10

What's Next For Obamacare

Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 4 months ago to Legislation
70 comments | Share | Flag

This appeared on Fox News. Jim Angle wrote in part "...Some analysts say a simple repeal would cause problems because it would take insurance away from 10-15 million people.

"So if you repeal it, you're going to have to replace it with something," Goodman said. "And repeal and replace is just another way of saying we're going to change ObamaCare into something different and better."

Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center added, "you need to not only say you're against the ACA ( Affordable Care Act), but you're going to need to have a replacement plan to show people you have a better way of providing people with health insurance coverage..."

I'm sitting alone screaming Replace it with Capitalism! The market will work it out with no one dying because of lack of care. Laissez-vous faire dammit!
SOURCE URL: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/11/what-next-for-obamacare/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 4 months ago
    Concierge doctor care, health care accounts, cash for treatment, etc. Get both the insurance companies and the government out of interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. Middlemen and government bureaucrats are the reason for health care costing ten times what it should.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rbunce 9 years, 4 months ago
      Healthcare Insurance is not healthcare... it is a personal finance tool just like homeowners (which you might be required to have by the lender to get a mortgage), auto (which you may be required to have to drive on public roads), life (which your employer may require you to have or have on you), etc. Removing much if not all of the Federal and State regulation from healthcare insurance... and all insurance products... would be a good step. Means tested vouchers to citizens is at least an improvement over large government bureaucracies failing to do something directly.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rbunce 9 years, 4 months ago
        ... and eliminate the need for State licensure to provide medical care... States can still offer that service and much like board certification would be something the patient could take into account or not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rbunce 9 years, 4 months ago
        Perhaps providers should require their customers have healthcare insurance to lower the providers financial risk.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JanelleFila 9 years, 4 months ago
          I work for a collection agency that deals with mostly medical bills. You wouldn't believe the number of people that continually have "service" at the ER without paying because they know the doctor will see them. Thousands of dollars in bills for gas, upset stomach, and coughs...it is ridiculous.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 4 months ago
            Are these bills forgiven? What happens to them? If people get away without paying it will continue to be a problem. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest factors of high costs getting passed on, higher ins. rates etc. When the gov decided hospitals HAD to treat whoever came through the door regardless of ability to pay. Gov intervention. The people KNOW they won't have to pay...they don't pay for anything to begin with. WE pay it via higher costs...to the point that WE can't afford to go to a dr. when we need to. Another form of slavery.....
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 4 months ago
              Right...and why do hospitals do it? Because of gov intervention. Why do people abuse it? Because they have no economic morality, which means they are thieves, and they know they will never have any real consequence (or bill) they will have to pay for services rendered...and don't mind stealing.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JanelleFila 9 years, 4 months ago
              No, the bills remain outstanding in collections. We just had a client ask us why the amount of money we collected for them was less than the national average of 6%. Six percent! Hospitals have hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding debt, and they are happy if they can collect six percent of that back! Imagine running a business like that!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 4 months ago
    Government has a tendency to break things that aren't broken and then try to fix what they have broken with more rules and regulations that cause further harm.
    I don't hold out much hope for repeal. These young people have been conditioned and convinced that private insurance companies are "evil" because they "profit" from health insurance.
    Never is there any thought to the cost nor to the expense and complexity of the government takeover of their lives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 4 months ago
    The U.S. medical system was broken long before Obamacare came along and made it worse. Achieving a free market in health care will involve much more than simply repealing Obamacare, it will require repeal of a huge number of federal and state regulations that restrict the supply and drive up the cost of "approved" practitioners and medical devices.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 4 months ago
      The two areas I can think of which would alleviate the problem, after repeal of ocare, are tort reform(opposed by the lawyers who make their living off of medical lawsuits) and portability of insurance policies to all areas of the country. The latter would allow the development of competition for the dollars of the citizens to insure them. Medical insurance need not be restricted by state lines nor area of the nation a person lives in. In a phrase, let the free market decide which insurance company succeeds or fails.Those which meet the needs of the folks best would make it, the others fail. Simple to me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 4 months ago
        Another huge issue is onerous licensing requirements for doctors and other practitioners, medical schools and health care facilities. Licensing restricts supply, dictates the type of care that is "allowed" to be offered, and drives up medical costs to the point that many people are forced to do without. With or without Obamacare, today's U.S. health system is a giant cartel that is in dire need of a complete free-market overhaul.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 4 months ago
        Yes. And I also agree with whomever suggested (different thread) that corporate insurance merely underwrite an individual's personally-selected policy (at a rate decided by the corporation) which is what is 'portable' and moves with the individual the way life insurance does.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 4 months ago
        Tort reform isn't free market. I cannot imagine some medical provider negligently killing one of my loved ones, and then being told their life was only worth some arbitrary maximum amount, like $500,000.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
          While I agree that an arbitrary maximum is onerous, I hope you would also agree that the basis for some suits is so flimsy they should not be allowed to clog the docket. Perhaps "loser pays" is a tort reform you would find agreeable.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 4 months ago
            I kind of like the idea of "loser pays." And maybe the attorney should have to kick in too, so he or she would be less likely to bring frivolous suits. But, then again, sometimes cases are decided wrongly, an it could be a double blow to an innocent plaintiff.

