Better and less costly

Published November 25, 2016

Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, November 25, 2016.

If President Donald Trump and a Republican Congress can repeal Obamacare and replace it immediately with better medical coverage for less cost, sign us up. All of us.

GOP opposition to the Affordable Care Act has been persistent. Republican members of Congress voted against it when it was enacted by Democrats in 2010 and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

They hoped the Supreme Court would overturn it. In two separate cases when the court could have sunk it, it did not.

Republicans campaigned against it when Obama ran for re-election in 2012. He won.

After they gained control of both chambers of Congress in 2014, Republicans sent an Obamacare repeal bill to the president’s desk. He vetoed it.

At last, with Trump’s election, nothing stands in the way of the Republicans’ top domestic-policy priority of getting rid of the despised health care law. Repeal is on the way.

What about replace? That’s where Republicans stand in each others’ way. After all these years, they don’t have a plan.

Trump’s recent comments in a “60 Minutes” interview sound promising. He said repeal and replace will occur simultaneously. There will be no gap between one and the other. That’s very important.

Many Republicans think it will be a relief once Obamacare goes away. Not to the millions of people who depend on it for medical coverage.

Contrary to faulty memories, Obamacare didn’t ruin a perfectly good system of providing health care in this country. Rather, it brought millions into a system from which they were previously shut out. This happened through the Obamacare exchanges, which enabled them to choose policies that met their needs, with subsidies to make coverage affordable, or through expanded access to Medicaid in 31 states that chose to accept that option.

North Carolina, unfortunately, did not. That left nearly a half-million people without coverage they could have received, depriving the state’s medical providers of a dependable source of revenue and forfeiting opportunities to improve the overall health of our population. But perhaps the next president and Congress can make amends.

Trump also said he’ll preserve popular portions of Obamacare, in contrast to the “total repeal” often called for. He mentioned the provision that bars insurance companies from denying coverage to people based on pre-existing conditions and the allowance for adult children up to age 26 to remain covered on parents’ policies.

Finally, Trump said the replacement — whatever it is — will offer better care for less money. The American people must hold him to that promise. That will be a tall order for Congress to fulfill, but “repeal and replace” obviously isn’t worth doing unless it does in fact achieve something better and less costly.

That should not mean cheap coverage for catastrophic medical events and nothing else. Affordable preventive care is necessary to maintain a healthy population and avoid the development of expensive, serious conditions later. It should not mean the freedom to search for bargains that likely would evade unsophisticated consumers or people with urgent needs. It should not mean theoretical tax breaks or the promise of savings plans that would require an accountant to administer.

Americans deserve ready access to comprehensive medical care that won’t ruin them financially. Millions were denied that access before Obamacare.

Trump has set a high goal for an Obamacare successor, but if he demands better, less expensive health care for everyone who needs it, he’ll deserve bipartisan support for achieving nothing less.

http://www.greensboro.com/opinion/n_and_r_editorials/our-opinion-better-and-less-costly/article_4339e5bf-8c89-5b7b-8708-74c4ed2be083.html

November 25, 2016 at 10:27 am
Richard L Bunce says:

"That should not mean cheap coverage for catastrophic medical events and nothing else... It should not mean the freedom to search for bargains that likely would evade unsophisticated consumers or people with urgent needs. It should not mean theoretical tax breaks or the promise of savings plans that would require an accountant to administer."

That is exactly the option not now available that should be... high deductible plan, HSAs, real personal choice not what government healthcare bureaucrats think your choices should be...

Your soft bigotry of low expectations is showing.

November 25, 2016 at 8:35 pm
Norm Kelly says:

'They hoped the Supreme Court would overturn it. In two separate cases when the court could have sunk it, it did not.'

The Supreme Court failed in it's duty to overturn socialized medicine. When Demons passed this disaster, they told us the penalty for failure to participate in socialism would be a FINE, not a TAX. When arguing in front of SCOTUS, suddenly the scheme changed, cuz SCOTUS said that the IRS was not legally allowed to collect fines for non-participation, but taxes only. So, while promising NOT to tax non-participants, the law was changed by demon/SCOTUS collusion to be a tax instead. Therefore, SCOTUS allowed it to stand.

'this happened through the Obamacare exchanges, which enabled them to choose policies that met their needs, with subsidies to make coverage affordable' Policies that met their needs? Who are you kidding? Are you also an arch left-wing zealot who refuses to recognize truth when it stands in front of them? The idea never has been, never would be to allow anyone to choose a plan that met their needs. The idea is to force everyone to get a plan designed by non-elected officials who decided what was important to THEM not us. Subsidies to make the coverage affordable to WHOM!?!?? Current stats say that some 90% of 'exchange users' (those who are on socialized medicine rolls) get a subsidy. How is this affordable to the nation? If the premiums are so high that some 90% of buyers have to get a subsidy to afford the premiums, is it really affordable? How long can the nation afford to pay premiums for 90% of users? At some point, as with all socialist schemes, it will be necessary to cut benefits, reduce costs by cutting availability, restricting equipment purchases, and restricting when equipment can be used. Central planners will get more involved in every medical decision in order to keep costs down, and based on world history, even that part of the scheme will fail. Isn't it nice of central planners to call these beasts 'Exchanges'? Doesn't it sound so friendly, kind, unassuming, and harmless? Who would believe there was such monstrosity, hazard, disaster in something with such a nice name? Does 'Exchange' sound better than 'Disaster In The Making'? But, when have demoncrats ever been honest with Americans that they would have given a meaningful name?

'That should not mean cheap coverage for catastrophic medical events and nothing else.' Perhaps not, but it DOES mean that this should be an option if it's what I WANT! I must be allowed to CHOOSE the plan that fits MY life! The new plan should also include Medical Savings Accounts, something that gives ME control. Since it gives me control, it's probably the only reason demoncrat pols need to refuse to even consider it. Whenever a plan allows individual control/choice, demon pols stand in the way of passing it. Whenever a scheme prevents individual choice/control, concentrates power in the hands of government, demon pols champion it! And lie repeatedly to sucker people into believing the scheme has a snowballs chance of working! If it weren't for lies, demon pols wouldn't have much to say!

Getting rid of socialized medicine is the goal. If we simply eliminate that crap, and move back to what we used to have while the final plan is designed/debated/tested, we'd be better off than we could ever achieve under Obamascare! And what exactly would be wrong with putting things back the way they were until a better plan comes along? And why NOT allow states to develop their own plans, leaving central planners out of the picture completely? Why do we have to have those bone-heads involved in the plan at all? When was the last time central planners implemented a scheme that actually worked the way they said it would, and cost what they claimed? What part of requiring lies in order to get the current scheme passed is acceptable to ANYONE let alone media types who are supposed to question everything, and shine bright lights upon the schemes of powerful? Does it matter that the majority of media types are also demons that they choose to not provide light on their demon allies in power positions? Or is there some other excuse that media allies use for being unquestioning allies of liar demon pols? Don't bother trying to convince me that media types aren't allies of the demon party. Both demons and media allies have proven just how tight their relationship is, more during the current election cycle than previous, but it was obvious in the past as well. Take the N&D in Raleigh as a perfect example of a media ally who stopped trying to hide their allegiance decades ago. The N&D stopped shining a light on demon pols back when Duke coal ash ponds were known to be leaking, but not reported on. This is what allies do for each other. It's called 'cover up' to the rest of us.

Isn't it nice to know that media types are telling us NOW that they plan to do their jobs after Jan 20? Finally, they promise to do their jobs. Bet it goes beyond the pale, though. And, God forbid demons gain control again, suddenly media allies will fail to do their jobs once again. But they will claim they continue to do their utmost to be fair and unbiased, but they just can't find anything negative to write about their allies. Won't it be funny when they slip into their standard operating procedure if demons win? But alas, there's nothing funny about socialism, socialists, or outright liars. There's nothing funny about collusion between media types and demon party hacks! Someday I'd like to have something admirable to write/type about demons. I don't look good in blue, so I won't hold my breath waiting for that unlikely event to happen. I'll watch upward for pigs with wings before I'll expect to acknowledge a demon worthy of praise.

November 27, 2016 at 11:32 am
Bruce Stanley says:

The mess created by you and your progressive coharts aka Obamacare can't be cleaned up overnight, but I'm confident a conservative market based solution will reign superior to this cluster****.