Monday, March 13, 2017

The GOP health care bill

My curiosity was piqued, so I did a search on Who has actually read the bill and can tell me in a synopsis what is in the bill.

Contrast this with what the Dems did: they passed the bill in secret.  Congress had to pass it before you could see what was in it.

On at least this score, it is better.

After reading this, it appears to be a lot like what is already in existence.  However, there are some important differences.
  • Allocates money out to states as opposed to the current system.  (Don't know how they do it now, but evidently more money goes to the states.  This appears to be for Medicaid. )
  • Enhances and expands Health Savings Accounts.  ( You have to be making money to use this, in my opinion.  This would not help me right now.)
  • Replaces the subsidy with a Health Care Credit, which is a refundable tax credit much like the ones already in existence.  ( The idea here is to get people to shop for health care on their own.  Not sure how this will improve matters, but the idea is also to get people to get what they need as opposed to having the government mandate that EVERYTHING be covered.  For example, my coverage has to cover stuff I will never need because I am not married,  nor am I a female.)

It is opposed on the grounds that it "Obamacare Lite".  Well, maybe it is.  The difference, perhaps, is that it is a more individualized version of Obamacare, which cedes more control to the states and to individuals.  Whether or not it succeeds in the long run to avoid a single payer socialistic solution, I don't know.

Actually, I like my own ideas better, but I guess that is me.  I prefer something that would be a true insurance policy that requires that you pay for your own healthcare, and lets insurance companies underwrite policies based upon risk, which is what insurance actually is.  It is not a mere semantic difference.  Call things by their right names.  The left is always redefining words into what they don't mean.  What we have now is NOT insurance, but HEALTHCARE.   A real philosophical difference exists between offering to help INSURE people, but not to TAKE CARE of people.

If the GOP cannot pass this bill, they may not be able to pass anything at all.  Those who oppose this ought to think about that before they vote against it.

They are worried that this will lose votes because it doesn't really repeal Obamacare.  They should look at it this way: if they don't pass anything at all, they will also lose votes.  It may be a no win scenario.  You are going to be damned if you do, and damned if you don't


Dick Morris says that it leaves in Obamacare spending that is costly and unnecessary.  I wonder about that one.   If my recent medical stay at the hospital couldn't be covered, then it would have been ruinous.  Secondly, the refundable credits aren't as much as the premiums ( subsidies) .  They're getting cheap on us, I do believe.

Look.  Some stuff would be good to have.  Why not do catastrophic coverage on all for all, and call it a day?

If you want to get coverage, then you can do this other stuff.

No comments: