Many conservatives believe that we had a free-market health care system in America, until Obamacare was signed into law. But that’s not true. The government takeover of our health care system didn’t happen in 2010. It happened in 1965, when LBJ shepherded through Congress the amendments to the Social Security Act that became known as Medicare and Medicaid.
“Repeal and replace” is a misguided strategy for getting past the Affordable Care Act and moving toward a focus on health rather than insurance cards. It is hopelessly utopian, strategically suicidal, emotionally deadening, operationally hollow, and needlessly partisan. Here’s why:
But what would it mean to repeal ObamaCare? In the minds of many it would mean a return to the way things were in 2008. But guess what? That’s impossible. ObamaCare has completely destroyed the individual market, where 19 million people get their insurance and where everybody else resides temporarily when they are between jobs or transitioning between job-based insurance and Medicare or Medicaid. It would be a Herculean task to try to re-create that market the way it was. And it’s doubtful that the political system would allow it, even if it were possible.So what is to be done?
Right now the individual market is being replaced with health insurance that is bought and sold in highly regulated exchanges. Rather than seeking to abolish these institutions, might they be deregulated and denationalized in order to create a genuinely free market?
The field of health policy and management HPAM faces a gap between theory, policy and practice. Despite decades of efforts at reforming health policy and health care systems, prominent analysts state that the health system is “stuck” and that models for change remain “aspirational.” We discuss four reasons for the failure of current ideas and models for redesigning health care: 1 the dominance of microeconomic thinking; 2 the lack of comparative studies of health care organizations and the limits of health management theory in recognizing the importance of local contexts; 3 the separation of HPAM from the rank and file of health care, particularly physicians; and 4 the failure to expose medical students to issues of HPAM. We conclude with suggestions for rethinking how the field of HPAM might generate more promising policies for health care providers and managers by abandoning the illusion of context-free theories and, instead, seeking to facilitate the processes by which organizations can learn to improve their own performance.
Well, there’s a way for congressional Republicans to go after Obamacare, cronyism, and the Democrats’ assertion that the GOP is in league with health insurers, all at once: by repealing Obamacare’s risk-corridor bailout. And after overcoming some internal resistance from don’t-rock-the-corporate-boat Beltway Republicans, it looks as if the House GOP is going to move in this direction. If they do—and if they were also to refuse to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and were to move to reverse President Obama’s failed amnesty policies—Republicans could legitimately make the case this fall that they stand with Main Street America.
Obamacare’s risk-corridor program is a way of shifting risk from insurance companies to taxpayers—of putting the latter on the hook if the former lose money. The risk corridors’ existence incentivizes insurers to lowball their prices, since they know taxpayers will help cover their losses. It’s bad policy, and it’s unpopular. Recent polling by McLaughlin & Associates, commissioned by the 2017 Project, asked, “If private insurance companies lose money selling health insurance under Obamacare, should taxpayers help cover their losses?” Only 10 percent of respondents said yes; 81 percent said no. Yet, absent congressional action, that is exactly what’s poised to happen.
Over the past four years, oceans of ink, tons of sweat and doubtless a few tears have been spilled by smart people — including yours truly — in the noble quest to devise an ideal plan to replace Obamacare with a patient-centered health care system. And while sensible proposals abound, most are currently going nowhere, either because they’re too complicated or because they gore a few too many special-interest oxes.
Health care reform is hard because everyone has a stake in it and no one wants to be the unintended victim of a national experiment. But reform doesn’t have to be hard. All we really need is three simple tweaks: 1. Let individuals and employers opt out of Obamacare; 2. Let seniors opt of out of Medicare; 3. Let everyone have an Health Savings Account.
That’s it. While this three-point plan is by no means a silver bullet for all that ails our beleaguered American health care system, it would plant potent seeds of freedom amidst the thorny brambles of government-run health care. And the beautiful thing, politically, is it’s easy to explain and hard to oppose.
The Affordable Care Act is the worst piece of legislation ever passed into law in the United States. It was poorly conceived, poorly written, poorly enacted, and is being poorly implemented. The thing is a mess. However, it does open up some doors that were firmly locked before—things that most free-market economists have been espousing for years without success. We should not run away from those things just because they have President Obama’s name on it.I am not talking about the things the idiot media think are popular—the slacker mandate, open enrollment, equal premiums for men and women, and free “preventative” services. These are all terrible ideas for reasons I won’t go into here unless you insist.I’m talking specifically about several more important elements of the law that were not well crafted in this particular bill, but can now be used as precedents for major improvements in American health care.