OBAMACARE 2.0 WATCH: Will Republicans Stand for More BIG Government In Healthcare?

0
488
Get The PURE Plank TODAY!https://gopureplank.com/products/pure-plank?ref=wvivohmh

OBAMACARE 2.0 WATCH:

Listen HERE

Will Republicans Stand for BIG More Government In Healthcare?

HEALTHCARE/FREE MARKET GUEST: SETON MOTLEY is the president of Less Government, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring market principles are utilized to solve the nation’s public policy crises. He is also a policy advisor for the Heartland Institute.

Motley is available to discuss Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) misnamed “Lower Health Care Costs Act” (LHCC) and how it will make the bad ideas of Obamacare. He is also available to discuss Richard Neal’s (D-Mass.) new “compromise” health care proposal, proposed on Sept. 27 in a bad attempt to address free market advocates’ concerns with Alexander’s big-government bill.

Motley wrote an article in RedState titled “Why Do Republicans #Persist In Adding Government To Health Care?”

THE WRONG REMEDY FOR A SERIOUS PROBLEM – Sen. Alexander released the LHCC as a means of resolving the issue of surprise medical billing. Surprise medical billing is a serious problem that President Trump vowed to fix. It occurs when, in emergency situations, patients are wheeled to emergency care centers that are outside of their insurance networks. This happens without their knowledge, and they rack up giant bills as a result. This is a serious problem that both sides of the aisle agree requires a legislative remedy. However, Alexander’s bill will – according to Motley – needlessly grow the size of government by doubling down on all the worst parts of Obamacare, all under Republicans’ watch.

“Why any Republican anywhere would in any way expand government’s role in medicine – is light years beyond me,” Motley wrote, “Yet we have just such Republicans. Joining the #Persist “movement” – whether they realize it or not.”
BIG-GOVERNMENT PRICE CONTROLS – To “solve” the problem of surprise billing, the LHCC imposes price controls on doctors/hospitals, similar to Obamacare. It essentially bans out of network care – mandating that all out of network care is billed at a median in-network, price-controlled rate. This new price control will lead to more patients finding that their doctors are no longer covered by their healthcare plans.
BILL IS ENDORSED BY FAR-LEFT DEMOCRATS – Motley contends that there’s a reason that far-left political pressure groups like Families USA are pushing the LHCC – despite being endorsed by some milktoast Republicans. it will bring the nation’s healthcare system even further to the left.

CONSERVATIVES HAVE COME OUT IN FULL FORCE AGAINST THE LHCC –From Rand Paul to Donald Trump Jr., conservatives are railing against this bill, calling it Obamacare 2.0 and Medicare for All Lite.

LIKE OBAMACARE, ALEXANDER’S BILL WILL ENRICH INSURANCE COMPANIES AT CONSUMERS’ EXPENSE- Motley believes that the only party that will benefit from this bill are crony insurance companies, which want to pay as little as possible for their customers. They will, according to him, milk the price-controlled rate by kicking the more expensive and skilled doctors/care centers off their network rolls. This will make the LHCC’s benchmark rate even smaller – good for insurers’ bottom lines, but bad for consumer choice and access in health care. It will result in less doctors to choose from and even more hospitals closing their doors.

DEMOCRAT RICHARD NEAL’S NEW “COMPROMISE” ISN’T ANY BETTER. Because of the overwhelming conservative grassroots opposition to the Lower Health Care Costs Act, the head of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee is floating a “compromise: to restart momentum to tackle surprise medical bills. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, wrote a letter to his Democratic colleagues Sept. 27 detailing a compromise. His letter would instead create a “negotiated rulemaking” process to work out differences on out-of-network rates. The negotiated rule-making process would require three agencies—the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury—to form a committee to identify standards for rates for surprise bills.

The Neal “compromise” doesn’t seem to be changing Alexander’s big-government bill much at all. The only difference seems to be that it’s adding more government bureaucrats to the price-control party. That won’t make it any better policy-wise or more in line with free market norms.

THE ONLY EFFECTIVE, FREE MARKET SOLUTION: ARBITRATION – Rather than embrace a big-government solution that will lead to hospital/doctor shortages and give Democrats the precedent they need to implement Medicare for All, Motley believes that Republicans should back Dr. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)’s free-market solution, the STOP Surprise Medical Bills Act, which relies on free market negotiations through arbitration. Consumers will still be 100% off the hook for their surprise bills, but instead of imposing price controls for the insurance lobby, both insurance companies and hospitals will need to submit their best price offers to an independent arbitrator. This will add competition/pressure to ensure consumers and healthcare professionals are adequately protected.