Eyeing 2016, Republicans adopt new ObamaCare strategy

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/236045-eyeing-2016-gop-adopts-new-obamacare-strategy

By Alexander Bolton - 03/18/15 06:00 AM EDT
With an eye on 2016, congressional Republicans are adopting a new strategy on repealing ObamaCare.

For years, the effort to kill President Obama’s signature healthcare law has stalled in the GOP-led House. Now, Republicans have a new goal: getting a bill to his desk.

Congressional Republicans plan to pass a deficit-reduction package that repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA). After a shaky start this year, GOP leaders want to show they can govern and set the terms for 2016, when they will try to retain control of Congress and retake the White House.
Even though the ObamaCare repeal bill will not become law this Congress, Republicans believe they will benefit politically if they can force Obama into a veto. They claim that would send the message to voters that Republicans just need the White House in order to shake up Washington.

The decision to target the ACA through a budget measure is clearly a nod to the right, as well as an effective way to round up votes for the GOP blueprint this spring.

However, the White House is confident it has the upper hand in setting the agenda in Washington.

Senior administration officials told reporters Tuesday that Republicans in Congress have shown an inability to govern, citing the fight over Department of Homeland Security funding and a stalled human trafficking bill.

The officials, speaking on background, pointed to dysfunction on Capitol Hill as evidence that the GOP won’t be able to move big-ticket legislative items such as tax reform and long-term transportation funding.

By making another attempt to repeal ObamaCare in their budget, Republicans missed another opportunity to open the door to bipartisan compromise, the officials said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), a senior Republican on the Budget Committee, said his colleagues want “to make sure we don’t do anything to make ObamaCare look like a permanent piece of legislation, so it can become an issue in the next campaign and the next president can make a decision what to do about it.”

Despite recent favorable headlines, polls show the healthcare law remains unpopular. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey this month showed 44 percent of respondents view the law as a “total bad idea” and 37 percent see it positively.   

House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a budget plan that includes special instructions paving the way for legislation repealing much of the ACA.

Senate Republicans say their budget, to be unveiled Wednesday, will include similar language. Senators say they plan to use a special budgetary process known as reconciliation to make it easier to pass a measure later this year helping people transition away from the healthcare subsidies provided by the law.

When the two budgets are merged into a single legislative product this spring, it will include special instructions that will allow a package to pass the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of the 60 usually required to overcome a filibuster.

GOP strategists view this transition program as politically necessary in case the Supreme Court strikes down the health insurance exchanges in 37 states when it rules later this year in King v. Burwell.

A senior Senate GOP aide said the budget planned for introduction Wednesday will include reconciliation language that will give lawmakers wide latitude to move a package repealing ObamaCare and establishing a program to transition away from it.

“It will be broad enough that you can do anything,” said the aide.

“We’re working on a transition, a temporary transition to protect the people that have been hurt by the president’s actions on the healthcare law, and this is all in line with the King case in front of the Supreme Court,” said Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, who is leading the GOP effort.

“The idea is by passing a budget in the House, passing a budget in the Senate, if the Supreme Court rules the administration acted illegally, we want to put something on the president’s desk with the 51 votes that are required in the Senate under reconciliation,” he added.

The House budget includes an instruction to House committees to “determine the most effective methods” by which the healthcare law shall be “repealed in [its] entirety.”

The House blueprint gives instructions to 13 committees to find ways to reduce the deficit, raising the possibility that a variety of proposals could be crammed into one package and then pass the upper chamber with a simple majority.

The Senate parliamentarian has advised that the budget will allow Republicans to move one spending reconciliation bill, one tax reconciliation bill and one reconciliation bill to raise the debt limit.

Legislation repealing as much of ObamaCare through the special process as possible would count as a spending and a tax reconciliation bill. That means any effort to pass a healthcare transition program or reforms to Medicare and Medicaid or tax reform would have to be included.

Only a narrower bill to raise the debt limit could move separately and still enjoy the possibility of passing with 51 votes.

The shape and scope of the reconciliation bill that will ultimately move through the Senate remains to be decided, but lawmakers say they are inclined to keep it focused on addressing ObamaCare.

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule in King v. Burwell, which will decide whether the federal government is authorized to distribute insurance subsidies in states that have not established their own marketplaces, until June.

This means a healthcare reconciliation package will not move before July, giving Republicans time to determine whether they need to include the transition program that Barrasso is working on with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

“The transition product is not a replacement of
ObamaCare, it’s a way to deal with possible consequences of King v. Burwell and provide a bridge to a different kind of healthcare system that Congress and a new president could adopt that could give patients more choice,” Alexander said.

