them the option not to. Family, friends, communities could take up collections and help people who gambled and lost settle their debts, but not taxpayers as a whole. We need to restore the concept of responsibility as we restore liberty. Replacing one big government program with another does neither.
In modern America, the idea of consequences is almost as dead as Latin. The importance of returning them to all areas of life is crucial, particularly in health care. Americans should be free to gamble, to roll the dice. But if it comes up snake eyes, well, the house needs to be paid. If someone wants to risk it to save on premiums for something they don’t think they’ll need, knock yourself out. Just don’t come running to taxpayers if you do get knocked out.
“It’s actually a dumb discussion. Coverage is already available for all from one of the following five: Employers, Veterans, Medicare, Medicaid, or Individual purchase. HRSC’s 9800 government paid clinics already provide lower level care, they claim, to 1 out of 13 Americans.
End ObamaCare tomorrow and all these will still exist and they existed BEFORE ObamaCare.
EVERY American will fit into one of those 5 categories, iirc.”
All true. I also take exception with the writers notion that there must be a penalty while saying there shouldn’t be a mandate. Nonsense.
The federal government spends $1.417 trillion today on healthcare (private markets about the same as well). It's been growing at 9% annually. If you grow it out 9% annually for 10 years, that $1.417t expands to $3.355t. If inflation is 2% a year over that time, the 1.417 should instead have grown to $1.727t. How are we going to pay another $1.6 trillion per year ($1.35T in today's dollars) when we are already around $1t a year in deficit spending? Run it out for another 10 years (20 years) and that grows to nearly $8 trillion in spending by the federal government on healthcare - more than double the entire federal budget today! Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't work as a solution.
You hit the problem right on the head -- maybe without even meaning to do it.
The only reason you have the sort of idiocy you describe is that health care has become constructed as an entire sector of the economy where people don't pay for products and services directly. You'd never hear of such an outlandish scenario where you walked into a Verizon store and bought a new iPhone, only to have all the negotiations conducted through a third party that would "deny claims" and "negotiate prices" until your $600 iPhone only cost you $76.28 ... but that's only because you've been paying "iPhone premiums" of $20 every month for the last ten years.
Anyone who thinks this kind of business arrangement would result in (1) better iPhones and/or (2) more affordable iPhones would be laughed out of the room.
Actually, you need both. If health insurance only covered catastrophic events, surgeries, and some extremely expensive drugs, health care and pharmaceutical costs would drop. If doctor visits were paid strictly by the patient, the cost of them would plummet. Market forces would be in play. Basic drug prices would follow suit. 3rd party payment for everything medical drives up prices enormously.
“Tort reform has been enacted in about half the states. And in not a single one of them has there been any evidence that it has reduced healthcare premiums. Malpractice insurance premiums, yes. But not healthcare. “
I’ve never been a fan of tort reform. Of the motives behind it, lowering costs is not one them,.
The penalty was that if you didn’t have insurance you had to pay the bill. When I was younger my appendix burst and I wound up in the hospital for 2 wks. As luck would have it I had just quit one job and was supposed to start another so....no insurance. I don’t know about now but back then when the job finished so did your insurance at the end of the month.
Anyway I got billed by the hospital. I actually went to the accounting office at the hospital and negotiated a different price and a payment schedule. I paid every single month until the bill was paid. That was the penalty for not having insurance.
” ....got billed by the hospital. I actually went to the accounting office at the hospital and negotiated a different price and a payment schedule. I paid every single month until the bill was paid. That was the penalty for not having insurance”
Exactly how it should be done.
>
Saying that the “Republicans own it” if they repeal Obamacare is a shallow lie.
>
IMO, not so ‘shallow’ as some might suggest.
Not a *single* push-back on the multiple delays of portion X, Y, Z; none on the exemptions on the favored group(s); and, to me, the WORSE offense: pushing that Congress is a ‘small biz’\exempt from the same law they allowed to fester.
Then, finally pulling the wool off some eyes with their inability over 6 yrs to put together *ANY* single cognoscente idea that doesn’t involve govt where it doesn’t have authority\permission (no Free Market solutions).
