|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Posted on 03/05/2015 7:42:16 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Tuesday offered the latest in a series of Republican ObamaCare alternatives ahead of a Supreme Court ruling that could gut the law.
Cruz's bill, called the Health Care Choices Act, would allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, long a Republican health policy goal. It would also repeal Title I of ObamaCare, which would undo much of the law, including the mandate to buy insurance, the insurance marketplaces and subsidies to help people afford coverage.
Republicans are looking to show that they have a plan ready if the court strikes down subsidies for around 7.5 million people in the roughly three-dozen states using federally run marketplaces. The court will hear arguments in the case, King v. Burwell, on Wednesday.
The Obama administration insists that it does not have a contingency plan and that it will prevail in Court.
“The administration has done absolutely nothing to prepare for an upcoming Supreme Court decision that could leave millions of Americans unable to afford insurance thanks to this failed law," Cruz said in a statement. "Republicans must offer the American people alternatives that lower costs and break the status quo that favors big government and big health care business over hardworking Americans."
The plan joins a variety of recent GOP proposals. Three top Republicans have proposed a plan to provide financial assistance to let people temporarily keep their ObamaCare plans while a more state-based solution is worked out.
Meanwhile, three House Republican chairmen have proposed another plan, which would provide tax credits to help people buy insurance while allowing states to opt out of ObamaCare's mandates.
Cruz's plan is the most detailed, in that he has provided legislative text. The other plans are not yet formal legislation and have only been outlined in op-eds. Questions such as the size of the tax credits remain on the House chairmen's plan.
Cruz told The Hill on Monday that he is not ruling out supporting aspects of the other plans, including the temporary extension of ObamaCare plans. "I don’t want to prejudge that debate right now, I want to assess the options," he said.
While Cruz's bill does not fully repeal ObamaCare, he maintains that is the ultimate goal.
"Every last word of Obamacare must be repealed,” Cruz said in the statement. "And while we continue that fight, we must also send bill after bill to the president’s desk to stop its harmful effects."
The five co-sponsors of Cruz's bill include Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who is one of the three Republicans who proposed the other plan. Another co-sponsor is Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who like Cruz, could run for president in 2016.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
CRUZ or LOSE!FULL REPEAL! Replace Obamacare with NOTHING!
The only “altertative” I want to see is return to the way things were before obama ruined things. We have lost so many good doctors because of this horrible invasive thing.
No alternative to, nor reworking of ... but a complete erasure.
Healthcare is doctors stitchin' you up ... PAYING for it should be reasonably priced
No one is saying it but ... GET RID OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE
I don’t like the fact Cruz is succumbing to the same mode of thinking that for every bad Democratic plan it has to be replaced with a GOP alternative. Medical insurance options should be put on the open market to allow people to make their own choices to fit their lifestyles and healthcare needs.
We're screwed
While Cruz’s bill does not fully repeal ObamaCare, he maintains that is the ultimate goal.
“Every last word of Obamacare must be repealed,” Cruz said in the statement. “And while we continue that fight, we must also send bill after bill to the president’s desk to stop its harmful effects.”
But his remark can be too easily adhered to as a necessary evil that we just COULDN'T get rid of .... we tried ....
When the Ma Bell was broken up by the Modified Judgement, the result was more competitive products that made work easier, increasing productivity and thirty years hence, everything you know and use for communications services today was made possible by allowing “Competition” to innovate and offer advantages to businesses and consumers.
Ten years later, interstate calls and nailed up circuits reduced everyones costs.
Long distance went from $.89 cents per minute to under $.20 cents per minute.
10 more years later those same calls were between zero cents and $.04.
It even had an effect on international calling, which today you can more than 60 countries under buffet pricing, for $15 bucks a month.
If health insurance were offered as a truly competitive service and you could choose what coverage you want, like choosing what communications services you want, cost would necessarily have to come down.
Why? Competition always seeks a market advantage in their offerings.
But, make no mistake, the insurance companies don’t have a dominant player or what would be considered a monopoly.
Instead, we have competitors who prefer the current intrastate regulations, so they can create various products based on market needs.
If the Congress truly wanted to do us a favor, they would simply open the insurance companies to interstate pressures, which would drive down costs as new players offer advantages not previously available.
Nothing will happen of course.
After all, it was the Insurance Lobby who sought to implement Obamacare and make government the hammer that compels you to purchase their products and they ain’t going to give up on their corporate fascism anytime in the next 20 years.
Hope Ted doesn’t forgot tort reform.
I was thinking about this whole insurance thing last night. I think the idea of tailoring the healthcare plans to meet individual needs is the way to go and also purchasing across state lines.
If you are fairly young and in good health and lets say you have 2 kids. You could get a family insurance policy with a $100,000 annual cap or something like that and 95% of the time you would never need or exceed it. I would think the monthly premium would be really low on that. Its certainly better than nothing and would be affordable for most people. Or a 22 year old could get a policy with say a $50,000 per annum cap.
These kinds of policies could have add ons for cancer or maternity at a higher premium if you wanted it or whatever.
IMO the GOP need to be pushing some other choice or idea than just medical savings accts and purchasing over state lines. They need to be seen as having an alternative that is affordable for the average person. I would think the insurance companies would love these smaller policies where their exposure is not so much.
I have had really good insuance my whole life and only ever really needed it one time. So one operation and one 5 day stay in the hospital for a total of $20,000. I could have had a policy that paid $50,000 per year and been just fine.
Granted you are playing the odds but still the odds are good for young folks and people who have general good health.
They know what the ruling is.
Thanks, I was about to say the same thing.
Free Enterprise and Capitalism. Less government.
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.