            Heath care has huge problems, but I think the best solution is getting government out of it, rather than giving them even more control.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
              I agree that government is a dangerous animal better caged than in charge of the zoo. As for attorneys, there seems to be no downside cost or risk. We the people pay for the upkeep of their workplace and the absence of competition gives them monopoly control over their incomes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 4 months ago
                For the attorney currently, the downside is investing time and effort and professional expertise in a case that may drag out for years but does not lead to any payoff. But perhaps that isn't enough of a disincentive. I completely agree that any laws regulating professions are unnecessary and harmful. Professional associations and oversight should be voluntary, I believe. And consumers can choose their medical provider based on their own judgment of the value of the person's credentials (instead of the judgment of Big Daddy government and its crony bureaucrats). As an anarchist, I even believe that the state should not be in the business of providing courthouses for we attorneys to work in; even this could be done better and cheaper by private businesses.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
                  Interesting, I've never considered the possibility of a Capitalist application of the practice of the adjudication of the Laws. Would your anarchistic beliefs extend to the Legislation of the Laws themselves?

                  I'm asea as to the three possibilities of Regulation viz. None, External, or Internal. I have no way to assess whether the last century of Profession Associations and Government Regulations have improved or hindered better, more competent, and more honest lawyers and doctors.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 4 months ago
            I kind of like the idea of "loser pays." And maybe the attorney should have to kick in too, so he or she would be less likely to bring frivolous suits. But, then again, sometimes cases are decided wrongly, an it could be a double blow to an innocent plaintiff.

            Heath care has huge problems, but I think the best solution is getting government out of it, rather than giving them even more control.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 9 years, 4 months ago
          Kittyhawk, I empathize somewhat on feelings towards loved ones (or ourselves) that may have been wronged by some medical practitioner. However, the legal system has been bleeding the health care system dry for years and that is a cost borne by all of us. The get rich quick legalese lottery is one of the reasons we are in this mess. Emotionally, nobody can really put a dollar value on a life or maiming but logically we have to because all our health care dollars will be stolen away we don't. For example, call to mind John Edwards getting $300 haircuts. It takes our insurance premiums to keep him and his ilk fat and well coiffed and we get zero health care for our buck as a result. We have to put the false and incompetent practitioners out of business, but we also have to come to the realization that doctors and nurses are not Gods and will err from time to time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 4 months ago
            I don't think the legal system is the only one, or even the biggest player, in bleeding the health care system dry. I think that all the government intervention in the form of licensing, regulations, required paperwork, and taxation has more to do with it. I've been told that it is law that a doctor who once sees a patient cannot later refuse to give health care, even if the patient can't pay.

            Further, if there weren't laws forbidding it, we would see more competition in the insurance market, so our premiums would go more for actual health care rather than providing insurance company management with obscene profits.

            I don't have any grudge against doctors. I just want more freedom, and passing more laws and regulations called "tort reform" isn't the way to get it. (Neither is a government monopoly on law and the court system.)

