Conservative alternative to Obamacare

pmconusa
While I am opposed to obamacare just because of the basic unfairness of the scheme, the burden falling on those of us who are working and paying taxes as well as health care premiums. I am not opposed to a system that delivers quality health care to our citizens. the benefits of a healthier population appear to be signifigant.
My issue has always been why should anyone who is working or collecting in some way from the giverment largess get a free ride. say we take away part of their EBT cash benefit, now there's some redistribution of wealth.
The current plan excludes millions from any health care cost because their income is too low. I personally think that is BS if you are working you should pay something into the system even if it's only ten bucks a week. If everyone is paying into the system at some level then there might be enough money to fund it at a level that does deliver .
But to just say that if they can't afford health care there won't be any available is a non starter , just like under the current system those who are paying will still receive care .....
There are no clear cut answers ,but the R's and conservative voices better step forward with a clear cut vision that makes sense, has broad appeal and counters the affordable health care mantra that obama is spouting.
The ability to purchase across state lines and letting free market forces work may sound like a solution to those who are fortunate enough to presently afford health care , but for many they need a plan presented that is much more concrete in its construct. I'm just hearing crickets from the Romney camp....... chirp chirp

I'm just hearing crickets from the Romney camp....... chirp chirp

That is all you are going to hear. Romney is a supposed R. That makes Romneycare OK. People do not want to admit that Romney designed, and helped Obama with Obamacare, but if Romney gets elected, we will change the name to Romneycare and everthing will be fine once more.

Obviously this is not being offered as a conservative alternative, but how about this?

Envision a system where there are two paths to medical care financing, and you get to choose one.

One is private: you purchase a product from a third party or enter contractual arrangements directly with doctors and hospitals.
The third party can charge you according to their assessment of you as a risk.
You have a right to ask for prices up front and shop around.

The other is government: you sign up for government medical financing.
You are charged according to what you can afford.
When you sign up, you agree to certain conditions imposed on you, such as, you will not smoke, you will exercise, you will not eat or drink sugar, you will never drink beer or eat fast food because these will make you fat.
You will not climb mountains in dangerous conditions, you will not ride a motorcycle, and no skydiving or other risky activities. And so on.
Mike Bloomberg can be in charge of this.
Violations will lead to big fines or forced labor at a medical clinic.
As you age, you understand that on the government plan, care decisions will be made for you according to a cost-benefit analysis, unless you want to drop the government plan and pay for everything yourself. Once you drop out for such a reason, you cannot get back in.

If you seek medical care without either entering into a contract or signing up for the government system, then you are entered into the government system by default, and all its conditions are now imposed upon you. You have 7 days after your ER visit to either come to terms with the hospital and doctors as a private payer, or you get assigned to the government plan.

I don't believe there needs to be any government solution to the problem other than implementing tort reform. This is strictly a private market matter. The same is true for Social Security and Medicare. More government solutions based simply on governments ability to tax! These latter programs should be phased out and other private market solutions encouraged.

I would also like to see Rpmney support a repeal of the 16th Amendment, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and support for a flat tax which all working Americans would be required to pay. The language in any such new amendment should also limit Congress' ability to levy tax very narrowly.

To quote President Reagan, Government is not the solution. Government is the problem!

God Bless ya Jim Corr.

I'm glad to see that someone besides me is looking for some answers from the right besides hearing over and over that Obama is wrong.

In my opinion, health care costs will continue to spiral as long as lawyers, and insurance companys are involved in the product delivery system.
Healthcare consumers have absolutely no regard for cost of services as long as it's OPM, and lawyers have absolutely no regard for cost containment as long as they are allowed to entice the consumers to roll the dice on healthcare lawsuits.

The system is beyond broken. It will require a total dismantling and rebuild if this country is to survive the healthcare crisis.

I'm resigned to the fact that whether there is obamacare or the existing system that taxpayers and premium payers will foot the bill. This disaster is as ill conceived as all of the other obamathink. The plan's lack of clarity in my humble opinion is intentional.

The free market is the conservative solution. It is the problem that needs defining. What we are talking about is two different things. One is healthcare which my solution is not. The other is healthcare insurance which is an entirely different matter. The latter is intended to insulate the participants from catastrophic losses that would essentially bankrupt them. Like any insurance the outcomes are highly predictable and that is why companies can offer them. They are not all inclusive because if they were it would drive up the cost so that few could afford them. It would be like trying to buy life insurance on your death bed which is the equivalent of what Obamacare leads you to believe regarding healthcare that the government is going to do.

As a society, if we are are all going to volunteer to pay for those in our society who for whatever reason cannot afford a roof over their head, food in their belly and the alleviation of pain then society has to decide what each is willing to pay on their behalf absent contributions first from family second from friends and third from charitable individuals. Only then should government become involved and then it should be the minimum society is willing to pay without confiscation by government. As regards healthcare, I would posit the minimum is the alleviation of pain and if anyone wants to contribute more, they are more they are perfectly free to sign up for larger deductions.

The reason that healthcare is so expensive is because government has involved itself in the free market to the extent of forcing hospitals to render service to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. This includes the indigent, illegal aliens and perfectly capable payers who perpetrate fraud on the hospitals. The others are the tort lawyers who make a living extracting unconscienable settlements on often dubious grounds except ability to pay..

How about letting hospitals refuse to treat someone without insurance?

I'm liking my system (above) more and more.
Not said but part of the plan: the government choice is funded by a tax imposed only on those who opt in to the government plan and accept all its conditions.
This preserves a free market system for the people who opt for freedom and responsibility.
The huge downside of choosing to have the government take care of you under my system is the curtailment of your freedom to eat what you want, drink what you want, do what you want.
This is intentional, and not just to keep costs down. It sends the clear message, you want to be cared for, you do it our way. And you pay your share.

Any self-respecting American would choose the freedom system.
The others?
They'll be the demonstration project for how wonderful "single payer" can be.

How about letting hospitals refuse to treat someone without insurance?

What if they have cash, or have the means to make paymnets?

Payment up front would also be fine. We shouln't, however, require them to take people who say "I've got a collectible star wars set that is worth . . ."

This government mess has been created over 40-50 years and it will not be fixed overnight or during one 4 year administration. What needs to be done is almost impossible; we need to get the dependency 50% away from the government welfare. That will not be done by stopping welfare, it needs to change the mindset of the millions who are on welfare to working for their necessary needs. Then and only then, when the mindset is on productive jobs, will we stand any chance of reversing the mess that our politicians got us into.

There are conservative plans, and those who say there aren't are lying.

http://paulryan.house.gov/Healthcare/

http://broun.house.gov/healthcarebill/brounbill.htm

How about free, unlimited government healthcare?
No insurance companies involved.
Government imune from lawsuits except in EXTREME negligence cases.
People that abuse themselves would pay a monthly fee such as $100 for smoking.
$50 for drinking to excess.$100 monthly fee if you desire to be a junky(sugar or otherwise).$75 for non disease obesity.
Makes as much sense as Obamacare and any other plan I've seen, and a vast improvement over what is in place now.

"People that abuse themselves would pay a monthly fee such as $100 for smoking."

If I understand the economics of this correctly, smokers save the system money in the long run. They come in more during their working years but die younger and save the system the cost of all those expensive geriatric diseases.

There are good reasons to help patients stop smoking but this is not one of them.

Back to the main topic, NCPA has a lot of good ideas, as does this this physicians' group I posted in another thread recently, and Ron Paul goes a bit further on his campaign site.

I know I'm being simplistic again but the whole health care mess is snagged on the affordable part, especially private health insurance. How does anyone earning a low wage in this country afford , the high cost of living and the high cost of private health insurance even if their employer is kicking in half or some other percent? Let's face it there are a lot of people who would willing pay for insurance if they made enough to pay for it. The first question ought to be how are going to fix the economy so more people can afford insurance.....
I believe it has become too easy for those of us who have been fortunate enough to work at decent jobs that allow us a higher standard of living to become crass in our view of those less fortunate .
It's easy to be dismissive of other people's hardships and struggles when you are fat and happy...... take a good long look at the government class and the truly protected class of rich political contributors and their view of the rest of the world.

Smokers may exit the system sooner, but they use up far more resources before they leave.

It is about time that individual responsibility replaced individual entitlement in this country. We've become a society addicted to government, and when government, for whatever reason, can't solve our problem we throw a tantrum. I repeat that government is not the solution for healthcare. A plan like Ryan's will probably float to the top because no politician has the courage to tell the people the truth. Any real solution to this problem should be addressed in the private sector and by individual states.

There is an old mathematical truth. When a problem has no solution, the number of wrong solutions becomes infinite.

Dr. Wordsmith prescribes . .

"Back to the main topic, NCPA has a lot of good ideas, as does this this physicians' group I posted in another thread recently, and Ron Paul goes a bit further on his campaign site."

All three links are worthwhile reads (they work in his post). Market driven healthcare solutions in 2700 pages or less.

I wonder if it will be any better once we change the name to Romneycare? It has to be, he's an R.

Most people DON'T know that Medicare has artificially set the prices for office visits and medical procedures. No one really knows what the market value of anything that a doctor or hospital does. (That's why, annually, there's the "Doctor Fix" bill in the Congress that puts the country into greater national debt to keep Dr. and Hospital fee's high. ) That doesn't sound so bad, but it's considered Medicare fraud if a doctor charges a paying patient LESS than he/she is charging a patient who pays with Medicare. The result is more expensive health care for everyone. Strangely, it's okay for a doctor to accept LESS than the Medicare fee from a privately insured patient because the insurance companies dicker with doctors to get them on their panels of doctors, to list them in their providers list that the insurance companies distribute to their customers. The premiums collected are ALWAYS much more than the insurance company pays to the health care providers collectively.

The federal government subsidizes Medicare, keeping prices higher. Virtually everything that has a subsidy from the government ends up costing more, from tuition loan guarantees which make college education more expensive, and "food stamps" which raise food prices, rent subsidies which make rents higher to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guaranteed housing loans "with no money down" which made housing prices soar.s Each of the subsidies make the price of the products more expensive for everyone. There is indeed a health care bubble. Look for yourself; Medicare and Obamacare are both unsustainable.

Here's the gist. Medicare sets the prices of procedures high.. to satisfy the doctors and the hospitals and then pays the bulk of the fees of Medicare beneficiaries with dollars that we don't have, obviously, otherwise Medicare and Social Security would not be projected as unsustainable. To me, the issue shouldn't be HOW were going to insure everyone, but WHY does Medicare keep prices high and then subsidize the payment for the patients.

If the subsidies were gone.. and doctors and hospitals had to let the free market determine the worth of their work, prices would tumble. We also need MORE doctors and healthcare practitioners. Here's my plan: eliminate the Medicare subsidies and educate more doctors and ancillary health care professionals. Why the heck do we need "health insurance" which is a ridiculous term in any case?

The stupidity of Obamacare and the Supreme Court is in the preamble to the dissent. It says, "Congress has set out to remedy theproblem that the best health care is beyond the reach of many Americans who cannot affo it. It can assuredly do, by exercising the power accorded to it under the Constitution." No matter what plan anyone comes up with, including those of the Congress there will always be many Americans who cannot afford it. I stand by my previous comment.

johnw's comments about remembering the less fortunate are important. However he makes the common mistake of equating health insurance with health care. As GW Rudmin asks, "Why the heck do we need "health insurance" which is a ridiculous term in any case?"

"Health Insurance" has grown to the point that now it usually means prepaid third party purchased healthcare, both catastrophic and routine. This is one of the main causes of our problem.

The vast majority of us will need major hospitalizations or surgeries only rarely. For these sorts of things, we do need catastrophic care coverage, much like we carry auto collision or home insurance.

However, for most of us, routine health care is actually very affordable if you buy it directly, often less than the cost of cable TV or a cell phone plan. While most of these efforts involve for profit companies, a progressive physician established a nonprofit to sell affordable care directly to patients.

For the minority who are unfortunate enough to have chronic, very expensive health care needs, high risk pools or some sort of safety net is needed.

Disclaimer- As much as I like to think I'm open minded and public spirited, I'm in the business of selling health care and likely biased by that.

Dr Wordsmith and now the benevolent rulers have decreed that we MUST purchase health insurance, because they do equate health care with health insurance. Thanks for seeing my point about the less fortunate among us.

"Dr Wordsmith and now the benevolent rulers have decreed that we MUST purchase health insurance..."

Um, no. Either my writing is muddier than usual or you misread my posts.

Everyone but the incredibly wealthy should have catastrophic care insurance to avoid a financial disaster just like you need homeowner's insurance in case your house burns down.

Health 'insurance' is NOT health care.

Dr. Wordsmith: You are correct in pointing out the difference. It however is immaterial because those who cannot afford healthcare insurance probably cannot afford all the healthcare to which they believe they are entitled. As I said earlier, our economic model is one that gives you the right to have anything that is available if you can afford it. If you can't, just hope that enough people feel sorry for you and offer to pay on your behalf. If I happen to be one who does not I do not believe the government has the right to force me to contribute.

I'm not particularly bright or worldly, so I ask a simple question of fellow AMGers;

Why is not health insurance (or any other kind for that matter) considered a purely socialistic scheme?

Spread the risk or spread the wealth.........what's the difference?

I saw this today: Reinhardt: Let’s Have a Libertarian Option
It was posted on John Goodman's Health Policy Blog the same day I posted #3 above, in which I propose a similar idea.

"Ask young people — at age 25 or so — to choose one or the other.

"People joining the Social Solidarity system would know that they will be asked to subsidize their less fortunate fellow citizens in health care through taxes or premiums or both. They would also know, however, that the community will take care of them, and they will not go broke, should serious illness befall them.

"People choosing the Libertarian system would not have to pay taxes to subsidize other people’s health care, and they would pay actuarially fair health insurance premiums — low for healthy people and high for sicker people."

Which course do you think young people would choose?