What Is The GOP Healthcare Reform Plan?

[eflatminor]

How will a minimum wage person get health care when they get cancer?

Without state DOIs and the federal government dictating that everything under the sun be included in every health insurance policy, that minimum wage worker would have been able to purchase a bare bones policy at a very cheap price that only covers catastrophic illnesses or injury, such as cancer.

For the truly indigent person that couldn't afford insurance even in a free market, there has always been healthcare-oriented charity. We are a charitable people, particularly when it's on a voluntary basis.

I think if you read my proposal on the first page of this topic, you would find we are in alignment on most things.

That has been my experience on many topics.

However, private charity has never in history met all the needs of the indigent.

Perhaps not 'all' the needs, but I'd argue charity and local, private organizations did a hell of job providing for the poor before government stepped in.

Of course, after government stepped in, we still have unmet needs. Always will. That's life.

Long before there was government intrusion into healthcare, private charities barely made a dent in the health and well being of the poor. So only someone entirely ignorant of history before the Progressive Era would argue for dependence on private charity to fill the gaps.

I disagree with your "barely made a dent" assessment. Before the Progressive Era, our charitable system provided for the poor better than other countries and societies. It's one example of why Americans were referred to as the most charitable people on earth.

Post the Progressive Era, we still have poor that do not get the care they would like or that they need. One approach involved voluntary support, the other stealing from some citizens in the name of helping others. I argue the voluntary approach worked better, given the technological limitations of the time.

Private charity never has, and never will, meet that demand.

Nor will central planning. The problem with central planners is that they not only fail to provide for all, they drive up the costs and inhibit innovation. At least with a voluntary approach, we keep prices down and innovation up. That's good for EVERYONE, including the poor.

I am not only speaking as someone versed in our history, but as the president of a faith-based private charity which receives no government funds, and which works to fill those gaps. I walk the walk, and I can tell you the idea of private charities meeting all the needs is a delusional pipe dream.

ALL the needs, no. For those that are truly indigent and still can't manage to get care when we have a free market based healthcare system, yes.

 

[ClosedCaption]

We spend $2.5 trillion on healthcare in America. Costs have been going up, up, up, and up.

I personally detest ObamaCare. It was classic bait and switch. The argument was made along these lines:

1. We must do something.

2. This (ObamaCare) is something.

3. We must do this.


The problem is, ObamaCare won't bend down the cost curve. Bait and switch.

So what will?

The market will.

The same one that we have now that drives the costs up since...forever? Or another market?

 

[Publius1787]

I am not assuming anything. I am asking, again, what is your alternative solution?

Also, do you know what the infant and maternal mortality rates were in your grandparents' time?

Do you know the infant mortality rate in 1900? Comparatively speaking, they received the best healthcare of their day as do we today. A vast improvement on the past. The solution, get the federal government the hell out of healthcare.

Actually, I do know the infant mortality rate in 1900. And things have much improved with MORE federal government in health care. So your empty platitude is failing so far.


Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies

At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year (1,2).

http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/images/mchb_infantmortality_pub.pdf

So your taking a trend that was improving before heavy government involvement in healthcare industry and crediting the continuation of the trend to the government?

 

[Publius1787]

We spend $2.5 trillion on healthcare in America. Costs have been going up, up, up, and up.

I personally detest ObamaCare. It was classic bait and switch. The argument was made along these lines:

1. We must do something.

2. This (ObamaCare) is something.

3. We must do this.


The problem is, ObamaCare won't bend down the cost curve. Bait and switch.

So what will?

The market will.

The same one that we have now that drives the costs up since...forever? Or another market?

First assess how many years the government has played a major role in healthcare. Then choose the market you want to criticize. Indeed, the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed the more involved the government became. This is not up for contention.

 

[g5000]

Do you know the infant mortality rate in 1900? Comparatively speaking, they received the best healthcare of their day as do we today. A vast improvement on the past. The solution, get the federal government the hell out of healthcare.

Actually, I do know the infant mortality rate in 1900. And things have much improved with MORE federal government in health care. So your empty platitude is failing so far.


Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies

At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year (1,2).

http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/images/mchb_infantmortality_pub.pdf

So your taking a trend that was improving before heavy government involvement in healthcare industry and crediting the continuation of the trend to the government?

Government involvement at the very least does not appear to have interfered in the trend.

I would like to hear specifics. Something beyond the banal "less federal government" argument.

Commit yourself to an actual plan of action.

 

[g5000]

If Libertarians or Republicans want to actually win votes, they must submit actual plans which can be contrasted to ObamaCare.

