Walker unveils plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker says he will do his best to repeal Obama.Care and replace it with a new deal.

He cites the failures and makes the case.

How would YOU "R&R" Obama.Care?

Does his plan makes sense and would it work better?

This is a major campaign issue for 2016.

Perhaps the boondoggle needs to get worse and more problems exposed before voters take note.

Walker unveils plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker rolled out his first big policy proposal Tuesday in Minnesota as he unveiled his plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Walker said ObamaCare's backwards approach has driven up health care costs and reduced access to medical care for too many people.

The GOP contender's "Day One Patient Freedom Plan" consists of five steps: repealing ObamaCare in its entirety, ensuring affordable and accessible health insurance for everyone, making health care more efficient, effective and accountable by empowering the states, increasing quality and choice through innovation, and providing financial stability for families and taxpayers.

What "Changes" are Really Necessary?

a reply to: xuenchen

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker says he will do his best to repeal Obama.Care and replace it with a new deal.

Which basically means he won't do anything or he will repeal it, then repeal his repeal.

Mmmm, pretty much childish electioneering. Still and all the Federal Government will continue to have the finger on the pulse, and of course if Walker did get in...he would be the Federal government.

I have a better idea, each time there is a new President, just change the name...as in Walkercare.

As much as I dislike Obamacare, Walker's plan sounds like a lot of empty rhetoric.

My plan would be to repeal the mandate, then build government operated health care facilities across the US that are free to all US citizens. Priority would be given to veterans and then active duty military. You can still keep regular hospitals and insurance. It could be funded by reducing defense spending and taxing churches. I'm sure churches won't mind being taxed if the money goes to helping those in need, and we can still be feared with two or three less aircraft carriers.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
As much as I dislike Obamacare, Walker's plan sounds like a lot of empty rhetoric.

My plan would be to repeal the mandate, then build government operated health care facilities across the US that are free to all US citizens. Priority would be given to veterans and then active duty military. You can still keep regular hospitals and insurance. It could be funded by reducing defense spending and taxing churches. I'm sure churches won't mind being taxed if the money goes to helping those in need, and we can still be feared with two or three less aircraft carriers.

I can go with some of that, although I would prefer priorities to be in the hands of the professionals..the doers, not the managers.
In edit, there still needs to be a resolution for people who are visiting the US, or many other countries for that matter to receive first hand treatment FOC. I don't say that lightly because people getting hurt abroad is something of a catchpenny in medical aid, unless those people have additional insurance to get them home.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't see one new idea in his so called plan to repeal & replace. Same old things they've been saying all along, healthcare tax breaks and/or savings accounts, selling insurance across state lines and last but not least, "state's rights!"

The best way to fix the ACA is to do exactly what Scott Walker and the rest of the GOP fears most, which is to morph it into a single-payer, not-for-profit, Medicare-for-all, universal healthcare program that covers everyone.

Yes, just like all the other industrialized nations of the world have already accomplished with great success.

Walker is a puppet moron who doesn't have a single original idea of his own.

a reply to: xuenchen

Step 2 - Ensuring affordable and accessible health care for everyone...

Really??? Sounds GREAT! How, pray tell, is he going to do this???

I'll wait....

*crickets*

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
As much as I dislike Obamacare, Walker's plan sounds like a lot of empty rhetoric.

Calling it a plan is reaching...

five steps:
repealing ObamaCare in its entirety,
ensuring affordable and accessible health insurance for everyone, HOW?
making health care more efficient, effective and accountable by empowering the states, HOW?
increasing quality and choice through innovation, HOW?
and providing financial stability for families and taxpayers. HOW?

Why not add...and lollipops and rainbows for everyone!!!

originally posted by: xuenchen

What "Changes" are Really Necessary?

The only necessary change is to repeal the PPACA.

//////////////////Nothing follows///////////////////////

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: xuenchen

What "Changes" are Really Necessary?

The only necessary change is to repeal the PPACA.

//////////////////Nothing follows///////////////////////

BS

That is the problem with all of this. People think "the way it was" was somehow GREAT. Well, think again.

