What's Next For Obamacare
Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 1 month ago to Legislation
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!
"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!
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.
Jan
Jan
Heath care has huge problems, but I think the best solution is getting government out of it, rather than giving them even more control.
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.
Heath care has huge problems, but I think the best solution is getting government out of it, rather than giving them even more control.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Can I entice a bit more elaboration from you on this excellent topic?
Jan
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.
Jan
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...
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.
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.