There sure are lots of critics, but very few with ideas.Whats even
worse is those who say, "US healthcare system is the best in the world.
Thats why it is expensive" and think that nothing needs to be done.OK, Obamacare stinks. Fine. What do YOU propose?
Funny, in the 90s conservative writers and organizations touted Obamacare as
their city of gold! I wonder what changed?
And our current system is a total disaster. It is also a prime example of the
Republican Party's version of socialism. (Socialize expense; Privatize
profits)We are all paying for the care of those who cannot or will
not obtain insurance.Instead of spouting stuff like this, where are
the suggestions for a system that will actually work?
Our healthcare cost are expensive largely because of tort lawyer's
malpractice suits which we all pay for and emergency room non-payers who's
costs are passed on to those who do pay. In addition, we can not expect the best
medical care, the best and most advanced pharmaceuticals in the world to be
cheap! If you want cheap healthcare go to a 3rd world country but remember you
get what you pay for! Mitt Romney was right that repealing Obamacare, expanding
insurance companies ability to compete across state lines and changing tort laws
would do far more to stabilize costs than having the government running
healthcare with all its additional mandates and taxes. Too many Americans were
so fixated on "free" government subsidized heathcare without
pre-existing conditions that they never listened to the warnings about
Obamacare. If you think your healthcare costs are high now, wait until next
Ok... lets see. Companies are going to down size.... turn away business,
because they don't want to pay for insurance.Let me see......
the argument for not having higher taxes is that business will just pass the
higher cost on to the customer. Now seeing how this will impact all
businesses, all will see the same fiscal hit. In the case of taxes, the cost
will simply be passed on to the consumer.Same argument for minimum
wage.But with health care cost, oh no.... companies will down
size. Lay off employees. Reduce hours. It's cats and dogs living
together....Lets get to some consistent arguments here. This is a
cost. It will hit all businesses. It may indeed mean an increase in consumer
prices. But it is not going to change the fundamentals of business. Businesses
will staff to meet demand. Plane and simple. It is simply a cost -
not something that is going to shake the fundamentals of capitalism.
@JoeBlow "OK, Obamacare stinks. Fine. What do YOU propose?"You seem to be inferring that no alternative solutions have been offered. This
is simply not true. Obamacare's failures were accurately predicted, and
many, many alternative solutions proposed. The problem is that they were
ignored.What do I propose? First, repeal. Then realize that the high
costs which currently exist are a result of excessive government involvement in
health care in the first place. Our current system is over-regulated and
inflexible. The solution is not more of the same. We have forgotten that free
markets produce the widest range of products and services at the lowest
prices.Free market solutions could include: encouraging health
savings accounts, removing obstacles to nationwide competition in the insurance
industry, reforming the tort system, de-coupling health insurance from
employment, deregulation across the board. Many other solutions will emerge when
individuals and health care providers are free to contract with each other
without outside interference.It was a big mistake to ram Obamacare
through the legislative process without discussing alternatives. We have lost
half a decade. We need to get back on track. Repealing Obamacare is the first
We need to take it a step further, get employers out of the equation entirely
and get a single payer system in place.
Mtnman. Check out the tort reform that was done in Texas. It has not produced
the huge drop in insurance premiums.Nate. I assure you that I am
open to any and all good solutions. Unfortunately, our politicians, and many
many people in this country will discount ANY and ALL ideas from the other
political side without consideration.Lets look at some of your
proposals.Encourage health savings account. Ok, how? Tax
incentives? Nationwide competition. I agree with that, however,
some of the largest companies already have a huge percentage of the business.
They are operating in most states as it is. There have been many mergers and
the competitive field is shrinking.Reforming Tort. Im ok with that
also, but Texas did not find that it made much diff in premiums. Additionally,
we need reasonable tort when someone does an appendectomy on the wrong
patient.Unregulated, I am confident that the largest health care
companies will drive out the competition with the help of congress (through
campaign donations and lobbying). THeir profits will continue to increase and
costs will go up.When we prevent out legislators from voting on
issues where they were lobbied, we will get_better laws.
Don't you mean Romney care? This is Romney's plan for Mass, which
works just fine for them. It's not perfect but it's a step in
the right direction.
Another one-sided article about Obamacare. Is this going to be a daily feature
of Deseret News? I want to know, how is Romneycare working in MA?
Obama offered tort reform, if Republicans were willing to work with
him. The CBO projected tort reform (which several states already have)
would've saved $54 billion over 10 yrs. By contrast the CBO estimated a
public option would save $110 billion over 10 yrs.As for expanding
the ability to purchase policies in other states--what a nightmare for
physicians-- dealing with more insurance companies and plans. It is not clear
what recourse a resident of one state would have if an out-of-state insurance
company unfairly denied a claim etc. Re:NateObamacare
was developed over many months, in bi-partisan committees. It was very clear
that Republicans opposed healthcare reform--even a plan offered by Bob Bennett.
Democrats adopted as a blueprint, Romneycare, because not only was it enacted by
a Republican, but it was built on ideas from conservative think tanks. It was
not the blueprint many Democrats wanted to pursue.
The Massachusetts health care plan is experiencing the same funding problems
that the ACA has encountered. It is sadly naive to believe that they work
"just fine." The ACA is a grand vision which was initiated by Mitt
Romney in MA, universal health care at an affordable price. In application, it
is a confusing disappointment. The projected initial cost of under $1 trillion
has risen to $2.7 trillion and according to the Supreme Court, states are not
required to adhere to federal Medicaid guidelines. Middle class families have
yet to feel the weight of their financial obligation. Unfortunately, it is
apparent that the ACA provides neither universal or affordable health care.
"I want to know, how is Romneycare working in MA?" It’s not.
The costs have skyrocketed and there is not full insuranceAnd that
was the biggest reason Romney lost (many conservatives stayed home from the
election because they felt Romney was Obama light - I disagree - but the
election was lost by Republicans because of decreased conservative turnout - not
because of increased liberal turnout)
Interesting NONE of the BO apologists have DEFENDED Obamacare.Joeblow,What do we propose?Nate proposed, and YOU did exactly what
you said, you DISCOUNTED ANY AND ALL ideas from the other side.Maverick,The 90s writers did not propose a 2500 page monstrosity bought
with bribery and graft, unread before passage. Are slick willy’s 43 and
49 percent victories “majorities” yet? Ernest,Romneycare was amended after he left MA by the leftist legislature there. But
you are correct, it is NOT a good model. Blue devil,It’s called marginal rate of return. If the additional business costs
more than what it is worth, you don’t chase it. Reducing your employees
to part-time and hiring more allows you to capture that business and NOT incur
Obamacare costs. Great for the CEO’s bonus, BAAAAD for the employees, so
Obamacare FEEDS the 1%.Truthseeker (ignorer??)It’s an
OPINION piece. It is DESIGNED to tell one side.Obamacare was
developed in bi-partisan committees? Between who? Moderate dems and liberal
dems? EVERY repub idea rejected! That’s hardly bi-partisan!
@lost in DCTo be fair to JoeBlow, he may have discounted a few of
the ideas, but he did it while agreeing with them in principle.@JoeBlow "Tax incentives?"Yes, if by that you mean, not
taxing HSA funds at all."They [largest companies] are operating
in most states as it is."But their pricing structures are
different state to state. Residents of Massachusetts often pay a different price
for the same insurance as do residents of Wyoming."Unregulated,
I am confident that the largest health care companies will drive out the
competition with the help of congress...."They do that now
*with* regulations. The less we allow Congress and the White House to tamper
with any industry, the less favoritism they can inject into it. Wherever you
find a corrupt monopoly, government is a participant. This is why we need to
keep them out of it.@TruthseekerI have no investment in
Romneycare or in Bailout Bob's plan. They were the wrong approach, for the
same reasons that Obamacare is wrong."It was not the blueprint
many Democrats wanted to pursue."Then why did they vote for it?
Everyone from Deloitte to McKinsey has a prediction, all orders-of-magnitude
different. And these are our "brightest" MBAS doing the numbers.
Meanwhile some companies are thinking of self-insuring -- a great idea,
actually. In truth, ObamaCare does unleash the very market forces conservatives
want, by allowing many different options within exchanges. The fact is, the WSJ
and the "conservatives" hate ObamaCare because they hate Obama. Voila
"Nate proposed, and YOU did exactly what you said, you DISCOUNTED ANY AND
ALL ideas from the other side."I doubt that Nate feels that way.
We are actually having a reasoned dialogue. I looked
seriously at all points. My counter arguments were factual and reasoned.@nate"But their pricing structures are different state
to state. Residents of Massachusetts often pay a different price for the same
insurance as do residents of Wyoming."Again, true, but do any
states have pricing structures that are not increasing at a huge rate? That
said, I agree with you. It is minor to let Insurance companies cross state
lines. I am not confident that it would help, but doubt is would hurt."Wherever you find a corrupt monopoly, government is a participant. This
is why we need to keep them out of it."I believe that you are
now hitting on the overall issue and problem. Why is govt a participant?
2 words. BIG MONEY! Until we get big corporate and Union money out of
politics, our politicians will cater to the corporations and the unions.Unfortunately, people only complain about the "other sides" big
Don't like Obamacare?Obamacare/ACA has a provision allowing
states to devise their own universal healthcare systems starting in 2017. The
state of Vermont is moving forward with a single-payer plan.
To "JoeBlow" the answer is simple, get government out of the way of
health insurance.Here are the problems. First, health insurance
companies have over 2600 mandates on them. These include what they are to cover
and how they are to report things to the government. Get rid of 50% or more of
those mandates. They add 50% or more to the cost of insurance.Next,
make it more difficult for malpractice lawsuits to be filed. This will reduce
the cost that Doctors pay for malpractice. For example an OB/GYN can pay up to
$360,000 per year for malpractice insurance, even if that cost is cut in half,
it will make their services much cheaper.Next, allow companies to
offer policies across state lines. This will also lower costs because it will
allow companies to pool states with aging populations with states that have
@JoeBlow "Why is govt a participant? 2 words. BIG MONEY!"And
why is big money a participant? Because government has influence over just about
everything that matters to them. Power is the magnet that attracts big money.We would be wiser to de-centralize and diffuse power. Unfortunately,
Obamacare does exactly the opposite. We have put the federal government in
charge of one-sixth of our economy. Corruption waiting to happen. (Already
happening, to be more precise.)
Some of you are suggesting that Republicans didn't offer any ideas. All
Republican ideas were rejected before they were stated. I think you may have
forgotten that the republicans were not permitted to work on forging the ACA.
The committees that worked on it were comprised of 100% democrats. The democrats
were so arrogant that they didn't even let the Republicans give input until
the vote. That is how thoroughly the democrats rejected Republican input.Then they called for the vote before anyone had time to read the 2400
pages, let alone debate it. Obamacare is a purely democrat
concoction, and when it fails it will be purely a democrat failure.
One of the things we need to remember about insurance is that its purpose is to
protect against risk. This is why we buy car insurance. Many people would have a
difficult time paying for legal costs and repair costs in the event of an auto
accident. So what your insurer is doing is assuming the risk of a possible
accident in exchange for your premiums.People do not buy oil change
coverage with auto insurance because it is not a matter of chance whether they
will have to change the oil. The insurance company would not be assuming any
risk, simply writing checks on my behalf (plus profit); a pass through
transaction. Under those conditions, I wouldn't shop to get a better price.
I may even get it changed more often than necessary just because I know the
extra cost will be paid for by everyone else with oil change coverage instead of
me.Buy major medical coverage and pay for the rest with your MSA.
Then shop for doctors and pharmacies that give a discount to cash customers.
@ SpocDiscounts for cash customers are usually 10-15% IF you pay the
day of services. The discounts insurance companies get are 50-60%, and they have
months to pay and still get the discount. The system is stacked against the cash
payer. Until that is corrected, medical will continue to price PEOPLE out of the