The biggest issue taken on by the ACA was the way insurance companies were denying pre-existing conditions, and/or pushing rates up so high on "risky" individuals that they literally forced them out of the market and left them with NO insurance.

Then what happens? Well, let's see, you either DIE because you can't get health care, take up space in ER's and DEFAULTING on massive hospital debt, or you become IMPOVERISHED so you can get on Medicaid. Who pays for all that?
Gee, well, WE DO.

The ACA has problems, no doubt, but until a Republican can come up with a serious solution to the above problem other than "repeal and um...I dunno?" then they deserve as little of my attention as they've given the issue themselves.

Serious discussions NEED to happen, but people are so wrapped up in black and white thinking that zero actual reforms of the bill can happen, flaws cannot be fixed and so the dysfunctional congress limps along shaking its fist.

I for one will NOT in any way allow the Republican's to destroy my child's future. He has a congenital heart defect. Also, I had cancer and was denied insurance for 10 YEARS. Zip! Nada! It is very very personal with me, see?

Can you offer ANY solution to what I've presented? Anything at all other than "well, sorry, too bad for you!"

- AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
BS

That is the problem with all of this. People think "the way it was" was somehow GREAT. Well, think again.

Well, for starters, my opinion is not "BS" because...well, you know, it's my opinion, not some objective notion.

Secondly, I never claimed anything about "the way it was" being "GREAT." In fact, I never claimed anything about it.

The biggest issue taken on by the ACA was the way insurance companies were denying pre-existing conditions, and/or pushing rates up so high on "risky" individuals that they literally forced them out of the market and left them with NO insurance.

So, since math seems difficult for you, let's ponder this a minute, shall we?....(starts timer)

Okay, now that we've taken a minute to truly think about this, have we figured out the "why" behind insurance companies needing to charge more for people who have pre-existing conditions? Yes, that's right! It's because they will most likely use their insurance more, causing the insurance company to pay out more money for services and medications, so they should provide the insurance company with more money instead of making everyone else who may only go in for annual checkup share the cost of their poor health.

It's simple economics, really--you cost a company more to provide the service, they charge you more to recoup that cost. That's kind of one of those "duh" things.

Then what happens? Well, let's see, you either DIE because you can't get health care, take up space in ER's and DEFAULTING on massive hospital debt, or you become IMPOVERISHED so you can get on Medicaid. Who pays for all that?
Gee, well, WE DO.

Or...and hear me out, here...you do one of the myriad things in between your extreme examples of dying or plummeting into hospital debt. I'm certainly not going to spell it all out for you on here, because I'm confident that you can at least do a little research into how people without healthcare can live comfortably without being dead or impoverished and still maintain good health, but suffice it to say that using appeals to emotion is a tried and true method of discrediting your argument from the start--logical fallacies don't work in adult conversations, assuming one of us is paying attention.

The ACA has problems, no doubt, but until a Republican can come up with a serious solution to the above problem other than "repeal and um...I dunno?" then they deserve as little of my attention as they've given the issue themselves.

Serious discussions NEED to happen, but people are so wrapped up in black and white thinking that zero actual reforms of the bill can happen, flaws cannot be fixed and so the dysfunctional congress limps along shaking its fist.

I for one will NOT in any way allow the Republican's to destroy my child's future. He has a congenital heart defect. Also, I had cancer and was denied insurance for 10 YEARS. Zip! Nada! It is very very personal with me, see?

Can you offer ANY solution to what I've presented? Anything at all other than "well, sorry, too bad for you!"

- AB

Appeals to emotion again. I'm not going to say I'm sorry for your cancer and your son's health issues--I'm a human being, so that should go without saying--but here's a simple comment that I hope you can understand, truly consider, and then consider it some more: The federal government did not need to do a hostile takeover of the nation's healthcare system in order to fix the issues that people like you and your son have.

So, now, if you can come up with a solution to the ridiculous way that my and my families health-insurance costs are going to increase because of this "affordable" care act, that would be super, or does something like that not matter to you because, hey, you're now getting yours, so who cares, right? I know that sounds harsh, but sometimes I must be blunt because there's no way to sugar coat it.

Also, while you're at it, find a way to get my dad his doctor back and to reduce his insurance back down by 50%--he lost his doctor AND his insurance cost doubled because of this "affordable" care act. Anything at all other than "well, sorry, too bad for you!," would be great.

And for what it's worth, I'm not a republican--something tells me that you assume I am because of your last few paragraphs.

ETA: Also, why must the Republicans have to work to fix the problems with the new system...the Dems wrote it and then passed it without reading it, so why doesn't that responsibility fall on them?

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: xuenchen

What "Changes" are Really Necessary?

The only necessary change is to repeal the PPACA.

//////////////////Nothing follows///////////////////////

BS

That is the problem with all of this. People think "the way it was" was somehow GREAT. Well, think again.

The biggest issue taken on by the ACA was the way insurance companies were denying pre-existing conditions, and/or pushing rates up so high on "risky" individuals that they literally forced them out of the market and left them with NO insurance.

Then what happens? Well, let's see, you either DIE because you can't get health care, take up space in ER's and DEFAULTING on massive hospital debt, or you become IMPOVERISHED so you can get on Medicaid. Who pays for all that?
Gee, well, WE DO.

The ACA has problems, no doubt, but until a Republican can come up with a serious solution to the above problem other than "repeal and um...I dunno?" then they deserve as little of my attention as they've given the issue themselves.

Serious discussions NEED to happen, but people are so wrapped up in black and white thinking that zero actual reforms of the bill can happen, flaws cannot be fixed and so the dysfunctional congress limps along shaking its fist.

I for one will NOT in any way allow the Republican's to destroy my child's future. He has a congenital heart defect. Also, I had cancer and was denied insurance for 10 YEARS. Zip! Nada! It is very very personal with me, see?

Can you offer ANY solution to what I've presented? Anything at all other than "well, sorry, too bad for you!"

- AB

They sure the heck abused that pre existing clause to death. Pun intended.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

My plan would differ.

Basic catastrophic policies that you start for your child as soon as they are born like life insurance. Those policies are portable and cover the catastrophic health issues. They should be cheap since they don't cover everything.

The maintenance care and stuff that can be covered in your doctor's office is out of pocket. Since insurance isn't involved anymore, those costs ought to come way down for most things - no more $100 tongue depressors.

For those who pick up chronic conditions, you could add a rider to your catastrophic plan to cover condition related costs. It would add to your monthly premium, but since you've hopefully been carrying it since you were an infant, those premiums should already be low.

originally posted by: ketsuko
My plan would differ.

Basic catastrophic policies that you start for your child as soon as they are born like life insurance. Those policies are portable and cover the catastrophic health issues. They should be cheap since they don't cover everything.

The maintenance care and stuff that can be covered in your doctor's office is out of pocket. Since insurance isn't involved anymore, those costs ought to come way down for most things - no more $100 tongue depressors.

Here's the problem with that, and it's why were in the situation we're currently in. Insurance started out as just catastrophic coverage and it was fairly cheap. But then the health insurance companies and the doctors realized that it leads to a higher quality of life, and lower payouts overall to cover preventative services. Where you might pay $10 million for cancer you'll only pay $1 million on prevention and those people stay healthy. So the insurance companies suffered from what is essentially mission creep in the name of cost savings. Today almost all coverage is preventative in nature, if we take that coverage away we're going to create some immense health costs for our grandkids. Our kids are already going to be paying a huge burden due to decades of people not having any preventative care.

At the end of it the problem stems not from what's covered but from the costs. People don't know, and frankly don't care what a doctors office is billing for. They care about what they pay as a copay, deductible, and premium. If the hospital charges $100 for an Aspirin they don't care at all and even the billed rates are different from what is paid because insurance companies can leverage collective bargaining opposed to the individual who can only negotiate for themselves.

It's a tricky problem to fix. We can't get costs under control without the populace caring about what they're paying as an itemized list, but insurance completely circumvents that, and if we remove insurance for those who can't afford it they simply die early and suffer from disease just for being poor.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ok, lets discuss Walkers plan. For the sake of argument lets say he can repeal Obamacare.

