Putting It All Together
For anyone who has read this series, it is obvious that it stands as the anti-Obamacare solution to health care reform in this country. It is based upon the premise that informed consumer choice and competition- two hallmarks of a free market- are the mechanisms that will drive health care costs down and make it easier for most to have insurance. Even otherwise, there would be a social safety net for all that in place. The alternative- socialized medicine- and its bastard sister, Obamacare, are a debacle as has been proven in other countries. There are some “good” components of health care in other countries, nevertheless by and large, socialized medicine necessitates the rationing of services or exorbitantly high taxes to fund the entitlement. Both run counter to basic Republican core values. It is as well an unmistakable fact that the government is notoriously terrible in budgeting estimates and the administration of at heart any social service. How many times has the CBO released revised estimates of Obamacare’s cost three years afterwards the fact? And those costs are not being revised downward.
(4) Cease the special tax treatment for employer-based insurance in doing so eliminating government-created distortions in the insurance market.
(5) The government’s role here has to be the provision of subsidies in the form of tax credits or refunds on a sliding scale basis up to $50,000 AGI indexed to inflation that are used towards the purchase of private insurance
(6) There must be a mechanism that encourages people to purchase health insurance in other words not a mandate or command from Washington down the barrel of the gun of tax penalties. As well, there must be a mechanism to encourage employers to divert the cost of health care benefits into higher wages for workers to give them added impetus to purchase insurance.
The individual or familyâs needs
(7) Americans must be offered health insurance policies tailored to the individual or family’s needs and wants, not one-size-fits-all policies dictated by the government or employers.
(9) The federal and state governments must adopt policies that allow the entry of insurers into new markets and that allow insurers to innovate and specialize. This can be achieved through the removal of regulations that deter competition in the insurance market.
The antitrust exemption for health care insurers
(13) Repeal the antitrust exemption for health care insurers and vigorously enforced against market monopolies with respect to insurers in any state.
(15) Conversion to digital medical records by all providers. The cost would be written off on their taxes 100% upfront. Failure to convert would result in lower Medicare and Medicaid provider reimbursements. Hence, the government holds both a carrot and a stick.
(16) States should be allowed to cap mark-ups on surgical, medical, and pharmaceutical supplies in hospitals that receive any government funds from any source, IF they so desire.
(18) The government should pay for the medical education of general practitioners, not specialists, provided they agree to serve in in accordance with-served geographical areas afterwards residency, be paid a predetermined yearly salary and that would be exempt from federal income and payroll taxes if they serve that area for a specific number of years. If they fail to abide by their end of the bargain, the educational grant would convert to a student loan with interest.
(19) Decrease the number of medical errors through comprehensive primary care physician coordination of treatments and diagnoses, with second opinions to enhance consumer choices in consultation with their doctors. The doctor-patient relationship should never be dictated by any government based on “best predicted outcome” models.
(27) Medicare would be restricted to current beneficiaries and only to people 67 and older henceforth with age being the only requirement for benefits.
(29) In substance transform Medicare along the lines of the Ryan plan which is based on consumer choice with government subsidization in other words means-tested.
(30) Revise federal Medicaid funding guidelines and direct money to states where it is most needed based on an equitable formula with the funds disbursed from a strictly budgeted predetermined amount that decreases by degree over time.
The federal government
(33) The federal government would not dictate coverage for Medicaid for anyone over 225% FPL, or $50,000 annual household income for a family of four.
(34) Experiment, at the state level, with Medicaid vouchers that would be used for the purchase of health care insurance for current and future beneficiaries. Again, no federal government strings should be attached.
Final thought earlier I finish up this series
A final thought earlier I finish up this series. Republicans are often portrayed as the “great deregulators.” Democrats try to portray the GOP as a party that wants to run roughshod over consumer protections in the name of deregulation. In other words patently not true and patently not fair. Republicans are for regulations that empower consumers to make informed choices so that they may succeed or fail on their own terms. Information is a powerful tool in a free market and any regulation that furthers that goal only makes the market stronger.
Obamacare codifies the status quo in the best case and socializes medicine if the worst comes to the worst. There may be success stories of socialized medicine in foreign countries, however those regimens are undoubtedly not free market and in the overall sense, are hardly success stories. To believe if not is to accept a Michael Moore view of health care reform. If Cuban health care is so great, at that time let Michael Moore go to Havana to see his doctor. In neighboring Canada, several women every year opt to deliver their baby in an American hospital across the border. I do not see many Americans going to England or Sweden for knee replacement or cataract surgery, yet I do hear of Brits and Swedes coming to America for procedures we consider routine. Clearly, rationing and price controls would hold down costs, now at what cost? Really, we would be surrendering our freedoms on the other hand for slightly lower prices and longer lines and waits with lower quality. The free market, not government directives, dictates, mandates and bureaucracy, will drive health care costs down for all during making health insurance more accessible to all. As Medicare has proven, heavy government involvement is the last thing Americans should want as a replacement for Obamacare. Because government programs have so distorted the insurance market, the government’s role however must be extricating itself from the market as much as possible and as quickly as possible during empowering consumers- both in choice and in the pocket book- to make health care insurance decisions for themselves and their families without the heavy hand of government.