Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 How the GOP Should Fix ObamaCare 
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,784
    How the GOP Should Fix ObamaCare
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...08020624280740



    ...Let's understand: The stumbling block to fixing Mr. Obama's broken promise is Democrats clinging to the central redistributive scheme embedded in ObamaCare. There is no reconciling the two.

    Americans are beginning to understand that the essence of the Affordable Care Act is that millions of people are being conscripted to buy overpriced insurance they would never choose for themselves in order to afford Mr. Obama monies to spend on the poor and those who are medically uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions. Both Mr. Obama and Republicans are blowing smoke in claiming that the damage done to the individual market by the forced cancellation of "substandard" plans (i.e., those that don't meet the purposes of ObamaCare) can somehow be reversed at this point. It can't be.

    What can be done is Congress creating a new option in the form of a national health insurance charter under which insurers could design new low-cost policies free of mandated benefits imposed by ObamaCare and the 50 states that many of those losing their individual policies today surely would find attractive.

    What's the first thing the new nationally chartered insurers would do? Rush out cheap, high-deductible policies, allaying some of the resentment that the ObamaCare mandate provokes among the young, healthy and footloose affluent.

    These folks could buy the minimalist coverage that (for various reasons) makes sense for them. They wouldn't be forced to buy excessive coverage they don't need to subsidize the old and sick.

    If this idea sounds familiar, it was proposed right here three years ago, after the 2010 elections in which Democrats lost the House due to public disquiet over ObamaCare.

    Because such a move could be sold as expanding the options under ObamaCare and lessening the burden of an unpopular mandate, it always had potential to draw Democratic support. That's doubly true now that Democrats are saddled with President Obama's promise that anybody who liked their existing insurance can keep it. Mr. Obama's promise is not literally keepable but the national charter would be the next best thing, letting millions find policies that are a good deal for them in their particular circumstances.

    And, yes, this would also blow up the disingenuous financial engine of ObamaCare. This is a feature not a bug.

    The ObamaCare exchanges would devolve into refuges for those who are medically uninsurable. But this seems increasingly likely to happen anyway. The federal government, having assumed the job of subsidizing these people, should do so honestly and openly.

    ObamaCare is dead on the vine. It becomes clearer by the day the only way insurers can make the Obama benefits package work at a monthly premium affordable by healthy people who don't qualify for subsidies is with massive deductibles and copays and narrower provider networks. ObamaCare's individual mandate, as philosophically odious as some find it, would survive. An admirable principle buried in ObamaCare—that subsidies should be reserved for the needy—would also survive...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,048
    That's like changing the shade of lipstick for the pig.

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post
    That's like changing the shade of lipstick for the pig.
    It's actually not a bad plan. Conservatives have been arguing for years that people should be able to shop for health insurance across state lines, which would force those states with high mandates to provide relief from them for insurers or see them lose business to other states. We do this with auto insurance, and the competition between companies keeps rates low and offers lots of options. The sticking point is that a national charter would take the regulatory apparatus for insurance out of the hands of the states, which would create all manner of risks if a future Democratic administration decided to impose its own mandates. The much better solution is to simply authorize the sale of health insurance across state lines while repealing Obamacare. The authorization would be well within the authority of congress under the Interstate Commerce clause, and would not expand government at any level (in fact, it would reduce the states' insurance commissioners to a consumer protection function, where they would act only if an insurer failed to meet the terms of its contractual obligations).
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3,016
    The problem it was supposed to fix could be handled by Medicaid for the truly poor and a special-risk insurance pool for the truly-uninsurable (Akin to how most states handle high-risk drivers), the latter basically something the members would have to show they had been turned down for insurance by commercial providers or could only obtain it at premium levels that would bankrupt them. Failure to limit the scope of the act to just these two groups who represented the actual need, and instead appeal to everybody with a shopping list looking for freebies (And then rolling all those into the requirements) so they would vote Democrat out of eternal gratitude, pushes both the cost and impact into the realm of disaster.

    Covering everything in the world, biologically possible or not, age-appropriate or not, is making the price astronomical for everyone now instead of just addressing the few for whom it was astronomical before. The scope of the national insurance requirement should instead be on the lowest common denominator (Catastrophic care plus wellness) rather than the maximum offered anywhere (Free BC, abortion, mammograms, medical marijuana, etc., etc., and every other bell and whistle for every potential Democrat-leaning special interest group under the broadest requirements of the most Pigressive state in the Union).

    Then just dump the portability (Or overriding supercoverage Federal requirements that amount to the same net effect), structure it like gun and environmental laws - a Federal minimum baseline with the states free to set higher requirements. Portability is a chimera, the states with the highest requirements will always resist and obstruct legislation that does not require insurance that meets all their own standards, which is why the Obamacare plans are so ridiculously inclusive and expensive now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    If you gut compulsory coverages, then you end up with the crap policies these people are complaining about losing, and then discovering are virtually worthless. A "mini-plan" is pure unadulterated bullshit. It's a ridiculous insurance policy designed solely to allow companies like McDonald's and Exxon to say, "We offer competitive wages and health insurance." That on top of that they have the nerve to actually charge the employee for the "mini plan" is just insult added to injury.

    How about you come up with a percentage of income which could be paid in taxes which allows a working person to join Medicare? All of these people are going to end up in Medicare when they get old, why not start collecting money now? As for employers, you just come up with an employer share which has to be paid on any employee who chooses to participate in Medicare. So, pulling a number out of a hat, Joe makes $10 per hour. He would pay 3% of his monthly wages to Medicare and his employer would match that. If his wife works she will also pay it as will her employer. If she's a stay at home mom, then she's on Joe's policy. $48 isn't going to kill Joe and if it's going to be too hard on his employer then maybe he needs to go into another business because obviously this one isn't making any money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    It's actually not a bad plan. Conservatives have been arguing for years that people should be able to shop for health insurance across state lines, which would force those states with high mandates to provide relief from them for insurers or see them lose business to other states. We do this with auto insurance, and the competition between companies keeps rates low and offers lots of options. The sticking point is that a national charter would take the regulatory apparatus for insurance out of the hands of the states, which would create all manner of risks if a future Democratic administration decided to impose its own mandates. The much better solution is to simply authorize the sale of health insurance across state lines while repealing Obamacare. The authorization would be well within the authority of congress under the Interstate Commerce clause, and would not expand government at any level (in fact, it would reduce the states' insurance commissioners to a consumer protection function, where they would act only if an insurer failed to meet the terms of its contractual obligations).
    I'm still waiting for the lower rates I was supposed to get as I got older and kept a clean driving record. I am now paying about double what I paid at 25 yo. When I was 18 if I recall correctly, $1000/year was the assigned risk rate in Maryland.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    If you gut compulsory coverages, then you end up with the crap policies these people are complaining about losing, and then discovering are virtually worthless.
    Yeah, how dare the beloved Fuehrer allow these misguided fools to decide what they want and can afford?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •