Posted on 05/23/2014 7:59:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Self-shackled with a tremendously unpopular overhaul of American medicine that they passed without a single Republican vote, Democrats are now clinging to the hope that voters will offer them a chance to “fix” what they have wrought. For three major reasons, however, that hope is likely to prove futile. One, Democrats have shown no genuine interest in fixing Obamacare. Their talk about fixing it is merely that: a talking point. Two, they have no ideas for fixing it (aside from adding another metal to the list of government-dictated insurance options). Three, and most important, Obamacare isn’t fixable. Like a house that’s horribly designed, shoddily built, and sitting on an uneven foundation, it isn’t something that invites fixing. It invites tearing down, clearing the lot of the debris, and building anew — using the blueprint from the right sort of conservative alternative (one that protects Americans’ existing insurance).
What’s more, repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a conservative alternative is what Americans want. That’s been apparent for years, and it’s also what recent polling has found.
On the first two points — that Democrats have no particular desire to “fix” Obamacare and no idea how to do so — the groups American Commitment and American Encore have just released an effective short web video:
On the third point, Democrats’ “fix-it” rhetoric clashes badly with their earlier assertions about Obamacare. Before passage, Democrats described Obamacare as “comprehensive” legislation, whose complex component parts were so intricately intertwined that making substantial changes to them wasn’t an option. On the eve of the “health-care summit” (where Paul Ryan had a few things to say to President Obama), Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “I think the president remains committed to the notion that we have to have a comprehensive approach, because the pieces of the puzzle are too closely tied to one another.” Such “comprehensive” approaches call out for comprehensive repeal, not piecemeal fixes.
Moreover, what would Democrats try to fix? Perhaps the least popular part of Obamacare has long been the individual mandate — its requirement that, for the first time in American history, private citizens must buy a product or service of the federal government’s choosing, merely as a condition of living in the United States. What would happen if Democrats were to “fix” Obamacare by nixing this liberty-sapping mandate? Well, here’s Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter, writing on the official White House blog and explaining what would happen:
The Affordable Care Act . . . bans insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. However, unless every American is required to have insurance, it would be cost prohibitive to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
Here’s why: If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for insurance — especially those who have health problems and are potentially more expensive to cover — then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can’t say no. That would lead to double digit premiums increases — up to 20% — for everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost [of] health care spending nationwide.
So any Democratic “fix” would have to either (a) keep the hated individual mandate in place, (b) remove the ban on “discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions,” or (c) make Obamacare even more expensive. Republicans should ask Democrats which of these three they’d prefer.
The reason Obamacare cannot be fixed is that it is comprehensive. It’s a comprehensive attempt to consolidate power and money in Washington at the expense of Americans’ liberty, funnel much of that money to Obama’s insurance-industry allies, compel Americans to buy those insurers’ products, and send the tab for all of this back to a citizenry that never wanted Obamacare in the first place. How do you tweak that?
In short, the notion of a fix is fanciful. Obamacare is beyond repair. As Yuval Levin wrote shortly after its passage, Obamacare
is not even a liberal approach to escalating costs but a ticking time bomb: a scheme that will build up pressure in our private insurance system while offering no escape. Rather than reform a system that everyone agrees is unsustainable, it will subsidize that system and compel participation in it. . . .
Because Obamacare embodies a rejection of incrementalism, it cannot be improved in small steps. Fixing our health care system in the wake of the program’s enactment will require a big step — repeal of the law.
That’s exactly right. Obamacare can’t be fixed, but the American health-care system can be — and the first step in fixing our health-care system is repealing Obamacare.
— Jeffrey H. Anderson is executive director of the 2017 Project, which is working to advance a conservative reform agenda, including a winning alternative to Obamacare.
Letting the mechanisms of a free market work in health care services would be the ideal solution. However given that a free market place does not (has never?) exist(ed) in health care, all regulation, licensure, accreditation, and insurance programs (Employer,Medicare,Medicaid) would have to be eliminated so that a free market could exist. Me thinks most voters would not buy into that.
I am amazed at people who think the government can make healthcare less expensive by creating a gigantic, incompetent, bumbling government bureaucracy that costs trillions of dollars to operate, staffing it with more inefficient government workers, inserting the bureaucracy and its complex and costly rules and regulations into the healthcare system between the healthcare providers and the patient, and dictating what the healthcare provider can and cannot do, and what level and kind of healthcare the patient can have.
Here is a detailed summary of their proposal for you to consider AND critique:
The system that preceded Obamacare had little resemblance to a free market! There is/was government involvement in every phase of the enterprise.
The pricing of medical services is based off of Medicare reimbursement schedules, even for non-Medicare patients.
The government subsidizes businesses providing insurance to their workers by making the expense tax-deductible, but does not allow private citizens to deduct the cost of their insurance, skewing the system to employer-provided insurance.
When a person has spent his money, in the current and pre-Obamacare system, he goes on Medicaid, the Federal healthcare plan for the poor. Presumably a “free-market” system that “gets the Ferel (sic) government out of healthcare” would do away with Medicaid.
It goes on and on. The free-market hasn’t obtained in healthcare since the invention of the polio vaccine
Most drug stores and retail that provide prescriptions seem prepped for it with some of the services they already offer. Hospitals such as Cleveland Clinic are also getting into providing relatively reasonably priced testing, vaccination etc at convenient locations.
If the 'pubs were really on our side, and not in the business of finding a way for their corporate sponsors to profit, they'd be say "Repeal and DON'T replace" Obamacare.
Tremendously unpopular say what deadly is more like it.
Return or replace...the tedious realm of conceptual semantics.
It takes a village to destroy a village.
If the overlords do not want it for themselves then we should not be forced to use obamacare. Vote all those that voted for it and those RINOs who support it OUT!
Well then Sir, you seem to have the great idea. Show us.
Start seek and Find Health Insurance, $50 per month for families, no deductibles, cover it all. Show us how it is done....cheaply.
Affordability for a service is not a right. But it is something that will become more prevalent as we get govt OUT of it, ENTIRELY.
This was enacted in a rush with congress (future convicts) voting on it to "see what was in it", merely to please the tyrant. If a viable proposal for replacement has not already been put forth, then there won't be one, but continuing on the present course toward death panels and economic ruin is not the answer.
I’ve always believed in EVOLUTION, not REVOLUTION.
You don’t get rid of the things you don’ want in one big bang. You do it by stages. After all, we did not get into our socialized state overnight. It took several decades to get to where we are now. That, I am afraid is what will happen if we want to reverse the course.
So here are some proposals (not comprehensive but we can start here and evolve later ):
1) OPEN HEALTHCARE TO INTERSTATE COMPETITION. People should be allowed to buy healthcare across state lines. Don’t like what the HMO’s in New York are providing? Well allow Healthcare providers in Georgia, Texas, Virginia, and all other 50 states to offer their plans in NY and VICE VERSA.
This one change alone will LOWER cost.
Look what happened to LASIK EYE SURGERY. It is one of the few medical procedures not covered by any healthcare provider ( in other words, you have to pay for it ). It used to cost over $2,000 per eye. Now, the cost has DROPPED to half of that. WHY? COMPETITION.
2) TORT REFORM. LIMIT the amount of money injured people receive in a lawsuit. Not the near unlimited amount we have now. This REDUCES the cost of insurance of doctors and of course, it gets passed on to patients.
3) TAX BENEFITS to people who buy insurance privately ( WITH NO MANDATES ).
4) A TAX FREE health savings account at birth, whose principal sum would grow over the years and need not be expended by a particular date.
Funds accumulated in health care savings accounts would become part of the individual’s estate and could be passed on to heirs to pay for their medical expenses.
I am willing to bet that with this, a private competitive market in medical care would emerge to supplement or even replace the bloated bureaucratic health insurance programs of insurance companies and federal and state governments.
Getting rid of Obamacare in a big bang would be a blessing to this country. Best not to ‘evolve’ out of this one.
1) Agreed.
2) Agreed.
3) No way. That is hands on govt involvement, and thats how we got to where we are today. Taxation being used to reward or penalize. Taxation is for funding of legitimate govt functions. Period.
4)Partial agreement. - I believe that 401ks are a great idea, but they are now a low hanging fruit for a free spending govt that borderline hates you. Confiscation is probably coming, through a one-time tax.
Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom
http://www.cchfreedom.org/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.