Posted on 06/01/2019 5:37:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last week, the House Budget Committee explored establishing a single-payer health care system—a proposal commonly referred to as Medicare for All. The idea enjoys considerable support—including from most Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls.
While various versions of the program have been floated, the schemes have at least one commonality: They aim to remove market-based mechanisms from the equation and replace them with government planning. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan even openly acknowledges his proposal will largely eliminate the private health insurance industry.
The desire to improve the health care system is not misplaced. The current framework is in much need of reform.
For instance, rules mandating that every health insurance plan include a wide range of benefits unnecessarily increases the price of care for many Americans. And the lack of price transparency—resulting from the complicated and overregulated network of health care providers, insurers, wholesalers and consumers—further push costs upward.
However, there are alternative solutions to these problems that don’t require uprooting the free market system—a structure that has spawned high quality products at reasonable prices in almost every other industry. If applied properly, there’s no reason it shouldn’t better the health care experience in the U.S. as well.
A number of free market-induced fixes have already been embraced.
Last year, the Trump administration expanded access to short-term, limited duration health care plans. These are health benefits that can be extended for up to three years that aren’t subject to all the regulations and requirements imposed on traditional health plans under Obamacare. The option provides more customizable coverage for those in niche circumstances.
Should a middle-aged couple be forced to have health insurance that covers maternity or pediatric care? Should a healthy 25-year-old just beginning his career be obligated to pay for fully loaded premium health coverage? Of course not. Rarely are one-size-fits-all policies sensible, or in this case, economical.
Without including all the bells and whistles, short-term health plans are offered at more affordable prices. For example, when compared to the average premium cost affiliated with Obamacare bronze plans, Texans could save nearly $400 a month. Those living in Missouri could experience more than $500 in savings. And the average Floridian would save $420. A similar pattern plays out in states across the country.
Last week, the House Budget Committee explored establishing a single-payer health care system—a proposal commonly referred to as Medicare for All. The idea enjoys considerable support—including from most Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls.
While various versions of the program have been floated, the schemes have at least one commonality: They aim to remove market-based mechanisms from the equation and replace them with government planning. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan even openly acknowledges his proposal will largely eliminate the private health insurance industry.
The desire to improve the health care system is not misplaced. The current framework is in much need of reform.
For instance, rules mandating that every health insurance plan include a wide range of benefits unnecessarily increases the price of care for many Americans. And the lack of price transparency—resulting from the complicated and overregulated network of health care providers, insurers, wholesalers and consumers—further push costs upward.
However, there are alternative solutions to these problems that don’t require uprooting the free market system—a structure that has spawned high quality products at reasonable prices in almost every other industry. If applied properly, there’s no reason it shouldn’t better the health care experience in the U.S. as well.
A number of free market-induced fixes have already been embraced.
Last year, the Trump administration expanded access to short-term, limited duration health care plans. These are health benefits that can be extended for up to three years that aren’t subject to all the regulations and requirements imposed on traditional health plans under Obamacare. The option provides more customizable coverage for those in niche circumstances.
Should a middle-aged couple be forced to have health insurance that covers maternity or pediatric care? Should a healthy 25-year-old just beginning his career be obligated to pay for fully loaded premium health coverage? Of course not. Rarely are one-size-fits-all policies sensible, or in this case, economical.
Without including all the bells and whistles, short-term health plans are offered at more affordable prices. For example, when compared to the average premium cost affiliated with Obamacare bronze plans, Texans could save nearly $400 a month. Those living in Missouri could experience more than $500 in savings. And the average Floridian would save $420. A similar pattern plays out in states across the country.
Short-term plans are not the only alternative to traditional health coverage.
Despite recent legal obstacles, the current administration has also attempted to expand association health plans (AHP)—a policy that broadens the definition of association and allows small business owners to band together to receive more affordable health coverage similar to the plans available to larger corporations.
This health insurance avenue was a game changer for small businesses and their employees who experienced major cost hikes due to Obamacare. Whether American entrepreneurs will once again be able to take advantage of AHP’s all depends on the court appeal process.
Additionally, Americans are taking advantage of monthly membership-based medical practices. These health care clubs allow consumers to pay low monthly fees in return for access to primary care doctors and routine medical services—such as physicals, certain lab tests or stitches.
The best part? These plans can be purchased for as little as $35 per month. Affordable prices are possible because administrative costs are mitigated and insurance middlemen are non-existent in these direct-to-consumer plans. Prescription prices are also often lower compared to retail pharmacies because the medical practice purchases the drugs directly from wholesalers. In each instance, the cost savings are passed on to patients.
And while a catastrophic health plan—insurance that covers major health issues—is still needed in addition to direct-consumer health care, the combined cost of the packages are often still cheaper than traditional coverage under Obamacare.
It’s evident the U.S. health care system needs a tune-up, but the solution should stem from free market-induced innovation, not bureaucratic control. Innovators and entrepreneurs are already establishing paths to more affordable health coverage. The government simply needs to get out of the way.
Medicare will go broke shortly.
The present hospital-”private” insurance-Big Pharma iron triangle is about as far from a choice-driven free market as it is possible to imagine.
when the government takes over health care conditions will only get worse (like the VA system) and innovation will stop
Its amazing how many pundits who seem to know what they’re talking about haven’t figured out that cost containment is almost impossible when a business model is based almost entirely on third-party payments.
The reason that it is impossible to have any productive conversations, or even ideas, about how to solve the many problems in the heath care “system” is that almost nobody understands the existing state of affairs, especially the largely hidden business model.
Installing a “modern” Electronic Health Record system costs in the mid-seven figures (to start), and there are very significant running costs. Ask yourself this: What business would purchase and install a product that cost in the mid seven figures without some idea of the ROI?
Now ask yourself: Since none of the promised benefits of this technology (interoperability and improved outcomes) have appeared, why are the purchasers so happy with their purchase? Just what IS the ROI to justify such a massive expense?
Figure that out, and you will begin to understand the deep roots of the present business model. Which has noting to do with choice OR competition.
America is broke and the debt does not seem likely to ever end until one day the system collapses.
We’re a house of cards, with all the debt we carry; it can’t last too much longer.
"Last week, the House Budget Committee explored establishing a single-payer health care system—a proposal commonly referred to as Medicare for All."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
From related threads…
Regardless what the misguided (imo) Roberts Supreme Court wants everybody to think about the constitutionality of national healthcare programs like Obamacare, patriots are reminded the following.
The Constitution's silence about healthcare means that the Founding States left the power to establish government social spending programs like healthcare uniquely to the states under their 10th Amendment (10A) powers, not the federal government.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the federal government.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
Justices Brandeis reflected Bingham's words when Brandeis indicated that the individual states are laboratories of Democracy.
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” — Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.Note that constitutional limits on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.
H O W E V E R…
Consider that the states cannot fully experiment with state social spending programs because the corrupt fed's keep stealing state revenues by means of unconstitutional federal taxes indicated by the Gibbons v. Ogden excerpt above, repeated here.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In other words, post-17th Amendment ratification federal social spending programs, especially those established since the time of Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR, are unconstitutional imo.
In fact, using inappropriate words like "concept" and "implicit" here is what was left of 10A-protected state sovereignty after FDR's justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
As more evidence of post-FDR era, Supreme Court disrespect for state sovereignty imo, here are clarifications by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to establish national healthcare policy.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"Obviously, direct control of medical practice [emphases added] in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.” —Linder v. United States, 1925.
Also, regardless what the Supreme Court wants everybody to think about the constitutionally of Obamacare insurance mandate, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had also clarified that Congress's Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) do not include the power to regulate insurance, regardless if buyer and seller are domiciled in different states.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
And problems with the unconstitutionally big federal government are not limited to state sovereignty-ignoring Supreme Court justices or lawless presidents.
For example, consider that Speaker Pelosi scandalously (imo) ignored a resolution for proposing a healthcare amendment to the Constitution before irresponsibly ramming Obamacare bill through the House.
Patriots would not be able to argue against Obamacare if Pelosi had first led Congress to successfully petition the states for a healthcare amendment to the Constitution before passing Obamacare.
The remedy for corrupt federal government that not only steals state powers, but uses those stolen powers to oppress the states and their citizens…
Patriots need to eliminate the unconstitutional middleman, the corrupt federal government, from "helping" to "manage" state revenues and dictate state policy by doing the following.
Patriots must elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT's vision for MAGA, but will also promise to surrender state powers that the feds have been stealing from the states back to the states.
And to make the surrendering of state powers permanent, patriots also need to support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Not Democratic MADA (Make America Dead Again).
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.” —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
Go to You Tube. Search out the videos of what Canadians think about their ‘’free health care’’. They think it’s the bee’s knee’s. And they hate us and our ‘’for profit’’ system. Think I’m kidding you? Check it out for yourself.
Why?
If you live in an area with only one or two hospital networks those networks determine the cost, not the insurance companies.
All of the insurance companies will have to pay the same cost and only have their profit to play with if they want to offer you lower costs.
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.