Republican counter-proposal to Obamacare

The Republicans are introducing legislation in the House of Representatives to replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The bill was drafted by the Republican Study Committee and is titled the American Health Care Reform Act. From what I can gather, mostly from Yahoo News and The Daily Caller, these are some of the provisions of the American Health Care Reform Act.

Repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Create a Standard Deduction for Health Insurance. The SDHI would give income tax deductions to those who have health insurance. The SDHI is 7,500 for individuals and 20,000 for families. The bill would also increase the maximum allowable contribution to a Health Savings Account. I don't know much about these types of accounts but it sounds like you a larger contribution to your account would be tax deductible.

Health insurance premiums for those with preexisting conditions would be capped at 200% of the average health insurance premium in their state. The bill would also set aside 25 billion dollars, over 10 years, to help with the costs of those premiums.

The bill would allow for the sale of health insurance across state lines. The bill would allow small businesses to pool together in an effort to seek group health insurance with better rates. The bill would amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to ensure anti-trust law applies to health insurance. The bill would stop the federal government from from denying coverage for health services based on comparative effectiveness data.

Non economic damages in lawsuits brought against health care providers would be capped at 250,000 unless the state in which the lawsuit originated has a higher cap.

The bill specifically states that health insurance would not be required to cover abortions. The bill also prohibits the use of federal funds to cover abortions.

 

There hasn't been much detail released with it, so I can't speculate too much, but in terms of the general outline, I like it. It sounds very similar to McCain's 2008 proposal and to the various other Republican health care bills.

The Devil's in the details of course...

 

The same crumbs they always half-heartedly throw out. Not particularly coherent, nor very likely to achieve whatever it is they're trying for here.

 

0bamacare can be replaced with a bill that includes preexisting conditions, sale of health care insurance across state lines, and portability of insurance in the event you lose your job or are changing jobs. the bill could be as little as a dozen or so pages long.

 

What about the poor and low income in some states people are making if young $6000 a year or a family of four is under the poverty line, nothing listed will help them? What about homeless people? What about other parties who can't afford to get insurance and pay into a HSA?

Obamacare tried by expanding Medicaid and offering subsidies for those who are low income who don't qualify for expanded Medicaid.

 

I guess we would have to pass it to see whats in it.

 

I am a little concerned with the selling of insurance across state lines. Won't this cause all of the insurance companies to flock to the state with the LEAST regulations and coverage, effectivley giving the middle finger to the regulations the state put in place for a reason?

Other than that, I am okay with most of this.

 

Exactly. Details.

This counter proposal is as unlikely as Obamacare to actually make healthcare affordable.

The fundamental problem with the expectations of the American people regarding healthcare insurance is they think they have "health" "insurance". Insuring someone's "health" implies the insurer should cover anything that keeps you healthy.

Medical insurance covers some, none, or all of the cost of the charges from healthcare providers, without regard for "health"...and while they do have programs to keep people healthy, they are not altruistic in nature, and exist because healthy people cost less.

No proposals have been made by anybody that will bring the costs of healthcare down to a level that is affordable by middle class Americans.

 

There are state governments you know. It's not like all there is in the country to address issues is the federal government.

 

Their problem is, a healthcare bill is not of their interests, nor has it ever been. Just pandering to big business.

 

Under the new Republican plan, costs would go from double what the rest of the world pays to TRIPLE.

Non-coverage would go from pre-existing conditions to ALL existing conditions.

 

Unfortunately, that's a best case scenario for that proposal.

 

There is Medicaid still they didn't repeal it. Get off the government teet and pay for yourself is also an option for people.

 

Why? They went up 33% last year in anticipation of obummercare. That is before the billions government spent. If we repeal it, we can just get those savings while preserving the bet medical care in the world. You can't name a country whose medical care you would prefer over ours can you? Or is other people's money the only thing that socialists care about?

 

I have a better idea. Merged Medicare / Medicade. Remove all age restrictions to be able to participate in those programs.

Problem solved. Everyone gets health care. Pre existing conditions arent a problem.

Gee.. it almost sounds like universal health care.

 

I can. I would (medically speaking) prefer to live in: Canada, England, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway, or Finland.

 

In other words Republicans don't have a viable alternative, never did, never intended to.

 

One, it underbudgets the amount needed for high risk pools by about 1/3rd. Such pools have failed miserably everyplace they've been tried due to one of two factors, either they still cost too much for most people (usually double or triple the amount an average policy costs). Or when the prices are kept affordable, the waiting list to get on the plan can be several years long. The idea of selling across state lines under this plan won't do all that much since the plans will still be under the rules and laws of the state that the plan was sold in, not the state where it originates. A very similar plan was reviewed by the CBO several years ago, and they determined than less than 2 million people would be added to the health care rolls with those changes, still leaving about 40 million without coverage at all.

- - - Updated - - -

And very few additional people will be covered. Most people without insurance will still be without it.

 

Exactly.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called Medicaid for All, providing a basic level of coverage for everyone, if you want more you can purchase a policy on top of the basic.

 

Why? So you can be more likely to die of cancer or heart attack or stroke if you should have one? Or because you are more likely to die from trauma there? Why the death wish? You realize if we had the results their medical care gives it would cost is more lives then war?

- - - Updated - - -

Deregulate and get rid of the AMA and that would go far. Republicans don't believe in central planning, don't expect a centrally planned model coming from them.

- - - Updated - - -

Same Medicaid program going bankrupt now?

 

As a conservative, I'm opposed to your soul crushing statist solutions, but one thing I've noticed is that you lefties are terrible when it comes to actually devising soul crushing statist solutions. I mean Obamacare? Really? This was passed with no Republicans so the Democrats could have done whatever they wanted in putting together a universal healthcare plan, and that's what came out. It clearly shows you guys are the worst socialists ever.

I could put together a better plan than that. But you are kind of on the right track. For those under 65, if they can't get insurance anywhere else, let them buy into Medicare, but paying a premium based on the actual insurance cost of the program. That way the under 65 Medicare for all program would pay for itself with zero cost to the taxpayer. Just like an insurance company funds it's employees and administrative costs from premiums, do the same thing with Medicare for all. Of course, that will probably make a pricy premium, but hey, it's no different than paying sky high taxes for healthcare. There was a Congressional Study done in 2008 that came up with a figure of $634.00 for an individual for month.

But.... Democrats decided to go Rube Goldberg on healthcare, to hide all of the payoffs to their buddies.

 

I don't know what you've been reading, but I haven't seen anything reputable that proves the survivability rates for cancer, heart attacks, and trauma are lower in countries with socialized systems because the systems are socialized. There could be all manner of reasons why those stats show that.

Where did you get all of that?

And I hope you know I'm going to scrutinize and blow off anything put out by righty foundations started to discredit Obamacare

 

Sounds good.

 

It is common knowledge for everyone outside of the MSM.

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/co...rveilance/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf

page 8 or 9 I think, it is loading slow today. We are about 15-20% better then all the socialized care systems. Match that to our population, and it will cause more deaths per year then war has in the last 40.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't afford good quality health insurance from the private market you can't afford to get a terrible plan at cost from the government. It would be way more.

edit - oh well you have the figures. Sorry, read the first part and jumped to a response. Should have known better lil mike.

 

I don't think I've been clear enough, and that is a reputable source. Thank you

What that shows is survivability rates without regard for the causes. That report doesn't mention socialized medicine or private medicine as a factor in the data. There are a million other factors that affect survivability.

Maybe the reason you've seen this used by conservative media is because they're trying to get others like you to jump to the same unsupported conslusions

Wait.....EDIT......I did find this on the chart.........Survival rates are age standardized. Variations in survival rates across countries reflect differences in detection practice, availability of treatment, and data quality.

So my point is unhealthy populations, with fewer hospitals, which they can't afford extremely expensive diagnostic equipment, of course the survivability rates will be lower. But that's not because the systems are socialized...it's because they're poorer. If they had as much money as us floating around, they might have lower rates than we do.