I’ll admit, McConnell didn’t do a really good job of explaining the Republican position on Repeal and Replace, but, he did have a good point, which Obama cheerleader Greg Sargent misses
Mitch McConnell’s appearance today on Fox News Sunday was remarkably revealing — it showed as clearly as you could want that the Supreme Court decision is finally forcing Republicans to declare what, exactly, they would replace Obamacare with if they realize their goal of repealing it entirely.
Pressed by Chris Wallace to say what he would do to insure the 30 million people who will get insurance under Obamacare, McConnell at first dodged the question, instead launching into a litany of complaints about the law. He repeated the debunked claim that it would cut $500 billion from Medicare. Asked the question again by Wallace, McConnell actually laughed, and said he’d “get to it in a minute,” before claiming the best thing we can do for the health system overall is to get rid of the law and all of its “cuts” to health providers. He labeled Obamacare a “monstrosity” and vowed that there would not be a “2,700 page” Republican reform bill.
Um, the Washington Post’s own fact checker said the talking point about the $500 billion cut “falls in the category of technically correct but misleading.”
Asked a third time how Republicans would insure those 30 million people, McConnell said: “That is not the issue. The question is how you can go step by step to improve the American health care system.”
That is the point in addressing health care/insurance. The original positioning by Democrats was to make sure that the 30-45 million uninsured Americans would be able to purchase affordable insurance. Of course, that number drops a bit when we take out those who are illegal aliens and migrant/temporary workers (I hold the position that companies should have to provide health insurance to the migrants they hire, so the burden is not placed on hospitals). Then you consider those who were temporarily without insurance, such as those who have started new jobs. And those who do not want to purchase insurance, usually because they are young folks or have enough money to purchase care on their own. So the actual number is much lower. As the American Spectator pointed out
When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. Even being without insurance still doesn’t mean they won’t have access to care, because federal law forbids hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at the emergency rooms.
We do have to consider that many are people without insurance due to pre-existing conditions. That is part of Obamacare that has to be kept, with a few tweaks, such as saying those without insurance have to purchase it well before they are about to get medical care, not right as they are about to get care, which is what Ocare causes them to do. And the best way to do that is to allow nationwide pooling for individuals and small companies, which would increase the number of healthy people driving down their costs, as well as the costs of the people with conditions.
I’m also for a law that doesn’t allow insurance companies to drop people because they became sick. That’s fine for auto insurance, but, we’re talking about people’s lives here.
Consider, though, what was the Democrat solution to the “30 million uninsured” issue per Obamacare? Finding ways to decrease costs so that they purchased insurance? Saying “hey, chump, if you don’t want insurance, well, you’re on your own. It’s your risk”? Moving them to the medicaid/medicare rolls? Nope. Obamacare mandates that they purchase insurance or pay a tax. The “eat your peas or go to your room” position.
How about allowing more customization of insurance plans, such as allowing people to purchase plans that are only for “catastrophic conditions”? That’s what your auto insurance does. It doesn’t cover basic maintenance. Typically, your deductibles are higher than the cost of three of the most problems with cars: front window, small dents, and scratches. Replacing your front window can set you back about $200 installed. A little dent or scratch about the same. Most have a $250 or higher deductible. The Democrat idea was to create even more mandates in coverage, which increases the cost of health insurance.
Obamacare ended as a way of involving Government in the health insurance/care decisions for all 300 million plus Americans. Let’s face it, the mandate would affect few of us: it’s all the other stuff that will damage our quality of care and cost of insurance.