When a federal government program is firmly
established, it’s near impossible to get rid of it. It’s
like a tick. Once it gets under your skin, you have to take
care to completely remove it. If the
head snaps off and you ignore it, the body politic can be infected.
Fannie
Mae, a New Deal program, is a perfect example of how good intentions can cause
havoc on our economy. This once
government sponsored entity is now owned by the taxpayers because of
mismanagement and malfeasance. Congress
has made proposals to wind it down, but chances are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
will never go away.
So it
will be with Obamacare. Even with all
the disasters that heralded this Democratic Party nightmare and the
unpopularity amongst the citizenry, the Republican establish is doing its best
to salvage this failed government program.
The John Locke Foundation reported the following:
Moreover, on the eve of
the president's latest State of the Union Address, three Senate Republicans
released an Obamacare alternative proposal. The
Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act (CARE) sponsored by Republican Senators
Richard Burr (NC), Tom Coburn (OK), and Orrin Hatch (UT) seeks to execute the
same goals as Obamacare: lower health care costs, fix the pre-existing
condition dilemma, and reduce the number of uninsured Americans. A key
difference, however, is that the CARE Act operates on incentives, not
mandates. Carrots, not sticks. It does this by injecting
consumer-driven principles and patient choice into the health care delivery
system.
Listed
below are just a few of the many consumer-driven, semi market-oriented
provisions of the CARE Act:
CARE Act would repeal Obamacare exchanges and extirpate both the
employer and individual mandates. Health insurance plans would not be required
to include the 10 essential health benefits like current health insurance
exchange plans.
A tax-credit would be distributed to individual policyholders and
employees of businesses with less than 100 workers who make an income of less
than 300% FPL ($35,010 for an individual). The
tax-credit would be distributed directly to the consumer -- not the insurance
company.
If an individual did not enroll in a health plan, that person
could be auto-enrolled in a high-deductible plan where the premium matches the
tax-credit amount. If so desired, that person could still opt out of
coverage.
A one-time open enrollment period would allow the uninsured and
those with pre-existing conditions to purchase coverage without insurers being
able to adjust rates according to one's health status.
Policyholders who maintained continuous coverage for at least 18
months would be allowed to switch plans and not be denied or burdened with
skyrocketing premiums due to a change in health status.
Here are three more components to this CARE
Act as reported by The John Locke Foundation:
Medicaid Reform: States would be given broader
flexibility to redesign their
Medicaid programs. If this were to occur, it would be wise for North
Carolina to risk-adjust Medicaid patients or enforce per-capita block grants to
ensure better budget predictability. Furthermore, the proposal offers
Medicaid recipients the option to access private coverage with a refundable
tax-credit (these would be available to individuals with incomes up to three
times the poverty level, around $35,000) when purchasing private
coverage. In addition, the CARE Act would bring back Health Opportunity Accounts
(HOAs) that made an
appearance back in 2005 under the Deficit Reduction Act. With a
high-deductible health plan, the state and federal governments could contribute
an annual $2,500 into each Medicaid patient's HOA. This model of health
care financing is more compatible with consumer-driven health care.
Age-Rating Ratio: Under Obamacare, a high-risk, older individual cannot be charged
more than three times the amount of a low-risk, young policyholder. As a
result, the "young invincible population" is burdened with higher
premiums to subsidize the cost of the high-risk population on the
exchanges. The CARE Act would initially ease this price control from a
3:1 age-rating ratio to a 5:1 ratio. Power would be decentralized to
states to manipulate community rating standards.
Capping the Tax-Exclusion: Removing this exclusion for employer sponsored health insurance
is probably the most controversial
component
What these politicians don’t seem to realize
is they are the problem. The health care
industry is overregulated, over mandated, and overtaxed. The third party payer system has completely
distorted the market. Yet, with the aforementioned
proposals, as you can probably see, Obamacare is going to be with us for some
time in one form or another.
No comments:
Post a Comment