I doubt there will be any converts come ‘18 when the ads\e-mails for $$\votes come around saying, “In order to fight O’Care...”.
The author is a weak-minded RINO pansy.
I took exception to that when I first read it, too. But he's not talking about a "penalty" like an ObamaCare financial penalty administered through the IRS. He's talking about prohibiting people who refuse to buy their own insurance from getting covered under Medicaid in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury. He would have been better off describing it as "facing the consequences" instead of paying a "penalty" to avoid confusion over this.
Excellent point.
Very well said. Just repealing it is not enough, although there are some in here who think it is,
Wonder when people lost the logic of when born free your on you own plan your life it doesn’t come with a baby sitter.
Yes help those who can’t help them self not the slackers.
“Most people get their healthcare through work. “
Since most people are no longer working and many companies have dropped coverage since ObamaCare lets them, that is no longer a true statement.
“Obamacare was created for the purpose of collapsing the economy.”
Exactly. It had no other purpose but to try to finish off the free-market in favor of Obama’s claimed communism.
“Obamacare was enacted BECAUSE WE HAD DONE NOTHING ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE MESS.”
The government created the healthcare mess. It prohibited companies from competing and restricted their ability to offer insurance. It made reporting rules that caused high cost. I made millions of lines of regulations.
Government was the problem, and the prize was control of 1/5th of the economy.
>
Most people get their healthcare through work. The group with the issue is those on Medicaid because of the expansion. Need to move forward with states taking costs for that. Others will just go back on regular insurance, moved to plans their carriers have already had for years.
>
1) Like O’Care, MediXYZ the same problem: (illegal\uncon) GOVT.
2) H’Care options *should* be the prerogative of the user. ‘Through work’ is another example of the perversion brought about by #1. The People should have the same opportunity\benefits of buying their OWN plans, like all other insurance.
And, no, I no longer have ‘compassion’ or ‘tolerance’ or ‘charity’ or...while being trampled under boot heel of nanny govt and bled dry because of personal choices\ability; for want of political power of the few over all.
Absolutely. I have a health Share, so mostly, we are cash pay. We doctor shop, we test shop. We don’t run in at each medical problem. So should anyone else.
In every larger community (and plenty of smaller ones), there are low cost cash clinics for quick diagnoses or even when you wish a prescription (a cream, an ointment, a cough suppressant, etc).
There will be a normal medical care marketplace. Let’s make it happen. No more free ER care for anything but life saving. But prices will drop once people are paying with their own money. And catastrophic insurance will better cover the rest because people will pay for that value. When they know they WILL DIE if they don’t pay for it. And that will only take a few years. Hey, pay x% of your salary each month or if you get cancer, you’re dead.... it will catch on.
I think a person should be held responsible for their bill if they don't have insurance, but they should only be responsible for the amount the hospital/health provider was willing to take as payment satisfied from the insurer.
A few years ago, I had a surgery...total bill was around $100K. That's the bill I would have received if I didn't have insurance. But the bill was satisfied by my deductible, I think $2000, and the bill was paid in full when the hospital took the payment of the insurance company of $22,000. If I as an individual, without health insurance, were responsible for the $24,000, that seems reasonable, but that's not the way it works, without insurance, I'd be responsible for the entire thing. A hospital will negotiate, but still not to the level that they accept insurance payments.
I also have had MS for years, so if I was on my own to buy health insurance, pre-Obamacare, I couldn't get anyone to write me a policy anyway. I don't really blame them for this, but I'd like to be able to a least buy a catastrophic health care policy...say $20K deductible, but for a pre-existing illness person, there was zilch, unless you purchased a policy with a rider that would exclude any expenses caused by the pre-existing illness.
Thankfully we've always had group benefits through my husband's employer. We have to pay a chunk of $ every month, but it's affordable because they've kept the deductibles fairly low.
This IS the ONE thing that MUST BE CHANGED!!! Tort reform is VITAL in ensuring that a free market system works!!! Mistakes are made in EVERY walk of life and business and WE have become a society of law suits!!!! If our medical system were turned over to the government would the people be able to sue the government NO...... Dr. malpractice insurance IS out of control!!!!!
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.