Skip to comments.Wanted: A Republican Substitute for Obamacare
Posted on 08/16/2013 7:18:08 PM PDT by JSDude1
To be a credible opponent, the GOP must unite around a plan of its own.
At his August 9 news conference, Obama spoke with journalists in the White House East Room about Republicans and Obamacare.
At least they used to say, Well, were going to replace it with something better, Obama said. Theres not even a pretense now that theyre going to replace it with something better.
Unless Republicans want Obama to keep spouting such nonsense, they must craft and at least pass through the GOP House a bill that would scrap Obamacare and put something far better and Republican in its place.
Republicans are 1,000 percent correct to try to defund, repeal, and replace Obamacare. With its employer mandate postponed for a year, most health-insurance exchanges far from ready for their October 1 debut, medical premiums zooming to the Moon, and its ten-year price tag soaring from $940 billion at enactment to $1.8 trillion today, Obamacare has become both unworkable and a knee-slapping mockery
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Pay for your own healthcare out of your own pocket?
No. We don’t need a “Republican” substitute. We need the government to get entirely out of things related to health and medicine. Anything less leaves us on the road to Socialized Medicine.
Cash out of pocket +\- catastrophic coverage
B/S! Healthcare is not an “enumerated” power. Look it up in the constitution. Healthcare is reserved to the states and the people.
No “substitute”! Get rid of the whole thing. I, a private person, will deal with the doctor, another private person, directly. No government and, preferably, no insurance.
Typical of the stupid party if they don’t have “something better.”
Probably too much work to figure out an alternative.
Whatever. This is just the latest line of bullcrap from the feckless GOP-E. Gingrich started, and now Hannity and the other GOP-E apologists are pushing it. No thanks!
We’re working on something in Michigan.
In a free society, if you want to pay for someone else’s health care you will not be stopped.
In an efficient society, market pressures that limit both prices and consumption of health care are permitted to function.
Congress has no express powers regarding health care. Accordingly their powers only extend to where it is necessary and proper for other powers.
Commerce powers extended to goods and services, and didn’t extend to insurance. When the SCOTUS ruled that federal government could regulate insurance, congress passed a law returning regulation of insurance to the states.
Even with Obamacare, not everyone will be insured!
There's absolutely no need to destroy everyone's insurance in order to provide some form of way for those uninsured (against their will or ability to pay).
What this is all about is getting control of 1/7th of the nation's wealth, that and forcing everyone to purchase a product most don't want to purchase, we don't do that with cars, houses or another product.
If any elected member of the GOP proposes to do so, they need to be removed from office - now!
Go back to what we had before Obamacare and buy all of those without insurance a policy.
That would be cheaper and better than this Horse crap we ar getting ready to be screwed with.
Amen! The enumerated powers, Article 1, Section 8 basically says, Leave me alone!
The size of obungacare indicates to me that it is about power and not about health care. Likewise Mark Steyn notes that the job of director or head of public health has become the biggest govt. job in European countries which have public health care i.e. it would be a step upwards from PM or President or King or Grand Duke or anything else to head of health care. In other words, European health care is ultimate bureaucracy. If I had the power to I would institute a sort of a basic health care reform which would be overwhelmingly simple and which would resemble the thing we're reading about in no way, shape, or manner. Key points would be:
1. Elimination of lawsuits against doctors and other medical providers. There would be a general fund to compensate victims of malpractice for actual damage and a non-inbred system for weeding out those guilty of malpractice. The non-inbred system would be a tribunal composed not just of oher doctors, but of plumbers, electricians, engineers, and everybody else as well.
2. Elimination of the artificial exclusivity of the medical system. In other words our medical schools could easily produce two or three times the number of doctors they do with no noticeable drop off in quality.
3. Elimination of the factors which drive the cost of medicines towards unaffordability. That would include both lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and government agencies which force costs into the billions to develop any new drug. There should be no suing a pharmaceutical for any drug which has passed FDA approval and somewhere between thalidamide and what we have now, there should be a happy medium.
4. Elimination of the outmoded WW-II notion of triage in favor of a system which took some rational account of who pays for the system and who doesn't. The horror stories I keep reading about the middle-class guy with an injured child having to fill out forms for three hours while an endless procession of illegal immigrants just walks in and are seen, would end, as would any possibility of that child waiting three hours for treatment while people were being seen for heroin overdoses or other lifestyle issues.
All of those things would fall under the heading of what TR called "trust busting". There would also be some system for caring the truly indigent, but the need and cost would be far less than at present.
By far the biggest item is that first one. I don't know the exact numbers but if you add every cost involved in our present out-of-control lawyering, it has to be a major fraction if not more than half of our medical costs. The trial lawyers' guild being one of the two major pillars of financial support for the democrat party is the basic reason nobody is saying anything about that part of the problem.
