There is no greater example of government overreach and unrestrained liberalism than Obamacare, the president’s signature legislative initiative. It is so deeply flawed and such a clear and present threat to our economic stability that there is no way to fix it; it must be repealed entirely and replaced with market-based solutions that work.
This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court placed the final decision regarding the future of Obamacare in the hands of Congress. As a U.S. Senator, I will use every measure to ensure a vote for the full repeal of Obamacare will be priority number one in the U.S. Senate.
Obamacare is an unprecedented, budget-busting government takeover of one of the largest sectors of our economy. We need only to look at southern Europe to see the long-term results of government overreach and excessive control of major sectors of the economy.
We are destined to follow in Europe’s path unless Obamacare is fully repealed and replaced with a market-based solution that relies on the efficiency and innovation of the private sector to solve our most pressing health care challenges.
Obamacare isn’t the answer. But merely repealing bad policy is also not the answer. Our nation can afford neither Obamacare nor prior policy, both of which will cause deficits to balloon, businesses to suffer under excessive costs and families to fear loss of affordable care.
My plan for health care reform addresses the fundamental flaws of our current system, including regulatory complexity, consumer detachment from decisions and the lack of rewards for quality and innovation.
The key elements of my blueprint for restoring our health care system are as follows:
Incentivize Quality
The health care debate too often ignores the importance of quality outcomes – both for cost and for the health of our citizens. I’ve been a leader in linking quality of health delivery to lower cost and better health.
As secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, I launched the Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) based on the simple premise that hospitals can save money and improve outcomes with the right incentives. It worked.
With 250 hospitals around the country participating over six years, the program focused on quality improvements in treating heart attacks, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, hip and knee replacement and surgical care. Hospitals with improved performance received increased Medicare reimbursement.
The results were profound, including extensive quality improvements, 6,500 fewer deaths annually and savings to Medicare of an estimated $1 billion. Linking federal reimbursement for health care costs with quality outcomes drives down costs and incentivizes innovation.
Encourage Personal Responsibility
We’ll never truly reform our health care system until consumers take more responsibility for their health and for spending on their care. Up to 75 percent of health care costs are for chronic illnesses, which can be best addressed by improved behaviors. Health care and insurance reform must provide incentives for healthy behaviors such as smoking cessation, weight reductions and chronic disease management.
Enact Medical Liability Reform
Frivolous and excessive litigation is driving up medical costs through burdensome medical malpractice insurance, court interference and pressure on doctors to practice so-called “defensive medicine.”
Any credible health care reform legislation must include caps on non-economic damages, penalties for frivolous lawsuits and limited liability for products approved for use by the FDA.
And liability reform must include policies to allow broader use of experimental treatments for patients who are diagnosed as having terminal illnesses. Our citizens should not have to leave our country to receive potentially life-saving treatments.
Establish Voluntary State-Federal Initiative
I’m proposing a new voluntary state-federal initiative to enable secure coverage for pre-existing conditions, broaden coverage for the uninsured, and stabilize insurance for individuals and small business workers. We must deal with risk sharing in order to address these critical issues, but we can do it without excessive new regulations or mandates.
This initiative would be based primarily on federally funded high-risk pools. States choosing not to participate in the new federal-state initiative would still be eligible for some federal cost sharing, and they would be allowed to participate in Medicaid reforms.
Reform Insurance, Support Employer Coverage
Our nation’s private health insurance market is barely functioning as a result of a complex web of regulations that curtail options for consumers and prevent a real market from emerging. We must establish a vibrant health insurance market and make access to care more affordable for our employers and families.
Key elements of insurance reform include catastrophic policies that can be purchased across state lines and making insurance more affordable through tax credits for businesses and the self-employed.
I would also relieve regulations to allow individuals to customize and personalize their insurance coverage so that they are purchasing only the coverage they need, allowing Health Savings Accounts to be used more effectively.
Reform Medicaid
Finally, the costs of Medicaid are skyrocketing, creating burdens on taxpayers at both the state and federal level. I would create block grants to states to allow new ideas to emerge. If we reduce red tape and regulation, states will find new ways to serve the most vulnerable citizens.
Other budget savings and entitlement reform would cover the costs for my health care reforms. This proposal will be funded within the fiscal parameters of Cong. Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity, which I have endorsed.
Our nation has had an inefficient health care financing and delivery system for a long time, but Obamacare has made it far worse. Repealing Obamacare is an imperative for the next Congressional session.
Merely repealing, however, would leave our health care system in disarray, burdened by complex regulations and lacking market forces that drive innovation and efficiency. We need a series of fundamental reforms. In 2012, we have the opportunity to elect policymakers who will reform health care without leading us down the path to a European model of government control.
We have to get it right this time.
