Burr's healthcare alternative is an ACA repeal
Published February 1, 2014
Editorial by News and Observer, January 31, 2014.
From the beginning of the debate over the Affordable Care Act until it became law and even after it passed constitutional muster with the U.S. Supreme Court, Republicans in Congress jeered at “Obamacare”. They threw up every roadblock they could think of and made dire predictions that didn’t come true, and when the website healthcare.gov locked up at the start, they made the odd complaint that people weren’t getting what they didn’t want people to have.
But for all the Republicans’ long and anguished objections to the ACA, there was one thing they didn’t mention: an alternative. One reason for the lack of an option might have been that conservative ideas on health care developed by the Heritage Foundation were already built into the ACA.
Now North Carolina’s Sen. Richard Burr has what’s being touted as the Republican alternative to the ACA.
Turns out, it’s just another attempt at a roadblock.
Many specifics aren’t out, but what is known is interesting. While Burr would continue current reforms allowing people to keep their children on their insurance until age 26 and would ban lifetime limits on insurance, he’d have no requirement that Americans buy insurance, a key provision of the ACA. It ensures risks to insurers will be widely spread and premiums kept as low as possible. . And insurance companies, limited under the ACA to charging older people three times what they charge younger ones, could charge those older Americans five times the rate for younger people.
Somehow, Republicans think that will lower health care costs.
No Medicaid expansion
And those with pre-existing conditions would have no guarantee of coverage. They’d be hostage to high-risk pools if they couldn’t get insurance. The GOP plan also wouldn’t expand Medicaid to cover more lower-income people and would toss to the states the responsibility for helping the poor meet their medical costs.
The White House rightly called the Burr plan “just another repeal proposal,” and it’s probably no coincidence that it came the day of the State of the Union address. That meant Burr and others could tout it as a great alternative to “Obamacare” without the plan being subjected to closer scrutiny.
That is not a strategy to improve health care. It’s a political maneuver to try to take the edge off the State of the Union.
Old problems unsolved
Republicans are selling the same old free-market health insurance system the country has had, a system that has left millions uninsured, has seen costs skyrocket and has not resulted in better health care for many Americans. Are they prisoners of the insurance companies or just so wedded to their free-market, small-government philosophies of the past that this is all they know?
Their “reform” would not deny insurance companies the power to reject people who have illnesses or pre-existing conditions for coverage. That simply leaves millions of people out in the cold. How is that reform? How does that help a significant number of Americans?
The Burr plan would put the poor who rely on Medicaid more at risk. It would quite probably cost those in the middle class more to buy insurance, assuming they could get it.
It helps insurance companies. It makes no difference to the wealthy. And its provisions to give people tax credits to buy insurance are inadequate to address the real expenses of insurance. It’s like saying, “Sure, we know a tax credit won’t help that much, but we’re going to pretend it will.”
When Republicans in Congress talked about letting the government go into default if President Obama would not agree to abandon the ACA, in effect a threat of political blackmail, Burr called it “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” He sounded positively statesmanlike. Unfortunately, the senator is apparently back in the GOP’s most extreme camp.
February 1, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Norm Kelly says:
The headline gives away that this editorial appeared in the N&D. Means it just has to be chock full of useful and true information. After all, N&D editorials are known for their support of personal freedom, personal responsibility, and fairness toward everything Republican/conservative.
The opening paragraph fails to report the truth. The ACA did NOT pass SCOTUS muster. What happened was that the majority of SCOTUS said that Congress lacked the authority to FINE people for NOT participating in any given market. The MAJORITY of SCOTUS determined that the ACA as written WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Go back and read the decision. But SCOTUS, for what could be the first time ever, rewrote the law to say that Congress has the ability to TAX people, so if they changed the wording to a TAX instead of a FINE, then SCOTUS could find nothing unConstitutional about it. So, the fact is that all along, from the beginning until after the law was passed EVERY DEMONCRAT promised that health care reform would NOT impose a tax on individuals. So, it turns out the DemocRAT party lied to us about this aspect of health care reform also. But we ARE NOT supposed to pay attention to that part of it. And the N&D will NEVER print anything to let it's readers know that SCOTUS did NOT accept Obamacancer, nor will they print that Demons lied about the tax aspect also. Protect the party at all costs!
The second paragraph is as devoid of truth as the first. The Republicans actually did submit alternatives to socialized medicine/Obamacancer. The Republicans have continued to offer alternatives to Obamacancer since the law was passed. What has been the response from the leftist, central planners in Washington, and N&D editorial staff? Mr. Obama has refused to listen to a single idea, telling Republicans and the nation that since he won the election, he was in control. And what has he continued to say, as recently as his SOTU address? He is in control and will act as a dictator if Congress doesn't go along with HIS plan. How does anyone work WITH, negotiate WITH, someone who rules like a dictator instead of a President? This president refuses to recognize that the Constitution puts LIMITS on him. Yet, the truth that the N&D refuses to acknowledge, and will never print in an editorial, is that the Republicans have offered many alternatives to socialized medicine. But the left doesn't like the alternatives because it doesn't concentrate power in Washington; it doesn't give MORE power to the central planners.