For those who didn't read the article here's his plan:
1. Break up Federal control of Medicaid and let each state determine how it's run.
2. Allow consumers to band together and build their own insurance pools.
3. Fund the programs privately through tax breaks that would put more money in the consumers hands.

In the case of #1 I would like to point to economy of scale. In fact, the previous Republican plans have expressed a desire to open up insurance across state lines because it broadens the pool and lets the provider take advantage of having more people which gives them more negotiating power. By changing Medicaids coverage from Federal to State it loses a lot of negotiating power and it shrinks risk pools. This seems like precisely the wrong approach.

In the case of #2, Obamacare actually allows for this already. It's called Health Care Sharing and it has been quite popular under Obamacare among groups who take religious exception to certain practices (such as Christians who don't want premiums going to birth control or abortion).

Last we have #3. The budget isn't going to decrease if we repeal Obamacare, instead a tax break will simply necessitate a tax increase in other areas and people end up in the same place.

All in all, I would call his plan a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey Slapmonkey,

You are welcome to your opinion. I was calling the entire idea of “repeal only” as being BS - it does not solve US Healthcare’s many deficiencies, and yes, we are still deficient compared to other industrialized countries that provide some form of universal health care. (I do not know your politics. Walker is a Republican and they are actively attempting to destroy the ACA - that is the reference to the R side of the isle. I'm Independent myself.)

If you do not think “the way it was” was great, then what DO you think about the way it was? Were there flaws that needed to be fixed in the system? You were saying you wanted to go back to that by repealing the ACA, correct? I think that would be disastrous - that is my opinion.

You say I’m simply appealing to emotion as if there is nothing rational behind what I say - that is a nice way to try and shut down someone’s argument without bothering to listen to them.

You say it is a simple matter to research how sick people could deal with health costs and live comfortably. I disagree. I’ve had cancer, I know how much it costs. I know what heart surgery costs and medications cost. These are not the kind of expenses that people can handle comfortably, and these are not generally "avoidable" diagnoses.

Some hospitals would allow you to make payments on massive expenses - I do that now with what isn't covered by insurance for my son (a couple thousand per year in tests). With a over quarter million for my son's care, payment plans wouldn't work = bankruptcy. I personally know people who have had to stop working and go on Medicaid in the attempt to save a loved-one's life due to lack of insurance. Medical expenses are still the number one reason people go bankrupt in America.

I don’t want ANYONE to suffer due to healthcare costs, availability, etc., including you and your family. Your implication that I was somehow callous to your own situation is false. Your anger and emotion, by the way, is very apparent in your post as well.

I was looking at someone like Walker, and thinking he was callous, however, because a lot of the rhetoric I hear is in that category. That was not directed at you specifically. I am aware people have negative experiences with the ACA, and it is not okay with me - we can do better than this as a country for our people.

So, since math seems difficult for you, let's ponder this a minute, shall we?....(starts timer)

Okay, let’s go after the ball, not after the player. The insult is neither needed nor appreciated.
What is the ball here? You said I don’t understand how insurance works? Wow. Hm. Well, sorry you are under that impression. I am painfully aware of how insurance works, and I'll get to the math in a bit.

You’ve said (again with the insults... geez)

-but here's a simple comment that I hope you can understand, truly consider, and then consider it some more: The federal government did not need to do a hostile takeover of the nation's healthcare system in order to fix the issues that people like you and your son have.

Well, that’s where math comes in (I don't consider the ACA a hostile takeover - I consider it regulatory legislation combined with a universal participation mandate and an attempt to expand Medicaid). As you put forth above, formerly, insurance companies did not want to go broke, so they limited risk by eliminating pre-existing conditions from their risk pool. Insurance companies were unable to insure pre-existing conditions or they risked losing profit/going out of business.

The only way they can insure pre-existing conditions is to have a vast pool of people, including healthy people, paying into the system, which is why the healthcare insurance mandate in the ACA exists. It was math.

(fixing things - next post)

- AB

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Fixing things...some thoughts

Moving on to fixing US health care... Here are a few lists of ACA pros and cons. This is the kind of information that could lead to an honest assessment of the way things are going, and, with a functional government, could lead to changes that would benefit everyone, and mitigate the negatives.

