David Brooks Shocker: 'There Is a Coherent Republican Plan' To Replace ObamaCare Once Repealed

A consistent media narrative as the GOP moves to repeal ObamaCare is that they have nothing to replace it with.

Surprisingly standing up to refute this nonsense Tuesday was New York Times columnist David Brooks who amazingly wrote, "Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan":


The case against Obamacare is pretty straightforward...The most commonly discussed perverse result is that millions of Americans will lose their current health insurance.

A report by the House Ways and Means Committee found that 71 of the Fortune 100 companies have an incentive to drop coverage... A Congressional Budget Office study this year estimated that 20 million could lose coverage under the law or perhaps 3 million could gain employer coverage. Or the number could be inside or outside the range. [...]

Moreover, there are alternatives. Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan. The best encapsulation of that approach is found in the National Affairs essay, “How to Replace Obamacare,” by James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit.

Imagine that. The Republicans have a plan.

Not what you hear or read from the mainstream media, is it?

Here are some of the highlights:

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."

"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

"[I]nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."

"[R]eplace Medicare’s open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."

"[A]ny new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."


Keep this in mind the next time some liberal media member says Republicans have no plan to fix things after they repeal ObamaCare.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/03/brooks#ixzz1zfZZqFz9

othershoe1030 wrote:Let me say I really like David Brooks. However, in this case I don't think the overall health care system is really addressed in a meaningful way by what he mentions in his article. I mean one point is to encourage Americans to get and keep healthcare insurance throughout their lives. That's great.
Then the R's are going to "welcome Medicaid recipients into the private health care market." That would have to involve subsidies since these people are too poor to afford insurance as it is currently set up.
You know, the bottom line at this point looks as if we'd all be better off to just check back into this topic in a year or two after the real data are in. There is so much speculation and down right guess work going on it is nearly meaningless to even discuss this topic until we know what's really going on. Of course this won't keep us from it but I'm just observing the futility of it.

How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Let me say I really like David Brooks. However, in this case I don't think the overall health care system is really addressed in a meaningful way by what he mentions in his article. I mean one point is to encourage Americans to get and keep healthcare insurance throughout their lives. That's great.
Then the R's are going to "welcome Medicaid recipients into the private health care market." That would have to involve subsidies since these people are too poor to afford insurance as it is currently set up.
You know, the bottom line at this point looks as if we'd all be better off to just check back into this topic in a year or two after the real data are in. There is so much speculation and down right guess work going on it is nearly meaningless to even discuss this topic until we know what's really going on. Of course this won't keep us from it but I'm just observing the futility of it.

How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Based on my experience, I would say the number is quite high.

You don't seem to understand the cost involved in obtaining an insurance policy if you are older or have a pre-exisiting condition such as diabetes. You seem to think everyone - even middle class worker bees whose employers don't offer insurance - has an extra $1500.00 per month lying around to put down on an insurance policy.

This is the part of the current situation with "the best healthcare in the world" that you just don't appear to get. Then again, these are the same people you want to sacrifice, eh?

Why do you want to sacrifice 5% of the current population of our country?

PBulldog2 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Let me say I really like David Brooks. However, in this case I don't think the overall health care system is really addressed in a meaningful way by what he mentions in his article. I mean one point is to encourage Americans to get and keep healthcare insurance throughout their lives. That's great.
Then the R's are going to "welcome Medicaid recipients into the private health care market." That would have to involve subsidies since these people are too poor to afford insurance as it is currently set up.
You know, the bottom line at this point looks as if we'd all be better off to just check back into this topic in a year or two after the real data are in. There is so much speculation and down right guess work going on it is nearly meaningless to even discuss this topic until we know what's really going on. Of course this won't keep us from it but I'm just observing the futility of it.

How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Based on my experience, I would say the number is quite high.

You don't seem to understand the cost involved in obtaining an insurance policy if you are older or have a pre-exisiting condition such as diabetes. You seem to think everyone - even middle class worker bees whose employers don't offer insurance - has an extra $1500.00 per month lying around to put down on an insurance policy.

This is the part of the current situation with "the best healthcare in the world" that you just don't appear to get. Then again, these are the same people you want to sacrifice, eh?

Why do you want to sacrifice 5% of the current population of our country?

"Quite high, is not a number, you can do better than that or are you afraid?

We already have a pool for those with pre-existing conditions which is, for all intents and purposes, not being used. So your paragraph about $1,500 per month is invalid.

From Forbes
[...]
And PCIP hasn’t enrolled a ton of people: only 48,879 as of December 2011. Keep that number in mind: effectively, in 2010, the federal government substantially rearranged the American health care system, which affects 300 million people, in order to help 48,879.

