General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnyone know much about Sen. Coburn's Patient Choices Act?
He was boasting about his bill (that he says Harry Reid ignored) to reform health care, something called the Patient Choices Act, and how much better THAT would have been, rather than the ACA.
I'm not familiar with it...I googled his statement but I'd like to hear from someone who has a keener sense of what he was driving at...
it was on Morning Joe today...
Paladin
(28,273 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)it offered private rather than government "solutions." The usual stuff. But I want to know what was REALLY in that bill he was yammering about...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts) States would open health insurance exchanges where individuals and small businesses could buy coverage.
Insurance plans on the exchanges would have to provide a base level of coverage set by the federal government.
Insurers couldn't turn down customers, including because of preexisting conditions (guaranteed issue).
Individuals and families would get a refundable tax credit to pay for insurance.
That tax credit would be financed in part by limiting the tax exemption on employer-provided insurance.
...
Differences with Obamacare
Obamacare expands Medicaid; the Patients' Choice Act restricts it to low-income disabled people, moving the rest of its beneficiaries onto private insurance. Obamacare cuts Medicare provider payments; the Patients' Choice Act mean-tests premiums and does competitive bidding for private Medicare Advantage plans.
So it is difficult to see why Coburn is so opposed to AcA
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)docs advertise for business directly to the patient/customer...
Mass
(27,315 posts)it sets a price the insurance will reimburse and then let the patients deal with the doctor. As if patients could shop and find the best prices as they are in an emergency.
Another problem is that it does not force insurance to offer the same rate to everybody as ACA does except for age, smoking and location. Therefore it is easy to see insurance companies offering a huge premium to people they do not want to have because of risk.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)right now I am just wondering if Coburn is only opposed to the ACA because it is Obama's...
kydo
(2,679 posts)in his head.
spanone
(135,880 posts)Coburn-Ryan Health Bill Would Jeopardize Coverage for Many, While Failing To Reduce the Number of Uninsured Significantly
Summary
With President Obamas call for greater inter-party cooperation on health reform, and his announcement that the White House will hold a health care summit on February 25, Republican alternatives to the House- and Senate-passed Democratic plans are now receiving more attention. One such alternative is the Patients Choice Act, which Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced last summer and which is similar in many respects to the health provisions in Rep. Ryans more recent Roadmap for Americas Future.[1] Unfortunately, the Coburn-Ryan plan would likely make comprehensive, affordable coverage less available to many who now have it while failing to significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Plan Would Significantly Erode Employer-Based Coverage
The bill (S. 1099 and H.R. 2520) would eliminate the main federal tax subsidy for employer-sponsored insurance the income-tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance and replace it with a refundable tax credit ($2,290 for individuals and $5,710 for families) that people could use to purchase coverage.[2] Many employers would almost certainly drop coverage as a result: since individuals could get the tax credit regardless of whether they obtained their coverage through their employer or on their own, many employers likely would conclude they no longer needed to provide coverage. (In contrast, capping rather than eliminating the tax exclusion, as the Senate Finance Committee has considered, can maintain substantial incentives for employers to continue to offer coverage.)
Even employers who wished to continue offering coverage might be unable to do so. As explained below, the new tax credit would encourage younger, healthier employees to opt out of employer-based plans, leaving older and sicker workers in the employer insurance pools and thereby driving up the cost per beneficiary of employer coverage. Many employers might ultimately conclude they could not afford to continue offering subsidized coverage.
Plan Fails to Create a Viable Alternative for People Losing Employer Coverage
Of particular concern, many of the people who would lose employer-based coverage would likely be unable to find affordable, comprehensive coverage on their own. The bill fails to address the significant shortcomings of the existing individual health insurance market that make it difficult for individuals who are older or have various medical conditions to obtain coverage.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2879
AndyA
(16,993 posts)He's my Senator (although he usually does not represent my best interests), and I've just briefly glanced through the bill. My main concern is that Coburn rarely has moments of sanity, and I suspect there are some nefarious things buried in his bill.
I think the best thing to do is to finish rolling out the ACA, then make improvements to it. I suspect we'll eventually wind up with a single payer option, which is really the only way to ensure cost controls. We need to remove the health care insurers from the relationship between the doctor and patient, as they truly are the third party in the middle, which drives up costs. Congress seems to be more concerned about protecting the viability of their businesses than anything else, and it's time for them to update their business plans as they've made huge profits off of people for a very long time.
I'm not thrilled with the ACA as it is now, but hope it's really just a starting point that can be improved upon in the future.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is the notion of a fool, but Obama says Oklahoma is lucky to have Tom. Wrote a glowing endorsement of him in Time Magazine.