The rush to repeal Obamacare
With the Republicans in control of the legislative and executive branches of government in less than ten days, they are moving at maximum warp speed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I have to wonder about what those people who current have health insurance coverage through the ACA who voted for Donald Trump will do when they discover that they've lost that coverage.
The thing is, there are more than a few of them that actually appear to believe that Obamacare is not the same thing as the Affordable Care Act. I've heard speculation that had Obamacare never become the label for this law, the required sentiment to repeal it might have never come into existence. That is something that cannot be objectively proven, but it makes a lot of sense.
In attempting to frame the discussion in a light to point out the problems with repealing the ACA, those who want the law to remain in force are focusing on the potential loss of the prohibition against insurers denying or limiting coverage to those who have pre-existing conditions.
If I were attempting to purchase homeowners or renters insurance for my residence, there are pre-existing conditions that would come into play in how much of a premium I would pay. My zip code, because if my residence was located in a neighborhood with a higher than normal crime rate. How many claims I'd put in on this type of insurance in the past. The proximity of my residence to potential hazards.
The same applies to getting automobile insurance coverage. The number of moving violations I have would be one such condition. So would the number of accidents I'd been involved in within the past few years.
So why are those kinds of insurance policies permitted to be issued based on those pre-existing conditions, but under the ACA, such limits are prohibited? Because not having automobile insurance or renters insurance won't result in you dying due to the lack of coverage.
However, it must be recognized that a system where people who don't "need" health insurance and can go out and get it after they get sick or injured is not a workable system either. No one is going to go out and try to buy an automobile insurance policy after they've had an accident while not having coverage. Actually they might try, but it won't happen.
The Republicans in Congress have no plan to replace the ACA. Here's a thought.
Let the ACA remain in effect until January 1 of 2018. On that date, it would be replaced by a new system. Every individual in the nation would have the opportunity to opt in, or opt out. But for anyone who opts out, they would not be eligible for enrollment in the new system until they become eligible for Medicare. Not Medicaid, but Medicare. Further, for anyone who chose to opt out of the system, they could not get rid of medical bills through bankruptcy. Medical debt for those who chose to opt out cannot discharge any obligations incurred for healthcare in bankruptcy.
The system would provide a basic level of benefits. Premiums and deductibles would be based on household income. Insurance companies would all be able to offer the basic policy and would compete in a marketplace to sell supplemental policies that would provide lowered out of pocket costs and enhanced levels of coverage.
Families living below the poverty level would be enrolled in the system at no cost to them. The billions poured into public healthcare facilities at the state and county level could be redirected to pay for this coverage. Those who have opted out of the system would not have a fallback of publicly funded healthcare..
This is a basic outline and not designed to be a complete solution to this problem. But it is certainly better than the non-existent plans of the Republicans in Congress.
The thing is, there are more than a few of them that actually appear to believe that Obamacare is not the same thing as the Affordable Care Act. I've heard speculation that had Obamacare never become the label for this law, the required sentiment to repeal it might have never come into existence. That is something that cannot be objectively proven, but it makes a lot of sense.
In attempting to frame the discussion in a light to point out the problems with repealing the ACA, those who want the law to remain in force are focusing on the potential loss of the prohibition against insurers denying or limiting coverage to those who have pre-existing conditions.
If I were attempting to purchase homeowners or renters insurance for my residence, there are pre-existing conditions that would come into play in how much of a premium I would pay. My zip code, because if my residence was located in a neighborhood with a higher than normal crime rate. How many claims I'd put in on this type of insurance in the past. The proximity of my residence to potential hazards.
The same applies to getting automobile insurance coverage. The number of moving violations I have would be one such condition. So would the number of accidents I'd been involved in within the past few years.
So why are those kinds of insurance policies permitted to be issued based on those pre-existing conditions, but under the ACA, such limits are prohibited? Because not having automobile insurance or renters insurance won't result in you dying due to the lack of coverage.
However, it must be recognized that a system where people who don't "need" health insurance and can go out and get it after they get sick or injured is not a workable system either. No one is going to go out and try to buy an automobile insurance policy after they've had an accident while not having coverage. Actually they might try, but it won't happen.
The Republicans in Congress have no plan to replace the ACA. Here's a thought.
Let the ACA remain in effect until January 1 of 2018. On that date, it would be replaced by a new system. Every individual in the nation would have the opportunity to opt in, or opt out. But for anyone who opts out, they would not be eligible for enrollment in the new system until they become eligible for Medicare. Not Medicaid, but Medicare. Further, for anyone who chose to opt out of the system, they could not get rid of medical bills through bankruptcy. Medical debt for those who chose to opt out cannot discharge any obligations incurred for healthcare in bankruptcy.
The system would provide a basic level of benefits. Premiums and deductibles would be based on household income. Insurance companies would all be able to offer the basic policy and would compete in a marketplace to sell supplemental policies that would provide lowered out of pocket costs and enhanced levels of coverage.
Families living below the poverty level would be enrolled in the system at no cost to them. The billions poured into public healthcare facilities at the state and county level could be redirected to pay for this coverage. Those who have opted out of the system would not have a fallback of publicly funded healthcare..
This is a basic outline and not designed to be a complete solution to this problem. But it is certainly better than the non-existent plans of the Republicans in Congress.
posted by me at 7:06 PM
<< Home