Imagine the nerve of Burr to not force American citizens, people who reside in the land of the FREE, to buy health insurance. This is unforgivable. There is no reason that Washington shouldn't be forcing, by law, every individual to buy health insurance. Everyone knows that the first step in making health insurance affordable for everyone is to force everyone, by law, to participate in the market whether they want to participate or not.
Of course the White House referred to the Burr plan as just another attempt at repeal of Obamacancer. This administration, and Demons in general, have proven they are NOT WILLING to consider ANY alternative to socialized medicine. And what does our other illustrious Senator have to say about Obamacancer? K's expressed idea is that Obamacancer didn't go FAR ENOUGH! K's plan is for a full, complete take-over of the health care industry. K refers to it as 'single payer', but we all know that is just lib-speak for socialized medicine. K's idea is to model the American health care industry after the socialist plan already in existence in Europe. All of which have shown how poorly they work. But socialized medicine will work here in America because the libs in Washington are soo much smarter than the socialists in Europe. Just ask them. They'll tell you they have what it takes to implement it properly so that everyone gets the best care possible anywhere in the world. They have no proof, we're just supposed to trust them. Like we were supposed to trust them when they said 'if you like your insurance, you can keep it'. How did that work out for us? Has the N&D reported on this lie? Has the N&D said anything about K's take-over plan, or asked her why she believes it would work here?
The N&D shows how biased they are against the Republicans and how committed they are to support the Democrat party at any cost. They say that Burr's plan would create a high risk pool. Would this be similar to the high risk pools in the auto insurance market? You know, the pools that exist for people who have trouble driving properly and cost the market, insurance companies, and the rest of us, lots of extra money if they aren't put in a special category? The high risk pools that actually HELP the market work better? The high risk pools that are run/managed by the STATES and not by the central planners? Why do libs reject this type of setup outright? What's wrong with forcing insurance companies to cover high-risk people, allowing them to charge a more appropriate rate, but having some place for these people to go to? If these people cost the system more, then why shouldn't they pay more for it? If insurance companies create high-risk pools, then wouldn't these people be able to get coverage? And if the feds no longer prevent me from buying an insurance plan that ONLY covers what I want or need, like catastrophic only, at a price I can afford, why is this bad for the central planners? At least I have coverage. Who are the central planners that they get to tell me that they don't LIKE my plan, they don't BELIEVE my plan covers what THEY want it to? High risk pools work in home insurance, car insurance, why couldn't it work in health insurance? But libs WON'T let this happen because it might prove functional and therefore show that their complete take-over of the industry isn't necessary.
'When Republicans in Congress talked about letting the government go into default if President Obama would not agree to abandon the ACA'. Another provable lie by the demons at the N&D. It was NOT the Republicans who talked about letting the government go into default. It was the libs, and quite loudly by the president. Who was it that refused to negotiate at all on socialized medicine? Obama. Who was it that promoted the idea of the government shutdown and the default? The libs. Every one of the libs started talking about a shutdown at least weeks before it was a possibility, perhaps months before. It was libs and only libs that were forcing a shutdown. The Republicans came to the negotiating table, the libs refused to attend. The Republicans presented plans to avoid a government shutdown. The libs refused to participate or acknowledge these plans. The idea of a government shutdown started with the drug addict in the White House and permeated the entire Democrat party, including the media.
Once again, the N&D proves that when Republicans agree with libs they are labeled 'statesmanlike'. When Republicans have the nerve, audacity, to step off the lib reservation, the libs go absolutely nuts. (that's probably supposed to be 'more nuts', since they are already nuts!) There is so much in this editorial post from the N&D, like many N&D editorials, that is provably wrong, misleading, or outright lies, that it's no longer funny. When MSNBC appears to be more believable than the N&D we know there's a problem with management at the N&D. They are not referred to as the Noise & Disturber for nothing. When the N&D stops making noise, stops disturbing the sensibilities of thinking people, perhaps then they can regain some credibility. But if the editorial board continues to print such garbage, they will continue to suffer the consequences with fewer subscribers. With continued garbage like this coming out of the N&D, one can only hope their demise is soon.
(it's possible that writing things like this, against the Democrat News & Observer, against the Democrat party, and against the President will garner an IRS audit for me. it's possible that posting responses that document the truth so blatantly will get the attention of the justice department. i'm willing to take the risk. i pray it doesn't happen, but based on the way this administration and the democrat party are going, it won't surprise me. but i promise not to conform to the governments mandate that i stay silent on their investigation.)