The typical high-risk pool patient suffered from serious, but relatively common, ailments: cancer (27 percent of total spending), cardiovascular disease (19 percent), rehabilitative care (18 percent), and degenerative joint diseases such as arthritis (14 percent).

The program’s performance explodes some of the myths around the uninsured population. According to the 2010 Census, 55 percent of the uninsured population under 65 is comprised of young people below the age of 35. However, only 21 percent of those who enrolled in Obamacare’s high-risk pools were younger than 35.

Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/25/report-obamacares-high-risk-pool-spending-doubles-government-estimates/

Where did I, or anyone, say "sacrifice" five percent of our citizens?

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Let me say I really like David Brooks. However, in this case I don't think the overall health care system is really addressed in a meaningful way by what he mentions in his article. I mean one point is to encourage Americans to get and keep healthcare insurance throughout their lives. That's great.
Then the R's are going to "welcome Medicaid recipients into the private health care market." That would have to involve subsidies since these people are too poor to afford insurance as it is currently set up.
You know, the bottom line at this point looks as if we'd all be better off to just check back into this topic in a year or two after the real data are in. There is so much speculation and down right guess work going on it is nearly meaningless to even discuss this topic until we know what's really going on. Of course this won't keep us from it but I'm just observing the futility of it.

How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Everyone who makes minimum wage and there are lots of them.

[quote="Dreamsglore"]

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:[color=blue]
How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Everyone who makes minimum wage and there are lots of them.

8.2% of work eligible Americans would probably settle for minimum wage at this point. As it is, their income is zero.

othershoe1030 wrote:Zero income would most likely fall into the category of those who would receive a subsidy. lol

Someone has to pay for it.

nochain wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Zero income would most likely fall into the category of those who would receive a subsidy. lol

Someone has to pay for it.

SOMEONE????.....It's the same people that do WORK and PAY TAXES!...WE all pay for those that made the choice to accept and cash those monthly checks...Now before you compassionate liberals get your drawers in a bundle....NOT aimed at those that truly need help... without question that is the correct thing to do...

[quote="nochain"]

Dreamsglore wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:[color=blue]
How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Everyone who makes minimum wage and there are lots of them.

8.2% of work eligible Americans would probably settle for minimum wage at this point. As it is, their income is zero.

What does that have to do w/ the discussion? This is healthcare -not unemployment.

"Quite high, is not a number, you can do better than that or are you afraid?

We already have a pool for those with pre-existing conditions which is, for all intents and purposes, not being used. So you paragraph about $1,500 per month is invalid.

You should know by now I am not afraid.

I wrote "quote high" because my observation is based on my work experience. Sorry, but I didn't keep ledgers of the precise number of uninsured and under-insured persons with whom I have worked over the decades.

The state pool for those with pre-existing conditions is not used because the coverage provided is expensive and inadequate, just as the coverage to be provided in the state exchanges, if they ever come about, will probably be expensive and inadequate.

The bottom line (since you're a bottom line man) is the only true health insurance is and will continue to be available through group policies maintained by employers.

A better solution would have been to allow for people in, say, a given geographical area or perhaps a given category of small businesses to band together to obtain the same group discount now given to large employers.

Another solution would have been to force large employers to allow part-time and as needed employees to access the group discounts on a pro-rated basis. As it stands now, most part-timers are out in the cold. I still find it ironic that health care providers are one of the worst offenders in this regard. Part-time employees of these behemoths are employed to provide health care to others, yet these same part-time employees are prohibited from receiving insured care from the health care facilities for whom they work.

Now - about the sacrifice of 5% of our citizens - yeppers, you wrote that on one of the PNJ threads. You didn't write the word "sacrifice" with regard to the 5% of citizens without insurance, but your intention was as clear as the water at the Vortex Springs in Defuniak.

Here's what you wrote:

"Lucky you don't live in Great Britain where you ideal health care is in place.

Why do you demand that others receive so much less than you?

There are only 12 to 15 million who truly cannot afford or are unable to buy health insurance due to a pre-existing conditions. Why do you demand that we sacrifice the finest health care in the world for fewer then 5% of the population?"

Dreamsglore wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Let me say I really like David Brooks. However, in this case I don't think the overall health care system is really addressed in a meaningful way by what he mentions in his article. I mean one point is to encourage Americans to get and keep healthcare insurance throughout their lives. That's great.
Then the R's are going to "welcome Medicaid recipients into the private health care market." That would have to involve subsidies since these people are too poor to afford insurance as it is currently set up.
You know, the bottom line at this point looks as if we'd all be better off to just check back into this topic in a year or two after the real data are in. There is so much speculation and down right guess work going on it is nearly meaningless to even discuss this topic until we know what's really going on. Of course this won't keep us from it but I'm just observing the futility of it.

