GOP Majority Leader: Embrace ObamaCare's Exchanges

[Greenbeard]

Former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist--a medical doctor--has some spot-on commentary out today: "Why both parties should embrace ObamaCare's state exchanges"

Originally a Republican idea, the state insurance exchanges mandated under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will offer a menu of private insurance plans to pick and choose from, all with a required set of minimum benefits, to those without employer-sponsored health insurance. These exchanges are expected to bring health insurance to an additional 16 million Americans. Unlike the Medicaid expansion, these Americans will gain private insurance, and can choose the plan that's right for them.

The exchanges should facilitate competition among private insurers as they design new benefit packages and cut prices to stay ahead of the game. While I'm slow to favor a mandate, these exchanges will offer those who can benefit from insurance a broad array of tailored options and varying prices that should help them find it. Helping more Americans find and compare the private insurance they need and can afford should be an easy principle both political parties agree on.

He reminds us that ObamaCare purposefully avoided a single, federal exchange in the final approach, instead opting to let states customize solutions to meet their needs:

State exchanges are the solution. They represent the federalist ideal of states as "laboratories for democracy." We are seeing 50 states each designing a model that is right for them, empowered to take into account their individual cultures, politics, economies, and demographics. While much planning has yet to be done, we are already seeing a huge range in state models. I love the diversity and the innovation.

Helping more Americans find and compare the private insurance they need and can afford should be an easy principle both political parties agree on.

Want a more conservative, small-business focused exchange that bans abortion coverage in all its plans? Try Utah and its state exchange, originally founded under Gov. Jon Huntsman. Think that President Obama missed a huge opportunity to steer the nation towards a single payer system? Try Vermont, which plans to ultimately transform its state exchange into a single payer system, Green Mountain Care, that will offer coverage to all state residents. With soaring health care costs one of, if not the most, dangerous threats to America's greatness, a new round of national health care experimentation is exactly what we need.

Well said. And a nice note to end on: "Simply put, state exchanges represent a distinctly American opportunity to improve our local communities and at the same time help our nation avert a major crisis. Let's take the plunge."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Customized solutions that have to comply with unwritten federal regulations, no wonder the guy is a former majority leader.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Originally a Republican idea…

And had the president and Congress been republican at the time of the ACA’s passage, conservatives would be among the Act’s greatest advocates.

 

[Stephanie]

Originally a Republican idea…

And had the president and Congress been republican at the time of the ACA’s passage, conservatives would be among the Act’s greatest advocates.

Bullshit,
where does it say anything about people being fined or penalized IF THEY don't purchase it?

 

[Greenbeard]

Bullshit,
where does it say anything about people being fined or penalized IF THEY don't purchase it?

Frist readily acknowledges that he's "slow to favor a mandate." That doesn't change the fact that folks of all political stripes can embrace new transparent markets where consumers can shop for coverage. Competitive markets are a good thing.

And those of us who enjoy watching states compete as laboratories of democracy--trying different solutions that make sense for them--can enjoy watching states customize the exchange/marketplace concept to meet the needs of their cultures, markets and populations.

 

[Oddball]

Oh...EX Majority Leader....The one who meddled in the Terry Schiavo mess, no less.

Imagine that...Pinkbeard being duplicitous and misleading.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Bill Frist. Not the first RINO in history.

Ron Paul is a Doctor and he's against ObamaCare.

 

[Greenbeard]

And had the president and Congress been republican at the time of the ACA’s passage, conservatives would be among the Act’s greatest advocates.

They will yet (some already are)! Try as they might to hate anything associated with Barack Obama, they can't resist market competition and state-based solutions and state innovation. Even those with only a passing familiarity with the subject matter recognize that these transparent, competitive marketplaces are vast improvements over the existing individual insurance markets in states. And they've got enough flexibility built in to accommodate the brightest red and the brightest blue states.

Some recent advice to state governors from Mike Leavitt, Mitt Romney's transition lead (and potential Chief of Staff): "Governors Must Lead on Health Reform."

Build a health insurance exchange that organizes an efficient market. Health insurance exchanges have at various times been a Republican and a Democrat proposal. While nearly all health exchanges seek to make affordable health insurance more available to individuals and small businesses, proposals differ primarily in the nature of government’s role. There are two basic choices — government can be used to organize efficient and fair markets or they can dictate how the system operates. The hand of government is required, but experience in leading large government entities leads me to strongly recommend the organizing role. To work, exchanges must enliven competition and innovation and also expand choice. Well-organized markets do those things better than bureaucracies.

I’m surprised that many states are waiting for the political stars to align and produce repeal or a major revision. Some are doing little of substance, hoping that the federal government will relax the calendar. Both approaches are a mistake. Smart states will proceed to develop exchanges based on a strategy of self-determination and the benefits that come from enhancing insurance offerings within their states.

Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin governor and contender to be its next senator, reminds us "State Based Health Exchanges Are Important":

I am writing to suggest that governors of both political parties have tremendous opportunity to use free market principles and set up health insurance exchanges which work and give constituents freedom of choice. There is a lot of discussion about health insurance exchanges as it relates to President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Some governors have a negative opinion of insurance exchanges and I believe that by doing so they are giving up a tremendous opportunity to use marketplace choice and allow insurance companies to compete in their respective states.

Here's the most important thing that we must all understand about exchanges -- they are a market-place that can be implemented with a light touch. Exchanges are essentially an Internet portal with supporting customer service that provide individuals and small businesses with the ability to compare rates, benefits and quality across competing insurance options by allowing private insurers to offer such competitive plans in an open and transparent marketplace.

Exchanges are a market-place, let us make them a state market-place. Exchanges are a vehicle for future innovation in health care delivery -- and if there is one thing we know we all need here, it is a platform for better ideas. States that take charge of the exchange will be in the driver's seat; those that don't will take a back-seat to the federal government.

Even back in ancient times--three years ago--you can find Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, and Devin Nunes advocating "Creating Affordable and Accessible Options through State‐Based Exchanges":

Our health care system should be easier to use, more predictable, and provide integrated care in a more equitable manner. The current regulation of the insurance market does not incentivize health plans to cover sick patients. And too many patients are unable to afford premiums. Americans inherently know that innovative markets work, but businesses must play by transparent rules and compete for patients’ business. The market must work for every patient every time. Patients should have convenient and affordable options, and they should have control of those options. Doctors and hospitals should be more involved in patient care.

What we need—and what this Act provides—is a consistent and fair market, so that everyone can afford coverage. Patients could choose which health care provider they trust. The freedom to choose creates better competition, fosters higher quality care, and lowers costs to levels that are fair for every American in every state.

States should provide direct oversight of health insurers to make sure they are playing by fair rules. A one‐size‐fits‐all approach dictated by Washington cannot solve the diverse problems that citizens in various states face. For example, Oklahoma has an uninsured rate of nearly twice that of Minnesota. Many states have led the nation in finding comprehensive health care solutions for their citizens, including the well‐known, bi‐partisan achievement of universal health care through a private system in Massachusetts. The federal government should not impede progress, but rather partner with states to make further progress.

The Patients’ Choice Act would ensure that the federal government partners with states to create State Health Insurance Exchanges with the following benefits:

 

[Dot Com]

*crickets*

 

[Greenbeard]

The Miami Herald notices something: President Barack Obama’s health exchanges mirror Marco Rubio's 2008 'marketplace' idea

TALLAHASSEE -- In the months before he became Florida House speaker, Marco Rubio crisscrossed the state searching for ways to make Florida better.

The best proposals, dealing with topics ranging from property taxes to education, became a book: 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future.

Chapter 8 is titled “Quality Healthcare at an Affordable Price,” and it includes Idea No. 87: “Florida should launch a marketplace of affordable health insurance.”

Why is any of this important now, more than five years later?

While Gov. Rick Scott has said Florida will refuse to participate in optional provisions of the federal health care law, including the creation of a state health insurance exchange, Rubio’s vision for an insurance marketplace is about to come to fruition.

It’s called Florida Health Choices.

And though Republicans such as Rubio and Scott won’t admit it, Florida’s marketplace is a lot like President Barack Obama’s exchange.

“It’s about competition, it’s about choice, and it’s about the marketplace,” Rubio told the Palm Beach Post in 2008. (Rubio didn’t respond to questions for this story.) “It’s a priority of the House, and it needs to be respected and considered.”

 

[emilynghiem]

1. So do many GOP members want to promote PROLIFE by legislative mandates, instead of by choice. At least this shows that the federal mandates expose hypocrisy on both sides.

2. Govt would have the right to PROHIBIT people from imposing their personal health care costs on other citizens institutions or taxpayers who don't want to pay; and thus require all people to set up "some way" to prevent such a burden from happening. However, I don't see how this can be "dictated" as insurance or else pay a fine or penalty. There are other ways to cover health care costs without imposing.
For example, I am not a Christian Scientist, but I do believe in spiritual healing and people having the right to that FREELY instead of PAYING for insurance. Free spiritual healing cannot be either mandated, regulated or prohibited by Govt if that is part of someone's personal practice; it could be required if medical science can PROVE specific methods of spiritual healing are the only cure for deadly diseases that threaten the life of individuals or public safety in the case of pedophile and other criminal addictions, and are thus legally necessary as a form of treatment.

3. Importantly, the current conditions on opting out exemptions basically allow fed govt to regulate what constitutes a religious condition or not; therefore discriminating against some people for having or not having an exempted viewpoint or membership! That is against Amendment I, to put religous conditions that some people can or cannot meet in order to avoid a fine or penalty. Back to #1 about exposing hypocrisy on both sides.

You can't be for this health care mandate by govt, and then argue consistently against prolife legislation based on prochoice standards of individual Constitutional freedoms.

Former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist--a medical doctor--has some spot-on commentary out today: "Why both parties should embrace ObamaCare's state exchanges"

Originally a Republican idea, the state insurance exchanges mandated under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will offer a menu of private insurance plans to pick and choose from, all with a required set of minimum benefits, to those without employer-sponsored health insurance. These exchanges are expected to bring health insurance to an additional 16 million Americans. Unlike the Medicaid expansion, these Americans will gain private insurance, and can choose the plan that's right for them.

The exchanges should facilitate competition among private insurers as they design new benefit packages and cut prices to stay ahead of the game. While I'm slow to favor a mandate, these exchanges will offer those who can benefit from insurance a broad array of tailored options and varying prices that should help them find it. Helping more Americans find and compare the private insurance they need and can afford should be an easy principle both political parties agree on.

He reminds us that ObamaCare purposefully avoided a single, federal exchange in the final approach, instead opting to let states customize solutions to meet their needs:

State exchanges are the solution. They represent the federalist ideal of states as "laboratories for democracy." We are seeing 50 states each designing a model that is right for them, empowered to take into account their individual cultures, politics, economies, and demographics. While much planning has yet to be done, we are already seeing a huge range in state models. I love the diversity and the innovation.

Helping more Americans find and compare the private insurance they need and can afford should be an easy principle both political parties agree on.

Want a more conservative, small-business focused exchange that bans abortion coverage in all its plans? Try Utah and its state exchange, originally founded under Gov. Jon Huntsman. Think that President Obama missed a huge opportunity to steer the nation towards a single payer system? Try Vermont, which plans to ultimately transform its state exchange into a single payer system, Green Mountain Care, that will offer coverage to all state residents. With soaring health care costs one of, if not the most, dangerous threats to America's greatness, a new round of national health care experimentation is exactly what we need.

Well said. And a nice note to end on: "Simply put, state exchanges represent a distinctly American opportunity to improve our local communities and at the same time help our nation avert a major crisis. Let's take the plunge."