Back when everyone starting talking about repealing Obamacare, I made the point that a straight repeal was not a good idea. As they say, “the optics” would be horrible to undo the popular parts, especially if the plan was to put those right back into law. It would be much better to promise to “repeal and replace” and then to wipe out the messy atrocity that is Obamacare, i.e. repeal it, while leaving in place the better parts of the reform along with adding whatever new reforms were needed, i.e. replace it.
Mitt Romney, like most rational people, agreed with this idea and has been saying this from day one. Additionally, he like many others, has supported the only two popular parts of Obamacare: the part that prevents insurers from denying people for having pre-existing medical conditions and the part that allows children to stay on their parent’s coverage until the age of 26.
Both of these provisions are highly popular. Both of these provisions were used as the only selling points of Obamacare. Neither of these provisions is all that controversial. Few Republicans wanted to repeal these. Mitt Romney certainly didn’t.
So what happened this weekend? Well, Romney went on the Sunday Talk Shows and said that he doesn’t want to repeal all of Obamacare:
“I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I'm going to put in place.”Then he mentioned the two provisions above. That makes sense since it’s always been his position.
Nevertheless, this is being spun by certain MSM news outlets as a shocking revelation. They are saying that Romney is “now” opposed to repealing Obamacare and they are calling him a flip-flopper. Of course, none of that is true: (1) his position has not changed, so “now” is a misleading word, (2) he remains committed to repealing Obamacare, so saying he opposes repeal is a lie, and (3) this has always been his position, so he’s no flip-flopper.
Naturally, our less than intelligent conservative blogging cousins are pounding their hairy knuckles against their chests, having drunk the MSM Kool-Aid, and are whining that this proves that Romney is what they always knew. . . a socialist flip-flopper. Idiots.
Anyway, I’ve gone over what we need in the way of healthcare reform for a very long time now, and we’re never going to get that because it’s just beyond the realm of government thinking to deregulate healthcare and every insurance company in the country will pour money into any campaign to stop their golden goose from being cooked in the name of economic sanity. But as long as we are keeping this same system, where insurers get to act as gatekeepers of healthcare, then I see nothing wrong with imposing these two requirements upon them. If you want to make your money by getting the government to hold the free market at bay, then you really can’t complain when that same government chooses to impose requirements on you. In other words, if insurers were operating in a free market, then I would agree that imposing these requirements would be wrong. But since they aren’t, frankly, I don't care. Live like a crony, die like a crony.
Thoughts?
77 comments:
It´s a given that the media will sell it as a flip flop. I think the reaction on the right is the bigger danger."We knew it! RINO! There´s not a dime´s worth of difference..."
You know the drill.
The perception that both parties are the same is a poisonous idea, held by some on the left and the right.
The only thing I want health insurance to be able to do is cross state lines.
That will break up the state-health care insurers alliance. Until then, each state decides which insurance company will be top dog and which will come in second.
I think this just illustrates why Romney needs to present an overall cohesive plan. It also illustrates why you cannot trust any in the MSM to be true journalists. A true one would have asked Romney to clarify his position and perhaps ask "is this a flip/flop on Obamacare. They always play the gotcha game and Republicans keep walking into it. I am guessing this is what Rush will complain about: republicans continuing to believe that the MSM is ethical.
Your final paragraph really sums up everything that conservatives need to understand about the current state of healthcare. Deregulation around the edges before tackling the big fixes (interstate policies, equal tax breaks for private vs. group policies, tort reform) is not only a recipe to drop people through the proverbial cracks, but it's fodder to the Democrat "more regulation" mantra.
_____
Since the left likes to trot out individual sob-stories, let me share mine: Last Thursday I took my daughter for a regular evaluation for her autism. The topic of a blood-screening to look for genetic factors was brought up and recommended and, having a history of autism in my extended family, I agreed. You'd think that should be all there is to it. After all, it was a private decision made b/t an individual and her doctors and family. Let's draw some samples right now!
