Republicans and conservatives have argued steadily for three years regarding the fallacies of "Obamacare." We have heard every logical reason why it should be scrapped. We have even heard the word "replacement." Yet, the specifics of "replacement" remain murky.
Maybe it's because there are no specifics when it comes to replacing 'Obamacare." Yes, some good ideas, namely,"Tort Reform" have come up. Allowing Insurance companies to cross state lines is not new. Most Americans like both ideas. But, then what?
Obamacare has some good points to it. Even Republicans will admit that "pre-existing"conditions have been a reason for Insurance companies to deny coverage to millions of Americans. There is bi-partisan support for allowing children to stay on their parent plan until age 26. So why is the President's plan so wrong, in the eyes of most?
Identifying all of the positives and negatives of Obamacare is not the subject of this post. Many opponents conclude two things, however. (a) It does not reduce the cost of health care, if anything, it increases it. (b) It may compromise the overall quality of health care in America.
In short, Obamacare is a loser! Not Universal Health care, mind you! Obamacare! So what can we offer as the better alternative?
Try this on for size...
We would implement two tiny taxes. One would be administered at the state level, the other on the federal level. Let's start with the latter.
A "one-half of one cent" national "CAT" tax would be implemented. Monies would go into a fund that would be activated only in the event of a large insurance claim.Here are the highlights:
(a) The establishment of a national catastrophic pool that would kick in only when the claim reached $10,000. At that point it would pay 80%. When the claim reached $50,000, the amount paid would be 85%. At $100,000 it would cap at 90%.
(b) Nothing could touch this pool, including insurance claims that were less than $10,000/
On the state level, a "one-fourth of one percent payroll tax" would be implemented. It would also go into effect when the claim hit $10,000 and would split costs with the federal pool.
Between these two sources, there would be sufficient funds to pay for catastrophic events. And, if implemented, the concern with "no available insurance for those with pre-existing conditions" would go away.
The compromise would include "tort reform," preferably "loser pays tort reform" as was implemented in Texas. The rest of the package would include allowing insurance companies to cross state line.
The end result: Much, MUCH lower insurance premiums for the American people. Not to mention, more options. If given a choice, I have no doubt that the American people would want this over Obamacare!
Bi-partisan support would be a given. This plan is as good as the President's is "awful."
So why haven't we already done something like this? Maybe it's because it's too easy! The big insurance companies wouldn't like it. We have 1300 insurance companies nationwide. If they were all allowed to sell in 50 states, it would create competition nightmares for Humana, Blue Cross and the "big boys."
Those seeking to use Obamacare as a catalyst for implementing more big government control wouldn't embrace it.
Obamacare is big government. It is Socialism. This plan brings about competition. When there is competition, prices go down. Or, as Florida Senator, Marco Rubio put it, "what if could buy your car insurance from only three different carriers? Can you imagine what your premiums would look like?"
It goes back to the question: "Is not the government there to serve the people?
I am afraid that the jury is still out on that one!
Post a Comment