Republicans have much to consider in creating new health care law

The current discussion of what to do about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a prime of example of how much easier it is to pass an inherently flawed law than it is to either repeal or replace it.


Is the PPACA as bad as it is portrayed? Is it fixable with modifications, or is there something new that must replace it?

The Republican Party has taken up this heavy gauntlet, thrown down by the Democrats in 2010, and they will own whatever they subsequently do.

While the aims of PPACA were broad and touched on nearly every conceivable aspect of health care – including types of health insurance plans; responsibilities of insurers; primary preventive care; supporting and expanding the health care provider workforce; and curbing unbridled costs of pharmaceuticals – the realities have been strikingly different.


Health care providers, hospitals, patients and businesses have suffered “sticker shock” that stemmed from the PPACA’s legal provisions and their unintended consequences. Once the law began its implementation in 2013, many Americans soon discovered that their health plans did not meet the new standards and, under the individual mandate, had to be replaced with new ones often more expensive and containing services that they would never need.

Hospitals and health care providers were saddled with numerous requirements that increased their cost of doing business, and these were costs that could not be passed on to consumers. Payment structures for many services were reduced, and the resulting loss of revenues, unlike the case for conventional businesses, could not be written off when paying federal or state taxes.

Large insurers, experiencing huge losses, abandoned state health exchanges, and consumer premiums rose because of lack of competition. Taxpayers saw premiums increase to subsidize those whose plans received federal assistance.

The creation of narrow networks became a de facto means to ration the provision of health care by lengthening the queues of patients seeking physician visits. Hospitals have closed; physicians have abandoned their practices; and the commitment to expand the health care workforce has turned into a largely empty promise.


One of the stickiest points in the PPACA was the individual mandate to have a demonstrable health care plan. The enforcement of this provision was administered by the IRS, and consisted of a tax penalty unless a Form 1095 could be produced documenting the ownership of such a plan.

The actual penalty for many young and healthy people was so low that it made more sense to accept it and defer purchasing a healthcare plan until a situation arose when health care was needed.

A Feb. 27 op-ed piece by Harvard business professor Regina Herzlinger et. al., appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This article examined how Switzerland, Singapore and Germany have made universal health care funding work by applying much harsher financial penalties for individuals’ failure to purchase health care insurance.

However, these countries are much smaller than the United States; have smaller percentages of gross domestic product involved in health care expenditures; and have many more insurers competing for consumers’ monies.


As the Republican Party takes the PPACA to task and seeks an alternative law, they need to consider the following points (among many others), as the current bill contains nearly 1,000 pages and more than 10,000 sections:

Perform a best- and worst-case cost/benefit analysis of the PPACA and come up with the provisions that are affordable with our current tax revenues and the contributions of businesses and individuals to make up the difference.

The individual mandate failed to support the financial requirements of the health exchanges. Either dispense with it altogether or make it stringent enough to be effective.

Enable individuals, families and businesses to purchase healthcare plans across state lines that only include services that they actually will need.

Give relief for some of the onerous requirements placed on physicians and hospitals that raised operating costs and reduced revenues.

Provide meaningful federal oversight on the rising costs of pharmaceutical agents and medical devices.

Add tort reform to reduce the huge cost of practicing unnecessary defensive medicine.

Increase substantially the support for more residency training positions to alleviate the growing shortage of physicians.

Allow medical practices and hospitals to get more tax relief for business losses.


I am not at all certain that this process of reform will be smooth or that it will result in an improved piece of legislation that most of us can live with. I am certain that continuing with the present law eventually will bankrupt the American health care system; drive more hospitals and physicians out of business; and eviscerate the quality and quantity of care that we currently receive.

This is another case of the Titanic approaching the iceberg full speed ahead, believing that it is “unsinkable” – and we all know how that turned out.

If new Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Tom Price is smart, he will seek advice from health care policy experts who are nonpartisan, and begin the process of truly informed legislative reform rather than the irrational rush to judgment that currently is being entertained.