“The transition product might be able to be included in the reconciliation package, depending on how it’s written,” he added. “We want to make sure the 6 or 7 million [people] who might be hurt by the King v. Burwell decision are not hurt.”

[aligncare]

What to replace the ACA with?

Catastrophic insurance only. Routine doctor visits pay out-of-pocket. Market forces then begin to take hold.

Just like car insurance. There for the big accidents. But routine car maintenance, tires, etc, paid out-of-pocket.

Same for healthcare. Watch as the $1200 MRI drops to only $159.99 as the hundreds of MRIs built over the last decade's compete for business.

[Relic]

This is only my opinion, based on my observations of people around me, but I highly value my opinion.

I think most people see obamacare as a step in the right direction. Healthcare has been an issue for what? 30 or 40 years at least? So, even a ham handed attempt like obamacare is seen as progress.

I think the right approach is to "fix" obamacare, not "kill" it. Even if the result is the same, the language matters. Let the D's have their signature achievement. Let the Obama worshipers feel good. Call it obamacare. Just gut it, and make it workable.

If the R's can somehow manage to polish the turd that is obamacare, it's a win for them, and a win for the average American.

[libertybele]

I hope that the GOP is successful in some way, shape or form, in repealing Obamacare.  It has been detrimental to this country since the get go.  The "roll out" was a joke.  In addition, the American public was out and out lied to by Obama.  Forced health insurance by our government is NOT a good thing.  To many individuals have either lost their insurance, or their premiums have gone up or can't afford the insurance and were penalized on their tax return. This is good how?  For starters, how about we NOT provide free medical to those who are not LEGAL citizens of the United States; it comes out of taxpayers pockets and costs us BILLIONS each year. How about tax incentives for employers who provide health insurance to their employees at a reduced cost? A huge part of the problem is the insurance lobbyist and big pharma.  Case in point, I recently was in the hospital --- hundreds of dollars of gauze bandages?? Hundreds of dollars for low dose aspirin and vitamins??  I am very fortunate and have insurance, but why should the insurance company be paying a hundred dollars for an aspirin that costs pennies? 

[aligncare]

This is only my opinion, based on my observations of people around me, but I highly value my opinion.

I think most people see obamacare as a step in the right direction. Healthcare has been an issue for what? 30 or 40 years at least? So, even a ham handed attempt like obamacare is seen as progress.

I think the right approach is to "fix" obamacare, not "kill" it. Even if the result is the same, the language matters. Let the D's have their signature achievement. Let the Obama worshipers feel good. Call it obamacare. Just gut it, and make it workable.

If the R's can somehow manage to polish the turd that is obamacare, it's a win for them, and a win for the average American.

Problem.

Since the new product called "health insurance" first came on the market the cost of healthcare shot up like a Titan rocket. The problem of escalating healthcare costs was caused by third-party payers, ie health insurance.

Wiki:
"Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case."

The way I see it the only way to drive the cost of healthcare down is to get rid of insurance coverage for every tiny little aspect of your personal health maintenance and cover only catastrophic events.

[Relic]

Problem.

Since the new product called "health insurance" first came on the market the cost of healthcare shot up like a Titan rocket. The problem of escalating healthcare costs was caused by third-party payers, ie health insurance.

Wiki:
"Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case."

The way I see it the only way to drive the cost of healthcare down is to get rid of insurance coverage for every tiny little aspect of your personal health maintenance and cover only catastrophic events.

I agree with you, it's a sound approach. However, this is a problem that involves people, and expectations. It will take small steps to go in that direction. obamacare could be the vehicle, but it will take many iterations of fixing it to get there.

You can cure a heroin addict by forcing him to go cold turkey. However, it's very painful and dangerous for the addict.

[Bigun]

Problem.

Since the new product called "health insurance" first came on the market the cost of healthcare shot up like a Titan rocket. The problem of escalating healthcare costs was caused by third-party payers, ie health insurance.

Wiki:
"Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case."

The way I see it the only way to drive the cost of healthcare down is to get rid of insurance coverage for every tiny little aspect of your personal health maintenance and cover only catastrophic events.

The way I see it the only way to drive healthcare costs down is to make sure the CONSUMERS of healthcare have a lot of skin in the game with regard to costs but that does not necessarily mean they cannot have healthcare insurance coverage.

We should first allow people to buy healthcare policies that fit THEIR specific needs from anywhere they want to buy them! If that happened you would very quickly see the providers of such policies incorporating incentives for the policy holder to look around for the least expensive source from which to obtain the specific care they need!

That is just one of many ideas that would reintroduce market forces into the healthcare. We desperately  need to do that!

Markets work and the more FREE they are the better they work!

[libertybele]

Problem.

Since the new product called "health insurance" first came on the market the cost of healthcare shot up like a Titan rocket. The problem of escalating healthcare costs was caused by third-party payers, ie health insurance.

Wiki:
"Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case."

The way I see it the only way to drive the cost of healthcare down is to get rid of insurance coverage for every tiny little aspect of your personal health maintenance and cover only catastrophic events.

I understand what your are saying, but as for only covering catastrophic events would be even more pricier.  For example; mammograms detect breast cancer and if caught early enough can be eradicated.  If coverage is only given when cancer is catastrophic, the costs rise significantly.  Perhaps then the government will decided that they aren't going to cover treatment because the outlook is poor.  I think this empowers the government to play "God" with our health and ultimately our lives.  Keep the government out of it period.  Let the free marketplace prevail.

I know that by now most of you know that I am a huge Ron Paul fan.  Once again, I feel he is absolutely correct!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWWI7A9f6U

When my husband and I first married, we had health care insurance through his employer.  They switched to an HMO when HMO's first came out.  We had to drive 50 miles to the hospital that was on the plan, later I had to have surgery and our premiums increased. It's been downhill since then.

[Bigun]

I understand what your are saying, but as for only covering catastrophic events would be even more pricier.  For example; mammograms detect breast cancer and if caught early enough can be eradicated.  If coverage is only given when cancer is catastrophic, the costs rise significantly.  Perhaps then the government will decided that they aren't going to cover treatment because the outlook is poor.  I think this empowers the government to play "God" with our health and ultimately our lives.  Keep the government out of it period.  Let the free marketplace prevail.

I know that by now most of you know that I am a huge Ron Paul fan.  Once again, I feel he is absolutely correct!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWWI7A9f6U

When my husband and I first married, we had health care insurance through his employer.  They switched to an HMO when HMO's first came out.  We had to drive 50 miles to the hospital that was on the plan, later I had to have surgery and our premiums increased. It's been downhill since then.

Dr. Ron Paul's signature is on the bottom of my youngest son's birth certificate as the attending physician. I once lived three doors down the street from him and have known Rand since he was in diapers!

Ron is a LONG time friend of mine who I knew to be a financial genius long before he ever got into politics.  I agree with him on a great many issues, including this one, but could NEVER vote for him to be president because of his foreign policy views and I have told him that directly on more than one occasion.

[alicewonders]

Problem.

Since the new product called "health insurance" first came on the market the cost of healthcare shot up like a Titan rocket. The problem of escalating healthcare costs was caused by third-party payers, ie health insurance.

Wiki:
"Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case."

The way I see it the only way to drive the cost of healthcare down is to get rid of insurance coverage for every tiny little aspect of your personal health maintenance and cover only catastrophic events.

The concept of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) is a very good way to go, in my book.  It puts more control in the hands of the consumer - and it helps to make the consumer aware of the costs of many of these medical procedures and supplies.  The consumer decides what is an appropriate use of their funds for medical expenses.  The real need for insurance is the same as it is for homeowners insurance.  It should be reserved for catastrophic losses.  You wouldn't make claims for every little thing on your homeowner's (breaking the handle of a rake), even if you have such coverage, because you know that they will hike your premiums.  You only use the insurance when it is a significant expense.  The same should be true for health insurance.  Contribute to a HSA - your employer could make contributions as part of your benefits - but it should be mandated that everyone have an HSA and that they contribute to it themselves.

No doubt that our system of health insurance has become bogged down by special interest groups and powerful entities that profit from the system.  It needs to be fixed in a way that brings costs down - not up.  As far as high risk and poor citizens that cannot contribute to their healthcare costs, a program can be created to help THEM that doesn't require all of us to sacrifice our level of healthcare.  This can be done and it would be far cheaper than what we are stuck with now.

 

[Bigun]

The concept of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) is a very good way to go, in my book.  It puts more control in the hands of the consumer - and it helps to make the consumer aware of the costs of many of these medical procedures and supplies.  The consumer decides what is an appropriate use of their funds for medical expenses.  The real need for insurance is the same as it is for homeowners insurance.  It should be reserved for catastrophic losses.  You wouldn't make claims for every little thing on your homeowner's (breaking the handle of a rake), even if you have such coverage, because you know that they will hike your premiums.  You only use the insurance when it is a significant expense.  The same should be true for health insurance.  Contribute to a HSA - your employer could make contributions as part of your benefits - but it should be mandated that everyone have an HSA and that they contribute to it themselves.

No doubt that our system of health insurance has become bogged down by special interest groups and powerful entities that profit from the system.  It needs to be fixed in a way that brings costs down - not up.  As far as high risk and poor citizens that cannot contribute to their healthcare costs, a program can be created to help THEM that doesn't require all of us to sacrifice our level of healthcare.  This can be done and it would be far cheaper than what we are stuck with now.

 

I agree Alice! The HSA approach is definitely in the top tier of market oriented solutions!

[Longiron]

The way I see it the only way to drive healthcare costs down is to make sure the CONSUMERS of healthcare have a lot of skin in the game with regard to costs but that does not necessarily mean they cannot have healthcare insurance coverage.

We should first allow people to buy healthcare policies that fit THEIR specific needs from anywhere they want to buy them! If that happened you would very quickly see the providers of such policies incorporating incentives for the policy holder to look around for the least expensive source from which to obtain the specific care they need!

That is just one of many ideas that would reintroduce market forces into the healthcare. We desperately  need to do that!

Markets work and the more FREE they are the better they work!

3 ways to drive the cost of healthcare down: 1. Get legal man out of healthcare 2. treat the hospital as the business they really are and get rid of the non profit status. 3.Sell healthcare insurance across state lines and make healthcare insurance companies compete. if implemented watch the cost of healthcare come down. Healthcare is not a RIGHT it is a service and should be treated as any other service and business.

[alicewonders]

3 ways to drive the cost of healthcare down: 1. Get legal man out of healthcare 2. treat the hospital as the business they really are and get rid of the non profit status. 3.Sell healthcare insurance across state lines and make healthcare insurance companies compete. if implemented watch the cost of healthcare come down. Healthcare is not a RIGHT it is a service and should be treated as any other service and business.

All three excellent points!

[Bigun]

3 ways to drive the cost of healthcare down: 1. Get legal man out of healthcare 2. treat the hospital as the business they really are and get rid of the non profit status. 3.Sell healthcare insurance across state lines and make healthcare insurance companies compete. if implemented watch the cost of healthcare come down. Healthcare is not a RIGHT it is a service and should be treated as any other service and business.

Spot on! Couldn't agree more!

[aligncare]

The way I see it the only way to drive healthcare costs down is to make sure the CONSUMERS of healthcare have a lot of skin in the game with regard to costs but that does not necessarily mean they cannot have healthcare insurance coverage.

We should first allow people to buy healthcare policies that fit THEIR specific needs from anywhere they want to buy them! If that happened you would very quickly see the providers of such policies incorporating incentives for the policy holder to look around for the least expensive source from which to obtain the specific care they need!

That is just one of many ideas that would reintroduce market forces into the healthcare. We desperately  need to do that!

Markets work and the more FREE they are the better they work!

Yes, I agree. That approach would preserve some freedom in the marketplace.

If I were young again I'd have catastrophic coverage until I was about 45-50 then get a policy to cover a wider array of degenerative and life-style diseases.

I was healthy when young and never needed a doctor until I was 55.

Now that the collectivists have overrun the fedgov everyone of all ages must pay for lifestyle diseases like STD'S, smoking illnesses, degenerative diseases related to obesity, etc..

[aligncare]

I understand what your are saying, but as for only covering catastrophic events would be even more pricier.  For example; mammograms detect breast cancer and if caught early enough can be eradicated.  If coverage is only given when cancer is catastrophic, the costs rise significantly.  Perhaps then the government will decided that they aren't going to cover treatment because the outlook is poor.  I think this empowers the government to play "God" with our health and ultimately our lives.  Keep the government out of it period.  Let the free marketplace prevail.

I know that by now most of you know that I am a huge Ron Paul fan.  Once again, I feel he is absolutely correct!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWWI7A9f6U

When my husband and I first married, we had health care insurance through his employer.  They switched to an HMO when HMO's first came out.  We had to drive 50 miles to the hospital that was on the plan, later I had to have surgery and our premiums increased. It's been downhill since then.

It's up to the individual to own their health status; including paying for routine preventive, and screening services.

I would also like to see employers get out of the insuring employees business and get back to making things and providing services only.

Once market forces have been in place sufficiently the quality of medical services will go up and the cost of those hundred dollar bandages will go down. As long as a third party pays, the patient never asks how much things cost and prices will continue to skyrocket.