ACA pros & cons - source
ACA pros and cons - source
ACA pros & cons = source



How can we do better? Now we are getting down to it...

Other countries do health care better than we do in the US for a multitude of reasons. We generally have the best specialists, but the system itself is deeply flawed.

The ACA does not solve all of our problems, and I do think there are better ways entirely of providing healthcare (see most industrialized countries besides the US, like Germany who has a two tiered system. Germany - Health Care.

I would go for that, or even single payer with extra insurance or private insurance available for wealthier folks. There are better ways if we care to look for them than insurance. That's how I would look to fix our US healthcare system. However, the current political climate says systems other than private insurance are bad, so that discussion can't even seem to happen.

I do think the ACA is the first attempt at fixing some serious issues in the way things were, but that it is a far cry from perfect and awesome. That’s it. Now we again need to evaluate and move forward, not backward.

- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

Well, take me, for example--my preference for my personal health insurance would be a catastrophic plan, which would give me a low monthly payment, but a very high deductible. But I'd be fine with that, because I rarely go to the doctor, and if I do, it's for an annual check-up, and I even miss those from time to time. But I go to a doctor who would be more than happy to accept cash and give me a vastly reduced cost for the visit than to deal with the insurance companies, and he has told me that it's getting even worse dealing with insurance since the PPACA has increasingly infected--err, I mean, affected the system of claims and payments.

But back to the point--I can't even choose to get a high-deductible plan, because those don't fall within what is acceptable to the arbitrary standards set in the PPACA. So, my personal choice of how I would prefer to deal with my insurance has been removed, and so if I would prefer no insurance over having to get a plan in line with the PPACA requirements, I get fined--err, "taxed" for not having coverage.

While health insurance has always been, imho, a ponzi scheme, the PPACA has ponzified it exponentially with its mandates of must haves, removing any choice and option for the individual if we deem the new system not what is best for us.

So, those are my major issues with the PPACA: Lack of options, increased cost, government overreach, and people I know losing their long-secured personal doctors because suddenly the system tells them they can't see that doctor. The thing is, no system that our federal government implements will fix any of those issues, and ideologically speaking, it's not the federal government's job to concern itself with how I care for my body. That's the bottom line for me.

I do sincerely apologize for the insults--I was in a snarky mood with a headache at the time, and it's hard for me to keep a calm demeanor when discussing this issue, because the way I see it, even with all of the evidence against the "need" for the government to take control of my health insurance decisions and how nearly every promise that directly affects me made by Obama has been broken, I can't understand that anyone still sees this new system as being better for the general public overall.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I do hear you. I know of others in the same boat - a chiropractor who only wanted catastrophic because he took care of the rest of the family's health care, etc. The only problem for you would be if something bad happened beyond catastrophic, and then you'd have nothing to fall back on with a catastrophic plan only - that would be your risk and you could lose big. (A lot of the catastrophic plans were not very good, and didn't even cover an ambulance ride.) Now, however, it seems like a waste, and I totally get that.

I will not ever say the ACA worked out best for everyone, and I do think there are better ways to do health care.

Insults are forgiven. I hope you did not, in turn, feel insulted.

- AB

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But back to the point--I can't even choose to get a high-deductible plan, because those don't fall within what is acceptable to the arbitrary standards set in the PPACA. So, my personal choice of how I would prefer to deal with my insurance has been removed, and so if I would prefer no insurance over having to get a plan in line with the PPACA requirements, I get fined--err, "taxed" for not having coverage.

While health insurance has always been, imho, a ponzi scheme, the PPACA has ponzified it exponentially with its mandates of must haves, removing any choice and option for the individual if we deem the new system not what is best for us.

They do so for a reason. Preventative car is far cheaper to society than catastrophic coverage and results in a healthier population. For this reason standards were written that insurance needs to cover routine visits.

What would you suggest is the solution? By you choosing to not go to the doctor as often you are increasing the illness in your risk pool and thereby increasing the premiums of everyone else in order to save yourself a buck. Is that fair to the rest of society?