Even as the legal case against ObamaCare gains momentum, state lawmakers should act now to deny federal officials the regulatory edifice needed to enact new regulations, Christopher Jaarda, president of the American Health Care Education Coalition (AHEC), has argued. They should also embrace an alternative set of reforms rooted in consumer choice that could costs and improve service, he observes.
“Ultimately, we believe that ObamaCare will fail,” Jaarda said in an interview. “It will be struck down by the Supreme Court, it will collapse of its own weight and budget impact, or Congress will repeal it. ObamaCare is attempting to get states hooked on the federal law early so that ObamaCare becomes `too big to fail.’ “There are two things that states should be doing today to avoid getting dragged into an unworkable system.”
“First, states should refuse to create an exchange,” he continued. “Second, states should refuse to accept ObamaCare grant money. Both the exchanges and grant money will come with federal strings attached, strings that are not necessarily apparent today. These strings will give the federal government enormous power to coerce states.”
There are two key health care forms Jaarda favors that would help alleviate deficiencies in the current system. He has called on policymakers to provide individuals with a tax deduction for purchasing insurance. This is an option that is already open to employers, but is unavailable to most individuals. Jaarda also supports converting Medicaid over to a form of premium support to help incentivize Medicaid eligible individuals to purchase private insurance.
“First, this would make consumers more cost conscious of premium costs and the cost of medical care (co-pays, deductibles, etc.) which would in turn lead to better consumer choices,” he explained. “A consumer-driven healthcare system would be far more efficient in holding healthcare inflation in check. Look at what has happened to healthcare services that are consumer-driven, like lasik eye surgery or elective procedures, those costs are coming down while costs for other healthcare services are rising. Second, it would be the most efficient way to eliminate concerns over denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Once an individual had insurance, they would take it with them and continue their coverage even if they switched jobs.”
These changes would also benefit people on the verge of Medicaid eligibility and would help to ensure continuity of care.
“When someone’s income falls so that they move from non-eligibile to Medicaid-eligibie, they often lose access to the doctor of their choice, including many specialists, because many doctors don’t accept Medicaid,” he added. “By giving individuals control to buy their healthcare coverage, we could eliminate the problems associated with moving in and out of Medicaid eligibility. People would continue with the same insurance regardless of whether their incomes rises or falls.”
State officials also need to think carefully about the money that could spent and wasted on implementing ObamaCare, if the U.S Supreme Court does rule against insurance mandates as now seems likely.
