Connect with us

Economy

Obamacare could be fully repealed if political considerations were erased

Published

on

In 2015, President Obama had a bill placed on his desk that fully repealed Obamacare. There was no replacement. Had he signed it, we’d be well on our way to the completely privatized health care system the nation deserves. He didn’t, of course, and the vast majority of GOP politicians pointed fingers and blamed the President for the failures that were developing in the legislation that was supposed to be his legacy.

In 2017, President Trump has not and likely will not see the same bill. In fact, he won’t see anything even close to it. Why? Because now that the GOP has complete control, they can’t bluff anymore. They are in a position to somehow not admit that they never wanted to fully repeal Obamacare in the first place. The result so far is the AHCA from the House and some variation the Senate can muster.

Whatever finally reaches President Trump’s desk will not be a repeal. It won’t even be a “repeal and replace” as they’ve been calling it since taking power. It will be a “tweak and rebrand” effort that leaves the damaging core of Obamacare fully intact, redirects how the mandates are delivered, redistributes penalties for citizens who do not comply, and throws in some easy-to-consume “conservative meat” like defunding Planned Parenthood to try to keep as many right-wing critics as possible at bay.

In the end, we will take one humongous government-run health care system and replace it with another humongous government-run health care system.

To those who believe that it’s not technically “government-run” because some autonomy is afforded to health insurance companies, health care providers, and even states, let’s be clear: if a program lays out guidelines for providers and consumers as both ACA and AHCA do, then it’s a government-run program.

Why would the GOP break their promise?

There are times when a party and the politicians representing them will do their best to “sell” an idea to the American people. They will go on news shows, perhaps speak at town halls, and even invest in television commercials to present their case to Americans in an effort to get them to help pressure the opposition into support. We’ve seen this since the birth of our nation. In fact, the reason for the Federalist Papers was to convince people that ratifying the United States Constitution was in the best interests of the nation and its citizens.

In recent years, we’ve seen it with welfare reform, Gang of 8, and even with Obamacare itself. In all of these cases, the group supporting pieces of legislation made their pitch to Americans because they believed they could convince enough people their ideas represented the right course for the nation. More importantly, they wanted to use the victory as a launching pad to expand their political standing and ensure future victories. This technique of selling an idea and then riding the wave of victory once it’s sold is only effective if you believe in what you’re selling.

It’s quite conspicuous that the GOP has not taken this approach with the AHCA. On the contrary, they want as little attention paid to the machinations of the bill as possible. It’s not that they don’t believe it’s a better solution than Obamacare. They simply don’t want more people pointing out that it’s not very different. They’d like to get it passed and signed quickly so they can then start focusing on midterm elections.

This is an important point. Their fear of losing in the midterms is the second biggest reason they’re unwilling to simply repeal Obamacare with either no replacement at all or one that pushes for privatization over time. They know there will be repercussions if they repeal Obamacare; if one person dies as a result of losing health care, Republican strategists believe the Democrats will have a chance of taking the House and the Senate in 2018.

It’s not necessarily true, of course. Both parties still embrace the old concept that Americans are too simple-minded to be shown the truth. They think that we’re only interested in what affects us directly and any attempt by the government to act responsibly will result in major losses. They can’t accept that Americans have more access to information than ever before. They play the news cycle and pull the heart strings. If they were correct, there’s no way Ted Cruz should have won Iowa after declaring that he wanted to end ethanol subsidies. There’s no way Bernie Sanders should have won Oklahoma after being on the wrong side of many liberal issues near and dear to Sooners.

People may be misinformed by mainstream media and fake news outlets, but we’re not stupid. If they lay out the facts and put together a compelling case, the GOP could repeal Obamacare. All they’d have to do is inform the people about why things will be much better in the not-too-long-term. Unfortunately, they’ve calculated that the benefits of repealing Obamacare would not be realized before the 2018 election and they’re unwilling to take the risk.

Instead, they’re hoping to insert Trumpcare and hope for the best. It’s a disgusting strategy for two reasons. First, it’s a lie. Presenting it as a repeal and replace is false as I mentioned above. Second, it won’t work. They will be blamed for health care failures regardless of whether it comes from the AHCA or from a full repeal. Taking this “safe” approach is still a losing effort.

The other reason

As I previously mentioned, the second biggest reason they don’t want to repeal Obamacare is fear of losing in the midterms. The biggest reason is because they like what government-run health care gives them. It’s not across the board; there are a handful of Senators and a small group of Congressman who truly want government out of the system. However, they are a tiny minority compared to the bulk of GOP lawmakers who see ACA and AHCA as a boon for big government and big budgets.

The more money that’s in the federal government’s pot, the easier it is to redistribute it based upon political considerations. More money muddles our economic system. As strange as it may sound, many in the federal government thrive in chaos. The more there is to draw the attention of the people, the easier it is for them to operate corruptly in other areas. This may seem like some conspiracy theory, but it’s not. This is really how the government operates in DC.

A better way

A blog post is not the right venue to lay out a comprehensive and detailed plan, but it’s a great place to give a 30,000-foot view of how things should be. Put simply, we need to privatize health care once again.

There are those who will point to challenges that existed before Obamacare. These challenges will return if Obamacare is repealed, but they won’t return in the same form. Things have changed. Now that we’ve experienced rising premiums that yield higher deductibles while delivering worse results, we have empirical data behind which we can rebuild the privatized market.

The sticking point for many Americans who might fear a full repeal is care for those with pre-existing conditions. As Michael Nolan noted on DailyWire:

One argument against privatized health care (and for Universal Health Care) is that insurance companies will continue to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. What the argument fails to take into account is that 90 percent of health care policies cover pre-existing conditions, as shown by health care expert Avik Roy. The free market has created a system by which those with employer-based coverage don’t need screening because the insurance is purchased in bulk by the employer. For those with employment-based coverage (currently roughly 50 percent of those with insurance), pre-existing condition exclusions can only be triggered if the client has had health insurance for less than 12 months. This encourages and rewards those who buy long-term medical coverage (which promotes good life choices and planning) as opposed to those that only purchase insurance when they get ill.

The other big advantage of having seen Obamacare is that we now have a better idea of what needs to be changed in order to make privatized health care work from economic, accessibility, and innovation perspectives. Daniel Horowitz came up with a cheat sheet at Conservative Review that gives us a great starting point to attack this beast. One of my favorites is his take on competition across state lines:

If insurance is enough of an interstate commerce issue to regulate people into oblivion at a federal level, then the federal government should be able to invoke the Commerce Clause to tear down the barriers to purchasing insurance across state lines. Indeed the Supreme Court has said as much [United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 1944]. This will foster massive competition, make insurance portable, and together with individualizing insurance through equal tax treatment and expanded HSAs, will save many individuals who get sick later in life after moving to different states from the problem of pre-existing conditions.

Not only will this reform create a more competitive national market, but it will induce states with a costly regulatory burden to get with the program and relax their regulations to compete with the more pro-consumer states. It will also create momentum for states to ease regulations on tele-medicine from out-of-state providers.

If we systematically repeal Obamacare, we can have privatized health care once again. A replacement plan that tries to predict what will happen is foolish. Instead, we should repeal, then monitor and analyze the market. Over time, we’ll find the holes that need to be plugged. States, charities, and other organizations can fill most of these holes. Whatever is left, if anything, can fall to the federal government. This way, DC becomes the final safety net instead of being the first line of defense. That’s the way it should be in health care and a plethora of other areas.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

With McCain out, Republicans can only afford one ‘No’ vote on tax plan

Published

on

With McCain out, Republicans can only afford one 'No' vote on tax plan

Things were looking very good for the GOP going into the week. Both Senators Marco Rubio and Bob Corker had signaled they were voting for the tax bill, leaving three undecided Senators to contend with Monday. Now, Senator John McCain is likely to miss the vote as he travels to Arizona for brain cancer treatment.

That means for the Republican plan to pass in the Senate, no more than one Republican Senator can vote against it. If two vote against it and every Democrat does as well, the vote would be 50-49 against, rendering Vice President’s tie-breaking vote unnecessary.

Averting a government shutdown is also on the table this week, though McCain’s absence won’t be as important since there will likely be Democrats helping to keep the government running, if only for a short while.

Further Reading

Sen. John McCain back in Arizona, will miss vote on GOP tax bill

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccain-arizona-brain-cancer-treatment-miss-gop-tax-plan-vote/Republican Sen. John McCain returned home to Arizona after spending several days in a Maryland hospital recovering from side effects from chemotherapy treatment for brain cancer, CBS News has learned. He will spend the holidays with his family and will not be on hand for the final vote on the GOP tax passage expected this week. He’s expected to return to Washington in January.

Late Sunday, a dual statement from McCain’s doctor and his office described the senator’s current health situation.

Continue Reading

Economy

Socialism, ‘socio-economic rights’ and Net Neutrality

Published

on

By

Socialism socio-economic rights and Net Neutrality

Given the Socialist-Left’s proclivity for control and deception, it’s is not surprising that they tend to disguise these tendencies behind deceptive labels [e.g. Affordable Care Act]. The term ‘Net Neutrality’ is no exception, with it’s labeling making it sound like a wonderful idea, while in practice it has the opposite effect, as it with most of the Left’s socialist national agenda.

The Socialist-Left also tends to overly complicate issues to muddy the waters, such as when an MSNBC host became angry as a ‘Net Neutrality’ opponent obliterated his Leftist narratives. [Courtesy of The Right Scoop]. There have been many an article explaining the issue here, here, here and here.  As well as FCC chairman Ajit Pai detailed the issue on Fox and Friends the other day:

FCC chairman Ajit Pai provided a perfect rebuttal to the net neutrality hysteria running rampant from the nation’s Left. He detailed the restoration of the ‘Light-Touch’ approach to the internet that has seen it flourish for 20 years. He also explained that the free-market approach is the best way to ensure innovation and cheaper prices for all.

Rather than trying to delve into the technical nuances of ‘Net Neutrality’ let us take a look at another case of government interference in the marketplace. This hails from the socialist ‘paradise’ of Venezuela as detailed in The Caracas Chronicles where the “Bureau for the Defense of Socio-Economic Rights (Sundde)” escorted by rifle toting Guardia, force business owners to sell their goods at prices determined by the Socialist government of Nicolás Maduro.

As in the case of ‘Net Neutrality’ there are those who applaud such efforts without any consideration of property rights of others or the long-term implications to their Liberty and society in general. They gain the short-term advantage of free or cheap goods and services without considering that this heavy-handed government interference will suppress the free market. The businesses affected will either cut back on investment in their businesses or close altogether. This is all part of the pernicious nature of socialism, where there will always be those who somehow think they can get something for nothing based on the flawed logic that the world owes them a living just because they exist. Those who salivate at the prospect of free stuff have a tendency to forget about the long-term consequences of their actions.

In the case of ‘Net Neutrality’ regulation of private business discourages innovation and advantages the bigger players in the field causing higher prices and fewer choices.

The Bane of Shopkeepers | Caracas Chronicles

https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/12/15/the-bane-of-shopkeepers/On Saturday, December 2, for the fourth year in a row, the Bureau for the Defense of Socio Economic Rights (Sundde) went on an “inspection” of private businesses. They began in Plaza Venezuela, the Sabana Grande boulevard and, by Monday, they were close to Chacaíto. Escorted by the National Guard (GNB) and the National Police (PNB), they forced shopkeepers to sell their entire merchandise at a 50% discount.

People made lines almost immediately outside stores selling shoes, underwear, trousers, shirts, purses and even food. In less than seven hours, shops were emptied out.

It’s a lethal stab to many shopkeepers, since sales already dropped by 40% right in December, a period that usually has an important cash flow. The reason: exorbitant prices. A pair of sports shoes costs Bs. 800,000 ($7.7, at the current black market rate), far more than the average employee can pay, with the current minimum wage plus food stamps at Bs. 456,507 ($4.42).

The GNB officers stood guard in the shops as if products were food for refugees fleeing a war. With rifles close to their chest, they controlled the crowds and diffused the constant clashes among customers.

Shopkeepers in el Centro are expecting Sundde to drop by at any minute on their nearly empty shops, while employees face an ominous prospect for 2018. The operation in Sabana Grande is common practice for the regime now: they regulate prices, destroying production and restricting free market.

Photo: José Díaz, Caracas chronicles

Continue Reading

Economy

Chuck Grassley attempts to defend killing the estate tax

Published

on

Chuck Grassley attempts to defend killing the estate tax

Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa has his heart in the right place, but his delivery often falls short. The estate tax definitely needs to be abolished, but trying to sell the idea by invoking booze, women, and movies is probably the wrong approach.

Here’s what he said earlier this month:

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

Just because people aren’t investing doesn’t mean we’re spending every darn penny we have on booze, women, or movies. It’s time for the Senator to get his messaging fixed.

Source: The Hill

Grassley: Ending estate tax ‘recognizes people that are investing,’ not ‘spending every darn penny’

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/363039-grassley-ending-estate-tax-recognizes-people-that-are-investing-not-spendingSen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyGrassley blasts Democrats over unwillingness to probe Clinton GOP and Dems bitterly divided by immigration Thanks to the farm lobby, the US is stuck with a broken ethanol policy MORE (R-Iowa) said he favors repealing the estate tax, which the Senate tax-reform bill does not do, saying it “recognizes the people that are investing,” The Des Moines Register reported Saturday.

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies,” Grassley told the newspaper.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.