            I'm not really sure how you propose to "put the false and incompetent practitioners out of business" if the highest amount of damages a doctor (or rather the insurance company) has to pay amounts to a mere slap on the wrist. Besides the tort reform, do you propose to continue the system of mandatory licensing and oversight by professional boards -- in other words, is this an area of society where more government and bureaucracy are truly good and efficient in your opinion?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 9 years, 4 months ago
              The amount of damages paid in med mal lawsuits is off the charts. Med mal insurance is so high for some specialties there is a shortage of practitioners in those areas. Life is risky. And our court system is a laughing stock to other countries who see our litigious ways as a huge expense in our economy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 4 months ago
                I agree there are problems. So you are in favor of tort reform? Or do you think there is another solution?

                In my opinion, the free market will handle these problems and balance the risks fairly. The problem is that we don't have a free market. We have government attempting to manage every stage of the exchange of dollars for health care. My suspicion is that getting government out of health care would make tort reform unnecessary.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccannon01 9 years, 4 months ago
              I used malpractice lawsuits as an example, but I consider the plethora of regulations and state to state legislation all part of the legal system. It's all a bureaucratic tax on our health care.

              Some oversight is necessary whether it is done by a government body (ugh) or an independent "accounting" firm. I'm no expert here, but it would be comforting to know that when I go to a doctor he/she actually got passing grades at a medical school and served a real internship and is not some scammer that hung a fake credential on the wall. The scammers don't get a slap on the wrist. They get beheaded.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 4 months ago
                I'd much prefer voluntary professional regulation to the state mandating it. And I think we should be free to choose a medical provider with whatever credentials we're comfortable with, rather than relying on government to make the decision for us.

                As I said above in my answer to khalling, I think the free market could handle the issue of medical malpractice much better than government legislation and adjudication. If we allowed the free market to work, I believe tort reform would be moot.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 9 years, 4 months ago
    Repeal and replace is the manta that cost Romney his election. The republicans better figure out quickly that six year into this--people still want government out of health care. End this nightmare and sort out the damage later, but get the government out of our personal lives now!!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      According to the Census Bureau, there are 146,311,000 registered voters in America and an estimated 37% voted in the midterms. That means the majority of the 54,133,070 of we who voted told Washington to f**k off. Instead of listening, the 556 idiots in Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are telling We The People to go screw ourselves. You are so right Mimi, we need change now!!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 4 months ago
    Indeed, replace it all with free market capitalism. That would allow the medical industrial complex - the AMA/Big Pharma/Insurance tangled web to start unraveling like a cheap $5 suit. Alternative medicines, concierge medicine, home visits would all become fair game. Imagine all the insurance paperwork becoming subject to efficient competition? Only in the Gulch, I guess. Sigh.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 4 months ago
    Why is the system broken in the first place? Government regulations. If you want to fix it, you have to get the original problem out of the way - government!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 9 years, 4 months ago
    I am retired military and am on government healthcare, called TriCare. It is not bad as long as you don't use it. I have been fairly healthy since retiring and have not really used it much. The 1 or 2 instances when I did, I have had issues with having to be referred to other doctors form my primary physician. I have also had issues with the government screwing with providers. My area had one provider for the whole western US, then it terminated their contract and went with another provider. The other issue is the government's definition of coverage areas. Luckily I live within 40 miles of an active AFB or I would lose my coverage if I was outside the 40 miles. All in all, it works but badly and I do not believe it would work for the general population. The other alternative is the VA and look at the mess they have there. They are trying to turn it around and I think they have the right guy in Mr. McDonald to do it. Now just to get around the usual government bureacracy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 4 months ago
    Actually, people are simply moving away from it, penalties be d____d. (There are alternatives, by the way, that don't depend on this law staying in force.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 4 months ago
      Temlakos -

      Can I entice a bit more elaboration from you on this excellent topic?

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 4 months ago
        For the last twenty years, a group calling themselves Christian Care Ministries has run a program called Medi-Share. Medi-Share is not insurance, in the sense that you go to a bookie (and that's exactly what an insurance company is: a gambling racket) and work out a bet. Medi-Share says: Every household must shoulder its own "portion" (read "deductible" in insurance lingo), and after that we'll share expenses. Everyone will then pay in a standard share (called "premium" again in insurance lingo), and we'll share that out to those who need it. (They've gotten really slick these days: you go on-line and take part in the sharing, even to kicking in something extra for expenses normally regarded as "not eligible.") All this is strictly voluntary.

        And more than that: if, when you sign up, they find you're not exactly on the right road, they'll enroll you in a coaching program to get you on the right road. Result: better health for you, less strain on their system.

        When the debate was in progress, CCM and several other faith-based expense-sharing groups like them, all pressed hard for a provision in the law that as long as anyone enrolled in one of their plans, they could be considered "adequately insured" as a matter of federal law.

        And they got that provision.

        Now the only thing objectionable is: no one can start a new group. Whatever groups existed when the law was passed, that's it. But they won't object to having the expense-sharing model opened up.

        The point is: if you can find such a plan, you'll probably find it costs half as much as the equivalent "silver" plan available on the federal exchange. Better still, they'll give you an incentive to stay healthy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
    What an opportunity! Get rid of ACA and replace it with nada, zero, nothing, zip. See how quickly insurance companies seize the opportunities to come up with all kinds of plans with all kinds of coverages, at all kinds of premiums for all kinds of people. And horrors, there'll be some folks who won't want insurance, mostly young and healthy folks, or self insured folks.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 4 months ago
      OMG, they just *can't* do that... however is the dotgov going to skim money out of this if the people aren't buying this far more expensive "cheaper" health plan from them? Oh... the people figured out they're being grifted by the O'scammer in chief and his friends? Oops... Well...

      And worse, what ever is going to happen to all those state insurance... oh, that's right, most of the states told them to go pound sand. Never mind...

      I will be so dam6ed glad when this scam is, um, "privy"canned and my insurance rates go back down to where they were before this hocus-pocus focus on the bogus...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 9 years, 4 months ago
    Back in the stone age, when Fred and Barney worked at the Quarry for Mr. Gotrocks, people were responsible for their own debts. The remedies for healthcare were; pay your own way, pay out of pocket for the usual and carry major medical insurance, Insure your family with a "Usual, customary, and reasonable UCR private policy, work for a company that provided insurance, Work off your bill over time, or declare bankruptcy and become debt free. In any of those circumstances the citizen was free to choose what level of participation he preferred.

    IMHO, in this age, being held personally responsible for your medical debts should be incentive enough for most people to insure themselves; if only major medical for catastrophe.

    In the 50s my Grand Mother had a stroke and needed extra care. She lived in our house, where family members could give the extra care she needed without the extra expense of a facility.

    In today's world it acceptable for young adults to live with Mom and Dad because they can't make it, while our elderly and ill are cared for by big government programs.

    The short wuick answer to health care is personal responsibility. The uninsured would eventually take bankruptcy, but that can be a learning experience. Or, they could make payment arrangements and work off the hospital bills. Or, they could purchase insurance (that's the educational value of the first two outcomes)

    The trouble is, That's not fair. That's not an equal outcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      While not in the Stone Age, when I was a little boy the doctor made house calls. He charged different fees based on perceived income;.less for blue collar and more for bank presidents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 9 years, 4 months ago
    Hmmm, Capitalism? What a unique idea, do you think it might work? Isn't forcing people to buy something a better way to improve it and make it better and cheaper? I wonder what kind of idea Dr. Ben Carson might have on the subject?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      Ben Carson seems to be inconsistent and unsure of his philosophy. I wish he'd put some time and thought into providing us some insight as to what a Carson Administration would look and act like.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gtebbe 9 years, 4 months ago
    "... a simple repeal would cause problems because it would take insurance away from 10-15 million people." Indeed. My family and I and a how many millions of others have already had our insurance plans cancelled as a direct result of this Looter Scheme?

    Now the latest is that you and I and the rest of the American voting citizens are too stupid to understand how wonderful the benefits are of government-controlled anything. No, Mr. Gruber, we know exactly what you are and what you are aiding this non-legitimate government administration in doing.

    Jim Angle is saying there will be big problems with relacing Obamacare? Come again? The greatest Healthcare system in the world, although not the best but with problems that rules of capitalism can correct (as so eloquently expressed by j_IR1776wg), has already been replaced and no one, I mean NO ONE is considering the tragic results of the ruthless imposition of Obamacare on American Citizens, as well as the private business communities. Moreover, I do not see enough individuals taking a serious look at what is going to develop over the next twent-four months.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo