Finally, a responsible GOP response to Obamacare

[bendog]

An Obamacare Replacement That Works - Bloomberg View

Not that it's totally thought out or without flaws, as the link discusses. But still .... No Medicaid expansion. No mandate. Less govt control of what's in plans. More individual choice and responsibility.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The most responsible response to Obamacare is to repeal it.

 

[bendog]

No, Obamacare was a well intentioned response to a real problem. But, like LBJ, Obama's need for central control created problems in areas that weren't broken.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, Obamacare was a well intentioned response to a real problem. But, like LBJ, Obama's need for central control created problems in areas that weren't broken.

Intentions mean nothing, and pave the road to hell.

The idea that the federal government can force you to buy specific goods and services from private companies, by the sole virtue of you exercising your right to live here, should sicken you.

 

[Moonglow]

It should sicken anyone that is forced by govt. or a business to buy a product...

 

[M14 Shooter]

It should sicken anyone that is forced by govt. or a business to buy a product...

I suppose the people who aren't forced to buy it because the general public pays for it are OK with it.

 

[bendog]

The gop alternative doesn't force anyone to buy in..

But it would be very bad for an individual to NOT buy insurance until they are sick. Because then they are seriously fcked because no insurer would take them, and to get on Medicaid, they'd first have to basically sell all they own. In short, a gop approach should encourage responsibility.

Those alternatives generally loosen the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on discriminating against customers with pre-existing health conditions. This protection is popular, but it necessitated the law's least popular provision: the fine on people who don't buy insurance. Insurers demanded the fine because otherwise people might wait until they got sick to buy a policy, at which point they couldn't be turned down or charged a higher rate.

Price would instead forbid insurers from discriminating against people based on health status if they've maintained continuous coverage.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, Obamacare was a well intentioned response to a real problem. But, like LBJ, Obama's need for central control created problems in areas that weren't broken.

Obama's need for central control?

How about elaborating on that a bit.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The only acceptable alternative is to get the government out of the health care business. The federal government has no business subsidizing anybody's medical costs.

 

[SwimExpert]

I actually find it to be a very good plan. Except I strongly disagree with one particular part of the article.

The main flaw in Price's plan is the danger it poses to employer-provided coverage. He would let people with such coverage use their new tax credit to buy their own health insurance on the individual market. If young and healthy people find better bargains on that market, they might leave employer plans with only older and sicker insurance pools. Thus employer premiums could go up, or employer plans could go under.

That's not going to fly, and it shouldn't. The federal government shouldn't disrupt people's health-insurance arrangements so drastically. The solution is to restrict the tax credit, at least at first, so that it only goes to people who don't have access to employer coverage.

What? Bullshit. The credit should be available to everyone. If people can find better coverage outside employer plans, let them! What do you think happened before Obamacare? If the insurance company wants to keep people in the employer plans, they need to provide a product that is valuable to consumers on its own merits. Making the tax credit available to only people who don't have access to health insurance through their jobs 1) make it government alms as opposed to a public healthcare policy, and 2) reinforces the twisted and backwards notion that health insurance is supposed to be tied to your job. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the health insurance market would be more consumer friendly if this false association were finally broken. Not only that, but continuing that premise only serves to keep freedom in the market limited in an insurer friendly manner.

 

[prison/con.net]

nobody was dyinng for lack of care under the "old" system. They just went to the emergency room and everyone else paid for it. WITHOUT messing up anyone's coverage or causing job losses. So the sensible thing to do is repeal Obamacare.

 

[bendog]

I actually find it to be a very good plan. Except I strongly disagree with one particular part of the article.

The main flaw in Price's plan is the danger it poses to employer-provided coverage. He would let people with such coverage use their new tax credit to buy their own health insurance on the individual market. If young and healthy people find better bargains on that market, they might leave employer plans with only older and sicker insurance pools. Thus employer premiums could go up, or employer plans could go under.

That's not going to fly, and it shouldn't. The federal government shouldn't disrupt people's health-insurance arrangements so drastically. The solution is to restrict the tax credit, at least at first, so that it only goes to people who don't have access to employer coverage.

What? Bullshit. The credit should be available to everyone. If people can find better coverage outside employer plans, let them! What do you think happened before Obamacare? If the insurance company wants to keep people in the employer plans, they need to provide a product that is valuable to consumers on its own merits. Making the tax credit available to only people who don't have access to health insurance through their jobs 1) make it government alms as opposed to a public healthcare policy, and 2) reinforces the twisted and backwards notion that health insurance is supposed to be tied to your job. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the health insurance market would be more consumer friendly if this false association were finally broken. Not only that, but continuing that premise only serves to keep freedom in the market limited in an insurer friendly manner.

Well, the flip side is what if your employer sponsored care is better than what the tax credit would buy, or suppose one is a govt worker for whom the insurance is really a central reason to take the job in the first place? It's not politically possible to get these votes if you mess with people's HC. Remember Obama's classic "if you like your insurance you can keep it."

No program is perfect. But, imo it's a given that people who didn't have insurance needed assistance. But the assistance shouldn't be paid by those of us who have healthcare, but rather by those who'd benefit from them having insurance, e.g. doctors and wal-mart. And, it's also a given that whatever program there is should focus on more individual choice and responsibility and less govt control.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, the flip side is what if your employer sponsored care is better than what the tax credit would buy

Eh? What are you talking about? What do you mean by "better"? And what does it matter if your employer sponsored play is "better" than what you could find elsewhere? Buy it! Simple as that. You'll get a $2100 tax credit. If you like some other company's product, buy that one, and you'll get a $2100 tax credit.

or suppose one is a govt worker for whom the insurance is really a central reason to take the job in the first place?

Again, so what? Buy the plan you want. You'll get a $2100 tax credit.

It's not politically possible to get these votes if you mess with people's HC. Remember Obama's classic "if you like your insurance you can keep it."

I don't think you actually read the article. What are you talking about? You're not making any sense whatsoever. It's a very simple plan. Scrap Obamacare, and replace it with a tax credit for people who purchase health insurance. The credit will be based on age. The credit for people 30-55 (somewhere around there, anyway) would be $2100. There is no "messing" with people's health care involved.

But, imo it's a given that people who didn't have insurance needed assistance.

Or maybe they just don't want insurance. Ever think of that? I have always shunned buying health insurance. It's always been a needless expense. It costs money, and provides nothing of value for me. I'm young enough and perfectly healthy to not need to worry about it, and the chances of a catastrophic event are too remote to justify the cost. I've always preferred to use the savings in better ways, and pay out of pocket for any offhand, occasional needs to go to the doctor.

It's never been a matter of being able to afford the insurance. I simply do not value it because it is a bad investment. Most people don't understand it's a bad investment, so they buy because they're too stupid to think otherwise.

 

[g5000]

An Obamacare Replacement That Works - Bloomberg View

Not that it's totally thought out or without flaws, as the link discusses. But still .... No Medicaid expansion. No mandate. Less govt control of what's in plans. More individual choice and responsibility.

I am very pleased to finally see a comprehensive alternative plan to ObamaCare put on the table by a Republican.

The legislation is 242 pages, so it will take me some time to absorb it. For now, I will remark on some of the key points.

First, it is no secret I hate tax credits. Nevertheless, whoever chose the figures for the tax credits in this bill must be one of the most optimistic people on the planet. They seem to believe the average cost of health insurance will radically plummet under this plan.

I think what would happen is that people will only buy what they can afford with a $3,000 credit, which will be extremely sub-standard coverage.

Yes, insurance companies will try to price their plans to meet the tax credits, but you have to be retarded to think they will lower their prices for a decent plan to $3000 for a family of four.

Second, like SwimExpert, I don't give a damn if this plan destroys employer-sponsored health insurance. Employer-sponsored health insurance SHOULD be destroyed. It bends the cost curve of insurance up, and needs to go away.

We should all be buying our health insurance the same way we buy our home, life, and auto insurance. You pick up the phone and call any of a myriad of insurance companies in the country that you wish, and you pick the coverage options you want.

I see the "pick the options you want" part in this bill, but I do not see the "call any insurance company in the country" part. If it does not have that, that is a HUGE oversight.

 

[g5000]

From the Bloomberg link:

Price would instead forbid insurers from discriminating against people based on health status if they've maintained continuous coverage. That way there's no incentive for them to wait until they're sick to buy a policy, and no need for a fine for not buying one. Those with pre-existing conditions would have stronger legal protection than they had before the Affordable Care Act.

I am very skeptical about what kind of "stronger legal protection" an average schmuck with cancer is going to have against a giant soulless insurance corporation with an army of lawyers schooled in delaying tactics.

 

[bendog]

An Obamacare Replacement That Works - Bloomberg View

Not that it's totally thought out or without flaws, as the link discusses. But still .... No Medicaid expansion. No mandate. Less govt control of what's in plans. More individual choice and responsibility.

I am very pleased to finally see a comprehensive alternative plan to ObamaCare put on the table by a Republican.

The legislation is 242 pages, so it will take me some time to absorb it. For now, I will remark on some of the key points.

First, it is no secret I hate tax credits. Nevertheless, whoever chose the figures for the tax credits in this bill must be one of the most optimistic people on the planet. They seem to believe the average cost of health insurance will radically plummet under this plan.

I think what would happen is that people will only buy what they can afford with a $3,000 credit, which will be extremely sub-standard coverage.

Yes, insurance companies will try to price their plans to meet the tax credits, but you have to be retarded to think they will lower their prices for a decent plan to $3000 for a family of four.

Second, like SwimExpert, I don't give a damn if this plan destroys employer-sponsored health insurance. Employer-sponsored health insurance SHOULD be destroyed. It bends the cost curve of insurance up, and needs to go away.

We should all be buying our health insurance the same way we buy our home, life, and auto insurance. You pick up the phone and call any of a myriad of insurance companies in the country that you wish, and you pick the coverage options you want.

I see the "pick the options you want" part in this bill, but I do not see the "call any insurance company in the country" part. If it does not have that, that is a HUGE oversight.

The real key for any real gop solution would be coming up with the money to fund tax credits sufficient to actually buy comprehensive policies. Conceptually, I agree that everyone should purchase individ insurance on some market, but you're talking about taking on GE's tax credits, and GE employees may not be so hot to trot. That's got to be a political calculation. And, then what do teachers or cops ... or guys who mow grass along roads ... do? We can't tax state and local govts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

nobody was dyinng for lack of care under the "old" system. They just went to the emergency room and everyone else paid for it. WITHOUT messing up anyone's coverage or causing job losses.

BZZZZT Wrong!

New study finds 45 000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage Harvard Gazette

Tens of thousands were dying for a lack of healthcare.

And no, if you turned up at the ER needing a kidney transplant in order to survive that was not going to happen.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Finally, a responsible GOP response to Obamacare


So some liberal thinks that a RINO saying, "Yes, the Fed govt should control health insurance and coverage, just in a different way from what the Democrats are doing", never mind that such involvement isn't authorized by the Constitution and is forbidden by the 10th amendment, is "responsible"?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Derideo_Te]

An Obamacare Replacement That Works - Bloomberg View

Not that it's totally thought out or without flaws, as the link discusses. But still .... No Medicaid expansion. No mandate. Less govt control of what's in plans. More individual choice and responsibility.

Why am I not in the least bit surprised to discover that the Republicans believe that yet another tax cut is a "responsible alternative to Obamacare"?

 

[charwin95]

nobody was dyinng for lack of care under the "old" system. They just went to the emergency room and everyone else paid for it. WITHOUT messing up anyone's coverage or causing job losses. So the sensible thing to do is repeal Obamacare.

Remember ER very expensive to maintain. Sure no one is dying but several emergency hospitals has died or disappeared because people with no insurance make ER as the primary care. IF you go to ER without insurance, who pay for those? Think.