Obama’s Healthcare Reform Review: Republican’s Prospective

I often defend and smack around President Obama’s health care reform bill during the same breath. Was there the potential for bipartisan reform? Yes. Did Obama muscle it through, silencing the minority? Yes. President Obama should see how the Missouri Senate Republicans handled the tough issues of session, in which they which could have used the “nuclear option” on several issues. Instead, they compromised with the Democrats.

There are great things in the health insurance bill such as the elimination of lifetime caps on benefits, insurance eligibility for dependents, preexisting conditions. All of these things should be met with open arms. While the health insurance industry hates these provisions, they protect you and I, and are appropriate regulations.

Conceptually, I have no problem with requiring individuals to maintain some sort of health insurance coverage. Do I think it’s the federal government’s job to require this? No. This bill should have required states to pass a law requiring people to obtain some sort of health insurance option and tie Medicaid money to it. This carrot/stick mentality has been done with regards to auto insurance and seat belt requirements, the money being tied to transportation roads.

Being a fan of the open market, I would rather have seen the federal government approach closing the coverage cap differently. I would have liked to see a competitive bidding process by the insurance companies to cover these individuals as opposed to all of the administrative efforts being taken on by the federal and state governments.

When expanding a social entitlement or welfare program, I think that it’s equally important that each individual that benefits pays some for their benefits. Otherwise, it’s a total free service they are getting. This should be a stair-stepped proposal so that the more they make, the more they should pay. This idea is captured in the insurance subsidy, but not included for those included in the Medicaid portion.

Another “federalism” type problem with this legislation is the burden that this could potentially have for the states. The bill signed into law says the federal government will pay for 100% of the new enrollees on Medicaid until 2016. Then it decreases, and by 2020, the subsidy is approximately 90% by the federal government. According to the Christian Science Monitor  Virginia will be on the hook by 2022 for an additional $1.1 billion. In Missouri, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder has said that it could cost the state over $500 million per year. More conservative estimates of $300 million were also mentioned during the legislative session.

Closing the “donut hole” was a bad idea, and was strictly meant (in my opinion) to convince the AARP to support the overall reforms. The hole had systematic problems, but the idea and purpose behind it was a good one. I think it’s important that doctors and patients be aware of the monetary costs (and that the government is paying for them) associated with prescribing more and more medications. On the same token, I understand that people with specific chronic illnesses were especially at risk for reaching the donut hole.

One of my biggest criticisms of the health insurance reform legislation is its neglect of focusing on preventive healthcare and end of life scenarios. To help direct health costs, we need to encourage a healthy lifestyle both in diet, exercise, and what we consume. Whether it’s smoking or obesity, if we lived a healthier life, the health insurance costs could decrease. In Medicare, over 25% of the total expenditures are spent within the last year of life for patients. This isn’t surprising, since Medicare is for the elderly, but we need to have a healthcare system that promotes families to talk about scenarios and family wishes. Congress missed a huge opportunity by not addressing preventive healthcare. Proposals could have been anywhere from a tax deduction if your health insurance company deems you (based on national standards) as a healthy individual to a mandated premium cost savings.

Advertisements

6 Responses to Obama’s Healthcare Reform Review: Republican’s Prospective

  1. Obama?s Healthcare Reform Review: Republican?s Prospective…

    I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

  2. Troy says:

    I think Missouri Republican, if they had a Republican Governor, would muscle things through too. Both parties tend to compromise when there is split power and one might argue that strengthens the government (assuming both parties govern in good faith).

    I agree with you generally on the state vs. federal mandates and I especially agree on the need for a focus on preventative healthcare and healthy lifestyles.

    One frustration I have is that subsidies are given to families making as much as $88,000 per year (unless that number changed at the end). No family making that kind of income needs a subsidy. If they can’t afford healthcare, it’s because of irresponsibility. I wish that had been scaled back to the $50,000 range, thereby reducing the overall cost of the legislation.

  3. […] 2010 at 8:32 am and is filed under Craig. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own […]

  4. […] Obama's Healthcare Reform Review: Republican's Perspective […]

  5. Michael says:

    So, how is the federal government forcing the states to force the people to buy insurance a win for federalism or individual liberty? And as for private companies bidding to supply the new entitlement…wouldn’t it be easier and even more market-oriented to eliminate the restrictions on insurance mobility? Say someone lives and works in the Kansas City area. If they buy their insurance individually and move from the MO side to the KS side, they have to change policies. That’s why we have over 1,000 health insurance companies in the US; no one company can operate in two states, so they have to be “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of XX,” instead of a single company insuring all 50 states. Now that would be a freer marketplace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: