• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where's Republicans' alternative to Obamacare? It's right here.

imagep said:
I'm not sure I understand this public option thing. The way I see it, the state and federal exchanges are public options. Are they not?
Click to expand...

Well yes they are options for the public. At one time it was being discussed that the government could provide its own program and act as insurer as an option. The GOP didn't like it because they felt prices may be so low it could put private insurers out of business.
 
The usual practice, I believe, when a group of Congress people comes up with an alternate way of doing something that an existing law does, is to present it for a vote in one house, then it goes to the other house for a vote. If it fails (and it always does), then they can start voting on amendments to the existing law, trying to make it similar to the one they want. For example, they don't like Social Security and want to privatize it. They know that repealing it won't happen. So they repeatedly try to pass amendments to it to change it, to make it closer to a privatized program.

But as far as repealing the Affordable Care Act, they're too late. The Republicans apparently didn't think there was any problem with skyrocketing health care costs and insurance premiums, while millions went without healthcare. Except for Romney in his state. The Democrats saw a big problem with it...both for the economy and for the people...and took Romney's plan and expanded it for the country. The Democrats then opened it up for negotiation, and in the course of that, approved between 100 adn 200 Republican amendments (but the Republicans then didn't vote for it, even though it contained their amendments).

So Obama and the Democrats did something. It's not perfect and will need tweaking. But he had the courage and will to DO something. It passed. It is the law of the land,now. It's a little late for the Republicans to NOW say they have a plan. The Republicans had the W.H. for eight years, and control of Congress for a while. They could've easily passed a health care bill.

If they want the ACA changed, present and vote on more amendments to it. That's what's normally done. They can probably arm twist a few Democrats to vote yea.
 
To get at the core of the problem, help needs to be given to the working poor to get health care. They don't qualify for Medicaid (which is terrible care, BTW, IF you can find someone who takes Medicaid), and they don't make enough money to buy insurance or pay for health care. The Republicans also don't want to increase the minimum wage, which would help them pay for a dr visit out of pocket.

The above plan doesn't seem to do that. Who are the Republicans trying to help with this supposedly alternate plan? People who don't really need help?

It also doesn't guarantee that an ins. co. can't drop someone who gets sick. Or takes someone who is sick. And the mandate ensures that someone isn't a deadbeat, not paying for ins., but then getting insurance only after they get sick.

The Affordable Care Act will help a lot (but not all) of the working poor.

We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't make sure ALL of its citizens get basic health care. We pay the most for health care in the world, and we are FAR from the healthiest. The ACA won't solve that, but it will help. It doesn't seem to me that this alternate will do that.

The ACA is still a private, competitive market and not a "social" program. Which hopefully will help with the cost of premiums. Esp since there is now a CAP on premiums (80% more than total claims paid, for individual policies, and 85% more than total claims paid for group policies).
 
polgara said:
Mary Landrieu, Democrat Senator from Louisiana wanted 300 million dollars for her bribe vote. She got it! Why did she require a bribe to vote yes on this great ACA plan? She recently stated she'd do it again today, too. This is the type of people we have representing us in DC today? :wow:
Click to expand...
Yep. They aren't exactly principled people in the manner we would hope. Regarding your previous post, I don't know why insurers are pulling out of the state exchanges - I could guess - but I don't know. The ER visits are most likely going to continue to some extent no matter what might be offered insurance-wise. I know of no plans which will address the projected doctor shortage. Those who are health-industry wise might have some insight, but I don't.
 
Neomalthusian said:
H.R. 3121 - American Health Care Reform Act of 2013

2_photo.jpg




LINK
Click to expand...

I would prefer to go with Direct Care Concierge medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and then people just get catastrophic coverage.
 
year2late said:
So the working poor, those too "rich" for Medicaid, too poor for health care...how do you address their medical care? We have millions of Americans working their asses off to barely make ends meet. bow does "just get catastrophic health care" help them?
Click to expand...

Do you know what Direct Care Concierge medicine is?
 
JumpinJack said:
To get at the core of the problem, help needs to be given to the working poor to get health care.
Click to expand...

No, nothing needs to be "given" to anyone. That does not get to the core of the problem. The core of the problem is our health care is far more expensive than anywhere else in the world already. Subsidizing the poor just makes demand that much more inelastic, which pushes prices higher. Not only does your idea fail to solve the problem, it makes the problem worse.

They don't qualify for Medicaid (which is terrible care, BTW, IF you can find someone who takes Medicaid), and they don't make enough money to buy insurance or pay for health care. The Republicans also don't want to increase the minimum wage, which would help them pay for a dr visit out of pocket.
Click to expand...

No, not really, the minimum wage would not meaningfully improve their ability to pay for care or insurance themselves. It has simply become THAT expensive.

The above plan doesn't seem to do that. Who are the Republicans trying to help with this supposedly alternate plan? People who don't really need help?
Click to expand...

Everyone is helped generally when interstate competition is promoted, prices are controlled, and no one is coerced.

It also doesn't guarantee that an ins. co. can't drop someone who gets sick.
Click to expand...

That is a breach of contract or an invalid contract. It's not insurance if you pull a fast one on the customer, it's a scam. Our legal system cannot allow that sort of bad faith.

Even in post #1 I revealed some flaws with this proposal. But it's still superior to PPACA, for reasons also noted in post #1. PPACA is riddled with coverage gaps for the poor, subsidy cliffs and a family glitch for the middle class, and it doesn't do anything to control the cost of health care.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
Anyone want to explain how it will control costs.
Click to expand...


