Without a doubt, the Democrats have taken a well-earned hit as a result of Obamacare. But the President’s low approval ratings may be more of a threat to Republican candidates than his high approval ratings because they seem to be interpreting the President’s low approval ratings as a sign that their time has come. It hasn’t.
As I discussed in, “The Republican Private Party,” (http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-republican-private-party.html) national perception of the Republicans is sort of like the negative view of the Democratic party PLUS the negative added twist of Republican candidates seen as out-of-touch caterers to the rich with their outdated theories of the “job creators,” and the sheer nastiness of their attitudes towards the poor and unemployed exhibited through policies further marginalizing both.
In 2012, Republicans assumed that President Obama’s then “lowest approval ratings ever,” would jettison them through elections, they did not.
Take the earned unpopularity of Obamacare. It would perhaps have been better for Republicans to as the President suggested NOT have recommendations rather than publicize their recommendations in Tom Price's proposed legislation (R Georgia)the, "Empowering Patients First Act, HR 2300," which you can view at http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tomprice.house.gov/files/HR%202300%20Section%20by%20Section.pdf.
After my first few reads of the legislation, highlighted as the Republican next big thing, from a consumer advocacy point of view I’d say there are some SERIOUS questions that need to be asked before those who are anti-Obamacare vote in something that could even be worse.
Does it have a chance? Section 2 provides for the repeal of Obamacare, so that unless Republicans re-obtain the majority in both houses, it’s likely that the legislation will get nowhere much like the other 40 votes taken to repeal Obamacare. If these guys were getting paid hourly, we might calculate the actual cost of this particular waste of time.
It does NOT do away with the Federal entitlement created by Obamacare’s use of rebates and credits for certain individuals using the Federal Health Exchange. While the Republicans would not have the Federal Health Exchange (repeal of Obamacare), they would still provide for IRS payments for premiums for certain citizens based on adjusted gross income, still require submission of income verification, still require that the IRS contribute money to a certain class of individuals meeting certain criteria (Sec. 101, Refundable Tax Credit for Health Insurance Costs and Sec. 102 Advance Payment of Credit as Premium Payment for Qualified Health Insurance (defined by each state, not standardized as it is under Obamacare).
Arguably, fewer individuals would get the entitlement because of limitations on what’s paid out and who is eligible (most notably only going to those with up to 300 percent of the poverty level versus the 400 percent under Obamacare).
Abortion Policies Flipped Rather than avoiding the coverage of abortion by health insurance plans, which might arguably remove some of the complexities of and challenges to Obamacare which standardizes the requirement of such coverage though has been subject to continued modification, the Republican plan makes any health plan that covers abortion (except in incest, rape or mother’s life) automatically excluded from any kind of federal funding (Sec. 105)
PROVIDES FOR TORT REFORMS limiting access to the courts for individuals exposed to harm (damages) from medical treatment they receive through the creation of (Sec. 502) Administrative Health Care Tribunals (with Federal dollars, by the way).
Encourages Opting Out of Entitlement Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and VA Benefits through the use of the tax credit to purchase a personal health plan (Sec. 103).
Pre-Existing Condition Coverage would Skyrocket it seems under Sec. 201 “Requiring Operation of High-Risk Pools,” while maintaining the standard credit outlined in Secs. 101 and 102.
Lifetime Limits would no longer be banned it seems under Tom Price’s plan, with the rising costs of healthcare services, more individuals would find themselves out of insurance coverage.
Expands requirements and processes providers must go through to be approved Medicare providers, which under Section 1323 has a stated intention of preventing fraud, but to me, seems like it might be used as a way to reduce the number of Medicare providers overall therefore reducing the use of the Medicare program.
Obamacare and the President’s approval ratings have dropped because the law and the President in presenting it essentially lied about both the expense individuals face under the law and the “protections” afforded by the law.
Republicans wrongfully assume that it’s the attempts at national standardization of specific features of insurance policies that have made the law unpopular, which I believe is dead wrong.
If Obamacare had meant cheaper insurance, more choice, more coverage in addition to no more lifetime limits and no more discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions as promised, it would not have come across as the snow-job it was.
Instead it has turned out to be more expensive insurance for practically everyone except those eligible for the new entitlement, with more out-of-pocket costs, a focus on prevention at the expense of a focus on needed insurance coverage of required medical care and treatment and a shifting of bearing the rising costs of health insurance and healthcare by new groups of people rather than those with pre-existing conditions (the young, the old, and smokers).
The Republicans DO NOT address these issues. Instead, true to form, they misinterpret public sentiment and therefore have not a prayer at capitalizing on the disappointment the nation feels with Obamacare and our President.