Other than that, you almost have to have seen some of the problems close up to have any sort of a feel for them.
Item 2, this is what I saw in grad school some time ago, although I do not have any reason to think much has changed. In the school I attended, there appeared to be sixty or seventy first year med students walking around and all but one or two of them would have made perfectly good doctors, they were all very bright and highly motivated. The only way the school should have lost any of those kids was either they discovered they couldn't deal with the sight of blood in real life or six months later they changed their minds and went off to Hollywood to become actors or actresses; the school should never have lost more than ten percent of them. But they knew from day one that they were keeping 35% of that class.
That system says that you know several things about the guy working on your body: You know he's a survivor, and that's highly unlikely to be from being better qualified than 65% of the other students; You know he hasn't had enough sleep (he's doing his work and the work of that missing 65%); You know he's probably doing some sort of drugs to deal with the lack of sleep... One of my first steps as "health Tsar" or whatever would be to tell the medical schools that henceforth if they ever drop more than15% of an incoming class, they'll lose their accreditation.
Item 3. My father walks into a pharmacy in Switzerland with a bottle of pills he normally pays $50 for in Fla. and asks the pharmacist if he can fill it. "Why certainly sir!", fills the bottle of pills and says "That will be $3.50." Seeing that my father was standing there in a state of shock, the man says "Gee, I'm sorry, Mr. V., you see, we have socialized medicine in Switzerland and if you were a Swiss citizen and paid into the systemn, why I could sell you this bottle of pills for $1.50 but, since you're foreign and do not pay into the system I have to charge you the full price, certainly you can appreciate that."
The guy thought my father was in shock because he was charging him too MUCH... Clearly whatever needs to be done with drugs amounts to trust busting, and not extracting more money from the American people.
Item 4. A caller to the Chris Plant show (D.C./WMAL) the other morning, an ER nurse, noted that much of the costs which her hospital had to absorb, as do most hospitals, was the problem of people with no resources using the ER as their first and only point of contact to the medical profession. She said that there were gang members who were constantly coming in for repairs from bullet holes and knife damage and drug problems, that they could not legally turn any of those people away, and that there was zero possibility of ever collecting any money from any of them, and that the costs of that were gigantic.
Clearly throwing money at that problems is not going to help anything either. Again if I'm the "Medicine Tsar", those guys would be cared for, but not at the ER or at least not the part of the ER where normal people go, and they would not be first in line. Mostly they'd be dealing with medical students who needed the practice patching up knife and bullet damage.
Buy the seventeen million actual uninsureds coverage and leave the rest of us alone.
Wanted: A Republican Substitute for Obamacare
Substitute nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Wanted: No government takeover of healthcare?
It was less than a half-century ago that doctors would be making house call rounds. In cars fueled by gasoline containing the infamous tetraethyl lead compound.
Wanted: No liberals masquerading as conservatives.
This article once again reminds me of the old “joke” about how things work in Washington:
The Democrats propose to tear down the Washington Monument, and the Republicans respond with a plan to do it in three stages.
“No. We dont need a Republican substitute. We need the government to get entirely out of things related to health and medicine. ..”
Also, the Republicans DID have some great ideas such as tort reform, allowing Americans to have to freedom to purchase insurance across state lines, etc..
Then we can move on to how much better things go when the government is out of the housing market, the stock market, the food business, the education business, the religion business, the race business . . . It's a whole, wonderful reality out there.
Replace health insurance with pay for service and catastrophic insurance as someone mentioned above. Make it unprofitable for the trial lawyers while your at it.
Here in the socialist hellhole of Massachusetts, I “choose” from a shrinking list of insurance companies. There were only four or five last year, I believe...and whoodathunk it but their prices are pretty similar give or take $20.
That’s because the socialist hellhole of Massachusetts (in addition to forcing residents to purchase a product) mandates the insurers cover a whole host of nonsense that most sane people would consider to be elective options. Those who do not want them, instead of having the choice of putting that item back on the shelf, are forced to put it in their cart anyway.
Add price caps and what you have are a dwindling pool of companies who charge high premiums with higher deductibles and the average working stiff ends up paying for his health care out of pocket in addition to said premiums. Aside from an annual physical, I pretty much pay for doctor’s visits, prescriptions and everything else until I hit $2,500 in out of pocket expenses. I have what amounts to horrendously overpriced catastrophic coverage that the state desperately hopes I won’t use so my premiums can go towards subsidizing somebody else’s health care.
Get government out of the way (after they open the health insurance market across state lines). Let me shop for my own needs. Competition will ensue and prices will fall.
How about we go back to the way things were before where there weren’t yearly 40% increases in healthcare premiums?
Tort reform, please.
Each person should have multiple choices:
1. Work for a company that includes insurance as a part of your pay package.
2. Buy your own insurance.
3. Pay cash if and when you need medical care.
Self responsibility is such a wonderful thing.
Why? Let the free market shake it out!
“Go back to what we had before Obamacare and buy all of those without insurance a policy.”
Let’s see now.
What we had before: Those without coverage need medical attention. They go to the hospital and we pay.
What’s coming: We pay for those who didn’t have coverage to get coverage. They go to the hospital but we already paid for it.
In both cases you and me are out money for indigent care. In the second case, we’re probably also putting a bunch of money in the pockets of a bunch of Democrat bureaucrats so we probably end up paying 2X or 3X what we paid before for the tramps to get care. What a great system!
no one should ever be foolish enough to DEMAND that others do what can not and does not NEED to be done.
What the Republicans need to do is stop agreeing with the Dims that socialized medicine is the answer. Yes healthcare needed fixing, it didn’t need to be nationalized. Tort reform and insurance reform is what is needed. Don’t let the Dims set the rules of the game.
Yeah, just the ticket.
The only way we can carp about the Democrats unconstitutional plan is to offer up an unconstitutional plan of our own?
This guy isn’t just running on empty, there are no fums left in the tank.
Here’s a novel idea. A genuine free market.
When there is nothing worse everything is better.
I can distinctly recall a time, before ‘healthcare insurance’ really took hold, where my parents, upon visiting the local doc. for their child (me) took ~5min. at the window in (to pay) and 30sec. after to say thanks/follow-up.....and all for ~$10.
Has ANYTHING gotten better when Congress decides to ‘do something’?? GET THE F* OUT OF THE WAY
Pay for your own healthcare out of your own pocket?
Yes that and tort reform along with allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to lower the cost.
For some reason the ideas of the two MD in the republican party - Michael Burgess and ____ from GA don’t seem to be getting much of a hearing. Why not??
Per Article 1, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no business in the examining room, the operating room, the classroom, the boardroom, or the bedroom.
It’s the law of the land.
Given that the status quo is the best health care system in the world, why would a ‘replacement’ option be needed?
Get government out of the way. Dump Ted Kennedy’s HMO model and let doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies and medical suppliers compete on the open market.
How about the US Constitution?
We are making progress. In the last election, Romney tried this “repeal and replace” ruse, and few bought it. Their sophistry is falling on increasingly deaf ears.
Once someone shows folks how the con-man’s scams work, they don’t work any more.
Without reading the comments I can see how this will be received. NRO is talking political reality.
I always believed and still do that the GOPs repeals were going no-where and that a more promising and better approach would be to let the states completely opt out of the Obama care and the taxes if they choose, and to require that it be deficit neutral for those who stay in. I posted this idea many times starting in 2011.
Let the Blue states be the test wabbits if they want.,Much harder for Obama to argue against,
The current approach of total repeals is just a over-repeated show and not happening.
Is this a trick question? They had a better alternative before obama. They have always had a better alternative. Get mindless government twits out of the picture and let the market handle it. Send every government leech out to find a real job.
The GOP had one, I believe, about the time Obamacare was voted on. It involved catastrophic coverage and nothing more. People would’ve still been responsible for their own health care costs, up to the point the castrophic coverage kicked in. But it provided some coverage for costly emergencies. And I think it eliminated the preexisting condition problem.
The best of both worlds.
...in a free and open competitive market for healthcare that is of the scope, quality, and cost that The Consumer can decide the value theirof.
Healthcare should be nothing different from any other consumer choice... When you go to the grocery store you have options... buy the Store Brand frozen Bagged corn on sale... or the Organic, Gluten-free, Free-Range, Fair Trade corn on the cob. YOUR NEED, YOUR CHOICE.
What we have with healthcare insurance, is price fixing... and no sense of value. The "insured" are the equivalent of SNAP Card Surfer Douchebags going right for the Lobster.
It should be like getting a haircut... Joe Blow will cut your hair downtown on Saturday morning for 7 bucks and you toss him 3 bucks for a tip... OR you can WAIT until 10:30... and go to the foo foo salon (if they have any openings), and have your hair shampooed, afterwhich the tattooed hussy will rub her tits all up and down the back of your neck as she snips away for 20 minutes yacking about her tattoos or nipple piercings or whatever vapid crap these 20 year olds do to get you through a $40 salon treatment.
It's all about having free markets and price/service competition.
Nipple piercings aside... I'd rather stop at the newsstand and get a paper and a cup of coffee, then go to Joe the Barber... spend 10 bucks, and then hit the hardware store... then when it's not even 9am, I'll be back at home spit-shining my boots, changing out my transmission, target shooting, or whatever I feel like.
I’m going to mildly disagree with you, Jim. I think the biggest problems are state mandates and restricted free-market principles (specifically in healthcare). The federal government is suppose to ensure that interstate markets are free and that states aren’t setting up barriers for competition (which they are).