How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Everyone who makes minimum wage and there are lots of them.

Really? PLEASE share with us what you believe the median income is of a household where at least one worker earns minimum wage.

You don't have a clue do you?

[quote="nochain"]

Dreamsglore wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:[color=blue]
How many of the uninsured are unable to afford health insurance?

Everyone who makes minimum wage and there are lots of them.

8.2% of work eligible Americans would probably settle for minimum wage at this point. As it is, their income is zero.

Not a chance. Many of those have now become "hard core" unemployed. The U6 unemployment rate is at 15.1%. This past month, more people have gone on disability than got a job.

PBulldog2 wrote:

"Quite high, is not a number, you can do better than that or are you afraid?

We already have a pool for those with pre-existing conditions which is, for all intents and purposes, not being used. So you paragraph about $1,500 per month is invalid.

You should know by now I am not afraid.

I wrote "quote high" because my observation is based on my work experience. Sorry, but I didn't keep ledgers of the precise number of uninsured and under-insured persons with whom I have worked over the decades.

The state pool for those with pre-existing conditions is not used because the coverage provided is expensive and inadequate, just as the coverage to be provided in the state exchanges, if they ever come about, will probably be expensive and inadequate.

The bottom line (since you're a bottom line man) is the only true health insurance is and will continue to be available through group policies maintained by employers.

A better solution would have been to allow for people in, say, a given geographical area or perhaps a given category of small businesses to band together to obtain the same group discount now given to large employers.

Another solution would have been to force large employers to allow part-time and as needed employees to access the group discounts on a pro-rated basis. As it stands now, most part-timers are out in the cold. I still find it ironic that health care providers are one of the worst offenders in this regard. Part-time employees of these behemoths are employed to provide health care to others, yet these same part-time employees are prohibited from receiving insured care from the health care facilities for whom they work.

Now - about the sacrifice of 5% of our citizens - yeppers, you wrote that on one of the PNJ threads. You didn't write the word "sacrifice" with regard to the 5% of citizens without insurance, but your intention was as clear as the water at the Vortex Springs in Defuniak.

Here's what you wrote:

"Lucky you don't live in Great Britain where you ideal health care is in place.

Why do you demand that others receive so much less than you?

There are only 12 to 15 million who truly cannot afford or are unable to buy health insurance due to a pre-existing conditions. Why do you demand that we sacrifice the finest health care in the world for fewer then 5% of the population?"

MY INTENTION was to demonstrate that you want to SACRAFICE the quality of care for 95% of the population to pay for care for 5% WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY OR RIGHT.

I do not give you permission to put words in my mouth or to mischaracterize what I said. Grow up.

Markle wrote:

MY INTENTION was to demonstrate that you want to SACRAFICE the quality of care for 95% of the population to pay for care for 5% WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY OR RIGHT.

I do not give you permission to put words in my mouth or to mischaracterize what I said. Grow up.

I don't need your permission to put words in your mouth. You do a fine job of saying/writing those words yourself. You got tagged, and you don't like it.

As I wrote before, you seem to be more than willing to sacrifice those on the bottom rung of the ladder - the 5% who don't have access to health care. I don't care about your rationalization for being willing to do so.

By the way, I'm already 5'6", so I don't want to grow any taller. It makes good-fitting slacks hard to find.

PBulldog2 wrote:Markle wrote:

MY INTENTION was to demonstrate that you want to SACRAFICE the quality of care for 95% of the population to pay for care for 5% WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY OR RIGHT.

I do not give you permission to put words in my mouth or to mischaracterize what I said. Grow up.

I don't need your permission to put words in your mouth. You do a fine job of saying/writing those words yourself. You got tagged, and you don't like it.

As I wrote before, you seem to be more than willing to sacrifice those on the bottom rung of the ladder - the 5% who don't have access to health care. I don't care about your rationalization for being willing to do so.

By the way, I'm already 5'6", so I don't want to grow any taller. It makes good-fitting slacks hard to find.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I have never, ever said to "sacrifice" the 5% who don't have access to HEALTH INSURANCE. As you know, they have access to HEALTH CARE.

YOU, on the other hand, demand that we destroy the finest health care in the world for 95% in order to provide INSURANCE to 5%. Something which can be done for far, far less than the TRILLIONS you propose to say nothing of the inferior care you advocate.

Markle wrote:

[quote] Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I have never, ever said to "sacrifice" the 5% who don't have access to HEALTH INSURANCE. As you know, they have access to HEALTH CARE.

/quote]

Please share with us precisely how the the bottom 5% access health care.