Saying "less federal government" is far too amorphous and uncertain. This is not going to sway crowds.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am not assuming anything. I am asking, again, what is your alternative solution?

Also, do you know what the infant and maternal mortality rates were in your grandparents' time?

Comparatively speaking, they receive the best healthcare of their day as do we today. The solution, get the federal government the hell out of healthcare.

"Get the federal government the hell out of healthcare" is a meaningless platitude which suggests you have not put any actual thought into an alternative.

Okay. Presto. Government is the hell out of healthcare. How will a minimum wage person get health care when they get cancer?

How will they pay for auto insurance when they have 7 reckless speeding tickets??

It is a PERSONAL concern... not a job of the federal government..

If they have to be billed, if they have to approach charity, if they have to take the volunteer free option that is not the Cadillac coverage.. so be it.. if they chose to buy only catastrophic coverage while they entered a prepaid agreement with their local doctor, great... if they have to set up jars in gas stations to collect change for their bills, so be it.. if their church sets up a fundraiser, so be it..

Kinda gives you the incentive to buy catastrophic care, but you have the freedom and you have to deal with the consequences of your choices and actions... you don't get to go crying home to mommy that little Billy beat you up when you were the one who started the fight... you don't get to complain that they did not pick you for the whiffle ball game when you only sat on the hillside and did not go to participate..

Personally, I have helped a local family who's medical bills were so big to get treatment in another country because they would not do the procedure on children here.. but I was not required to do so, nor should I be required... I did it because it was what I wanted to do... nor was the family owed it, but they took it upon themselves to raise the funds they needed and worked with a charity that also helped out.. they did not just sit there and think that the help was supposed to just come to them like fucking governmental magic

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Already, some doctors are lowering their fees and bypassing insurance companies completely. I like the idea of communities paying the expenses for a doctor's education in return for the doctor working in the community for reasonable rates for a set period of time.

If you get the government and the insurance companies out of it, the market will take care of the rest.

 

[Publius1787]

If Libertarians or Republicans want to actually win votes, they must submit actual plans which can be contrasted to ObamaCare.

Saying "less federal government" is far too amorphous and uncertain. This is not going to sway crowds.

Your absolutely right. People look to their government to take care of them. They fail to understand that the purpose of government is simply to afford you the opportunity to take care of yourself absent of the arbitrary force of others. Between dependence and the harsh reality of independence todays culture will take the "perceived" path of least resistance every time and that rope is enough to strangle a nation into achieving the exact opposite of it's goals.

 

[Vox]

Healthcare reform is not the most important issue now. Let's fix the economy and jobs first, if we start to grow and control the debt -THEN will be the time to addrsss healthcarr.

 

[eflatminor]

If Libertarians or Republicans want to actually win votes, they must submit actual plans which can be contrasted to ObamaCare.

Saying "less federal government" is far too amorphous and uncertain. This is not going to sway crowds.

While it's not exactly the free market approach I would personally advocate, Senator Rand Paul has introduced an actual plan specifically for senior, S. 2196 Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act:

Senators Introduce Medicare Reform Plan: The Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act Rand Paul | United States Senator

A start perhaps???

 

[Skull Pilot]

I wish you people would stop confusing health care with health insurance.

 

[DiamondDave]

If Libertarians or Republicans want to actually win votes, they must submit actual plans which can be contrasted to ObamaCare.

Saying "less federal government" is far too amorphous and uncertain. This is not going to sway crowds.

Open up competition across state lines for catastrophic insurance....

Allow doctors to have prepaid options for base care.. like a wellness plan... where prices are kept low because not everyone needs constant care for every last little thing...

Allow all types of groups to participate in group plans so you have more choices... whether it be a bowling league, HOA, D&D club, Moose Lodge or whatever else...

Revamp malpractice lawsuit/tort law...

Allow for tax free medical savings accounts that can be passed on in the family if unused by another generation...

There is no reason to have government controlled or supplied or offered health care...

 

[Vox]

If Libertarians or Republicans want to actually win votes, they must submit actual plans which can be contrasted to ObamaCare.

Saying "less federal government" is far too amorphous and uncertain. This is not going to sway crowds.

No, they DO NOT.

Healthcare is NOT the most burning issue to be addressed. It can wait.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The market will.

The same one that we have now that drives the costs up since...forever? Or another market?

First assess how many years the government has played a major role in healthcare. Then choose the market you want to criticize. Indeed, the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed the more involved the government became. This is not up for contention.

Sure it is. Our costs are higher than the UK. Leave out everything else and cost wise the UK has us beat. So what market has these super low prices? The only one I can think of is....is....it doesn't exist

 

[BlindBoo]

Your assuming that my opposition to Obamacare means that I support another government run alternative? My grandparents got a family doctor to look after my father via bartering and my fathers hospital bill at the time of his birth was nearly 2.5 months of my grandmothers salary doing piece work at a textile ($110 in 1948). Can anyone tell me how many months a low income individual needs to work to afford a live birth at a hospital today?

I am not assuming anything. I am asking, again, what is your alternative solution?

before we can find a solution we must find the problem. 30 years ago health insurance was hospital insurance. It paid if you had to go to the hospital due to an injury, sickness, or to give birth. routine doctor visits and prescription came out of your pocket.

currently people think that they should not have to pay for any medical care, hence insurance rates have gone up through the roof.

Closer to 40 years ago, but, shockingly I agree with you.

<clip>

President Nixon: Say that I—I—I'd tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it's, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I'm not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.

Ehrlichman: This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am—


President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: This—this is a—

President Nixon: I don't [unclear]—

Ehrlichman: —private enterprise one.

President Nixon: Well, that appeals to me.

Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can—the reason he can do it—I had Edgar Kaiser come in—talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because—

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: —the less care they give them, the more money they make.

President Nixon: Fine. [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] and the incentives run the right way.

President Nixon: Not bad.

The very next day Mr. Nixon had a message for Congress proposing a National Health Strategy.

KaiserGate - What Nixon had to say about the dishonest Kaiser program

 

[ClosedCaption]

Whats their solution? The same as it is with everything else: Do nothing

 

[g5000]

If Libertarians or Republicans want to actually win votes, they must submit actual plans which can be contrasted to ObamaCare.

Saying "less federal government" is far too amorphous and uncertain. This is not going to sway crowds.

Open up competition across state lines for catastrophic insurance....

Allow doctors to have prepaid options for base care.. like a wellness plan... where prices are kept low because not everyone needs constant care for every last little thing...

Allow all types of groups to participate in group plans so you have more choices... whether it be a bowling league, HOA, D&D club, Moose Lodge or whatever else...

Revamp malpractice lawsuit/tort law...

Allow for tax free medical savings accounts that can be passed on in the family if unused by another generation...

There is no reason to have government controlled or supplied or offered health care...

This is more what I was looking for. Specifics.

Thank you.

 

[Redfish]

G5000, the responses you're getting on this topic are making my head hurt. It's as if no one responding to the topic has any reading comprehension whatsoever.

My solution. Create a universal single payer system done at a state level, not federal. I prefer a single payer system because I think it's bullshit that someone playing by all the rules and trying to stay healthy, can be bankrupted because they drew the short straw and contracted a dibilitating disease that will cost millions to cure.

But, I would only support a single payer system if it was state run, not federally. At a state level more citizens would feel like they have a voice. Ask someone if they feel like they can go to DC and make their voice heard. The answer will be a resounding, no. But to go to your state capital and make your voice heard, much easier.

Any changes would be easier to put in place at a state level.

If one state screwed the pooch on their healthcare it wouldn't affect the rest of the nation(unless the Feds jumped in and made it affect everyone).

That's what I would like to see.

medical problems do not bankrupt people. They just don't pay the bills to the medical providers and the charges are written off. those who can't/don't pay are subsidized by those who do.

the left wing claim that medical care bankrupts people is a lie.

The people may go bankrupt because they cannot make their car, credit card, or mortgage payments, but they do not go bankrupt due to paying medical bills.

Free medicine would not eliminate those kinds of bankruptcys. Obamacare would not prevent people who can't work due to illness from going bankrupt.

 

[BlindBoo]

If Libertarians or Republicans want to actually win votes, they must submit actual plans which can be contrasted to ObamaCare.

Saying "less federal government" is far too amorphous and uncertain. This is not going to sway crowds.

Open up competition across state lines for catastrophic insurance....

Allow doctors to have prepaid options for base care.. like a wellness plan... where prices are kept low because not everyone needs constant care for every last little thing...

Allow all types of groups to participate in group plans so you have more choices... whether it be a bowling league, HOA, D&D club, Moose Lodge or whatever else...

Revamp malpractice lawsuit/tort law...

Allow for tax free medical savings accounts that can be passed on in the family if unused by another generation...

There is no reason to have government controlled or supplied or offered health care...

Wow, some things I can agree with Dave on.