Easy. If you get a disease and its really expensive to treat, you dont get treated because the cost exceeds your taxable income.

It expunges those greedy leechers and moochers from the system by letting them die off, like Jeebus intended.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Do you know what Direct Care Concierge medicine is?
Click to expand...

Please tell me how you see this working on any kind of large scale.

Assume you are speaking to the patient that is paycheck to paycheck , with just enough for food and rent. Too rich for Medicaid.
 
jimbo said:
When Obama first touted his health care plan, the claim was 6 million without health care. Now the claim is 30 million. So just the threat of Barrycare has increased the number of uninsured by a factor of 6.
Click to expand...


Source for the 6m claim, please.
 
year2late said:
Not really.

At the top of a private insurance company is a CEO making huge money on the backs of patients. The same CEO is beholding to stockholders so decisions are made based on what is best for the company and not the patient.

Medicare has been shown to operate on low overhead.

One way you have a government exchange that offers private insurance the other cuts out the middle man between the patient and the government.
Click to expand...

Isn't the insurance company a middleman?

Why don't we just restrict insurance coverage to costs that would be financially devistating, and then have normal care paid for directly by the patient, that would cut out 95% of the middleman issues, and a lot of the cost. Is there really any point in us paying an insurance company hundreds of dollars a month, when the typical person may only spend a few hundred dollars a year on medical care? If you can afford a tank of gas or a few weeks worth of groceries, you can afford a $50 or $100 doctor visit.
 
JumpinJack said:
To get at the core of the problem, help needs to be given to the working poor to get health care...
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more simple to raise minimum wage and cut the taxes that the poor and middle class pay (and even the 47% pay lots of taxes, if not income taxes)?

It just occurs to me that instead of having means tested welfare programs, including the subsidy for Obamacare, which tend to lock poor people into poverty, maybe it would be better to create an economic and tax system that allows them to make more and keep more of what they make.

I know that a lot of people strongly support state sales taxes, and advocate for a national consumption tax, but that places a huge tax burden on the poor, and makes it even harder for the poor to afford healthcare. If we outlawed sales tax, in my state the poor would be able to keep 6% more of the income that they receive. A full time minimum wage worker would have an extra $840 a year. And if we didn't charge a penny in fica or medicare tax (to the worker or the employer) until income exceeds the median income, that minimum wage worker would close to another $2,000 a year. Wouldn't that be a better alternative than locking people into poverty? Means testing government benefits disincentivizes people from making more money, while paying them better and allowing them to keep more of what they make incentivizes people to make more money.
 
Neomalthusian said:
...the minimum wage would not meaningfully improve their ability to pay for care or insurance themselves. It has simply become THAT expensive...
Click to expand...

The way it is being explained to me, private companies are agreeing to accept the Obamacare insurance at the stated rates, which averages about $350 per month per person, unsubsidized. That doesn't sound all that expensive, although it would be a struggle for a lower income family - just like they struggle to be able to afford a car.

For a full time minimum wage person to make an extra $350/mth, minimum wage would only have to be raised to about $9.69/hr, which adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was during the late 1960's. I don't see that as being undoable. Even if that full time minimum wage worker had two peoples insurance to pay for, we are still only talking about needing to raise min wage to about $12/hr to cover the cost of the policies.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
The way it is being explained to me, private companies are agreeing to accept the Obamacare insurance at the stated rates, which averages about $350 per month per person, unsubsidized. That doesn't sound all that expensive, although it would be a struggle for a lower income family - just like they struggle to be able to afford a car.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I fully grasp all of what you're saying here, but I don't necessarily have an argument against it either.

For a full time minimum wage person to make an extra $350/mth, minimum wage would only have to be raised to about $9.69/hr, which adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was during the late 1960's. I don't see that as being undoable. Even if that full time minimum wage worker had two peoples insurance to pay for, we are still only talking about needing to raise min wage to about $12/hr to cover the cost of the policies.
Click to expand...

If we're still talking about PPACA, then the minimum wage analysis is somewhat moot, considering so many minimum wage earners are young enough to just be tacked on to their parents' insurance, and that beyond that age such a small percentage are minimum wage earners (around 1%), and an even smaller percentage are MW earners with no other income in their household (i.e. they're married to someone who presumably makes more than MW).
 
iguanaman said:
Actually the problem we have IS the 25 million who don't have insurance. That drives costs up all by itself because we all pay for them anyway.
Click to expand...

No. Our problem is that our system is dominated by third-party-payments. The "oh folks using the emergency room" factor is a contributor, but a relatively minor one, especilly given that Medicaid can be signed up for post-facto.
 
imagep said:
Isn't the insurance company a middleman?

Why don't we just restrict insurance coverage to costs that would be financially devistating, and then have normal care paid for directly by the patient, that would cut out 95% of the middleman issues, and a lot of the cost. Is there really any point in us paying an insurance company hundreds of dollars a month, when the typical person may only spend a few hundred dollars a year on medical care? If you can afford a tank of gas or a few weeks worth of groceries, you can afford a $50 or $100 doctor visit.
Click to expand...

True enough, and the reason we do not have that system is because of the tax-treatment of health benefits from employers. Take away that tax deduction, and watch the market rapidly shift in the direction you suggest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom