OBAMACARE: DOOMED TO FAIL

 

One reason that Republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory was that they chose the wrong slogan for elimination of Obamacare. The idea of replacement is framed by Democrats as replacing a failed monstrosity with a new replacement monstrosity. As with everything else, Democrats demand a single comprehensive healthcare plan. The Republican failure to have a united front on a clearly articulated Obamacare replacement plan provided fuel for Democrats and the media on both the left and right to oppose Obamacare repeal and replacement. Consequently, doubt and speculation rather than clarity prevailed. Going forward the question remains,  “Will Republicans ‘snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?'” Can Republicans solve the nation’s healthcare issues?

A group of people standing in front of a heart.
We the People need Real Healthcare Solutions Now not Obamacare lite.

In my opinion, the Republican slogan concerning Obamacare should be Real Healthcare Solutions Now. This would place the important issues at the forefront. The slogan, “Real Healthcare Solutions Now, would provide emphasis for a campaign to verbalize exactly how healthcare should be improved and perfected both in relation to the pre-Obamacare healthcare environment and the healthcare failures caused by Obamacare. A monster bill or law covering all the ills of healthcare would be counterproductive and ineffective in solving all the pre-Obamacare and Obamacare caused issues.

Two critical issues that plagued healthcare before Obamacare are transparency within the medical profession in relation to quality and cost of healthcare and tort reform. Providing the people of the United States with high quality, economical healthcare would require that each of these issues be effectively addressed. First, the medical profession should be totally transparent or patients will never have control of their own healthcare. Patients should be able to easily determine and compare the quality and cost of care that they would get from every doctor, analytical procedures, and clinics and hospitals where they will receive care. CBS News reported that clinics, hospitals, and their emergency rooms utilize some specialists and practitioners, like anesthesiologists, that are out of network and not covered by the same insurance plan. The report noted that the patients were not informed about the situation and were billed for the entire cost. Such a situation should be illegal. If a hospital or clinic is covered by your insurance, all of the practitioners at the facility should be part of each plan. The cost and quality of prescription drugs should also be easily comparable for the general public. Unfortunately the medical profession has succeeded in getting state and federal laws that make this type of information difficult for the public to access so that they can ensure the quality and cost-effectiveness of care they receive.

Secondly, tort reform is essential to control healthcare costs. As a former big truck driver, I am a perfect example of this issue. After a fairly severe heart episode, safety laws required a physical annually rather than biannually. At that time, laws specified that the annual physical include a $700 stress test, treadmill. However, my cardiologist would not approve my physical without a $3,500 myocardial stress test where the law simply specifies a treadmill. The difference, charged to insurance, was necessary, from my cardiologist perspective, to mitigate potential litigation if I was subsequently involved in a heart related traffic accident. I also have two all metal artificial hips which, in a small minority of patients, can cause surrounding tissue damage and prosthetic replacement. The daily barrage of attorney advertisements seeking clients for litigation regarding medication side effects and in my case the artificial hip side effects demonstrate the great potential increase in costs associated with litigation. It is not difficult to imagine how much this tort environment increases the cost of healthcare. Healthcare laws should address these issues.

In my opinion, every individual and family in the United States of America should be legally responsible for payment of their healthcare costs. This could be accomplished by my proposal for “The Healthcare Responsibility Act.” Admittedly, it is a wild and crazy idea to think that everybody should be legally responsible for their healthcare and the healthcare of their family. Under this concept, there would be no healthcare insurance mandate; but individuals and families would secure healthcare insurance if they knew that they would be legally responsible for all their healthcare costs whether or not they were responsible enough to secure healthcare insurance and/or fund a healthcare savings account. To ensure their financial future, the young and healthy would secure state or federally defined legal minimum health insurance coverage. This concept would help insure that the insurance provider pools had adequate funding to cover those with pre-existing conditions and children under 26 years of age with their parents insurance.

As a young, 70 year old geezer, my pre-Obamacare healthcare experience was extensive. Before we lost her, my wife and I were never without family healthcare insurance which covered ACL replacements on each of our son’s knees, surgeries on both of my knees and two fingers, my initial heart care, and her cancer care which exceeded $250,000. Subsequently, in New Mexico, while attempting to start a ministry/business, my heart condition precluded private individual healthcare insurance. My premium through the New Mexico Health Insurance Alliance (NMHIA), a state run program for uninsurable entrepreneurs, was nearly $700 a month. Premiums were high because the pool was limited to uninsurable entrepreneurs with businesses in New Mexico, a rather small group. Monthly copays for three branded prescriptions totaled $120, and practitioner copays ranged from $10 to $40 per visit. In my opinion as a citizen, healthcare insurance was my responsibility. Both of my hip replacements, abdominal hernia repair, and prostate cancer surgery were covered under this Insurance totaling less than $1250 in copays. Without this insurance these procedures would have cost between $250,000-$500,000. NMHIA is an example of a state licensed healthcare insurance co-op or pool limited to an individual state resulting in very high premium costs unlike the suggestion for insurance co-operatives discussed below.

The best way to ensure high quality cost effective healthcare is an open, transparent, free market healthcare system. Establishment of the rules and regulations, as well as cost administration, should be a state by state responsibility because the population health status, cost of living, and business costs vary in each state. Suggestions abound to achieve this goal. In the individual and single family healthcare market, allowing healthcare insurance policy coverage without state by state restrictions and allowing every provider to sell policies in all 50 states, is one suggestion. To accomplish this option, the national government would need to mandate uniform regulations among all 50 states. In a mobile society like ours, this idea would also allow complete transportability between states. In addition, allowing individuals and single families to form interstate insurance co-operatives would allow these groups to compete more effectively in the insurance market place. The same rules should also apply to employer provided health insurance which would probably reduce employer costs for large multi-state corporations with high interstate employee transfer rates.

In my opinion, the solutions for our healthcare issues being proposed will never create a truly patient doctor centered free market healthcare system. Currently, each component of healthcare has different rules and regulations. Only a small portion of the total healthcare market was covered by Obamacare. The total healthcare segment of our economy includes employer based healthcare which is over 50% of the market, Veterans Administration healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, and the uninsured. Each has it problems and patients do not control their care in any. Until problems of the whole system are addressed by a true free market solution , problems will continue.

A healthcare plan that includes the requirement for healthcare cost and quality transparency, tort reform, creation of interstate insurance purchasing power, insurance co-operatives, and legal requirement for individual and family responsibility for all the costs of their healthcare would provide significant steps toward providing healthcare that is patient based rather than more costly, ineffective government mandated healthcare plans. Passage of legislation covering each component of healthcare should result in a more perfect healthcare system than a single healthcare omnibus bill, an Obamacare like disaster. Republicans in Congress and the Trump Administration must quickly settle on a unified, patient centered healthcare plan, or they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We the People need
Real Healthcare Solutions Now.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

IT IS TIME FOR “THE HEALTHCARE RESPONSIBILITY ACT”

 

A puzzle with dna and a missing piece
Healthcare is an individual responsibility not a Constitutional right. “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would settle the the issue.

If I cannot buy fire insurance after my house burns down, why is it my right to buy healthcare insurance after surviving a heart attack? In my opinion, my healthcare is my responsibility. Free care is not my right! Every individual and family is responsible for their Health and the costs associated with that care, not the government. I am a lower middle class young geezer who always carried health insurance for my family. We did without to ensure we had health insurance which paid for at least $500,000-$750,000 in family care.

The fact that many healthy young people in the United States do not feel the need to have health insurance is one of the main problems regarding funding health insurance and care. Many people in this group choose to pay the relatively small fine rather than buy health insurance. The fine is well below the amount they would pay in premiums. As a result, programs are underfunded, insurance companies are unprofitable, and withdrawing from state insurance pools. Companies remaining in the pools are forced to increase premiums and/or deductibles and co-pays to remain profitable. The situation is untenable for the long term. It seems to me that this problem will remain regardless of the solution  attempted next. People will not pay for something they think is unnecessary.

One possible solution could be called “The Healthcare Responsibility Act.” This proposed solution would make health a personal responsibility with severe legal, financial consequences for the irresponsible. Under this plan, financial responsibility for healthcare would be a legal responsibility for every individual and family in the United States; but purchase of health insurance would not be a legal requirement. The solution would provide a wide range of options for the young and healthy and those of all ages with severe health issues, like me. As an example, minimum, responsible health insurance for a young healthy person could be defined as catastrophic health insurance and a minimum health saving account to cover routine medical needs for 1 to 2 years. Each state should define responsible coverage levels based on their cost of living .

“The Healthcare Responsibility Act,” as envisioned, would be part of the legislation to repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would have two components. The first component would be a federal law outlining the responsibilities of United States citizens and the consequences for failure to meet minimum responsibilities set by each state under the act. The national act could also include components such as guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions and covering family members up to the age of 26, although the act could result in economical coverage for younger citizens below age 26.

The second component of “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would be to delegate responsibilities for the definition of “healthcare responsibility” to each of the 50 states based on their individual income levels and cost of living. Consequently, states would have the authority to define the minimum level of responsible health insurance coverage their citizens would be required to maintain, minimum health savings account amounts required, or a sufficient combination of the two. Each state would also define the minimum income level where individuals and families would be responsible for their healthcare costs.  The threshold income levels would be based on overall state income levels, the number of people insured, available health insurance plan costs, and the cost of healthcare in each state.

This would be accomplished when each state determined the percentage of individual or family gross income paid for healthcare costs that constitutes an unacceptable financial burden. Individuals or families for which health insurance constitutes a state defined unacceptable burden could receive subsidies. Low income individuals or families could be eligible for Medicaid or a similar totally private program. At every level of income, individuals would be responsible to either enroll and contribute the applicable payments for the health insurance available and/or health savings accounts based on income.

Failure to be enrolled or purchase appropriate health insurance or maintain an adequate health savings account would be deemed irresponsible behavior. Under this law, this failure to maintain adequate healthcare financing would constitute a violation of the law. The individual or family would be fully responsible to pay all the healthcare costs for the care they received. They would not be allowed to use bankruptcy to avoid the repayment of costs even if they paid part of their gross income for the rest of their life. Additionally, their estate would be liable to its full extent for the repayment.

A cartoon of a grim reaper and an old man
Everyone should be responsible to secure the means or subsidies to pay for their healthcare. “The Healthcare Responsibility Act” would mandate personal payment for healthcare costs.

“The Healthcare Responsibility Act”, as proposed, has extremely severe penalties for irresponsible healthcare behavior and actions. These consequences would also make it irresponsible for any individual not to secure minimal levels of health savings and insurance policies. Failure to act responsibly regarding health and all of the costs associated with care would place both individuals and their family’s future in financial jeopardy. In view of the consequences, it seems that no one with a sound mind would fail to act responsibly in relation to their own or their families’ healthcare. With virtually all of our nation’s population insured, the cost of caring for the previously uninsured would no longer increase the premiums for the insured. This should reduce costs for everyone. In my opinion, these benefits would also be a huge step forward in solving the problem of inadequate funding for health insurance corporations.

“The Healthcare Responsibility Act” is suggested as an alternative for solving part of our health insurance and health financing problem. Every good and effective economic plan should consider all the alternatives, including the wild and crazy idea that everybody should be responsible for their individual and family healthcare.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.