How The GOP Should Fix Obamacare
Holman Jenkins writes in the WSJ:
Americans are beginning to understand that the essence of the Affordable Care Act is that millions of people are being conscripted to buy overpriced insurance they would never choose for themselves in order to afford Mr. Obama monies to spend on the poor and those who are medically uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions. Both Mr. Obama and Republicans are blowing smoke in claiming that the damage done to the individual market by the forced cancellation of "substandard" plans (i.e., those that don't meet the purposes of ObamaCare) can somehow be reversed at this point. It can't be.What can be done is Congress creating a new option in the form of a national health insurance charter under which insurers could design new low-cost policies free of mandated benefits imposed by ObamaCare and the 50 states that many of those losing their individual policies today surely would find attractive.
What's the first thing the new nationally chartered insurers would do? Rush out cheap, high-deductible policies, allaying some of the resentment that the ObamaCare mandate provokes among the young, healthy and footloose affluent.
These folks could buy the minimalist coverage that (for various reasons) makes sense for them. They wouldn't be forced to buy excessive coverage they don't need to subsidize the old and sick.
If this idea sounds familiar, it was proposed right here three years ago, after the 2010 elections in which Democrats lost the House due to public disquiet over ObamaCare.
Because such a move could be sold as expanding the options under ObamaCare and lessening the burden of an unpopular mandate, it always had potential to draw Democratic support. That's doubly true now that Democrats are saddled with President Obama's promise that anybody who liked their existing insurance can keep it. Mr. Obama's promise is not literally keepable but the national charter would be the next best thing, letting millions find policies that are a good deal for them in their particular circumstances.
And, yes, this would also blow up the disingenuous financial engine of ObamaCare. This is a feature not a bug.
The ObamaCare exchanges would devolve into refuges for those who are medically uninsurable. But this seems increasingly likely to happen anyway. Having assumed the job of subsidizing the people, the federal government should do so honestly and openly and efficiently.
via @JohnTierneyNYC
There's only one solution to Obamacare: repeal. Anything less is just asking for more turmoil in the market.
Of course, I think Obamacare as implemented was by design: they wanted a single payer system, and when OCare goes belly up, that is what will be floated as the "fix".
If that goes thru, then the government can regulate what we eat, smoke, and drink. Because those things can effect your health. And because the government is paying for it (with your money), they can pry into your life like nothing they've ever done before.
Shush! We've always been at war with Oceania.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 20, 2013 6:51 AM
Tierney has a good idea, as a starter. And yes, full repeal.
But I would ALSO suggest a few more reforms: allow health policies to be sold ACROSS state lines.
Restore all the "old" capabilities of FSA's, and raise the annual limit on FSAs. And drop the massive documentation of FSA purchases that were rolled in a few years ago.
And expand and emphasize HSAs, especially for the young. . .
Keith Glass at November 20, 2013 7:06 AM
This is basically trying to spin it, gov't took 4 years to cancel the insurance company plans. If insurance companies can't undo that in 4 weeks then you not getting your old plan is solely the insurance company's fault. Except I don't think the media are as devoted followers as it used to be.
Joe J at November 20, 2013 7:22 AM
Ocrapcare has been a cancer on this country for 10 years of his lying and dishonest administration. I didn't feel this violated by my prostate exam as I do by the (un)Affordable Care Act. To be told what and how I have to buy is absurd from the inception. We are slowly and surely losing our rights - Obama has marginalized, diluted or outright eliminated almost every right guaranteed by our constitution, and it's not going to stop. ACA breaks more than it fixes for more than it helps.... No patient would allow a doctor to prescribe medications or treatment that caused more damage than it was designed to treat... ACA is just that - bad medicine. It cannot be fixed. Although your suggestion is right up the liberal's alley - add MORE legislation to fix bad legislation rather than just hit reset and start again.
Amy - you are right, as usual though. He needs to change the tone of his whole administration and BE the transparent and honest administration he's always claimed instead of the hypocritical and dishonest administration they really are.
Lee Ladisky at November 20, 2013 7:27 AM
> If insurance companies can't undo that in 4 weeks
In many states, the regulatory process to re-introduce an insurance plan takes many months.
Snoopy at November 20, 2013 10:29 AM
Amy - you are right, as usual though. He needs to change the tone of his whole administration and BE the transparent and honest administration he's always claimed instead of the hypocritical and dishonest administration they really are.
Posted by: Lee Ladisky at November 20, 2013 7:27 AM
What you see now, is "what they really are". Now you expect them to become something this administration has never been and never will be?
Isab at November 20, 2013 3:10 PM
Actually what the Republicans should be doing now is voting out repeal bills only. No mods, no de-funding, or anything similar.
The House, Senate and White House was controlled by the Democrats when the [un]Affordable Care Act was voted in. It is now being shown to be a total failure.
So what the Republicans need to do is make the Democrats clean up there own vomitus. So if they refuse to vote for allowing grandfathering plans it puts the Democrats in the position that they either have to like the new law or repealing it.
As far as de-funding it, that is stupid. It still would require insurers to provide the birth control and other crap. So it would still cost more.
Jim P. at November 20, 2013 6:55 PM
As far as de-funding it, that is stupid. It still would require insurers to provide the birth control and other crap. So it would still cost more.
Posted by: Jim P. at November 20, 2013 6:55 PM
If you cant sign ip for it, and you are not able to pay for it, we may never get to the point where Insurance companies have to "pay out" on the plans.
There is no mechanism in place to force any doctor, hospital or pharmacy to accept the Obamacare coverage, and they will be bailing on it faster than the insurance companies are.
When the congress is trying to do now, is stop the administration from covering the insurance company losses, which if allowed will cause this mess to drag on for several more months than it should, all at the expense of the taxpayers.
Isab at November 20, 2013 8:24 PM
Yeah, the thing a lot of the Republicans are missing is that behind the original interest in Obamacare was a recognition that the current system isn't working all that well. But there were much better ways to fix that. Some recommendations:
* Allow policies to be sold across state lines. (This might actually be a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause.)
* Give all plans the same tax treatment, whatever it is.
* Allow people to form non-profit affinity groups for the purpose of insuring and acquiring insurance. Sort of like credit unions.
* Require that thing that pay for routine care be separated from insurance, per se. They can be marketed together, but the routine-care part has to be marketed as "prepaid health care" or some such, rather than being labeled as insurance.
* Greatly increase the contribution limits on health savings accounts. In fact, why bother having limits at all? Also, allow year-end leftovers to be carried forward indefinitely.
Cousin Dave at November 21, 2013 10:04 AM
Greatly increase the contribution limits on health savings accounts. In fact, why bother having limits at all? Also, allow year-end leftovers to be carried forward indefinitely.
This.
So. Much.
I swear I will never understand this at all. It should be so much simpler than it is.
Why limit it? It's a SAVINGS account, essentially, but for your healthcare, not for personal spending.* In theory, you should be able to save up as much as you want for your healthcare if you're able. In fact, its a very smart and efficiant way to budget for your healthcare costs with this HSA. Why limit what I can put on it? I cannot for the life of me wrap my brain around it.
It also drives me absolutely batty that the money that came out of MY check isn't rolled over for the next year. Why? For what reason? Its MY money. It belongs to ME! Why can't I used the unspent portion next year and save myself a bit in the following year?
No one who works for my plan has ever been able to explain to me why this is so, either.
*I don't think they are really monitored all that much. I once accidentally charged my bottle of wine to it at CVS and no one has called me on it.
Sabrina at November 21, 2013 12:36 PM
Read about the difference between an HSA v. FSA here.
But I don't want to have a high deductible plan to have an HSA. I want to be able to walk in to a dentist, eye doctor, pharmacist, or even a regular doctor and same I'm paying "cash". But I don't want to have to hoard $5 or $10K so when I come up with a broken leg, or some other emergency to pay that deductible. And I don't want to have to buy $200 of Nyquil to rot on a shelf for years because the FSA yearly rules.
They have setup the incentives on both systems in a fucked up way.
Jim P. at November 21, 2013 5:58 PM
Leave a comment