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.
“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?”
With competition, there will be a policy which will be the right fit for that family.
You’re right. Operator error on my part.
I fully recognize that any industry which has a large part of its workforce doing something which has no bearing on its productivity or product will have costs all out of proportion to its results.
Not all FR readers are well versed in economics, so the reasoning is not as readily apparent as it is to some.
Right! And repealing the exorbitant amounts of money our government personnel receive in retirement benefits. Heard a caller on talk radio, concerned about what Ooopsama will do after he leaves office. He will live off of us, play on the nicest golf courses in the country, and his wife and kids will still wear dresses costing 19k and go to private schools. We need to stop this, all government pensions should be cut, dramatically. Stop funding living expenses for non Americans, and Americans milking our system. Check out how Japan handles welfare recipients...We need to do it here, now.
I reject the liberals premise.
“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”
Socialized medicine needs to be repealed, true, but where can a family of four that makes $80,000 get on Medicaid?
In this state, the cutoff is under $36,000.
“Most people get their healthcare through work.”
Less and less. Business after business has cut workers to part-time to avoid healthcare expenses.
“We do not need to go back to the mess we had before Obamacare was enacted.”
Fake history.
Before Obamacare was enacted, our healthcare system was the envy of the world. Our corrupt and depraved media lied about that daily to fool people into accepting socialized medicine.
Get government out of healthcare, and people, doctors, hospitals, and charities will put things right.
Yeah. That is outrageous.
Thread winner!
Forget about replacing it. That’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Some other ideas that might improve the health insurance situation in this country:
1. Don’t force people to pay for coverage they don’t want (which basically forces them to pay for someone ELSE’s medical bills). For example, 80 year old women should not have to pay for birth control coverage, Christians and anyone else with morals should not have to pay for abortion coverage. Normal people should not have to pay for sex change coverage.
2. Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines. This would encourage healthy competition instead of giving virtual monopolies to companies in each state.
3. Make it illegal to cut deals with insurance companies giving them preferential pricing. Why should the uninsured person have to pay $500 out of pocket for something that the insured person (i.e., his insurance company) is only charged $100 for?
The Republicans never owned it, not a single one voted for it.
By repealing it, the marketplace is re-opened.
We don't need government run health care in any form.
Repeal it and then expand Medical Savings Accounts, Health Savings Accounts, tax deductions for medical costs and insurance premiums.
Then I guess they'll own the replacement since there won't be more than one or two Democrats that vote for it.
MSAs and HSAs are managed by individual employers. What if a company doesn't provide them?
Why should people pay retail when large customers pay wholesale?
As long as there are no specific restrictions preventing private parties from banding together (a la the Christian cost-sharing program called MediShare) and buying into HSAs and MSAs, problem solved.
If there are restrictions, repeal those as well.
Someone has to be managing the HSA and MSA to begin with. I expect there is some overhead and requirements behind that.
Good proposals. I add medical equipment depreciation reform and tort reform to your points.
My contention is that the greatest single problem with health insurance is government meddling. That’s both on the federal and state levels.
Again, the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate health insurance or require citizens to have insurance (and that includes Medicare). The Several States do have the authority to regulate health insurance within their respective jurisdictions. But they are subject to the same politicians’ “something for nothing” mandate disease.
So I believe the first thing we need to do is kick the federal government out of every hint of regulating health insurance. And then we need to oppose onerous health insurance regulations by our own states.
These are tall orders. But that’s what we’ve ended up with following a century of the “progressives” shredding our Constitution.
If you break both of your arms, you get a deal.
Otherwise the doctor has to see each person with a broken arm individually.
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.