Alternatives to Obamacare

[mcpenguin5]

The reason that the Catholics cannot offer an insurance plan that does not include coverage for abortions, birth control, etc. is that the ObamaCare law requires that all insurance must cover these objectionable things in order to qualify. If the alternative were created, it would not be acceptable and the persons buying that insurance would be considered uninsured by law and would have to sign up with a company that did offer these “services”.

 

[Rehoboam]

Delivery of any kind of services by the States is determined by who is in control of the State Government. Many are now limiting health care by denying Medicaid expansion to the uninsured. We would have 50 different plans or no plans depending on where you happened to live. I’d rather have one government body sort out health issues rather than 50.

 

[ProVobis]

As it stands now, companies such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield have to have individual State level companies. It increases the risk factor for each of these State levels and the overall Insurance rates are higher. It would not solve all the problems, but it would take care of a large part of it.

Insurance premiums can vary within the state so it would not be illegal to charge higher premiums to out-of-staters, I would think. The state insurance regulators usually have the final say.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Delivery of any kind of services by the States is determined by who is in control of the State Government. Most in control of the Republicans have attempted to place limits on voting rights and services for the less fortunate. Many are now limiting health care by denying Medicaid expansion to the uninsured. We would have 50 different plans or no plans depending on where you happened to live. I’d rather have one government body sort out health issues rather than 50.

Anything slightly more specific? Your post seems kind of general. Maybe an example?

 

[epan]

Why does compassion always have to come from the government?

Not at all, from the people who elect their representatives.

I guess your position is that compassion derives from private insurers who operate at a profit, and who make billions or trillions as brokers of medical services.

I like my model over yours, if the goal is to deliver healthcare to those who need it.

If you goal is to make the insurance companies rich, and to provide healthcare only for those who are wealthy, or employed by one of the decreasing number of employers who offer the benefit, then I guess you are on the right track. Keep in mind that healthcare will continue to decline as the middle class disappears, under that model.

 

[otjm]

It’s called a free market.

Correction - it was called a free market. That has been effectively done away with.

 

[otjm]

Most notably, the countries whose constitutions were drafted after the lessons of the US experiment had been observed for a while. In some countries (such as the Netherlands), it is a constitutional obligation of the state to care for the welfare of its citizens.

This rather enlightened point of view was advocated by Presidents Roosevelt, and also by President Eisenhower. However, the political opposition was too great, and the battle was not fought. Roosevelt probably would have taken up the gauntlet, but he was ill toward the end of his tenure.

Greece had that too; and the population rioted (literally) when Greece ran out of money.

Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.

 

[MasterWooten]

****Even if it is a public health insurance plan as we have in Canada or Western Europe the proper and lawful alternative to Obamacare would be a state administered plan.

People in support of Obamacare often site the fact that Obamacare is modeled exactly after what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. While this maybe the case, the Obama plan is plagued with administrative and legal pitfalls which is why the Supreme Court had to declare Obamacare a tax in order to save it from an Ultra Vires ruling vis a vis the Commerce Clause and in so doing define Obamacare in a manner that was completely inconsistent with the legislative intent of its drafters. The irony here is that you have a conservative justice in John Roberts employing all kinds of legal gymnastics to save a badly drafted liberal health care plan.

Going forward, what ought to happen is that the federal government if I so wants to see everybody insured should approach the states and offer them cash to assist the sates in covering their un/under insured on the basis that they (the states run the plan) and in exchange for the money they spend it on health insurance and ensure complete primary care for their residents. Hell they could factor in tax incentives as well but trying to do from Washington what many of the larger states would have a difficult time doing for their citizens from their state capitals alone is ridiculous given the way most Americans receive pubic services today.

 

[Rehoboam]

Anything slightly more specific? Your post seems kind of general. Maybe an example?

Many voter registration drives designed to help the elderly or disabled to vote have had burdensome restrictions placed on them, some with heavy fines and criminal penalities. Ohio and Colorado require that individuals pre-register with the state and disclose personal infomation before helping their neigbors register to vote, In most states these laws are enforced by criminal penalties, including jail time. Florida holds individual volunteers and the groups they work for jointly liable for $250 for each form returned more than 10 days after completion, $500 for each form received after the state voter registration deadline, and $5000 fine for each form not submitted. All seem to be making an effort to prevent groups from trying to increase registration of voters.

 

[markomalley]

Going forward, what ought to happen is that the federal government if I so wants to see everybody insured should approach the states and offer them cash to assist the sates in covering their un/under insured on the basis that they (the states run the plan) and in exchange for the money they spend it on health insurance and ensure complete primary care for their residents. Hell they could factor in tax incentives as well but trying to do from Washington what many of the larger states would have a difficult time doing for their citizens from their state capitals alone is ridiculous given the way most Americans receive pubic services today.

Closing holes would be far less unpalatable than completely torquing up healthcare for everybody.

I would far prefer, as a matter of cost control, to have a free market system rather than a third party payer system (people are usually a lot more parsimonious with their own money than with other peoples’ money and will, as a result, look for value pricing)

But closing gaps is a whole lot better than what is coming to us.

 

[faithfully]

What we need is affordable health care, not affordable insurance. We need to address the huge overcharges in health care by physicians, who often charge many thousands for minor things. Hospitals and Provider charges should be regulated IMO.

One major flaw in Obamacare is that it demands that we give our money to insurance companies, which are charging more and covering very little (high deductibles), not to those providing our health care. Insurance is a multitrillion dollar industry which gives very limited benefit to us but much to the ins. companies.

If we still use the insurance route, then the government should regulate how much the insurance companies can charge, which apparently they don’t; they apparently believe in the “competition” model. What I’ve found is that unregulated capitalism tends to abuse the populace by charging much and giving little, buying too low and selling too high. Even the Church teaching is that capitalism should be regulated, or it gets abusive. Obamacare doesn’t even attempt to regulate how high the ins. companies can charge or how high their “deductibles” can be (their so high that they basically don’t provide anything in most cases).

Just coming to the room here… I totally agree… the attached video is pretty interesting. The Dr. talks about healthcare COSTS (which in many cases are really not that high… compared to what they CHARGE) in the state of CA, more specifically the bay area. youtu.be/r9q1Id41wGo He offers a free book to download to help with this conversation. Not sure any of this makes a difference now. I’m trying to come up with 75% more money to pay for less than what I purchased last year… nauseated!

Personally, I would have liked to see more competition. Opening the state borders. And then perhaps a tax increase to a better managed (is this even possible?) medicare for those who need the assistance. Or writing basic medical policies… that might need gov’t assistance for pre existing.

And let’s talk about pre existing. I was denied insurance with one company because they had a record that shows I had a test to understand my feritility problem. Which was not even MY problem. It was my husband’s. But ladies test first… as required by insurance. I was denied insurance because of my husband’s pre existing condition. He btw has no problem getting insurance, because it’s pregancy they are worried about. They MIGHT have offered insurance (as per a phone conversation) if I agreed to yank my uterus. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

I’m so disgusted with all of this right now…

 

[epan]

Greece had that too; and the population rioted (literally) when Greece ran out of money.

Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.

Yet, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and so on… can do it. Pointing out bad examples does not detract from the good examples. We can learn from both, to improve our own system.

Also, universal healthcare is not socialism in the broader sense. Anyone who has convinced you of that might be using you as a tool. So, you might want to reconsider that opinion.

