Posted on 12/14/2014 4:11:58 AM PST by Kaslin
Now that Republicans will control both houses of Congress, they will have an opportunity to deal with Obamacare. What should be done?
They can begin by repealing the worst features of Obamacare. They can do that by keeping three promises many of them made to voters during the last election: Keep your job; keep your health insurance; and keep your doctor.
The most direct way to get rid of all the anti-job provisions of ObamaCare is to repeal the employer mandate. The most direct way to insure that people can keep insurance they like is to repeal the individual mandate. And the most direct way of insuring people can keep their doctor is to deregulate and denationalize the health insurance exchanges.
Then Republicans can move on to real reform of the health care system. There are seven principles that should be adhered to.
Choice. People should be free to choose a health plan that fits individual and family needs, rather than one designed by bureaucrats in Washington. Men shouldn’t have to buy maternity coverage; women shouldn’t have to buy coverage for prostate cancer tests; teetotalers shouldn’t have to buy substance abuse insurance, and so on. And no one should have to buy coverage for preventive procedures that health researchers have known for years are not cost-effective.
Fairness. If government subsidizes health insurance through refundable tax credits, the credit should be the same for everyone at the same income level. Moreover, I believe a strong case can be made that everyone, regardless of income, should get the same tax credit. For example, we could offer every adult an annual tax credit worth $2,500 and every child a credit worth $1,500. People would get this subsidy so long as they obtained credible private health insurance, no matter where they obtained it—at work, in the marketplace, or in an Obamacare exchange.
With a uniform tax credit, 90 percent of the problems with the Obamacare exchanges would vanish. Signing up for insurance would be easy. Insurance companies and brokers would be able to enroll people outside of the exchanges without asking privacy-invading questions about their income and assets.
Universal Coverage. There will always be some people who will turn down the offer of a tax credit. Instead of having the U.S. Treasury keep those unclaimed credits, some portion of the money should be sent to safety-net institutions in the communities where the uninsured live. Uninsured patients will probably be asked to pay their medical bills out of their own pockets. But if they cannot, the safety-net institutions will have a source of cash to pay for “uncompensated care.”
Note: The tax credit dollar amounts stated above are the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of the cost of enrolling new people in Medicaid. So one way of thinking about the credits is to see that they will fund insurance that looks a lot like Medicaid. To obtain more accessible care or better care, people would have to add their own fund to the tax credit amount.
Portability. In most states today, it is illegal for employers to buy for their employees what they most want and need—insurance that travels with them from job to job and in and out of the labor market. The Obama administration has made the problem worse – by threatening employers with huge fines if they violate this principle.
Employers can buy group insurance with pre-tax dollars. But they can’t buy individually owned insurance on behalf of their employees. This prohibition means that people lose their insurance when they leave their employer, and this is the primary reason why developing pre-existing conditions can cause families much financial hardship. The prohibition must be repealed.
Transparency: Insurers should be required to make their networks of doctors and hospitals visible at all times and to alert potential enrollees about any restrictions on access to expensive drugs and procedures. This is especially important in light of the shifting of drug costs to the sickest patients as part of an overall “race to the bottom” in the Obamacare exchanges.
Patient Power. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) are very effective ways to eliminate waste and control costs. That’s why 30 million people now have these accounts. Still, we are not taking full advantage of the opportunities.
Current law imposes rigid restrictions on HSAs. Those restrictions should be lifted so that HSA are allowed to be completely flexible—wrapping around any third-party insurance plan. Then let the market determine the appropriate division between third-party insurance and individual self-insurance in the form of a designated savings account. The private sector also should be able to create special accounts for the chronically ill. A model for this is Medicaid’s highly successful Cash and Counseling program, under which the disabled manage their own healthcare dollars.
Real Insurance. The primary goal of the Affordable Care Act was to give everyone access to healthcare. Yet the way things are panning out, millions of people are losing insurance with very reasonable access to providers and are being forced into an exchange where the typical health plan avoids the best doctors and the best hospitals. In some areas, these plans are dubbed “Medicaid Plus.”
How could things be different? Let people insure against the costs of getting a pre-existing condition. Under this approach, no insurer would be allowed to dump its most costly enrollees onto another insurer without paying the full cost of the transfer. So if an expensive-to-treat patient moves from Plan A to Plan B, the former has to compensate the latter for any above-average expected costs. This “change-of-health-status insurance” would eliminate the financial hardship associated with developing a pre-existing condition.)
I have described this approach to reform as an opportunity for Republicans. But I suspect, many Democrats in Congress would vote for these changes as well. Who knows? Maybe even the White House will climb on board.
If the mandates are dropped, competition will take care of the rest.
Add to your list a repeal of the up to thirty year patent term for drugs. Reduce it to three years with no renewal. Next, allow drugs already approved in certain other first-world countries to be automatically legal here unless harm can be shown (i.e reverse the burden of proof).
Any criticism of ACA was looked on as a direct attack on Obama. Very strange comments trying to promote ACA as a way for all to get needed health care.
The ACA was never intended to answer the question “What is the best, least expensive way to protect healthcare in America?”
It was always a way to grab the power in government that a single payer program brings.
Not as long as the law compels free treatment for those who won't pay, it won't.
The answer to that would be clinics with cost based on ability to pay. The care would be adequate, and it would cut down on a lot of over-treatment of subsidized patients.
The GOP EXEMPT LOVE RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE.
Want proof? Romney was the last GOP candidate
even thought the People HATE it and them.
What’s the alternative to hemlock? Lighter doses of hemlock?
Obamacare’s primary purpose is not and never was the delivery of care. It was intended solely as the pilot program for socialized medicine in the US after the failed European models so beloved of ‘citizen of the world’ Obama.
The problem with any so-called solution that originates in Congress ie government is that scope creep and pork will be inherent in the earliest drafts.
It will, of necessity, be another redistribution scheme.
Lawyers.
Look, I was trained at a NYC municipal hospital that worked EXACTLY like what you are describing.
I had people's lives in my hands when I was 24 years old and working out of a book.
And, I was adequate. Maybe even a little more.
But when you put that care in front of a jury today, you are talking seven figures.
“They can begin by repealing the worst features of Obamacare.”
Or they could keep their campaign promises and fully repeal the enslaving law!
EVERY......WORD......OF.......IT
The only acceptable treatment of Obamacare for a Free and Constitutional Republic is complete repeal followed by complete repeal of all government participation and interference in Medicine and Insurance.
About the lawyer situation. What if patients had to sign a waiver whenever they took a pharmaceutical? What if they were offered a second opinion, or had to sign a statement that they refused it?
Let the lawyers go after the pharmaceutical and medical supplies companies.
I agree. The whole thing has to go.
Merck is currently spending $2.5 billion per year on clinical trials for Keytruda, one of the most promising treatments for cancer ever. Without the ability to recoup those costs drug development efforts would cease.
There is NO separation clause in the ACA. IOW if they repeal one part they effectively repeal it all. Want to bet that Boehner doesn’t let that happen? Treasonous Bass Turd.
Repeal any and all Fed benefit/deduction/credit for health care, of ANY kind.
Private business serves those who can pay.
Have ONE public, tax supported care center per region for those who can’t pay. To receive care, you sign a waiver.
FREE education and training for those who pursue it at these facilities.
Anything else is a form of tax slavery.
You need care? pay for it, learn how to do it yourself, or take the available charity care and stop complaining.
50% of health needs arise from poor personal judgment and decision making. 75% of health care issues can be met by a modestly trained, caring grandma. (not supposed to add up to 100, mutually exclusive)
20% of necessary healthcare is where the bulk of spending goes. Insurance, cash or charity care, your choice.
Oh jeeze! Not that old nonsense again. How did drug companies recoup their costs before we had thirty year patents? They only got the long patent extension during the Bush years. Before that patents used to expire after 10 years. Patents do not spur innovation. They stifle it. Without patents there would be an explosion in medical inventions, including new drugs. The best way to address development costs is to let the market drive down development costs. Limit the FDA, not competition among drug companies.
BTW most actual research into new drugs is done by academic institutions at public expense. Drug company expenses occur mostly from navigating regulatory hurdles.
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.