The Republican House  proposed healthcare legislationis a substantially more  free-market approach to health care than exists in any  industrialized nation. It would greatly reduce regulation of  health care in America, and also considerably increase the  choices that consumers would have in their health care.
  Another way of putting this is: it would considerably  decrease the requirements that are placed upon health care  insurers and providers. It would be as close to extreme  free-market health care as can be achieved except for a system in  which anyone can legally sell anything and call it health  insurance or call it medical care. In other words, it would be  more like anarchy in these fields.
    (3)PLAN PARTICIPATION.A State shall not restrict or    otherwise limit the ability of a healthinsurance plan to    participate in, and offer health insurance coverage through,    the State Exchange, so long asthe health insurance    issuers involved are duly licensed under State insurance laws    applicable to all healthinsurance issuers in the State    and otherwise comply with the requirements of this title.  
    (4)PREMIUMS.[That    means that theres nothing there; that anything goes, as    regardsPREMIUMS.]  
    (A)AMOUNT.A State shall not determine premium or    cost sharing amounts for healthinsurance coverage offered    through the State Exchange.  
    (B)COLLECTION METHOD.A State shall ensure the    existence of an effective and efficientmethod for the    collection of premiums for health insurance coverage offered    through the StateExchange.  
    In other words: Whatever any state has duly licensed under    State insurance laws applicable to all health insurance issuers    and otherwise comply with the requirements of this title will    be allowed to be sold in that state. This appears in TITLE    IISTATE-BASED HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES of the bill. In that    title, appears one major requirement:  
    (4)LIMITATION ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITION    EXCLUSIONS.The State Exchange shall ensure thathealth    insurance coverage offered through the Exchange meets the    requirements of section 9801 of the InternalRevenue Code    of 1986 in the same manner as if such coverage was a group    health plan.  
    Section 9801 of the IRS Code is shownhere. Its section-title is 26    U.S. Code  9801  Increased portability    throughlimitation on preexisting condition exclusions.    That, in turn, is part of SUBTITLE K  Group Health Plan    Requirements ( 9801 to 9834). It places minimal    requirements, in order for an insurance company to qualify to    be taxed as supplying a Group Health Plan. Its a    tax-requirement  not a healthcare requirement.  
    In other words: the Republican bill adds nothing there, on top    of what the IRS has already required since 1986. That means    its bare-minimum regulation, very stripped-down, to totally a    taxation-matter for insurance companies.  
    The degree of freedom that the Republican bill would provide to    suppliers is enormous  especially in states that already are    anti-regulation. The only regulation in this matter, that goes    beyond the U.S. tax code, would be whatever regulations the    state itself imposes.  
    Consequently, there also would be vastly wider choices for    consumers to make. However, in true free-market, or    unregulated, fashion, suppliers would also be far freer than    they now are, to hide, not disclose to consumers, details of    insurance policies that would need to be considered by an    individual consumer in order for that person to be able    intelligently to compare competing policies except on the basis    of cost (and a few other fundamentals).  
    In that situation, the fine print differences between    competing insurance policies can be gamed by suppliers so as to    achieve a competitive edge while at the same time reducing its    own cost of providing a given policy. There would then be a    great boost in business for services to consumers, that would     for a fee  professionally assist consumers to compare apples    versus oranges versus grapes versus chicken versus beef    etc., to use a foods-analogy. But these comparisons, if theyre    to be done correctly, will need to be deeply informed about the    relevant laws, and case-laws or courtroom outcomes (and thats    lots more complex than is the basic literature on nutrition).    Reading the fine print without knowing what    itreallymeans, is virtually like not    reading it at all.  
    Consequently, for example, Jon Reid at Morning    Consult headlined on March 14th,GOP Bill Would Make Comparing    HealthPlan Prices More Difficultand reported    that,  
      The GOP bill, dubbed the American Health Care Act, would      repeal the AffordableCare Actsactuarial value      requirements, which let consumers know what      percentageof health costs an insurer should cover.      Under the ACA, individual health care plans generally fit      into four tiers, starting at 60percent insurer coverage      for bronze plans and going as high as 90 percent      forplatinum plans. Repealing the AV requirements while      retaining Obamacares essentialbenefits would make it      harder for consumers to make educated decisions about      whichhealth plan to pick.    
    The GOP bill consequently would intensify the game thats    played between shoppers and sellers, between consumers and    producers, between individuals and corporations, and so enable    corporations that are selling insurance, to hide the details    that they are planning to be the key drivers behind the profits    theyll be earning from any given policy they market.  
    This is the libertarian objective: to increase choice and to    decrease the consumers information, so as to maximize profits.    There can be consumer-advisors  for a fee, of course  but the    more choices and less standardization there is, the more that    consumers (except the very rich who wont be so much bothered    by hiring professional advisors in order to make a purchasing    decision) will virtually be required to rely more on gut    guesses and less on adequately informed calculations, when    choosing what policy to buy.  
    And these are some of the reasons why the United States, which    already has a more free-market healthcare system than any other    OECD nation, has (by about a factor of two as compared to the    average) by far the highest cost (in absolute terms and also as    a percentage of GDP) health care, and also near the bottom    health care in terms of life-expectancy. We already have the    costliest and nearly the worst, but the Republican proposal    would drive it even farther into that direction.  
    The fundamental marketing-idea for Republican policies is the    free market, which is the idea that its good, and so the    total lack of it, or communism, is bad; so that, the more    free-market a system is, the better it necessarily will be.  
    However, this is like saying that if the lack of vitamins can    kill a person, then the more vitamins a person takes, the    healthier hell become. Its not really true. (If vitamins are    good, a person still can kill himself by taking too much.) But    the U.S. public believes (or feels) that its true, and thats    why there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress. But    even Democrats in America are more libertarian than most    Europeans are about health care. Its a matter of faith, and    one might even say that the free market is the biggest faith    there is in America.  
    Its so big that even some Democrats believe wholeheartedly in    it: its the American way. And so challenging it has a stench    to American nostrils. Whereas in Europe and many countries    elsewhere, socialism is taken for granted as a democratic    reality there, the U.S. isnt like that, and socialism here    is automatically equated more with its dictatorial form,    communism, like a holdover from the Cold War that just will not    stop, because its a very profitable myth, for those who sell    it. So those sellers keep selling it. But its false. Its    taken only on faith. There is no other basis for it, than that.    Libertarianism is faith-based. Pure and simple. But so was    communism. Even a faith can end. But if its just replaced by    another faith (not by truth), then thats like going from one    frying-pan into another  no real change at all.  
    But the Republican health plan would be a change, toward    increased faith.  
    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the    author, most recently, ofTheyre Not Even Close:    The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records,    1910-2010,and ofCHRISTS VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created    Christianity.  
Visit link:
The Republican Healthcare Bill Is Very Free-Market, Libertarian - Center for Research on Globalization