House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton along with Senate Finance Chairman Orin Hatch and Senator Richard Burr have outlined what is, at least for now, the Republican alternative to Obamacare.
Republicans will now argue they have a better health insurance reform plan and that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced by it––particularly if the Supreme Court plunges the new health law into chaos by throwing the subsidies out in 37 states.
They will have an uphill battle. Not because these Republicans don’t have a lot of good ideas, but because they have put a list of big and complicated changes on the table. Lots of people may not like Obamacare but Republicans have now really muddied the waters with a huge take it or leave it alternative that will have plenty of its own reasons to give voters pause.
My sense is that voters will end up liking parts of both Republican and Democratic ideas. They might ask a reasonable question: Why can’t we take the best from both sides?
If Democrats would just admit Obamacare needs some pretty big fixes, and Republicans would be willing to work on making those fixes by putting some of these good ideas on the table, the American people would be a lot better off.
In fact, I am hopeful that this is eventually what will happen once Obamacare’s failings become even more clear (particularly the real premium costs) and both sides come to understand that neither will have a unilateral political upper hand.
See my recent op-ed on how to fix Obamacare here.
Let’s take an in-depth look at the Republican alternative, “The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act.”
It’s key provisions include:
A Full Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare
No Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance or an Employer Mandate to Offer Coverage
Consumer Protections – Republicans would retain the popular consumer protections in Obamacare including no lifetime limits, coverage for children to age 26 on their parent’s plan, and guaranteed renewability of coverage. Republicans would increase the difference in rates in the individual market between younger and older people by repealing the 3:1 age band rating limit and replace it with a 5:1 age band ratio––but allow states also set their own standards. This would reduce costs for younger consumers but increase costs for the older buyers. So, the Republicans would create a new set of losers (older buyers) but increase the incentive for younger people to buy.
A Return to Pre-Existing Condition Limits – The most contentious provision will be the one that deals with pre-existing health conditions. The Republicans would guarantee insurability only so long as a person remained continuously insured for at least 18 months. If person fell out of coverage, while they could sign-up again during regular open-enrollment periods, they could be underwritten––subject to higher premiums, benefit restrictions, or not covered at all.
Default Enrollments – Republicans would allow states to create a default enrollment system for those eligible for tax credits as a means to reduce the number who would otherwise remain uninsured. Still, an individual would be able to opt out of the system and choose to go uninsured––no individual mandate.
High Risk Pools for the Uninsured – People who lost their continuous coverage guarantees would have access to state-run high risk pools with no assurance as to cost or coverage levels in those plans. Because these pools are filled with the very sickest people, prior state experience with these government-run pools has always led to higher costs, limited benefits, and even caps on access because of chronic underfunding from states. It is ironic that Republicans would propose a government-run insurance plan they would have to argue would be adequately funded when government funded insurance plans like Medicaid are never adequately funded.
Affordable Insurance Policies – Republicans would argue that the number of those who would be excluded from coverage because of pre-existing conditions would be very small while Obamacare makes the mistake of creating a very expensive regulatory monster for everyone in pursuit of coverage for all.
The Republicans are proposing the elimination of benefit mandates and downsizing guaranteed insurability with their “continuous coverage” provision. These things will make insurance policies arguably cheaper by substantially reducing the costs that Obamacare increased with its mandates and guaranteed insurability provisions.
With the cost of policies cheaper, they would point out that their tax credit system would virtually assure everyone of being able to buy some kind of plan for the value of just the tax credits. They ask a valid question: Why would anyone let himself or herself become uninsured under the Republican plan?
They have a point. But stuff happens and it isn’t hard for voters to worry they could get caught out without coverage and no manageable, or at least desirable, way back.
Tax Credits to Buy Coverage – Tax credits would be available for those in the individual health insurance market, those working for businesses with fewer than 100 employees, and those working for larger employers that do not offer coverage.
Tax Credits Only Up to 300% of Poverty – The tax credits would be available for those making up to 300% of the federal poverty level (Obamacare subsidies extend to 400%). Lots of people between 300% and 400% of poverty would lose their tax credits. In 2015 a single person at 300% of poverty earns $35,310 and at 400% of poverty earns $47,080.
Flat Amount Tax Credits By Age – Unlike Obamacare’s sliding scale of subsidies based upon income, the Republican proposal would create flat tax credits based upon three age brackets. These credits would increase each year at the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index plus 1% (CPI+1%).
Here are the proposed credits for people making up to 200% of the poverty line (for example, $23,540 for a single person and $48,500 for a family of four):
It is very difficult to compare these tax credits to the sliding scale subsidies available under Obamacare–– a program with more benefit mandates and different age rating rules and likely different deductibles and co-pays. Republicans will argue their health plans will cost less and have lower out-of-pocket costs (I think that’s valid). But people will naturally compare the Obamacare subsidies on an apples to oranges basis and it won’t often look good.
For example, at 200% of poverty a family of four in Alexandria, Virginia making $48,500 a year, with the parents age 34, and with two kids would pay no more than $3,024 per year in net Obamacare premiums. Using the current Obamacare lowest cost Silver plan premium the same family would pay $5,191 after the Republican advanceable tax credit.
Now, if Republicans can convince this family their new Republican health insurance policy would cost substantially less and the benefits would be all the family really wanted, they would have a good argument.
Different ages, family composition, income levels, and location will produce different outcomes that I am sure advocates and critics will use to come up with one study and example after another to make their arguments further complicating the Republican’s ability to make voters comfortable with their plan. For example, moving to a different age bracket, a family with the parents age 45 in Alexandria would pay out only a net of $2,318 after the Republican tax credit for the existing lowest cost Silver Plan.
I think you can now see the Republican challenge in trying to convince people they have a better plan.
Again, I believe Republicans would have been much better taking the Obamacare baseline people have now and showing them how they could have made it better.
No More Obamacare State and Federal Insurance Exchanges – The state and federal insurance exchanges would be eliminated and consumers would instead purchase from the traditional private market––direct from insurers or through brokers and agents.
No Limits on the Kind of Insurance Policies That Could Be Offered – Health plans could offer any health plan they chose to sell and consumers chose to buy arguably enabling lower priced plans to be offered including plans whose cost could well come in under the level of tax credits available. Carriers could also offer plans across state lines. Critics will point to the history of health insurance plans using benefits to “cherry pick” healthy people and offering “substandard” policies as well as the loss of the generous benefit mandates that are now in Obamacare.
Capping the Tax Exclusion on Employer-Provided Health Insurance – The consumer’s tax exclusion for employer provided health insurance would be limited as a way of discouraging high cost plans, that most analysts believe lead to more health care inflation, to a maximum of $12,000 for a single person and $30,000 for a family––to be increased annually at no more than the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index plus 1% (CPI+1%).
By comparison, in 2018 Obamacare will tax plan sponsors 40% of the amount they pay for benefits that exceeds $10,220 for a single person and $27,500 for a family––the “Cadillac” tax.
Democrats can hardly criticize this proposal since they are effectively capping employer-sponsored health plan costs at a level just below the Republican limits.
Moving Toward Defined Contribution Health Insurance – By capping the tax exclusion and offering defined tax credits to those under 300% of the poverty level and, importantly, limiting future increases of both to no more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index plus 1% (CPI+1%), the Republican proposal would increase these federal benefits annually but do so in a limited way that would reduce future federal budget costs and likely health care inflation. But, this would also shift more risk for the future cost of health care to the consumer.
Advocates argue that such cost shifting would encourage consumers to make more efficient choices and lower overall health care costs.
Democrats also put limits on how fast Obamacare’s premium subsidies will increase in future years that could arguably increase the Obamacare subsidies by less than the Republican’s CPI+1% limit.
Medical Malpractice Reform – The Republican plan would implement medical malpractice reforms that would cap awards for non-economic damages and attorney fees as well as support state experimentation in alternative dispute resolution systems.
Repealing the Medicaid Expansion – Instead states would get a block grant (“capped allotment”) generally equal to the value of the Medicaid payments they received prior to the passage of Obamacare, which would be increased each year at CPI+1%––benefits for pregnant women, low-income children, and low-income families.
Republicans will argue that states would have the flexibility on how they fashioned a plan to cover these people and therefore be able to make the system more efficient and sustainable. By limiting the annual payment increase in the federal contribution to the states, the federal deficit would be decreased and the risk for adequate funding would be passed off to the states that would in turn have greater control over what their Medicaid benefits would be and how they would be provided.
Democrats will point to these hundreds of billions of dollars in future federal deficit reductions (Medicaid growth is not now capped as the Republicans would do at CPI+1%) as cuts to programs for the poor leaving states on the hook.
Democrats also need to put a plan on the table for how they would control the unsustainable costs of Medicaid.
Empower Poorer Consumers by Giving Them Mainstream Health Plans – With the Obamacare envisioned universal expansion of Medicaid to all of those making less than 138% of poverty (and so far adopted by 27 states) repealed, Republicans would instead offer the advanceable tax credits to those making less than 300% of poverty and not covered by a large employer plan. They argue that these low income people would instead be able to buy a mainstream commercial plan superior to the chronically underfunded Medicaid plans that now offer fewer and fewer providers willing to take Medicaid.
The Republican plan also does not make clear how their Medicaid “capped allotment” benefits for the poor would dovetail with their subsidies for mainstream health plans. Prior to Obamacare, many states offered Medicaid to only the very poorest adults.
Just how far the Republican tax credits would go in being able to pay for mainstream plans with deductibles and co-pays low-income people could afford will be critical to how effective this proposal would be.
For example, a family of four in the 18 to 34 age bracket making up to $30,313 a year (125% of the poverty level) would be offered an advanceable tax credit of $4,290 a year. As a reference, the current lowest cost Silver HMO in Alexandria, Virginia costs $9,076 for a family of four with the parents age 30. Even if Republicans were able to substantially reduce Obamacare’s current health insurance costs, the premiums would still not be realistic for this family––nor would the usual deductibles these commercial plans offer.
As low-income families make these comparisons, Republicans will be challenged to convince people to make the leap toward believing their plans will be far cheaper, the subsidies adequate, and any co-pays and deductibles affordable.
Republicans have argued that their tax credit would enable consumers to buy at least a catastrophic (big deductible) health plan for the value of the tax credit. Maybe. But what value is a big deductible health insurance plan to people who don’t have a lot of money?
Conclusion
And, therein lies the Republican challenge––convincing people that their complex health insurance reform ideas provide people with more health insurance security than the problematic and complex Obamacare plan does. Take it or leave it––ours or theirs.
Again, I think Republicans would have been far better off taking a big gulp and accepting Obamacare as the baseline in health insurance public policy and then use many of their ideas to tell the American people how they could make it work a lot better.
After all, isn’t that what most people really want?
Robert Laszewski is a political consultant based in Alexandria, Virginia.
Categories: Uncategorized
Well, the first mistake the GOP made was not to build upon the goals of the PPACA (ObamaCare). Second, I don’t consider making healthcare coverage more expensive for elders or senior citizens feasible. Third, if I am clear on the age band ratios, increasing the 3:1 age band by replacing it with a 5:1 age band ratio creates a financial hardship for senior citizens.
I don’t believe in increasing premiums, imposing benefit restrictions, or terminating coverage based upon an individual or family’s inability to purchase coverage due to financial difficulties, or falling upon hard times.
The Republican proposal for high risk pools for the uninsured is unfair, and in some circumstances can be deemed out right cruel since high risk pools have no guarantees as to cost or coverage levels in their respective plans. This pool allows insurers to go back to executing a number of abusive practices; discriminating, and making healthcare coverage unaffordable for millions of consumers.
I was surprised to see the GOP propose a governmental run system when they’ve stated so many times they wanted government out of the healthcare business.
The argument for the affordability of insurance policies is questionable. The Republican plan indicates that the number of people who would be excluded from insurance on the basis of a pre-existing condition is small. I believe that information is incorrect. At least 80% of America has at least one pre-existing condition; which means 80% of us would be excluded from coverage, or forced to pay higher premiums based upon that pre-existing condition.
Benefit mandates or healthcare regulatory reforms are in place for a legitimate reason. Benefit mandates are designed to reduce costs, make healthcare accessible and affordable, while improving upon quality of care. Regulatory reforms are in place to address social and public health issues; to make our country healthier and safer. Without those mandates or reforms, America is vulnerable and susceptible to communicable diseases, flus, viruses, and drug resistant bacterias. Without the individual and employer mandates, employees working in the food industry will be preparing, handling, cooking, and sering our food without healthcare benefits. This alone is a public health risk. Democrats, this administration, and this President taken that issue into consideration when drafting the PPACA, and the national strategy for healthcare in America.
Overall, Democrats seek to provide and implement those domestic policies that keeps America safe, and free from disease. The Republican plan makes us more vulnerable to the aforementioned public health challenges, and communicable diseases. Quite concerning is the global transmission of those communicable diseases, as we’ve seen lately with the deadly Ebola Virus, flus, and measles.
My friends on the right did discuss cheaper policies, but no mention was made as to the quality of those cheaper policies, or what it would do to the overall quality of health in America. This issue causes concern when they say “their tax credit system would virtually assure everyone of being able to buy some kind of plan for the value of just the tax credits.” The language suggest that their primary concern is “some kind of plan;” not addressing the real concerns of America, which is ‘quality of care’, accessibility, and affordability. I did like their idea on purchasing health insurance across state lines.
Tax credits available up to 300% of the FPL; as opposed to tax credits available under Obamacare, up to 400% of the FPL; which means, ObamaCare gives more Americans the opportunity to become insured. ObamaCare also offers income qualified subsidies to assist with cost-sharing reductions or out-of-pocket healthcare costs.
An example was provided for a family living at 200% of the FPL with parents age 34; with 2 children. However, that same family with parents age 50 – 64 would pay a lot more for deductibles or out of pocket medical costs; placing the brunt of financial responsibility on the backs of senior citizens. Yes, consequently, various outcomes result from the Republican plan with some folks satisfied, and others dissatisfied, but overall, where is the improvement over ObamaCare? And, the GOP says “take it, or leave it.” I think I will leave it!
Did I miss something?? I thought the Republican plan included buying insurance across state lines?
So should people be forced to pay taxes? Is it really a different argument than that? We, as a society decided that hospitals throwing people out in the street to die was unacceptable, for both moral and practical reasons, just as society decided that it was better to provide a common defense the problem becomes with freeriders, people who obtain benefits without paying, some are freeriders involuntarily, those who cannot afford medical care and for some selfish reason refuse to just die, and some are by choice, those who could afford a plan but oppose it knowing they will obtain health care anyway. They are against the idea of taking care of everyone only as long as the cost for them outweighs the benefits, and like ayn rand and Milton friedman are only against gov programs as long as they don’t need them
Best wishes to you, Benedict. As a person whose loved one has cancer I am grateful for our health insurance. I am saddened that any American has to worry about insurance, while our politicians and their families have excellent insurance plans paid for for by us.
I think that Mr. Laszewski is confused on the effect of going from 3:1 to 5:1. He says that it will cost more for young people, but I think that it’s the opposite. Please review this and respond.
I’m glad you have survived. The “conservative” hypocrites want carte blanche for themselves, and penury for others.
I got cancer two years back. Bad stuff. Stuff that should have killed me. I needed major surgery and a long hospital stay Now I’m on chemotherapy. I got some blood clotting from the chemo. Dangerous stuff. Needed a few trips to the hospital for that. Expensive stuff. My employer never gave me insurance. I worked very hard for him, but he thought he should get that money instead. So they put me on Medicaid.
I get no bills. I have no co-payments. No deductibles. I just walk into the doctor’s office (or the hospital if needed), and they give me whatever care I require at that time. They always treat me like a decent person. It helps.
I’m very fortunate. This is how health care should be for everyone.
Republicans want to take this away. They are either stupid, or monsters.
“….Let’s take an in-depth look at the Republican alternative, “The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act.”
It’s key provisions include:
A Full Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare….”
Do you SEE the PROBLEM, there, Bob? Seriously, you’ve been following policymaking for essentially all your career, and you STILL don’t recognize political theater when the curtain goes up? This hogslop is “policymaking” only to those who disdain the very concept of a social contract.
Oh, and Barry Carol, “…People with good employer provided insurance coverage are seeing a trend toward higher deductibles and…” Shame on you – you know better than to insinuate that the “trend toward higher deductibles” is something that has only emerged with the coming of ACA. That lie barely gets by the greenest schoolchild anymore.
Yes, people between 300 and 400% would lose a small subsidy, but they would be able to get an inexpensive catastrophic-only plan (without preventative care prepayment). The plan should allow states to continue state exchange websites at state expense if states want to, to facilitate easy comparison shopping, but individuals would not be required to use the state exchanges.
Don,
I would not place an income cap on eligibility for subsidies because I think spending 10% of income for health insurance premiums is enough. In addition, when you actually access care, there will be deductibles and copays that must be paid as well. The subsidy would only apply to after tax dollars spent for premiums so employer contributions or new tax credits that would be part of any ACA replacement would not count.
A purer alternative that could probably never pass Congress would be to get rid of the employer tax preference altogether, gross up pretax salaries by an amount equal, at least in aggregate, to what the employer previously spent for health insurance and provide a tax credit instead that would vary by age as per the Republican alternative and would be more than two times higher if you need family coverage vs. single coverage.
As I noted previously, I’m not too crazy about the uniform tax credit idea because the cost of an identical health insurance policy can easily vary by 100% or more in different areas of the country while the tax credit would be the same nationwide in nominal dollars. That’s why I want the circuit breaker provision. Any existing IRS law can be changed legislatively to accommodate new ideas and policies. By the way, at the current income limit for subsidies of 400% of the FPL, there is still a pretty generous subsidy for family coverage. At 401% of the FPL, there is no subsidy at all. That’s a dumb and unfair policy that only exists to fit within the targeted CBO score.
While I didn’t mention it in my prior comment, I would also eliminate the current tax on insurers, drug companies and medical device manufacturers as the republicans propose to do. They will all just pass it on to consumers in the form of higher premiums and prices and it’s disingenuous on the part of Congress and the President to pretend otherwise.
My bottom line is to fix the system in a way that makes sense and is fundamentally fair to the broad population. If broad based taxes need to be raised somewhat to make it all work, so be it.
https://www.opencongress.org/wiki/H.R.3590:_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
The House passed a version of “health reform” that was abandoned by the Senate, which instead took HR 3590 and modified it to suit the Democratic Senators’ desires. HR 3590 was not a healthcare bill initially.
Per this site: “The House passed the bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it [18]”
You are incorrect in your analysis on the age band ratio. Increasing the ratio from 5:1 would actually lower costs for younger enrollees and raise it for older enrollees. This has costs and benefits, but your analysis is incorrect.
I like that summation Steve.
So, in short, this program shifts more of the costs onto patients, does not guarantee coverage and costs too much for people in the lower 20-30% of income. Given the large number of Republicans criticizing Obamacare for its high deductibles, this is pretty funny.
I guess there are some goods and bass in here, but I really don’t understand eliminating the exchanges. I know that brokers and insurers would like to see them go, but why would a pro-market party eliminate this market where you can actually compare prices?
Having read this entire plan and , I think every GOP plan in the last 10 years, I think this is probably just for looks. The GOP has never been willing to spend political capital on health reform. I doubt that has changed.
Steve
Barry:
I second Greg’s statement about the effect of the proposed age bands
I certainly did not catch it
Why would you not impose an income ceiling on subsidies?
Is it due to the possibility of no employer deduction for premiums?
I was at a conference this week in which Timothy Jost spoke who
Is referred to quite frequently for ACA interpretations
He believes if any defined contributions are deducted from
Income for individual policies this deduction would run counter to
IRS law
Don Levit
Good article. “CongressCare” sounds just as complicated as Obamacare, without the protections and consumer choices.
“What was “decided” was a middle of the night vote without a single bit of support from across the aisle,”
If you’re talking about the Senate vote it was at 7:05 AM. There were two supporting Independent votes.
If your inference of, “the middle of the night” was that Republicans were somehow tricked into not being present for the vote you would be wrong. There were 25 straight days of debate.
Right. I am astonished that Bob got the age rating thing so wrong.
[1] There IS NO “Cornhusker kickback” in the law.
[2] The bill that passed and became the ACA had more than 100 GOP amendments in it.
AHIPcare.
Bobby,
I don’t consider healthcare a “luxury” but I disagree that “society has decided otherwise.”
What was “decided” was a middle of the night vote without a single bit of support from across the aisle, with multiple bribes (“the “cornhusker kickback,” et. al.) to get the nominal amount of votes. Almost every one of the democrats who supported PPACA have now been voted OUT of congress, or quit before they could get voted out. Obamacare is not popular with the public, and remember that the “good” part of Obamacare was supposed to be the first 2-3 years, that’s where all the goodies (read: “free stuff) was, with the huge taxes, penalties, impact on employers and business, all coming AFTER obama is safely out of office.
Johnathan Gruber was both prophetic and correct, you have to lie to the American people to get them to support this, so that’s what they did, at least for a while.
People should not be forced by the government to buy something they don’t want to buy. They also should not be forced to pay for someone else’s poor choices. Medicaid was intended as a safety net, but it has been turned into a “single payor” plan for half the population, with a small % of folks paying for the free healthcare for a huge %. That’s not a safety net, that’s government sanctioned thievery.
“And those in the “no asset, no money, no house” category? No collection agent in the world has figured a way around that, where medical bills are concerned.”
So Bob, how would those people afford health coverage in the first place?
“Republicans would increase the difference in rates in the individual market between younger and older people by repealing the 3:1 age band rating limit and replace it with a 5:1 age band ratio––but allow states also set their own standards. This would reduce costs for older consumers but increase costs for the younger buyers who have so far not come to the program at the levels needed to create an efficient pool. So, the Republicans would create a new set of losers (younger buyers) and further discourage their enrollment to boot”
Bob has it exactly backwards here. A 5 to 1 age rating band would make insurance substantially more expensive for older people and less expensive for younger folks.
The high risk pools, which existed in 35 states before the ACA became law and have been around since the 1970’s, never worked very well because politicians weren’t willing to spend the money it would take to provide adequate coverage for a very sick population uninsurable under traditional medical underwriting criteria.
Insurance premiums for similar coverage vary significantly around the country but the proposed tax credits would be flat in nominal dollars no matter where you lived. I would mitigate this problem with a circuit breaker provision that would provide additional credits for anyone who had to spend more than 10% of income for the equivalent of a silver level plan. I would not impose any income ceiling to qualify for the circuit breaker provision.
Prior to the passage of the ACA, 37% of adult males under age 35 were uninsured as were 27% of females. Most thought they were invincible and didn’t want to pay for insurance. Without a mandate to purchase and even with a one-time opportunity to sign up for coverage despite pre-existing conditions, many would continue to remain uninsured. Are we really willing to tell them they have to live with their choice if they need health insurance later and can’t pass underwriting?
People in the insurance brokerage business tell me that there is a lot of complaining everywhere about the ACA. People with good employer provided insurance coverage are seeing a trend toward higher deductibles and, to a lesser extent, private exchanges supported by a defined contribution. People buying coverage on the ACA exchanges are finding that premiums are higher than they expected and deductibles and copays are much higher than expected.
There is a lot that needs to be fixed here, in my opinion. However, every significant new program in the past needed bipartisan support and ideas from both sides to pass through the legislative process and be sustainable once it became law. The ACA was rammed through without any republican support and we’re seeing the adverse consequences now. I think we can do a lot better.
Get over the fact that it was all a big lie.
Yea, and I guess next you will tell me I can’t drink an Ice Tea over 16 ounces. The difference is I can hurt you with a car if my car hits you. The health care is considerably different. Can you just admit, we were all lied too..
“Healthcare is a Luxury, not something people must have.”
__
Society has decided otherwise. Get over it.
Do you have to buy car insurance if you have a car? Then you have to buy Heath insurance if you have heath.
So Bob, you’re in favor of Medicare for all?
any reform, absolutely any reform that does not include transparency in pricing will fail. Transparency as a base must be the first step. other changes are needed but transparency alone would serve to significantly reduce the cost of healthcare. There is significant evidence to support this for services not covered by insurance where prices are known such as cosmetic services, dental, vision, medical tourism etc.
Require that all providers post their prices, charge everyone the same amount and maintain prices quoted for a minimum of 90 days. competition would prevail.
The truth is NOBODY should be forced to participate in either plan, PERIOD…. Healthcare is a Luxury, not something people must have. Did people have health care 100 years ago, 200, 400, Now all of a sudden we have a guy that say’s we must have it or be penalized. We were all lied to about the entire plan in the first place. It should never be forced on people. Nobody should have to buy health insurance if they don’t want too.
You’re a nut job! Jonathan Gruber LOVES you!
I have paid for my, and my families healthcare since I was 18 years old. Paid my own deductibles, never skipped on a bill or pawned it off on others, and never needed any subsidies. YOU?
The second part of your question was answered in my first post. Not-able-to-pay’s would be covered under the Medicare plan I described.
That plan has a few side benefits, as well. 1. it doesn’t mess with plans that people want, choose, and like. Remember “like your plan, keep your plan”? 2. The infrastructure for the program is already in place and would only need to be tweaked to handle the influx. 3. there would be no need for the IRS to hire 16,000 more goons to make our lives even more miserable. 4. The $45 billion increase in funds would make Medicare a better more stable program. 5 Those that can’t fully afford their coverage but CAN afford something, can be billed based on income, with those funds being used to further extend the Medicare plan. And 6. it would cost one HELL of a lot less than Obamacare and give taxpayers more bang for the buck!
Remember, Obamacare…$2.3 trillion + for 6 years. Medicare plan, $100 billion a year. 6 years or 23? Not a hard choice.
“FEMA should be JUST for food, first aid and emergency housing.”
You flaming liberal Bob.
I will take ANY healthcare system that does not have penalty mandate! That is all I care about… and I won’t be paying the penalty from last year or this year!!
Absofrigginlutely! If you can’t afford to insure what you have against what may come, don’t buy it! You set up house where there are hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes, and don’t insure yourself adeguately, or at all…that’s too damn bad! YOUR problem! FEMA should be JUST for food, first aid and emergency housing.
From your posts, you’ve appear be one of those “Help me, Daddy”, “cradle to grave” liberals. What about doing for yourself and NOT being a burden on those paying the taxes? Is that a totally foreign concept for you?
Bob, how do you get your health coverage paid for?
What is your opinion on Medicaid? Would we throw those people to the street as well? How about the children of not-able-to-pay families?
Dave, I guess we could also do away with FEMA. No coverage, no local rainy day fund, no cash – tough luck.
Wonder what all those Republicans in Florida would think of that plan?
What I see a problem is this, they keep putting up these numbers of a family of 4 making $30,000 a year. Why did you have 2 kids only making $30,000 a year? We now have to use TAX dollars to pay for all sorts of subsidies you get. My wife and I have 1 child. We would like to have another. Together we make $80,000 a year. We just don’t think we could afford another. Though we get 0 breaks from the governent nor do I think we should.
I call it “AHIPcare.”
And those in the “no asset, no money, no house” category? No collection agent in the world has figured a way around that, where medical bills are concerned.
Of course elective surgery wouldn’t be in the deal. We’re talking “needed” not “wanted”. They’d get their broken bone fixed, their appendix out, their flu/pneumonia treated, their skin stitched.
I would support “no individual mandate” if the new legislation also exempted every health care provider from the requirement to provide health care to anyone that shows up at their door. In other words, “No Insurance, No Cash, No Service!” With that provision in place, their will be no more whining about being forced to pay for something one doesn’t want or need. You fall off a ladder, arrive at the ER with no insurance. You die! Completely in keeping with the Republican health care initiative. Everyone assumes complete control for their own life. Not the wisest choice IMHO but guess it works for some. Those who can’t afford insurance can be enrolled in a “government” option – details to be worked out in the future.
“People without insurance would go to hospital ER’s and get the best treatment available by law”
That would be they were stabilized, you just couldn’t walk into an ER and get cutting edge cancer treatment until you were cured. Elective surgery had to prove you could pay with upfront payments.
“and just not pay anything”
They became a collection account. Here in NC your house and assets can be seized.
I think, in a way, he did.
Talking about those that are young and think they are bullet proof, opting for extra money in their paychecks rather than obtaining coverage. And, those that say screw it, don’t insure themselves, and put their healthcare costs on others.
And, no, that wasn’t the system we had before. People without insurance would go to hospital ER’s and get the best treatment available by law, and just not pay anything. That’s where we were spending the $55 billion per year.
“f Democrats would just admit Obamacare needs some pretty big fixes, and Republicans would be willing to work on making those fixes by putting some of these good ideas on the table, the American people would be a lot better off.”
sorry, you just lost all credibility with that one. How is it possible that the author is unaware of the partisan vitriol and lies from republicans on health care reform. Its inconceivable for the author to pretend that republicans would be receptive to any change except repeal. You might as well write
“Obstructionist democrats refuse to work with republicans on repealing Obamacare”
dang democrats
“Those that CAN afford coverage but choose not to,”
Define “afford”.
“may only get treatment they can demonstrate the ability to pay cash for.”
Wasn’t that the system we had before Obamacare? Would we also limit treatment to those who can show cash for the co-pays and deductibles?
“Sounds like it was written by the insurance companies.”
Wasn’t Obamacare?
BOTH plans suck!
Take the $55 b we now spend on uninsured claims, add $45 b to it, and stick it into the Medicare system. Those that can not afford health insurance can go there. The extra $45 b is to make Medicare more solvent and increase payment amounts to doctors and hospitals. Those that CAN afford coverage but choose not to, may only get treatment they can demonstrate the ability to pay cash for.
You could run the Medicare system for 20 years for the cost of 6 years of the ACA.
It isn’t rocket science, folks.
Sounds like it was written by the insurance companies.
“It is $150 billion a year across Medicare and Medicaid and growing with nothing in place to inhibit this growth.”
Maybe the Christian Reich(eous) will show us the way. We’re all Terry
Shriavo’s in their eyes – until they need to pay for it.
“if the Supreme Court plunges the new health law into chaos by throwing the subsidies out in 37 states.”
__
Section 1321 clearly trumps Section 1311. Plain English, right there in the law. This is a bogus controversy. Feds have explicit backup HIX authority under 1321. Look it up.
What crap.
“So it’s a plan that will make some people better off and others worse off.”
As usual it’s different not better, probably worse from what I read. The “Whose ox is gored” principal of politics. Republicans are obsessed with not looking like Obama.
So, do I pay the penalty this year or hope the mandate is repealed? If I pay will I get a refund if repeal is successful?
“Everyone needs to pay for themselves. Period, end of discussion.”
“Everyone should pay for themselves. Period.”
Storm, who pays for your health coverage?
Why should there be equality? Therein lies the problem. The parasites are more than happy to sit on their laurels & let someone else pay for their health care. Everyone needs to pay for themselves. Period, end of discussion.
YES! No individual mandate! That would be perfect! Why should I have to buy a product I do not want, do not need, wil not use & can not afford? I am certainly not keen on buying someone else’s health care. Everyone should pay for themselves. Period.
You fail to note one concept everyone brushes under the table when discussing Medicaid. The growth in Medicaid cost for long term care associated with Dementia. It is $150 billion a year across Medicare and Medicaid and growing with nothing in place to inhibit this growth. And then, conservatives come down on the growth in cost for Medicaid blaming care for children and the young poor. They are hiding the truth and it needs to be discussed. There are no easy answers.
So it’s a plan that will make some people better off and others worse off.
Therein lies the problem. Not with this plan specifically, but any reform.
Default enrollments and medical malpractice reforms would be radical changes.
Enriching the market with insurers could create a regulatory “venturi effect” – i.e. lead to rebound of regulations ten years from now, as people get upset that their low cost insurance did not cover what they thought it would, or became bankrupt, etc.
However, judging regulations on their incremental yield, and knocking out the ones which are regulatory monsters, is the best objective way of reforming HC.
One thing for certain: repeal and replace is a total and utter waste of time.