"Repealing and replacing ObamaCare"

[Fly320s]

That is what Romney has promised if he becomes POTUS.

What does he want to replace it with? Why replace it at all?

[Jamisjockey]

Therein lies the crux and fail of the GOP, when they pander to the voters by only offering slightly less liberal ideas to counter the ideas of the left.
McCain-care had many of the same attributes that ended up in Obamacare.....

[Fitz]

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, EVEN IF THE OTHER GUY IS THE SAME

[grampster]

There are a lot of great ideas out there regarding the reformation of health care.  Most of them involve competition and allowing for insurance companies to write biz in all states.  Some elements of the present law are not bad.  If one wants to pay the premium, why should there be any age limit for family members to remain on a group policy is one example.

Why not a cafeteria concept of service?  You pick what you want for routine stuff, and keep the concept of before tax medical accounts for deductibles etc.  Then select what kind of catastrophic care you might want.  Blend coverage with auto policy medical coverage.  Citizen open oversight of a created catastrophic state fund paid for by a small tax everybody pays.

Have you ever seen a hospital or urgent care facility that wasn't a Taj Mahal building?  Why is that necessary?  Where do you suppose the money comes from for all the fancy buildings?  Can not medicine be practiced efficiently in a steel post and frame building?  Modern construction had taken quantum leaps in those types of buildings.

Why all the duplication of services in sectors of states?  Maybe 3 DaVinci surgical suites in one location instead of 3 machines in 3 separate buildings?  Like in many things, there is an economy of scale even in the healthcare business.

In other words, there is much that could be done to reform medical care that does not involve a complete takeover by the federal government.  A lot of this stuff can be handled at the state level.

Granted, I'm no expert but if Americans want some sort of medical system, then try and work it out at the state level.

[De Selby]

That is what Romney has promised if he becomes POTUS.

What does he want to replace it with? Why replace it at all?

hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts

[drewtam]

Another important piece of national healthcare reforming is separating insurance from employer dependency.

[birdman]

hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts

States as the laboratory of democracy.  The voters of MA wanted such a system, and are finding its warts. Perhaps a state might make it work, but I believe romney's point is that a FEDERAL system is too soon, too big, and inappropriate for our diverse nation.  He has also flat out stated the warts of the MA system, and used them as why he wants to repeal/replace Obamacare.

[Jamisjockey]

States as the laboratory of democracy.  The voters of MA wanted such a system, and are finding its warts. Perhaps a state might make it work, but I believe romney's point is that a FEDERAL system is too soon, too big, and inappropriate for our diverse nation.  He has also flat out stated the warts of the MA system, and used them as why he wants to repeal/replace Obamacare.

This.  I'm not a Mitt-fanboi, but De Selby your attack was like an MSNBC talking point. 

[slingshot]

First, dump Obama Care, and have ready a bill which recaptures some of the good stuff from within this plan.  They can debate what the "good stuff" is, but there are a couple things I want:  Medical Insurance by private companies, group policies for small business offered by the private insurance companies, a policy that captures those that get left behind due to financial ability, age, or pre-existing conditions, and major medicial/catastropic insurance for those "in between jobs or employers".  Perscription reform which I don't really know what that means, but I do know it costs way too much for perscriptions and they are a lot less expensive in other countries.  I assume that Americans are subsidizing the cost without even knowing it.

[birdman]

Another important piece of national healthcare reforming is separating insurance from employer dependency.

This.  Throw in inter-state portability and tort reform, an incentive away from third part payment, reduced federally mandated coverage and you have a winner.

[Jamisjockey]

First, dump Obama Care, and have ready a bill which recaptures some of the good stuff from within this plan.  They can debate what the "good stuff" is, but there are a couple things I want:  Medical Insurance by private companies, group policies for small business offered by the private insurance companies, a policy that captures those that get left behind due to financial ability, age, or pre-existing conditions, and major medicial/catastropic insurance for those "in between jobs or employers".  Perscription reform which I don't really know what that means, but I do know it costs way too much for perscriptions and they are a lot less expensive in other countries.  I assume that Americans are subsidizing the cost without even knowing it.

Generally, when the government gets involved, we pay the price.  Why should it be replaced at all?  Why not have a bill ready that starts derregulating health care, hospitals, and the pharmacutical industry instead?
The answer to "more government" shouldn't be "slightly less more government".

[AZRedhawk44]

First, dump Obama Care, and have ready a bill which recaptures some of the good stuff from within this plan.  They can debate what the "good stuff" is, but there are a couple things I want:  Medical Insurance by private companies, group policies for small business offered by the private insurance companies, a policy that captures those that get left behind due to financial ability, age, or pre-existing conditions, and major medicial/catastropic insurance for those "in between jobs or employers".  Perscription reform which I don't really know what that means, but I do know it costs way too much for perscriptions and they are a lot less expensive in other countries.  I assume that Americans are subsidizing the cost without even knowing it.

How do you propose that the pharmaceutical industry pay for R&D of new drugs?

I don't work for big pharma, and my only dog in the fight is either the tax hike that will follow if prices of prescriptions are set by government fiat, or the stall in creation of new drugs if We The Voters end up compelling them to simply take it in the behind on their bottom line.

It can take a decade or more to come out with something like Lipitor (a blood pressure, cholesterol and heart attack prevention drug).  Scientists and doctors will be working on that product for years, in a laboratory somewhere, running chemical engineering software, animal tests, and controlled human tests.  It costs tens of millions, per drug.

Then the drug company has 7 years of patent monopoly on that particular product, to make back all those millions and more to appease stockholders.

If there's no profit in medicine, stockholders will go to other industries.

If there's no investment in medicine from stockholders, there's no innovation and new tech.


I'd just as soon see a declaration that all drugs engineered from US based pharma labs MUST be paid for at appropriate market value, either by state-subsidized "free" medical programs (like the UK and Canada), or by the people in that country who directly consume the product.  No fiat pricing of drugs abroad... otherwise export of that drug to that country is banned while it is still within its 7 year patent window.

That will lower prescription drug prices here in the US, since we currently pay the lion's share of R&D costs of a given drug.

[birdman]

The drug R&D timeline can be improved by rennovating the approval process.  More streamlining, and better (more appropriate) risk assessment and tort reform.  All drugs have risks, and the approval process is not currently appropriately weighted so while doctors weigh risks all the time (especially oncologists, where it's a matter of survivability with a treatment vs survivability due to treatment side effects), the approval process does not, so many drugs that -on the whole- save lives are rejected, due to extremely low probability lives lost due to side effects.  Antibiotics and associated allergic reactions kill people, but they save innumerable more lives.  However, new ones are harder to come by as the FDA is so risk averse and the lawsuits due to side effects so expensive that new drug development is hampered, and many lives are lost.

[longeyes]

Obamacare isn't about health, it's about centralized government power.  And that is why it must be repealed.

We know what the flaws in the GOP are, but priority one is to oust Obama.  Let priority two be the reform of the Republican Party.  We know turning this thing around will not be easy or quick.

[TommyGunn]

hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts

Well, yeah ...unless you count that Romney's plan only covered 10% of the people and did not introduce 21 new imbedded taxes ... ... ... ...   

[roo_ster]

I think after repealing Obamacare, making Medicare, Medicaid, and suchlike programs into vouchers/grants and yanking the entitlement aspect is a good second task.  One step at a time....

[Scout26]

Another important piece of national healthcare reforming is separating insurance from employer dependency.

Throw in inter-state portability and tort reform, an incentive away from third part payment, reduced federally mandated coverage and you have a winner.

These.  Reforming the drug approval process to include tort reform.  I'm sorry but if the FDA approves the drug then if you have a bad reaction, then you sue the FDA or you "Suck it up Princess".  Drugs are not magic wands.  The docs do the best they can with they have to work with.  They try to find the best one with the minimum side effects for what you have.  They explain the risks and rewards of various drugs and treatments.  YOU make the decision of what YOU want to do.  You are NOT required to follow their advice and are more than welcome to second and third opinions.  Then once again YOU decide.

You want to sue someone, then sue yourself.

[Monkeyleg]

This.  I'm not a Mitt-fanboi, but De Selby your attack was like an MSNBC talking point.

I thought DeSelby was an MSNBC talking point.

[Tallpine]

The drug R&D timeline can be improved by rennovating the approval process.  ...

Make the patent run from the FDA approval date instead of the original patent application date     

The docs do the best they can with they have to work with.  They try to find the best one with the minimum side effects for what you have.  They explain the risks and rewards of various drugs and treatments.  YOU make the decision of what YOU want to do.  You are NOT required to follow their advice and are more than welcome to second and third opinions.  Then once again YOU decide.

That's not always the case, or at least it often doesn't seem that way to the patient - "doctor's orders" you know 

If MDs want to be treated like fallible human beings, then they need to act that way for a change 

[Jamie B]

The problem with health care costs is being driven by the providers, doctors, and hospitals.

Their cost structures are ridiculously high, and there is no accountability.
Insurance companies now are just trying to use their size to negotiate discount rates for services.

Neighbor's son just had back surgery last week.
His surgery was to fix screws that were installed incorrectly during the last surgery.
The surgery should be no charge, as it was not done correctly the first time, but he will be charged the full ride.
This is bullshit, and is devoid of accountability.

He also is fighting a nasty infection that he got in the hospital.
He is also being charged for these costs, which is bullshit, as he did nothing wrong.
This is also devoid of accountability for the hospital.

In both these incidents, there would be no charge if is was a car going back to the shop who did the original work.

My belief is that is we can correct these kind if problems, force accountability to doctors and hospitals, make them fix their screw-ups for free, that the cost of health care would drop dramatically, and employers and people would be able to afford that was reasonable priced.

ETA - Bottom line is to fix the problem on the front end, not the back end.

[Monkeyleg]

There are several factors that drive health care costs. One is the technology, which is far more effective than that of just a few years ago, but also expensive. In Canada, the wait for an MRI can be as long as six months. Here, every hospital has at least one MRI machine, and I've been to MRI clinics in strip malls that have two or more. I've had MRI's the same day the doctor ordered them. And those machines cost anywhere from one to ten million. 

Pharmacological treatments are available now for things that used to require surgery. Those medications cost a lot of money, and we're paying the difference in price between the real cost and what other countries are paying.

Another factor is the uninsured. We pay for their health care when they can't afford it. The doctors and hospitals amortize those costs and pass them on to the rest of us.

I won't argue that there's waste and other problems, but I think the lion's share of the high cost are the above.

[De Selby]

Well, yeah ...unless you count that Romney's plan only covered 10% of the people and did not introduce 21 new imbedded taxes ... ... ... ...   
[/quote

What makes you think obamacare will cover more than 10 percent, and that romneycare's taxes were any lower?

I didn't realize this board liked state health care as long as it was carried out by states.   


Anything against Obama I guess, even if the alternative is exactly the same.

[MicroBalrog]

hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts

If only there was some document limiting the authority of the Federal Government.

[Jamisjockey]

DS most of us are opposed to state run health care but the difference being the country was set with powers granted to the states that were not granted to the federal government.
States rights and all that.

[Jamisjockey]

If only there was some document limiting the authority of the Federal Government.

You, sir, owe me a keyboard.