Don’t repeal Obamacare and try to replace it with a brand new law that will be called “TrumpCare.” If you try a completely new law and it doesn’t work well, then you will make the same mistake that the Democrats made. Start with the “low hanging fruit” of:
Try these changes first and see if you can get some help from across the aisle. If you can implement these easier changes and it works effectively, then create one new document that eliminates the entire Obamacare document and incorporates all the changes that work effectively into one omnibus document called “TrumpCare.” This exercise is all about risk and reward for Republicans as you try to maintain control of both houses in 2018. You can make these incremental changes before the next election cycle.
Please consider the risk-and-reward dynamics of a 100% repeal-and-replace. If you don’t like the way Obamacare was crafted and passed by the Democrats, then try a more incremental approach. Hubris caused the train wreck of Obamacare. Don’t let Republican hubris get in the way of making incremental changes that work for all Americans.
If 30 million, or more, Americans do not have access to health care insurance, I would contend that these Americans don’t need health care insurance through Obamacare. What they need is access to low-cost or no-cost health care.
Definition — Insurance is the act, system, or business of protecting property, life, one’s person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.
A key part of that definition deals with the payment proportionate to the risk. Insurance is a transaction which requires personal responsibility and personal accountability for the value given and value received. If someone does not have any money or resources to buy one’s own insurance, then call it what it is…….charity insurance. Obamacare is, therefore, money expropriated from one person and given to another person by force of law. That will not stand. I believe that America’s best health care solutions will come in two different strategies.
The first strategy is the far greater use of Federally Qualified Health Centers. Community Health Care, Inc., is one of those organizations here in the Quad Cities. What if we, the people, did the following:
• Appropriate $50 (or some other figure) per person for each congressional district for the purpose of supporting FQHC organizations and other no-cost or lower-cost health care delivery organizations. For example, if there are 315 million Americans in 435 House districts, then each House district has an average of 724,137 people in each district. That comes to $36,206,850 that is appropriated for primary health care delivery in that House district.
• Let’s say that not all House districts are the same in terms of median household income. If one district has a median household income of 100% of the national average, then that House district gets 100% of the $36,206,850. If another House district has a median household income of 110% of the national average, then that House district gets 90% of the $36,206,850. If another district has a median household income of 90% of the national average, then that House district gets 110% of the $36,206,850. For the re-distributionists of the world, this mechanism helps to get the funding to the House districts with the greatest need, without resorting to ad hoc earmarks. For those afraid of another out-of-control entitlement, this spending program has a finite amount each year. If the new system does not work, then we can stop the spending without the creation of a large bureaucracy that continues on forever. To be clear, the funding goes to each House district on the exact census population in each House district, not on some national average of population per House district.
• Who decides how the money is spent for any given US fiscal year? Here’s the fun part… The spending allocations would be determined by the member of the House of Representatives for each district. Each Representative would listen very carefully to the people in each House district through a series of town hall meetings to gather input and communicate the needs throughout the district. After numerous town hall meetings and research about the needs and the resources available, the Representative makes the choices and the money is distributed.
• The best part is that the Representative comes up for election every two years. Each election becomes a referendum on the Representative’s wisdom in making choices for health care support in the house district over the last two years. I like the political accountability for local health care decisions.
• The old joke is that “all politics are local.” I also believe that “all health care delivery is local.” I like the fact that FQHC’s are private, local organizations with local funding, local authority, and local accountability. The decision-making is pushed away from Washington, D.C., and back to the local areas from which the tax dollars come.
The second strategy is the promotion of a far more competitive private health insurance industry.
• Tort reform is essential. Doctors and other health care professionals need some relief from some of these huge judgments. Health care in America will not thrive if the professionals are unwilling to practice because of oversized costs and risks. Professionals should still be held accountable for mistakes, but we consumers must also assume some of the risk. Life is full of risks.
• Health care insurance companies should be allowed to compete and sell across state lines. Competition is good and forces all to become better at what they do.
• The federal government should help to fund state-run high risk pools to aid individuals get the care they need.
Obamacare will always be the train wreck it was designed to be. Obamacare will eventually force each of us off our private insurance because Obamacare cannot exist without the destruction of private health care insurance. This kind of collectivist mind set never has worked and never will work. (Europe is still in trouble because of that cradle-to-grave entitlement.) Use a combination of Federally Qualified Health Centers and competition to create a better American health care system.
Mr. Boehner, the best way to battle Obamacare is to implement Obamacare in its entirety as soon as possible. Negotiate for no delays, no subsidies, no exemptions. Obamacare will be stopped or greatly changed only after millions of people are adversely affected in their pocketbooks. The Democrats own this one completely!
It seems to me that Obamacare has had three different stages of life.
1. The content as it was sold. There were all kinds of promises about how much money we could save. We could keep our doctor. We could keep our plan. We would see cost-effective coverage for all Americans. Then again, we would have to pass the law to see what was in it.
2. The content as it was signed. I realize that Charles Grassley sponsored the original amendment regarding lawmakers and staff going into the exchanges. The Roll Call website reports that “Grassley sponsored the original amendment requiring lawmakers and staffers to enter the Obamacare exchanges, but he didn’t intend for them to lose the employer subsidy.” “Grassley said staff for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did not properly draft the statutory language for his amendment, omitting language that would have allowed lawmakers and staff to keep their employer contribution while in the exchanges.” Cynicism toward the law grew because of that omission.
3. The content as it is implemented. Exemptions and delays for some (for purely political purposes) are patently unfair while others must live by the law.
qcconservative 