Republicans Healthcare Replacement Plan

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by AquaAthena, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. AquaAthena
    Offline

    AquaAthena INTJ/ INFJ

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    15,453
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,265
    Location:
    ♥ TEXAS ♥ in Spirit
    Ratings:
    +12,342
    Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

    Repeal ObamaCare

    Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

    Allow people to join insurance pools

    Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

    Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

    This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

    Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    So much for the churlish little demand of "oh, yeah?...what's your plan?"
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,670
    Thanks Received:
    3,025
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,707
    The Reps always had plans to reform HC.

    The Dems just told em to STFU and get in the back of the bus.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    I realize that most people think that allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines is a great idea. Supposedly, this would create more competition and reduce prices. However, there are a couple of big problems that doing so does not address.

    First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

    Secondly, when an insurance company currently denies payment to a covered patient, at least the company is local, so the customer has some chance of successfully fighting with their insurance company to get payment approved. Imagine trying to fight it out with your insurance company that is based in a state on the other side of the country. Good luck with that. And the opportunity for fraud amongst insurance companies would increase dramatically.

    An another topic, encouraging states to set up high risk pools sounds like a great idea. This is exactly what was done prior to the new healthcare legislation. Some states did and some did not. If you lived in a state that did provide a high risk pool, the cost was out of reach for all but the very few. I knew a gentleman in Indiana who tried to get insurance through Indiana's high risk pool, because he was forced into early retirement. They wanted $2600 per month.

    Since so many of you feel the government should not be involved with healthcare, I have a better idea. Why don't we stop forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees. They could be much more profitable without having to pay for their employee's healthcare. Leave it up to each and every individual/family to purchase their own insurance privately. Then lets see what happens.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Point being is that it will render in-state quasi-monopolies and must-issue mandates impotent.

    If I live in Iowa want to buy cafeteria style insurance (i.e. catastrophic medical and trauma only, with a high deductible) from a company in North Carolina, I can.
     
  6. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,790
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,301
    This reminds me of the child writing Santa after Christmas has passed. The republicans had every opportunity to offer plans, they chose to do nothing, and did nothing. Plans now are meaningless as our democratically elected congress already accomplished the feat. Job now is to make it better, not go back in the cave with the republicans who have suddenly seen the light.

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,146
    Thanks Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,993
    Oh, yea, because Virginia can be regulated by California. Makes sense. If you're an insurance company.

    If people deduct HC from their taxes, only those with jobs can get health care. Worse, all heath care becomes government subsidized.

    Insurance pools of sick people who may be on disability? You might as well say, "Fuck 'em. Let the suckers die. And Die Quickly". Then hope YOU don't get sick. You do have health care, don't you? Many Republicans don't.

    The cost of emergency rooms for people without health care is one of the main reasons the cost skyrockets. How come the right can never talk about that?

    Are you sure you've thought this pablum through?
     
  8. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726

    I think the problem is the left isn't saying what they really want. The more you read the arguments, the more it looks like what they're really after is free health care, not cheaper health care. Because how much it should cost and whether it should cost anything it all to the consumer are two entirely different arguments.

    Costs are too high, we hear over and over again. Okay, what should it cost? What's a reasonable amount to charge for being rushed to the ER with a heart attack and your life being saved?

    Maybe free market concepts really can't work in health care. The way the free market works the more in demand and/or scarce a resource is the more it's going to cost. I would say life saving services are pretty in demand and rather valuable, so it makes sense from a purely free market perspective, that that kind of service isn't going to be cheap.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  9. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Liar...They offered these suggestions and were shut out.
     
  10. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    Absolutely correct. But there's another aspect to the story beyond the misguided assumption that out-of-state insurers can offer you the same rates they offer people in lower-cost areas of their primary state who are treated in their local provider network.

    And that's the notion that more competition in the insurance market naturally implies lower premiums. To an extent that's true, as it generally is, but only just so much. After a certain point, an increasingly fractured or diluted insurance market simply empowers providers in negotiations over the reimbursement rates assigned to various items in a fee schedule or chargemaster. Austin Frakt produced a handy graphic for one of his pieces on bilateral oligopoly:

    [​IMG]

    The argument many unwittingly make is that if they're in a state characterized by point C, we ought to pursue policies that will push us over to point A. Unfortunately, that likely means even higher premiums than you already have.
     

Share This Page