---
Tommy Thompson is a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.
http://www.brainerd.com/pbtrail/tale.html
The fines would be levied for such things as smoking or eating ice cream. They may also include things like extreme sports or job stress. But since the consumption actions are easier to enforce, we should start there. Since the majority of preventable illnesses, such as heart disease or obesity, are found in the elderly and poor, I think we should help them first. The Act would outlaw the purchase or consumption of tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, junk food, fried food, large portions of meat, etc., by any person included in any government subsidized food or health care program. A healthy America will save us all money and universal health care is more reactive than proactive. The down sides are there, big corporations like Coke and McDonalds will take a major hit, but they supported ALEC so tough beans. The American farmer will need to plow under his ethanol corn and plant some broccoli and bean sprouts. I imagine the HAA will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but for a good cause.
You are dead on correct! I'd go even further in that insurance (a socialist concept) in and of itself has driven up the costs of healthcare. Insurance companies employ tens of thousands of people that all must be paid a decent salary, own several large buildings that must be powered and maintained, pay taxes, etc.. Where does all that money come from? Premium payments! Not to mention all of the HR and staff needed in the hospitals/clinics just to deal with the insurance companies and comply with federal and state regulations. Without all those added costs and expenses, how much would medical procedures really cost on a regular cash / pay as you go basis?
The only surprise is that you did not end your comments and plans with Go Badgers ---- or Stick It To Them !!!!!
Just curious as to what form of the law you're referencing here, as your page cites don't match with the official PUBLIC LAW 111–148 - MAR. 23, 2010 document.
Greg, I think that HAA needs to include a special incentive for pork producers;bacon, even in 'bits', is the other white meat.
********************** Always with the racial stuff. Where's Queef to call you out for it when we need him?
While I'm no fan of Obamacare either, I am a fan of the truth, and the analysis of the bill that you've confided in and posted excerpts from in your commentary is mostly false. First off, it wasn't actually written by Texas Judge David Kithil, but rather by a conservative blogger named Peter Fleckenstein. Second, it analyzes an old version of the bill that was never enacted into law. Third, even under the form of the bill that it was analyzing, it still came to several false and erroneous conclusions. In today's environment, Hoffa never trusts a secondary source of information and never relies upon another's analysis of a situation in forming my own opinion on something. Instead, Hoffa goes straight to the primary source, makes his own analysis, and only then does Hoffa come to a logical opinion / conclusion. There's plenty in the bill not to like, but we should at least be honest in our assessments - lies and deception are the tools of liberals, not conservatives. You may want to do the same by looking at the actual public law, as it was passed, for yourself: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf Sources: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
"The cost of medical care didn't spiral out of control until businesses began offering health insurance as a recruitment perk after WWII." You're right - the costs of medical care started spiraling out of control when the practice of the very socialist idea of insurance (pooling individual resources into a collective for the good of all by spreading risk over many payers) started to become the accepted norm. Things were much cheaper when everyone just paid their own bill as they utilized services. "Things should never have been allowed to reach this pass in the first place but once again powerful lobbies in Washington inspired legislation that benefits a few to the detriment of most." Right again - it's all the unnecessary regulation and reporting requirements mandated by Washington that have added to the bloated costs of health care in this country, but Obamacare only makes things a hundred times worse in this respect. "The 80/20 ruling protects everyone from gouging." Actually, the "80/20 ruling" as you call it, is nothing but a big joke. The insurance industry and its bureaucracy employs millions of people that all have to be paid a decent salary, owns buildings, vehicles, and personal property that all need to be powered and maintained, pays taxes, etc. - where do think the money for all of that comes from? I'll help you out here - policy premium payments!
And once again, Obamacare only makes this worse, not better. By imposing more regulations, oversights, reporting requirements, and all these mandated national databases, insurance providers will actually have to hire more people, build more buildings, and expend more money. Where do you think the money for this is going to come from? The health care fairy? I'll help you out once again - it's going to come from either higher taxes imposed on the working classes and/or higher premium payments! Thank you Obamacare! "Of course I personally support removing the middleman and gradually implementing a national healthcare plan." Grand slam home run on this one Bren! You're absolutely right for a change! We should get rid of health insurance companies all together and go back to the everyone pays their own way as they utilize services approach for a national healthcare plan, just like it was before WWII. And that's what Hoffa has always been doing anyway. Call Guinness, as once again, it's one of those rare moments where Bren and Hoffa actually concur on something!
The only personal responsibility I can practice is living as healthily as possible and hoping nothing happens. I'm starting to resent people live on chips and soda and run the costs up for the rest of us, all the time acting smug about how they have health insurance and the rest of us don't.
Wisconsin has approx. 9.4% of it's residents that are not covered by health insurance. Massachusetts is at 5.6% with Romneycare. So how much is it going to cost to get that extra 4%? http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm
Your casual assumption that this only happens to the lazy and uneducated is infuriating.
Unless you're independently wealth and have enough to pay for a catastrophic illness out of pocket once your insurance company drops you for actually getting sick and costing them money. In which case, you and Romney are covered.