Skip to comments.GOP On Health Care: Repeal Quickly, Replace Slowly
Posted on 06/17/2012 5:51:20 AM PDT by tobyhill
Congressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.
Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.
Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.
Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.
Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
I have a 13 year old and have maintained his old individual plan because it’s grandfathered and I have no other options now but as soon as I can I will buy a very cheap Hospital Only plan with an Accident Insurance Plan. I will pay cash for any doctor’s visit for simple illnesses.
That’s very innovative of you. I didn’t know that emergency savings accounts existed. Do most banks offer them?
I would rather pay the hospital and/or doctors the amount Ive been paying the insurance companies. Since I havent been sick or injured, I have been able to save a substantial amount that I was paying to insurance in an emergency savings account.
That was my nickname for my savings account which is actually a 1 year CD that gets rolled over.
The Dems INTENTIONALLY prevented any fixes to healthcare from the early 1990s when Hillary Rodman Clinton attempted to seize control. They wanted the costs to skyrocket, as they knew that would create a push to ‘fix’ it in their mold, once the stars lined up (i.e., we nominated McCain).
Examples of fixes that might have actually worked would include the ability of people to simply buy high-deductible policies for major-cost health care, and not be also forced to pay for ‘mental health’, ‘chiropractors’, wheelchairs, and other items that deal with “first-world problems”, rather than real (and curable) medical conditions. The Dems blocked it then...and will continue to do so again.
That’s good thinking on your part.
I’ve done it for almost 3 years now. The first couple months I was putting it in my checking but then I found myself just spending it on other things so I now have it automatically go into a savings account then annually I roll the whole amount into the CD. In 3 years it’s over 10 grand.
I think Romneycare at state level has an individual mandate. Presuming Supreme Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional at the national level, Romney can’t have the Massachusetts state plan expanded to all 50 states.
The only correct approach to this:
Repeal Quickly; Don’t Replace.
The government has NO business being in the health care business, and NO Constitutional authority to enact legislation such as this.
Now, we need to the SCOTUS to find the proper backbone to mae this government overreach go away.
Your post provides me with an opportunity to point out an interesting contrast.
On the one hand, people constantly mention that the hospitals are obliged to provide treatment whether you can pay or not. On the other hand, people constantly mention that treatment may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Now, that isn't necessarily contradictory. But if it isn't, we're talking about accepting the current state of affairs -- socialized medicine -- and every man for himself, attempting to find a way to shirk responsibility for his own expenses and dump them on someone else.
It would appear that freeper tobyhill is one of the very few who are unwilling to participate in a thoroughly corrupt system.
Meanwhile, that system is only in its early stages, and everyone who participates, accommodates, or adjusts to it, is complicit in its advance to complete, dehumanizing tyranny.
But you all just go ahead and adapt, and don't forget to vote for Republicans who have no intention of simply abolishing the system.
The mandate is only viewed as a mandate if a “penalty” is imposed for noncompliance. If the “penalty” is changed to some sort of “tax,” then there is no mandate because the individual can choose to pay the tax rather than buy insurance.
Romneycare will replace Obamacare by using a tax rather than a penalty.
I will never skirt my responsibility but I will refuse to participate in the corrupt insurance industry and as long as they are involved with the corrupt government. I will pay cash, the good ole fashion American way.
My mom said it cost about $1000 to have me at a hospital. The hospital set up a payment plan and she had me paid off in about 3 years, shots and all.
Exactly. It is the proper, moral approach. And if the bill runs up to "hundreds of thousands of dollars," that should be nobody's problem but yours.
I will pay it out to the best of my ability.
I represented a client who was getting sued for $2800 for medical treatment she believed should have been covered by her medical insurance. I brought the carrier into her suit and was quickly advised that if they were liable, the most they had to pay the Doctor was $670 per his agreement with them. The case was resolved when my client paid $335 to the insurance company who then determined to pay the Doctor $670, eliminating his claim against my client.
So a doc who is willing to accept a small sum from an insurance provider wants to charge clients who pay directly four times as much.
I’ll bet the focus of their polling groups now is to try to come up with a single payer scheme they can message politically.
Catastrophic health insurance anyone? Does your auto insurance cover oil changes -tell you where to get your oil changed and set pricing? Insurance at one time was for exceptional expenses -nat ALL expenses. NOW it is a government promoted monopoly that funds a health plan that covers ALL expenses. In essence, the insurance companies and government colluded to remove the healthcare system from ALL checks and balances that a free market would provide.
Medical 'consumers' are now simply indentured serfs standing in line at the company store -with pricing and services ALL decided by centrally located elites. The healthcare reform plan was simply the final solution to a crisis created by the ones who claim to be fixing it.
ONLY useful idiots support the promotion and propagation of this 'insurance' scam.
I have the same philosophy, sadly I have lost absolute all trust in the medical industry.
I refuse to be part of any insurance package as I have seen first hand the ineptness of it, you always get the short end of the stick. If I have something major wrong like cancer or such well then I will get my affairs in order and so be it.
In some other country they make healthcare work, in the US of A it doesn’t and it would be many times worse if Obamacare takes over.
America does have excellent hospitals, if you are wealthy. Its just too darn expensive for the average citizen, good hospital care is designed for the more wealthy, some are more equal than others I will say.
Obamacare is touted to bring healthcare to the lower classes but the cost is even worse, they will decide just how much you are allowed to keep of your wages.
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.