(The writer is an Augusta obstetrician and gynecologist.)

Dee STAFFORD 9 months ago
Actually, the bill is closer to 2000 pages and not 1000 and the regulations are around 20,000.

The Democrats had this plan in their desk drawers for close to 20 years just waiting for the time when they had both houses of Congress and a progressive president.

I'm aggravated with the Republicans in that they have had seven years to develop and perfect their plan and they are now acting as if they fell off the turnip truck on Jan 20th when it comes to repeal.  They have not been serious about this legislation.

They have been barking at the car knowing they were chained to the porch and could not catch the car. Then lo and behold Trump was elected and the chain was broken and before they knew it, they had the car in their teeth not knowing what to do with it.

One of the problems in Republicans getting anything done as compared to the Democrats is the Democrats march in lock step behind their leaders and the Republicans each march to a different drum.

It's much easier for Democratic leaders to herd their sheep than it is for the Republican leaders to herd cats.

However, as anyone who has been to a circus and watch lions and tigers perform, one knows with a strong leader cats, even the biggest, can be herded.  The problem is the Republicans  never pick strong leaders. It maybe the cats do this because they don't want to be herded.

However, it is much easier to break a pitcher than it is to glue it back together.  That is what happened to our healthcare system...the Democrats broke it and now the Republicans  have to put it back together.

They can begin by not taking so much daggum time off.  They plan working only about 14 days in April and all of August.  They say they need to go back to talk with the folks.  There are two problems with that excuse.

Number one is we are no longer in the 18th and 19th centuries as far as communications go.  There are plenty input from "the folks back home" flowing into their offices everyday.

Second, why go home and search for more problems when their plates in DC are overflowing with unsolved problems  now.  If this were a private business, they would be made to stay on the job at the location where the problems can be solved until they are solved.

Congress is the problem and the Speaker and the Majority Leader could do what is right for the American people rather than looking out for congress and tradition.  McConnell could throw everything under the 51 votes to pass rather than the 60 threshold if he had the guts and the interests of the America people as his number one priority.

Ryan is an entrenched, anti-Trump establishment individual who  has been in DC all his adult life.  Don't  trust him to go whole hog in attempting to implement Trump's actions necessary to drain the swamp.
Val White 9 months ago

Your last sentence is exactly why I am not comfortable with Ryan's insistence that the changes to Obamacare are good plans.

Perhaps the Republicans never thought they would gain all three branches and, although they knew o'care was a disaster, they never all got together and designed a proper healthcare plan.

O'care is so convoluted, confusing and far reaching that a simple fix cannot be effected.

The best course of action would be to make the changes incrementally - even if it takes a little longer than originally promised.

The only good thing o'care contained was the pre-existing illness coverage requirement.  For the life of me I do not understand why a 26 y/o should still be covered.

BHO screwed himself when he put that provision in the package.  He knew many young persons still lived at home and wouldn't sign up on their own, so he thought the added cost to the parents' policy would make up that difference in premium (tax) collection.  What he didn't count on was that the ones who did not live at home and those even into their 30's were not willing to pay for coverage they did not want or feel they needed. 

Roy Whitley 9 months ago
Republicans are feckless cowards because as the democrats, having the same characteristics, are mostly : lowyers who will never address tort reform as it is an easy living for them, term limits, as working for da gubmint, is an easy living for them and the dinner parties are too much fun in Washington. Call it aca or ahca, it's an entitlement, period. Until someone, male/female, with stone cold gonads ends the entitlement culture, we be da slave caste.


Fri, 06/23/2017 - 22:37

How to move past bias

Fri, 06/23/2017 - 22:36

The Longest Day

Fri, 06/23/2017 - 22:36

More digging to do

Fri, 06/23/2017 - 22:35

Rick McKee Editorial Cartoon

Around the Web