A One Page Alternative to "Obamacare"

(Weekly Standard)  Jeffrey H. Anderson, the director of the Benjamin Rush Society, was the senior speechwriter for Department of Health and Human Services secretary Mike Leavitt.

---

In the week between Scott Brown's seismic win and the State of the Union address, the Obama administration tried mightily to explain away the verdict of the Bay State voters. Despite the fact that Brown had plainly made the election a referendum on Obamacare, the voters, according to the administration's narrative, had not rejected it.

Rather, they had rejected Martha Coakley. They had been voting on other issues. They hadn't understood the bills in question. They were frustrated that change wasn't coming quickly enough. Indeed, they were simply expressing the same frustration that had swept Barack Obama into office. (In other words, they had apparently decided to stick it to George W. Bush by filling Ted Kennedy's Senate seat with a Republican.)

In the State of the Union, Obama offered another response. The Massachusetts voters had rejected Obama-care, but that didn't mean that he had to abide by their wishes. "I never suggested that change would be easy." "Democracy," he said, "can be noisy and messy." "We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election." Or we can do "what's best for the next generation."

House Democrats seemed a bit stunned by this language, responding with silence rather than applause. They will face the voters in just nine months, and many of them represent Republican-leaning districts. Now, in the wake of Scott Brown's triumph, President Obama wants them to "take another look" at his proposals.

The American people have already taken a long look at Obamacare, and they don't want it. They don't want a government takeover that limits choice and competition, funnels $1 trillion from American taxpayers to insurance companies in its first dozen years (2014 to 2025), cuts Medicare Advantage benefits by an average of $21,000 per enrollee (except in South Florida) in its real first decade, and contains enough shady backroom deals to make Jimmy Hoffa blush.

Most of all, the American people don't want a $2.5 trillion bill that does all of that and still fails to do the one essential thing: lower health care costs.

During his State of the Union address, Obama also said that "if anyone from either party has a better approach .  .  . let me know." Well, without seeming too presumptuous, Mr. President, here you go!

The small bill offers seven real reforms (the last a combination of smaller reforms) that together would lower costs, significantly increase the number of insured, and be deficit-neutral.

Its proposals are not revolutionary or even particularly novel. They reflect ideas that are widely shared by Republicans in the House and Senate, as well as by many of their Democratic colleagues. The bill incorporates proposals that Tevi Troy and I have previously advanced. And it reflects scoring by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the House Republican bill-the one bill proposed so far that the CBO has said would actually lower health costs. But the small bill would meet the American people's goals for health care reform-while Obamacare wouldn't-and it would do so at only a fraction of the price.

The small bill would cut health costs by roughly as much as the House Republican health bill, which contains very similar cost-cutting provisions. The CBO estimates that by 2016, the House GOP bill would cut insurance premiums by 7 to 10 percent in the small-group market, 5 to 8 percent in the individual market, and up to 3 percent in the large-group market, in relation to current law. Under Obama-care, the CBO says that the average family's premiums in the individual market would rise by $2,100 a year in relation to current law. The small bill would achieve these favorable results despite costing only about $180 billion in its real first decade-just 7 percent as much as Obamacare. And, unlike Obamacare, which would not go into effect in any meaningful way until 2014, the small bill would start next year.

Under the small bill, approximately 10 million additional people would acquire insurance, at a cost of about $18,000 per newly insured person versus about $76,000 under Obamacare. In other words, for every $20 billion spent, Obamacare would result in approximately 260,000 additional people becoming insured, compared with 1.1 million people under the small bill.

When the federal government isn't limiting their ability to do so, Americans know how to shop for value, and they will have no problem identifying the small bill as a far better value than Obamacare. In truth, even the status quo is clearly a better value than Obamacare. But the choice needn't be between those two unpleasant alternatives. Real reform is within our reach.

A recent McLaughlin and Associates poll asked Americans whether they would prefer Obamacare or a bill that took "more modest steps like allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines to improve competition, creating a risk pool to help people with preexisting conditions afford coverage, and curbing lawsuits against doctors." By almost three to one-61 percent to 21 percent-respondents favored the more modest alternative to Obamacare. Among those who felt "strongly," the tally was 31 percent to 9 percent.

Let's start over and give the American people what they want.




By Jeffrey Anderson:
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard

[noloyalisti]

What we really need is universal single payer health care like they have in Canada or a very strong public option that reins in and controls the health insurance and drug corporations.

All of the western democracies have better health care than us and at lower cost. The reason the idiot Scott Brown got in is because Obama and the Dems are NOT PROGRESSIVE and LIBERAL enough. The strong public options was wildly popular and then was abandoned by the big, greedy corporations (wait, I meant the Democrats).

[pdchapin]

We know how to create a system that gives patients more choices, improves medical outcomes in virtually all categories, increases the satisfaction levels of both patients and providers and does it all for about half of what we're paying now. It's called a national health systems and we know it works because every other industrial nation in the world is already doing it. The problems in these other systems are relatively minor compared to what we have in this country.

Republicans apparently think Americans are just too stupid to run a complex system as well as the French.

[RobAla]

I couldn't have said it better:
"The American people have already taken a long look at Obamacare, and they don't want it. They don't want a government takeover that limits choice and competition, funnels $1 trillion from American taxpayers to insurance companies in its first dozen years (2014 to 2025), cuts Medicare Advantage benefits by an average of $21,000 per enrollee (except in South Florida) in its real first decade, and contains enough shady backroom deals to make Jimmy Hoffa blush. Most of all, the American people don't want a $2.5 trillion bill that does all of that and still fails to do the one essential thing: lower health care costs."

The President isn't listening. The President favors his huge plan over a simple plan that actually addresses the problems for one reason - this was never really about health care for the President - with him it has always been about federal government control. Federal control over Americans and American business is basically his focus. I hope people are paying attention.

[jimbom121]

Just by the fact that this joker is calling it "Obamacare" makes it hard to take him seriously. But onto the facts:

Their proposal, still leaves 20m people w/o insurance. There is nothing madating insurance companies not to deny people. And it takes the employer madate out, which will actually raise people's taxes and allow more people to be denied care.

In addition, no one has estimated that the bills out there would cost $76k per person...so it looks like he is making this up, which should not surprise anyone.

[RobAla]

Walter Reed is a perfect example of government run health care. Our American troops deserve better, and the American people deserve better than government run health care.

[greenlantern1]

Dear Sirs,
I am still waiting to see how the Republicans intend to make certain that the walter Reed Scandal never happens again!
After all, it did happen on Bush's shift!
Clifford Spencer

[RobAla]

Walter Reed is a perfect example of government run health care. Our American troops deserve better, and the American people deserve better than government run health care.

[bc-1948]

He obviously can't even read polls right- so naturally how could he be expected to understand health care reform. What a bunch of garbage his "seven points" are.

1. 34 states already have tort reform - seen premiums going down?
2. Nothing stops any insurance company from selling across state lines right now. Why don't they? Because they don't want to provide policies that require the mininum coverage that states require. They want the federal government to do away with all mininum requirements so they can sell "junk" policies - that people think will cover them when they won't.
3. Interesting how everyone is against suits against doctors until something happens to them or one of their families. Then they become sue happy. Question - if you go in for a routine procedure and due to the negligence of the doctor or hospital you either die or become permanently disabled, should you be forced into poverty for the rest of your life - depending on Medicaid to pay for your health care?

I have doctor clients - there malpractice premiums as a % of their gross income is less than my professional liability insurance is as a % of my gross income.

[starving1968-3]

The republicans - particularly Bush - wanted to cap medical malpractice suits at $250,000.

Think about that - a surgeon slips and cuts your spinal cord, leaving you a paraplegic or quadriplegic FOR LIFE, and they think that you should get a ONE TIME payment of $250,000.

You'd burn through that in the first 3 months of hospitalization - if not sooner!!

[starving1968-3]

"The American people have already taken a long look at Obamacare, and they don't want it. They don't want a government takeover that limits choice and competition, funnels $1 trillion from American taxpayers to insurance companies in its first dozen years (2014 to 2025), cuts Medicare Advantage benefits by an average of $21,000 per enrollee (except in South Florida) in its real first decade, and contains enough shady backroom deals to make Jimmy Hoffa blush."







This paragraph just proves without a doubt, that the writer is a GOP / Fox News employee, with an agenda.

Shame on CBS for giving a liar a forum to vent his OPINION.

[brianbwb2011]

Jeffrey H. Anderson, is clearly speaking from the nether orifice, as has the GOP ever since Reagan announced "trickle down".

Here are glaring examples.

"...The CBO estimates that by 2016, the House GOP bill would cut insurance premiums by 7 to 10 percent in the small-group market, 5 to 8 percent in the individual market, and up to 3 percent in the large-group market, in relation to current law..."

Even if this drivel were true, there is absolutely nothing in his statement for those who need coverage now, not in 2016. perhaps he thinks that the people in need of care now can simply tell their illnesses to wait another 6 years, then they might get treatment. Most likely though, he seems to be counting in enough people to die while waiting for his plan to kick in, so there won't be so many in need.

This is just more of the GOP "wait for the pie in the sky by and by" nonsense.

Another blatant lie, "Under the small bill, approximately 10 million additional people would acquire insurance, at a cost of about $18,000 per newly insured person versus about $76,000 under Obamacare. In other words, for every $20 billion spent, Obamacare would result in approximately 260,000 additional people becoming insured, compared with 1.1 million people under the small bill."

Since the GOP is opposed to cost controls for essential social infrastructure components, there is nothing in their BS bill to stop companies from hiking the prices, therefore this assumption is another blatant lie, based on the assumption, long since proven wrong, that business is inherently honest, and does what is good for the community from which it derives it's income.

And lastly, the "across state lines" is another crock, as the insurance industry has been known for years to blatantly engage in monopolistic price-fixing, and since the GOP loves that part, there will be no "cheaper alternatives, no matter from whatever state in which the companies' HQs are located.

I see the spewer of this article likes to use the term "Obamacare".

That's cool, his plan can be more accurately called "GOPdon'tcare".

[ky7474]

It really doesn't matter what bill if any gets passed, big corporations own both parties. The well being of the citizens and the future for our kids never enters the conversation. Great nations aren't destroyed from without, they are destroyed from within. The war we should be fighting is right here at home. If only we had true leaders!

[brianbwb2011]

We do have true leaders, unfortunately they are leading the enemy.

[maistir]

Mandatory health insurance for those under 21 (under 26 if in college or still living at home as dependents) would provide millions of new customers to offset those at higher risk. Let the companies figure out how to cover all of them and guarantee the companies a profit on the business they get from the two groups combined (like public utilities that deliver water, gas and electricity).