Oh, but wait! We have to get permission from the insurance company, first. And while there is little doubt they will accede, asking permission implies that the insurance company gets to decide whether I and my doctors can pursue information that could very well decide the difference b/t effective and completely useless treatment for my daughter. I don't probably have to tell anyone that genetic screenings aren't cheap; it's still pretty cutting-edge stuff. So yeah, that's my story. Think I could get on-stage at a rally with that?
To tell the truth, I've been in a foul mood the past few days when election news comes up. Not only is the Left being its usual stupid self, but the fence-sitting hacks who've been swayed (even if temporarily) by the DNC and Clinton's speech in particular infuriate me. I hate that we have to rely on such morons to reach 270 electoral votes.
tryanmax,
It isn't permission you are seeking, although people would like to think that way because it gives them a sense of power. It is getting the insurance to pay for it. The way the ObamaCare and socialized medicine operate, it is really seeking permission. You can't go pay for it out of your own pocket.
El Gordo, I agree. The MSM isn't the problem because they will spin anything they can in a bad way. The problem is all the bloggers (and probably talk radio today) who are running with this MSM-created meme to whine about Romney. It's very destructive, and it's amazing they would repeat this stupidity as if it were true. They really have lost their minds.
Joel, I think a total reform is needed to allow the free market back in. They need to open up the markets to allow insurance to travel across state lines, they need to stop the tax breaks favoring insurance over self-pay, and they need to require some form of open-pricing so that consumers and producers begin negotiating with each other again instead of through middlemen.
Joel, you are right on the money. One of the biggest problems with health care in this country is third party payers. Tryanmax, you as the individual are not the customer. Very frustrating as you are probably paying quite a bit for insurance. Insurance has migrated from keeping you from going bankrupt in the event of a tragic or serious illness. Now they are health care managers involved in all aspects of the care. Preventative care sounds great, but the reality is much of it is really expensive from a population standpoint, but relatively inexpensive from an individual standpoint. But we all get annoyed when asked to pay for it.
Since you are not the customer and the physician pay is essentially fixed who is? Right now the true battles are between the insurance companies and the companies providing a product or service (pharmaceutical, special labs, radiology, etc.). One of the recourses insurance companies have is to deny coverage, but that can be tricky and often laws get passed forcing them to.
Personally, I think if insurance companies were allowed to pull back to their original intent then many of these treatments and procedures would have to be offered directly to the consumer. In this model you can either sell a few products for a lot or lot of products for much less. Usually there is a sweet spot (market clearing price). One example where this works is in plastic surgery. The costs of cosmetic plastic surgery have risen pretty much in line with inflation. Why? Consumers have to pay directly rather than through a third party payer.
Koshcat, I agree and disagree. I don't think this was a gotcha question because they just asked him his position and he told them the same position he's had since forever. I think it's just a gotcha spin.
It's the lack of integrity which is the problem here. It is basically a flat out lie to turn his consistent position into a flipflop. And there's no way for someone like Romney to avoid that trap because it wasn't a trap, it was just a lie they used to spin the interview.
And to me, the bigger problem is the conservatives who are already starting to whine about him now flipflopping on this.
Joel, I do get that I could pay for it out of my own pocket, but that is not the reason I carry insurance. Where I am at right now is a case of the insurance company making up the policy that I have already purchased as we go along. You would not buy any other form of insurance this way, but thanks to the non-free market environment in which health insurance operates, this is the product I have available to me. If I might rephrase the statement that you take issue with, I am seeking permission to use the policy that I have already paid for which is supposed to include coverage for the thing I wish to use it for.
I haven't been listening to the conservatives this morning (except you of course) so I can't intelligently comment. However, all MSM questions are gotcha questions. They will distort and take out of context what ever is said. I almost believe that if Obama were to say he was a pedophile, they would report that Obama Loves Children!
tryanmax, That's exactly right. The entire system is a mess and it needs fundamental reform. Right now the regulations that are in place basically keep the free market and market pricing mechanism out of our healthcare system. So reform at the edges won't work.
Moreover, because the current system is set up in this way, the insurers really do have the power -- they have the power over what doctors earn, what things will cost, and who can get complete care (as compared to just emergency care). By allowing insurers to drop the most expensive people out of the system while maintaining their oligopoly, we end up with the worst of both worlds: a vastly overpriced and inefficient system combined with a lot of "hard luck"/outrage cases that the Democrats can use to keep pushing more regulation.
The Republicans need to realize this and break up the oligopoly and/or stop them from dropping people through the cracks.
T-Rav, It's not a good time for our country, that is for sure. But take heart, things are very much going our way.
Joel, I agree with tryanmax. Right now, our healthcare system is run by an oligopoly of healthcare insurance firms. They decide who gets what and how much doctors will get paid. That's the problem. They have used government regulation to capture the system and now they run it. That needs to be broken up so that market pricing mechanisms and the other checks of capitalism can fix the system.
Koshcat, you explained it better than I did. And just so there is no confusion, that whole sob-story, while true, is a bit of tongue-in-cheek.
Koshcat, Well said, and I agree entirely. The problem with our system is that consumers (patients) and producers (doctors) don't even discuss price. It's all handled by third parties who have different incentives that either the consumers or producers. So rather than ending up with patients seeking care they need and coming to a price which doctors are willing to pay, the pricing gets set by "global" negotiation between large companies and everyone is then put in a take it or leave it mode.
At the same time, neither patients or doctors have an incentive to rein in costs. But insurers have an incentive to find ways not to pay for things. So our system ends up a real mess.
Andrew, I hope so. I'm just on the down end of my roller coaster ride at the moment.
As for the ObamaCare "flip-flop," that's all true, but I worry that a bunch of people aren't going to take it that way; they'll get lured by the Dems into thinking Romney doesn't actually care about it and is unprincipled and on and on. That spin machine's got a lot of miles on it, but it still keeps running.
tryanmax, That's one of the many problems with an oligopoly -- they can change the rules whenever they want and there's nothing consumers can do about it. So if they decide tomorrow that some condition you have will no longer be covered, there's nothing you can do about it except change insurers -- who will all have the same policy.
My thoughts are that government run healthcare in this country is bankrupt and anyone relying on medicare in the next 15 years to live is doomed. Obamacare just accellerates this eventuality to one week after it fully goes into effect in 2014.
Children should be allowed to stay on the pareents plans until 26. Sounds good....
Until you start thinking about how the cost of that will be implemented. We have to ask the question. Why could this not happen before in the Private Sector?
One: The plan is run by an employer and not the individual paying for it. Individuals have much better control over the products they purchase than does a group.
Two: State regulations! The regulating of what an insurance company must and must not provide has further limited the choice of the individual to bargain for what they want or need.
So what happens when the federal governemnt requires it. Insurance costs either go up or the coverage is watered down so that the insurance companies can provide a product that matches all the regulatory costs that are mandated.
The answer is not just to repeal Obamacare but medicare as well. The indigent and those who can't afford should be set up with a system of charites backed with government money where needed to help out.
Once medicne goes back to individuals purchasing what they need without regulatory nonsense then the cost of it may very well come down to a point where we can afford it.
As long as bureaucrats control it. Those without the menas to pay are doomed. Under Obamacare those without the means to pay now include the middle class.
But I don't blame Romeny for this per say. I blame the electorate for not understanding the economics of it and acting out of chicken little driven fear.
T-rav, I am feeling the same. Not sure why, perhaps the polls still showing a slight Obama lead. I can't figure out why so many support him. He has been a complete failure and clearly the worst president in US history. His foreign policy is a mess. He cannot physically or emotionally work with anyone, especially if they disagree with him. He is an awful politician. We are watching his left wing ideas collapse in Europe; countries such as Canada and Germany in many ways are to the right of him. His administration is filled with incompetents if not flat out felons. Compared to how people truly sit in this country, he should only be able to garner 30% of the vote.
Here's to hoping for a huge Shy Tory Effect!
Koshcat, That's true, they are all gotcha questions. I guess, my point was that I don't blame Romney for stepping into a trap here because there was no legitimate trap that could be foreseen. In other words, he did and said nothing wrong. In fact, he said nothing they could legitimately morph into the meme they are now running with. The only reason they have been able to create this meme is that they are flat-out lying about his positions.
tryanmax, You? Tongue in cheek? Never! ;)
T-Rav, I know the feeling. It happens to everyone. You'll perk up soon enough. :)
I agree with you about the flip flop. I actually had a different article planned for today (this one was for tomorrow), but I swapped to this one when I started to see lots of "conservative" bloggers start running around calling Romney things like "the human flipper" and "Mr. Flip Flop." They bought this hook line and sinker.
Of course, these are the same people who have been accusing him of being a secret socialist the entire time, so they probably don't matter anyway. But I wanted to point out that this allegation that he's flipflopped is just not true and that they have bought the MSM spin and ignored blatantly obvious facts to do so.
Andrew: I'm a long way from despairing of the federal government using a federal program to break the current state-by-state restrictions on competition. It may have to wait while the major problems are resolved, but if we are to retain a private system, it will have to be done in the not too far distant future. Currently the states are playing the same crony game with insurance companies and regulation that the feds are playing at the national level. Until the restrictions on interstate portability and competition are removed, there actually is little competition at all. I think we all agree that genuine competition across state lines is preferable to in-state restrictions and cronyism.
Pre-existing conditions under a Romney plan will be covered, but ultimately that must be because the ability of companies to insure and compete nationwide has been fixed so that the pool is large enough to allow for profitability. I see pre-existing condition coverage as the single biggest failing of pre-Obamacare health care, along with denial of coverage and cancellation for "excess use." Any plan that doesn't include pre-existing conditions is going to fail, and if Romney were to embrace it (which he won't), his campaign would fail.
If we're going to keep "children" on their parents' policies until they're 26, there had better be a regulatory plan that makes their coverage cheap. Otherwise, there's a wide-open door for insurance companies to increase their profits at the expense of the consumers for insuring the least expensive segment of the health care population. I would rather see something like keeping "children" on the parents' policies until age 18, with the restriction that they can remain on the policies until age 26 only so long as they are registered as full-time college students or in the military. I just consider age 26 to be far too old (without the restrictions) for responsible adults to be treated like children. Actuarial figures would make policies for "children" necessarily inexpensive, and if they want to be responsible citizens, they can pay for their own. Sandra Fluke to the contrary notwithstanding.
Health care, like immigration, is not something that can be summarily dismissed as some sort of liberal plot. Both require comprehensive change. More importantly, the changes must be based on sound reasoning and realistic economics rather than doctrinaire opposition. I think you (and Romney) have addressed that very well. I doubt that there are many people genuinely more conservative than I on fiscal issues, and I see that a return to the old "you're on your own" politics of health care is unrealistic and irresponsible. You are absolutely correct that Romney has not changed his position on that in any significant way.
Indi, There is zero chance of Medicare being repealed and I don't think anyone is even advocating it. The best you're going to get there is reform. And even in that regard, Ryan's plan of privatizing is apparently too much for people.
Personally, I'd like to see our entire system reformed where:
1. The government provide tax breaks to individuals (not companies) to obtain catastrophic insurance. And 100% tax breaks for out-of-pocket medical costs. No other tax breaks.
2. Open-pricing laws where people know the price of everything when it is offered so that they can shop around.
3. Medicare pays market prices rather than trying to set the market.
4. No state barriers on insurance or on medical licenses.
Some good news from Ohio, where the newest PPP poll has the race essentially deadlocked. Well, technically it doesn't--it has Obama out to a five-point lead--but after you correct for the bad sampling data and all, it basically says there's a tie. Maybe a slight lead for Obama, but only a point or two. And no, he's not up in North Carolina, and never will be.
T-Rav, I agree with that downhill feeling, because, as Koshcat said, TOTUS is a disaster but people seem to like him - they really like him. I don't get it!!!!
an extended family member posted a pic of (part of) Romney's quote about not being here to heal the planet or stop the rise of the oceans - like that was a BAD thing!!! You can't even reason with that mindset!!!!
Andrew, I trust I don't need to reiterate how I feel about Romney, but this sort of thing is utterly unacceptable. If you call yourself a conservative and put up stuff like that, which only gives ammunition to the other side, you get to be Number 1 on the list of suspects if Obama wins this thing. Screw them all.
Koshcat and T-Rav, It happens. Life isn't all highs or low, and you will feel better about things soon.
As for the rest of your comment, I have to agree that's frustrating. No one should like Obama -- not left, right or center. His policies have been a mess, when he's gotten them passed, they haven't been what anyone left, right or center actually wants, and he's been an arrogant ass about all of it. I see article after article on the left about how he's disappointed them, on the center about how arrogant and unpleasant he is, and on the right about a whole host of complaints... yet he stays competitive in the polls. I don't get it except that it's not about him, it's about keeping the benefits flowing.
Lawhawk, Normally I have something to add with every comment, but here I don't. I agree 100% across the board. Well said.
rla, what can I say? We can't all be as powerful as President Unicorn.
T-Rav, Drudge had an interesting thing this weekend where he had links to articles outlining where Reagan was in the polls at this point and he was -8% and -11%. So I wouldn't be too worried.
Ohio will be about turn out.
rlaWTX, Don't forget, liberals will support him no matter what. It's just the way they are. And part of that is to engage in hero worship.
The people who matter are moderates, and poll after poll plus anecdotal evidence everywhere shows that the moderates have turned on him.
T-Rav, I do indeed know how you feel about Romney and I am glad that you see this the same way I do. Conservatives who buy into a false MSM meme and then go around attacking Romney are doing Obama's bidding. They will be responsible if Obamacare becomes fully operational and if he gets to continue with the rest of his agenda for four more years.
President Unicorn, LOL! Nice!
Andrew, I've seen some of the same blogs and I just don't get this idea that some of these "conservatives" have to hate Romney. I really don't get it?
Andrew, Excellent timing and excellent discussion. I spoke with one of those so-called conservatives this morning it was obvious to me that he was never a Romney supporter but is now trying to pretend that he was so he is sounded credible when he attacked Romney. He even said he "might" vote Libertarian -- which he's done in every election I've known him.
T-Rav, Does President Unicorn blow rainbows out his butt?
I love your title. I love the picture too. Notice how the sign before him says "repeal AND REPLACE". I guess our friends in the MSM and the wierdo-sphere couldn't be bothered to read that second part.
As an off topic aside, did anyone see that Canada pulled their diplomats out of Iran? I wonder what that means?
Ellen, I saw that. And I saw the teachers walked out of Chicago schools. Nice work Rahm Emanuel -- former Obama team member.
This is not a tryanmax original...but I wish it was: LINK
DUQ, I think you need to ask if those people are actually conservatives or if they are something else. A lot of those people call themselves conservatives, but they really spend their time promoting conspiracy theories.
The problem is the ones who should know better, like a lot of talk radio people -- though I don't know what they are saying today, for all I know they aren't buying this garbage this time.
tryanmax, That's... uh... yeah.
Ellen, I'm not surprised. Like I just told DUQ, a lot of these people who are claiming to be Romney supporters but aren't. They are fringers who are lying to try to get you to listen because you wouldn't listen if they were upfront about never supporting him in the first place.
Terry, That's why I chose the picture because it's pretty obvious proof that Romney has always advocated replacing Obamacare rather than just repealing it and walking away.
With ear to the radio, I can report that the general consensus is that Romney is not the ideal candidate but he's still better than Obama. In other words, the talkers have accepted the left's premise and are trying to spin it differently rather than trying to combat lies with truth.
Ellen, I saw that. I don't know what it means yet, but there has been a lot of noise about Iran lately.
DUQ, Chicago is falling apart (more) ever since Rahm took over. I guess you get what you deserve. But my guess is this won't change anything. They'll just blame random chance and keep right on voting for him.
tryanmax, I guess that's both good and bad. It would be good if they accepted the truth and shot this stupid meme down. But at least they aren't running with it.
tryanmax, What a rotten thing to do to a unicorn!
Andrew, They used to say that NYC was an ungovernable mess and was doomed to always be that way until Rudy G. took over. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Chicago got it's own Republican mayor?
Excellent article. In terms of whether Romney is at fault for not speaking clearly enough, I don't think that's true. I don't think he said anything wrong. I think the problem is that the media was just going to spin anything he said. And even if he said nothing, they would spin that too.
Paramount Hangs A Title: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Is Next Enterprise Voyage
Just to lighten the topic a titch.
Koshcat, Is that the name for the next Star Trek film?
DUQ, It's amazing what a change can make to a city in a rut. But we'll see. I don't think Chicago is in as much trouble as NYC was in the 1970s.
DOC, I think that's true. And that's not to excuse the MSM. I just think that there is nothing Romney can do or say they won't spin.
Yes, that is the name for now. I think estimated next release is May 2013.
Found this video over at Vodkapundit. Very funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vdnY8r7_fLw
Koshcat, Thanks! I hope it's good. I've often found that the second film after a reboot is usually better. But we'll see. :)
Here's your link: LINK
Andrew
Medicare will be reformed. There is a 100% chance of this. It will come when the US government can no longer afford it but you are right in the sense that no politician will ever vote to reform it.
Sorry I don't share any optimism the program can be saved and personally don't see anything benenficial in it worth saving anyways. All it does is increase the cost of healthcare and plays pretend that people will always have it.
But this is not something the politicians will ever want to admit too. I am a bean counter not a poltician so I have that luxory.
Koshcat, That is brilliant! Everyone should check that out! Thanks! :)
Indi, It's a mess all right, but anyone who proposes eliminating it will find a million old people on their doorsteps with shotguns.
I think what will happen is that they will keep squeezing doctors until they stop taking it and then they'll just start not paying bills. That's how other government bankrupt programs do it -- first come, first served + IOUs.
"there is nothing particularly controversial about forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions." I continue to be amazed how so many people have so little or no understanding as to how insurance actually works.
"If we are going to allow a system in which insurance companies get to act as 'gatekeepers' of our healthcare. This again shows how little people understand the insurance mechanism. Insurance is a system where people transfer the risk of catastrophic financial loss to a third party. When done correctly, companies compete on rates (price) and service. It doesn't work when the government sticks it's freaking nose in to manipulate the system. It is government, not insurance companies, who have denied inter-state sales. If you do not allow a company to set it's own underwriting standards, you don't have a free market system. If you force someone to take on a cancer patient that will cost $100,000, you cannot force a company to cover that. The problem is, if you don't know how many pre-existing cases you are forced to take, you don't know how much of that you have to pass on to your normal healthy customers.
If you want to blame big insurance for genuflecting to Obama, fine. Both they and big pharma had the ugly boot of the early pre-2010 election Obama regime on their necks. He basically said, work with me and piss out of the tent or stand on the outside and get splattered.
The truth is, most of the health care costs come from the elderly and people with pre-existing disease. These people are not really good subjects of insurance, other than an assigned risk pool. Reform requires we work with ways to handle that group as cost effectively as possible-- some of those ways you described in commentaramacare
bad sentence in original post. Companies cannot be forced to cover an unknown or unlimited number of $100,000 patients for $3500 in premium. It simply doesn't work.
Jed, I do understand how insurance works, which is why I really don't care about healthcare insurers. When you look at insurance in a free market environment, such as car insurance or home insurance, you see it working the way it should -- as a backstop based on claim experience, coverage options and other supply and demand requirements. It is efficient, it is responsive, and it fits a need consumers have.
But health insurance isn't like that. Health insurance is a system that has replaced the free market and taken all the competitive elements out of it. It has done this through connections with state insurance regulators and the resulting market power to control what will be covered and how much will be paid. It is not subject to market controls. It no longer provides a service consumers want so much as it controls the gateway to letting consumers get what they want. Health insurance has essentially become government run healthcare only with semi-private companies acting on behalf of the government.
When a company chooses to engage in that kind of market and lobbies heavily to control its customers through the legal system, I have no sympathy for any regulations that may get imposed upon them.
As for costs going up, again, I don't care. When you play in a regulated market, you either take what you can get or you get out. I don't see any insurers getting out.
Ellen, no, he vomits rainbows. Talking points are what comes out of his posterior.
Bravo, T-Rav... bravo! :)
One thing I am hopeful for is there is a growing interest in changing things from defined benefits to defined contributions. It started in much of the private sector and is starting to grow across local governments. The primary benefit from this approach is it is not open-ended and thus much easier to budget. This would be something Romney not only understands, but probably favor.
One way the Federal government can get out of the insurance market and still provide a safety net would be a voucher system. I would favor a voucher for everyone and suspect probably 70% of Americans would as well. This voucher would buy a basic plan at any insurance company. This basic plan would be barebones coverage but make it so people can buy more coverage. It would have several benefits:
1. It would allow people to buy an individual policy rather than one tied to their employer.
2. Since it is Federal it would by definition be transferable across state lines.
3. It truly would cover every CITIZEN from cradle to grave.
4. You could eliminate about 8 different agencies (Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, CHIPs, Indian Health Services, VA, ect.) and have just one.
5. Since it would be defined, it could be tightly budgeted. The government will spend $X amount and no more.
6. It would help get the government out of price fixing, which is really causing a lot of problems.
7. Although it might eliminate smaller insurance plans, there would probably be multiple large plans to choose from and switch to and fro based on customer service. They don't really see the patients as customers right now.
8. It would free up the states budget.
9. It would let this country become more mobile again. This is huge as people shift to where the jobs are or better living standards. People wouldn't feel stuck in a place because of fear of losing benefits.
10. It would free up money in business to possibly offer higher wages. Right now, for some of the lower wage earners, health care benefits cost as much as their pay.
We already know that a plan similar to this would be considered constitutional since it would be paid for by a tax. Since offered to everyone, you eliminate any 14th amendment issue. It is a transfer of wealth but I would set it up as a flat tax. Overall, I think people are less annoyed when everyone pays a share. I could go one but I have to go back to work now.
I thought unicorns had very specific... predilections. Seeing as TOTUS is father of record to FLOTUS's daughters, this unicorn must be an imposter. Or very deviant. Or is there another story hidden here...
please excuse my OT; tryanmax's picture blew out a few brain fuses.
Koshcat, I think that's the idea behind Ryan's "privatization" and I think that's a step in the right direction.
I would ultimately like to see insurance taken out of it except for catastrophic care, but I could see something like this for people who get government benefits (welfare, elderly, disability).
rlaWTX, Uh... you lost me. Are you saying Unicorns are gay?
they are attracted to virgins, as the stories go... LOL sorry.
Ooooh. Ok, I may have heard that before. LOL!
I do not disagree with Ryan's notion to get away from employer based health care plans. Nor do I disagree that health insurance should be kept as a "major medical" function rather than paying out $30 co-pay routine visits. I put much more of the blame, however, on regulators than companies in terms of mandating minimum coverage and rate issues. On the other hand, anybody who thinks mandating "pre-existing conditions" coverage is a good idea is simply no longer talking insurance. It may be something else, but it is not insurance.
Koshkat - vouchers is a thought. Again, though, you ultimately need to get at underlying costs of care. In theory, much of the savings of Obamacare is through alleged best practices they are magically going to discover. I, along with Medicare's chief actuary tend to be more skeptical. Andrew generated some great cost control ideas back in commentaramacare posts. Rates must ultimately reflect both loss costs and expenses, and there is only so much a company can wring on the expense side.
Jed, That's really the point, this isn't insurance anymore. It ceased being insurance when it took over paying 100% of the cost of even routine healthcare for people. And as John Stossel showed, as the number of people on this insurance grew, the more prices soared and the more distorted the system got because consumers and producers stopped talking to each other and instead started talking through middle men.
And the government made this possible through regulation. And the government now keeps the system from changing. So now rather than respond to market conditions, everyone fights over new regulations to extract more from the other guys.
That's why our system is so expensive and that's why I think it needs to be seriously reformed, and why I think just getting people more insurance will only make things worse. People need to start spending their own money, doctors needs to start setting their own prices, and insurance needs to return to being insurance rather than a buyers agent.
As for the cost savings, I totally stand by those.
Post a Comment