Improved Health Bill
"Repealing" Obamacare is only a first step.
The House repealed Obamacare!
OK, they didn't really—but they passed a bill that repeals some bad parts of it, like the individual mandate tax, medicine cabinet tax, flexible spending account tax and health savings account withdrawal tax. Good.
Now the Senate will create its own bill and ask the Congressional Budget Office if the House bill will save money.
But Obamacare was so bad, I fear these changes are just Band-Aids on a collapsing system. Instead, the Senate should pass my seven-point plan:
1. Repeal Obamacare, all of it.
With premiums soaring and insurers pulling out of Obamacare, let's start from scratch with something better.
2. Repeal all regulations and tax breaks that encourage people to buy group insurance instead of paying for health care directly.
Insurance is sometimes needed, but insurance is a terrible, bureaucratic way to pay for things. If we pay our own bills, competition will explode and prices will drop.
3. Abolish Medicare.
This won't happen, I know. We old people love Medicare; it makes so much health care seem free. We are also more likely to vote, and math-challenged activists from groups like AARP convince old people that no cuts are needed.
But that's a lie. Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable. They will bankrupt America. Then few of us will get help we desperately need.
Since politicians won't touch these "entitlements," we'll have to keep them for those already in the system. But phase out everyone younger! Liberate people to shop around, so we can all benefit from price competition and new treatments.
4. Abolish Medicaid.
Why force poor people into one government-run bureaucracy? Ideally, private charity will take care of those who cannot pay for themselves. If you don't believe that will happen, give the poor money or vouchers and let them decide which things to spend it on.
The poor have a wide range of preferences just like the rest of us. We give people food stamps—but we didn't create a single food-provision bureaucracy. Medicaid's one-size-fits-all rules help the poor less than they help bureaucrats and crony businesses connected to government.
5. Don't punish private spending.
If an employer buys your health care, it's tax-free, but the feds take a huge cut. End that, so that individuals buy their own insurance. Pushing them into group plans is not fair. It also distorts the economy by locking people to their jobs. Moving toward individual Health Savings Accounts would be a step in the right direction.
Better still, end rules that restrict private care. Instead of celebrating those who try to provide health services, government wraps them in red tape. Set them free to do good works.
6. End government subsidies for hospitals.
Hospital prices skyrocketed once the government started subsidizing them and dictating how they must operate.
No matter how much business hospital owners and managers lose because of unhappy (or dead) customers, they'll remain stagnant as long as they can keep sucking up government money and as long as government rules make their decisions for them.
7. End government subsidies for scientific research.
People think we need government for "basic research," but they're wrong. The profit motive isn't perfect, but when the market funds research, you get more innovation—like faster mapping of the human genome.
The sad truth is that the National Institutes of Health has become like every other bureaucracy. Most grants go to researchers like my older brother, Tom. He's brilliant, but he's 75.
NIH's risk-averse grant evaluators feel safer giving money to applicants with long track records. But most innovation comes from young people. Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when he started Facebook. Apple's Steve Jobs was 21. Google's Larry Page and Sergey Brin were 22.
People assume the NIH research brings us most new treatments and drugs, but that's not true either. To quote my brother from this winter's issue of National Affairs, "Three separate analyses concluded that 85 percent of the drugs approved by the FDA since 1988 arose solely from research and development performed within … industry."
We are safer if we free the market.
COPYRIGHT 2017 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I sometimes think there must have been some weird magic escaped in the world when Jimmy Carter deregulated trucking and the airlines. Everything else seems like a downbound train rushing to add more and more regulation, as if each new regulation translates directly into votes.
I'd love to get government out of healthcare insurance and provisioning. But it's just a pipedream, as much as getting the government out of any area of daily life.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do..,..,.,.,.. http://www.webcash10.com
??????O Super and Easiest NLRB!nee Home opportunity for all. make 87 Dollars per hour and Make 52512 Dollars per month.All you just Need an Internet Connection and a Computer To Make Some Extra cash. ....??????? ?????____BIG.....EARN....MONEY..___???????-
No John, we won't go bankrupt - but our living standards may deteriorate so much - for a while - that it will be painful to many - but bankruptcy is the wrong description. The federal government cannot run out of money - we have fiat currency system.
The risk is harmful inflation - i.e. hyperinflation. Will our currency soon be worth so much less that a loaf of bread will cost $100? I doubt that will happen in John's lifetime, or mine, or pretty much any adult reading Reason online. We have lots of deflationary and disinflationary forces going on now - and have had for a while. Also, let's think about how much value the dollar has lost in the past 100 years - while living standards have improved dramatically.
John would do better if he'd learn the proper operational framework of our monetary system. Then he'd be in a better position to make policy suggestions that will hopefully, in the long term, not significantly harm our living standards (or impede the gradual progress of improving living standards). That's really the challenge - not "bankruptcy".
lol. look out! the MMTers are here.
tell me more about your magic money from the sky.
I've moved past the MMT group, but what they do get right is the fact that the federal government cannot run out of money. As I've tried to communicate - hyperinflation may happen one day - and it would be awful - but the printing presses (so-to-speak) won't stop creating more currency. No magic required.
When Chinese currency starts looking better than US dollars, they most certainly can run out of money.
You're not grasping the operational reality of our system. Hyperinflation may happen - and it would be awful, but that is not the same as running out of money.
Actually hyperinflation would definitely bring back American jobs, so the Trumpists should like it!
Stossel is right--except with respect to subsidies for group insurance. True health insurance should pay for fortuitous events, which means that an unregulated insurer would not insure someone with a significant pre-existing condition without excluding the condition or charging a premium that covers the foreseeable cost of that condition. But there is no way politically to have a world in which people with significant pre-existing conditions do not get the care they need, which means that someone needs to pay for it. The way to solve this problem is to expand the tax treatment of guaranteed-issue policies necessary for employers under ERISA to group policies issued to members of organizations if they are guaranteed issue, but to leave the parameters of coverage unregulated. Organizations like AAA, churches, fraternal organizations could sell health insurance, much like AARP already sell Medi-gap policies. Under such a scheme, a person who belongs to a number of organizations could choose the policy they wanted from the organization they choose with the policies options most suitable for them. Their pre-existing condition would be baked into the cost, much like it is for an employer-sponsored plan. Premiums would be higher than for an individually underwritten plan, but the tax subsidy would make offset higher costs for most folks.
As a libertarian I sort of agree with the points. From an ideological perspective. But as someone who knows a tiny bit of marketing, it's terrible. None of them will ever pass. Besides, you can't manage with seven bumper sticker slogans what took over more than a century to get into. We need to change directions before we pull the poor off of the life support that the government has force them to become dependent on.
This is why the libertarian movement can't have nice things, because it keeps going around advocating throwing the poor and sick out into the snow.
Bringing the costs back down to earth will make it available to the masses, sort of like how it used to be before the regulatory state took over. Stossel even threw in the suggestion of a voucher, since food stamps prove that it can work without inflating costs too much.
You're right, though, that he needs to emphasize that point if he wants to sell the argument outside of the choir. Most people don't understand economics and don't realize just how much lower costs could be in an unmolested industry, and how incredibly beneficial that would be for the poor and middle class.
It has been a fundamental mistake to try to "fix" the ACHA with only one bill. The correct approach would have been to introduce two bills, the first a straight up repeal. The second a replacement. By combining them into one bill, the result is a failure of the bill, which has the effect of re-enacting the ACHA.
??????O Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article.......??????? ?????____BIG.....EARN....MONEY..___???????-
Oh my, can I hire Stossel to be my opponent in a Congressional election?
opt out. refuse to buy health insurance until you can buy exactly what you want and get value for your dollar. If disaster strikes, make payments to hospital and doctors instead of insurance companies. I pay as I go. I will never buy until I can get what I want at a reasonable price. This is the Libertarian position.
I basically profit close to $12k-$14k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 3h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it?
Then this work opportunity is for you -
I basically profit close to $12k-$14k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 3h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it?
Then this work opportunity is for you -
Huh. Half your paragraphs praise private charities, ie a market solution, the other half want government.
Then there's the all caps.
Your weird.
Hihn, for the love of God get back on your meds.
Goobers??
The entire private infrastructure will magically reappear.
I would submit this country's various black markets are evidence that private infrastructure wants so badly to appear that it does so even when government isn't removed from the equation. There's nothing magical about it. I have no doubt treatment options will be there.
"...have ALWAYS been willing to pay for." Aaah. That explains the $20T national debt.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
It's not so much the lack of direction that bothers me about its posts. Only the compulsive need to capitalize/bold random words. Very distracting habit for already goofy posts. But it adds character to the internet i suppose.
Bully!
You talking about the gold you extract from your nostrils before typing your next bitch-fit?
[Calls other people snowflakes]
"Help! I'm being assaulted by mean words on the Internet! NAP! NAP!"
"POOR ME I'M SO OPRESSED!! I HAVE TO WHINE ABOUT STALKERS BECAUSE I'M SUCH A MEWLING CANDY-ASS WHILING USING UNSOURCED LINKS AND SELF-REFERENTIAL POSTS AS CITATIONS OF EVIDENCE!!"
Will he now PUNISH me for giving him backtalk? Then also becoming a thug?
::Backtalks as SOP, screeches like a harpy when the same is done to him::
PROVE IT you pathetic piece of shit.
(kneeing you in the balls is NOT screeching)
Hihnsanity REEEEEEEEEEs some more, everyone! He spends all day shitposting, but he sure does entertain with his autistic screeching!!
(skips away guffawing)
"WATCH ME AUTISTICALLY RESPOND TO EVERY POST BECAUSE I CAN'T HELP MYSELF REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
(charlestons away giggling)
Oh, I'm sure that folks with cancer would look forward to the "black market" treating them ...
Can't we, for the love of God, just stop feeding this thing?
All these assaults are because I called the snowflake out as liar, in his unprovoked assault
"WORDS ARE VIOLENCE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! I'LL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THIS POST TOO BECAUSE I HAVE NO SELF CONTROL REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. SOMEONE MIGHT SEE ME NOT GET IN THE LAST WORD ON THE INTERNET REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE."
(hops away snickering)