Thread: How the GOP Should Fix ObamaCare
#1 How the GOP Should Fix ObamaCare
11-22-2013, 02:48 AM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
How the GOP Should Fix ObamaCare
...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...
11-22-2013, 11:44 AM
That's like changing the shade of lipstick for the pig.
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
11-22-2013, 12:11 PM
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
11-22-2013, 01:21 PM
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.
11-22-2013, 01:25 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
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.
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|