 

[markomalley]

Interesting perspective in this item from the American Thinker:
Today, ninety-five percent of the new drugs coming on the market are developed for sale in the United States. For years, according to a study in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, pharmaceutical companies in Western Europe have been introducing new medicines in the U.S. before introducing them in their home countries; typically by eighteen months. This is due to regulation of drug prices in Europe that makes recuperation of R&D costs (a very high 20% of revenues in the pharmaceutical industry) impossible there…

This cost to the American consumer does not come without a benefit. Americans are the first to have drugs like AZT, Cimetidin, tPA and new cancer drugs. The benefit is not limited to medicines. Medical devices used for everything from medical assaying for disease tests, to high technology tools used in open heart surgery, to the latest MRI equipment are also available earlier and in greater volume in the U.S…

What happens when 300 million consumers of medicine and medical technology are replaced by one consumer, the government, and drug prices are regulated here?

Regulation of drug prices and assessing of taxes on innovators are not hypothetical consequences of PPACA, they have already occurred. Drug manufacturers specifically conceded $80 billion of revenue to protect themselves from re-importation of drugs in the original writing of PPACA. And the excise tax on medical device manufacturers will cost the top 19 companies in the state of Massachusetts $422M this year alone…
(Note to Matilda and the other mods, I know the normal standard for extracts is three paragraphs…before editing this, please note the ellipses at the end of the paragraphs…only partial paragraphs were quoted here)

This brings up an interesting question: for those who advocate a single-payer system, how do you propose replacing free-market R&D efforts? Government R&D? If so, who pays for it? The free market manages the risk in R&D right now (keeps too much money going down a rat-hole), but what about when R&D is done by government employees or by government time-and-materials contract? How do you mitigate the taxpayer’s risk?

 

[faithfully]

This brings up an interesting question: for those who advocate a single-payer system, how do you propose replacing free-market R&D efforts? Government R&D? If so, who pays for it? The free market manages the risk in R&D right now (keeps too much money going down a rat-hole), but what about when R&D is done by government employees or by government time-and-materials contract? How do you mitigate the taxpayer’s risk?

I think our UK brothers and sisters can share with us how insane their tax rates are. It’s my understanding they are substantially higher than the US.This is how a gov’t R&D would run. I’m not interested in funding some potentially nasty stuff. Better forms of birth control…

As sick as it is, it’s a rather well known fact Hitler’s medical researchers brought many advances to the field of medicine. What the women went through, I can’t even imagine, and we now have a very common tool used for female medical exams “thanks” to their torture.

I personally would like to keep our gov’t out of mainstream R&D. What they could end up doing with no Sr. controls in place is utterly frightening. Where they go with killing devises for war is enough for me and telling they already know no limits. Nevermind the… “it’s for the greater good” mentality that starts to blur the line of crazy and horrific.

Opinion of course…

 

[royal_archer]

The reason I don’t think that the free market is sufficient is that it hasn’t been. Even now there are still many who don’t have health care. As catholics it is our duty to help the sick. Note that I’m not advocating socialized medicine. I’m looking for an alternative method that helps about the same number of people. Correct me if I’m wrong but the free market has failed to do that.

We have not tried a free market in many years. the reason so many do not have health care is because the state enables them. If you hold people accountable for their own lives, they will rise to the occasion. It may take a generation or two to undo the damage, but it is better than the continual degradation we are currently seeing.

 

[estesbob]

Yet, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and so on… can do it. Pointing out bad examples does not detract from the good examples. We can learn from both, to improve our own system.

Also, universal healthcare is not socialism in the broader sense. Anyone who has convinced you of that might be using you as a tool. So, you might want to reconsider that opinion.

The Murdoch media popularized the idea that Mr. Obama is a socialist, while in fact his economic and social policies are right of center. The hijacking of the Republican party by extremists who defensively paint moderates as extremists has led to this confusion.

When addressing a mostly US audience you should blame the Koch brothers-not Murdoch.In today’s intl discussions it is helpful to keep the villain de jour correct.

 

[markomalley]

When addressing a mostly US audience you should blame the Koch brothers-not Murdoch.In today’s intl discussions it is helpful to keep the villain de jour correct.

Is it still the Koch brothers?

They are so…2010…

You’d think they’d be able to come up with somebody new by now…

 

[otjm]

Yet, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and so on… can do it. Pointing out bad examples does not detract from the good examples. We can learn from both, to improve our own system.

Also, universal healthcare is not socialism in the broader sense. Anyone who has convinced you of that might be using you as a tool. So, you might want to reconsider that opinion.

The Murdoch media popularized the idea that Mr. Obama is a socialist, while in fact his economic and social policies are right of center. The hijacking of the Republican party by extremists who defensively paint moderates as extremists has led to this confusion.

Germany, Japan and Sweden sorry, none of them has shown the innovation in medicine that the US has.

Universal health care is not socialism in a broader sense; what it is, is the spawn of socialism in a broader sense. I am not being used as anyone’s tool; I learned to think clearly long ago. Neither am I a Libertarian or an arch conservative Republican; But I have been around long enough to know you are full of beans about the right of center. The only way Mr. Obama is right of center is if someone has violently moved the center to the left.

I would be hesitant to say Mr. Obama has any economic policies; I have also been around long enough to have heard his comments before he was president, and they are 180 degrees opposite what he has said since attaining that position.

As long as we have politicians so divided, “we” are not going to learn anything from anyone. The tea party on the right is no more off the center than the left end of the liberal wing, and both sides have forgotten that politics is the art of compromise.

One year from now, when this train wreck has completed itself, you are going to see Democrats running around, wringing their hands and pleading to be put back in office so they can fix the screwup they have delivered to us - the one which Nancy Pelosi famously said, you have to pass it so you can find out what is in it.

We are finding out. The majority of people want change in health care; and pretty much the same majority want this legislation changed. We don’t need (and should not want) to go back to 2008; but that is not the same thing as saying we want this bill as is.

It is going to be - no, let me amend that - it is a massive tax on the middle class. People are angry about the increases in cost; they are angry about losing their doctors; they are angry about losing their policies at work; they are angry about losing catastrophic care coverage; they are angry that they government is telling the conscience has no place in the health care policy; the list goes on and it is growing.

The Democrats failed to learn from the states which tried this universal coverage. No state, and no federal government can afford it all; so the rationing starts. And the Feds want to take it to health maintenance and away from health treatment.

If you think that things are so hunkey dory in other countries, get hold of a time comparison for treatment of various diseases - and start hoping you don’t something like diabetes.

 

[epan]

When addressing a mostly US audience you should blame the Koch brothers-not Murdoch.In today’s intl discussions it is helpful to keep the villain de jour correct.

Hehe… well, I doubt that any of them are villains. Perhaps greedy and hard hearted. Perhaps not. I don’t know them. But there is a trend in the media to forgo any attempt at so called “fair and balanced” presentation of current events. It is all editorialized to appeal to the particular market for that media outlet. I apply this criticism to all ideological media outlets which try to pass their content along as “new” or impartial information.

My bottom line is that I disagree with calling any modern and wealthy society “just”, if it does not provide for its poorest, and it does not provide basic medical care, among other basic social services. The question of “where will the money come from” is a red herring. We have the resources to provide medical care, and basic housing, food and education to everyone. As a society, we are choosing not to do that. Just consider for a moment that about 10% of the population owns about 90% of the assets in our country, and a majority of the income. That means that the remaining 90% of the population is living on 10% or so of our resources. What if the top 10% only owned 75% of the country? Would that be enough? That scenario would more than double the resources available to the rest of the population, and the royalty could still remain multi multi billionaires, not that a billion dollars buys what it used to… We can certainly empathize when someone has to downsize to a 200 ft boat, and a plane that can only go 3,500 miles between fuel stops.

 

[epan]

Is it still the Koch brothers?

They are so…2010…

You’d think they’d be able to come up with somebody new by now…

Well, they do tend to pay about $100 million per year in fines, etc… But they have not been convicted of anything criminal yet that would put them away. They did have to pay about $300 million in a wrongful death case, and their company was bribing officials in Iran to do business there.

They might not be the best poster boys for ethical conservatism.