GOP senators push ObamaCare alternative that scraps mandates

The Hill ^ | January 27, 2014 | Jonathan Easley

[thegrump]

No “alternatives” other than going back to the status quo ( pre-Obama).

Agreed.... A GOP alternative is still Gov controlled health care... No start overs... REPEAL IT!

[piytar]

“But the GOP proposal, known as the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment (CARE) Act, would also weaken one of ObamaCare’s most popular provisions, by giving insurers an opening to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.”

No spin there. Or at least no understanding of what insurance is supposed to do.

[sickoflibs]

Obama will reject it anyway so there is no point complaining about it.

Now that people are actually covered by Obamacare its more difficult for the elected to just take it away and say ‘Good luck’

[dartuser]

yeah ... that’s it ... lets fix it ...

[Marcella]

“REPEAL IT!”

After repeal, who has insurance and who does not?

[Opinionated Blowhard]

by giving insurers an opening to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

The blunt truth is that there can be no system that requires insurers to insure pre-existing conditions that does not involve some type of broad based (read: taxpayer) subsidy. Insurers are private businesses. The only way to make money is to cover unknown catastrophic risks, not catastrophic risks that are likely to happen.

As conservative as I am, I might be willing to support some level of taxation for a limited category truly catastrophic pre-existing conditions; provided that the individual has a co-pay that is meaningful. The alternative is to bankrupt these people.

[COBOL2Java]

Maybe insurance shouldn't cover pre-existing conditions but why should a pre-existing condition prevent a person from obtaining health insurance for unrelated medical problems, which was the previous system? Why not just exclude the pre-existing condition?

It doesn't prevent the person from obtaining health insurance. It imposes a waiting period for claims against that condition. The waiting period can vary from policy to policy. Claims for diagnoses unrelated to the preexisting condition are covered.

[Varsity Flight]

Working hard with “propaganda=industry”. “Insurance” is NOT industry.

And “insurance” is a collective communism. And they’re working REAL HARD with their installed fascists = Repulico-Extorters, that represent them and not the people. And this is a set up for full blown Romney-ExtortionCare, with forced letters of compliance from the communist insurance at the state level. The mandate will come from the state of residence. Decievers.

Steal and invest, steal and invest.

[steve86]

I was referring to pre-Obamacare regulations.

In numerous states no legislation existed to force insurers to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions, waiting period or not, and they didn’t.

Over the years I have corresponded with any number of individuals who could not purchase health insurance at any price, to cover any condition, because of pre-existing conditions.

My own state, Washington, had a nine-month waiting period but even then, insurers could reject an applicant and send him to the state high-risk pool (which was sometimes not accepting new individuals).

[COBOL2Java]

I worked for BC/BS for 15 years in the east, in the 80s & 90s. We had policies with waiting periods available to anyone. It depends on the state insurance regulators.

[DoodleDawg]

Implement tort reform (lower insurance costs to doctors means lower costs to patients) and allow competition across state lines will mean lower prices.

Tort reform is already in place in most states; what's that done to reduce premiums on health insurance?

[DoodleDawg]

It has the worst aspects of Obama care and then takes it even further. Government subsidies for anyone making roughly $95K or less. Has anyone done the math on that? Have they factored in all the companies that will drop their own insurance and push their employees into the federal plan? And what about the costs? As bad as it was, one thing Obamacare got right is that insurance companies need young, healthy people in the plan to offset the cost of those making the most claims. The GOP plan will be used most by those who need insurance the most, and will drive up the costs of insurance and the cost that people will pay.

And those of us who get their insurance through their employer? We're going to see our taxes go up because we're going to see 35% of our premium added to our taxable income. So I'll be taxed to provide insurance for others. And when they find out that 35% isn't enough then what? How high will you go?

Back to the drawing board, guys. If this is the best you've got then I have to say that Obamacare impacts me less.

[GeronL]

Obamacare without mandates is still Obamacare.

How about scrap all of it?

[TurboZamboni]

It doesn’t repeal or reform... pre-existing conditions remain ,community ratings remain, tax credits still given to corporations for health insurance (instead of to the individials-no portability )

what a joke.