Rod Dreher

Country Chapel, Southern Roadhouse

Obamacare: Hope For The GOP?

By Rod Dreher • February 16, 2013, 11:19 PM

A reader writes to say she’s a conservative who’s as fed up with the GOP as many of us, but today discovered a potential avenue for a Republican comeback. She says she and her husband spent the day with their tax preparer, and had their eyes opened:

The tax preparer had (by her employer’s rules) to show us a form illustrating how much money the IRS will confiscate from us in 2014 and 2015 if we show up without health insurance (which we have, but she has to show the form to everybody). People were wondering about how the collection mechanism for the “fine” would work, and this is how: you lose your tax refund and/or have your tax burden increased if you can’t prove that you have health insurance.

So the IRS is going to be involved in the new government “health care” industry and will be collecting the penalty for not buying health insurance–proving that this baby was always about increasing taxes, and never really about reforming health care.

In addition, the lady doing our taxes told us about how her adult daughter and son-in-law are about to lose their full-time jobs. They’re not being laid off; they’re just going to have their hours cut to <30/week so the company that employs them won’t have to buy them health insurance (it hasn’t been providing employer-contributed health care up to now, and I got the impression we were talking about a small local business). Her daughter could theoretically be put on mom’s health insurance for a year or so until she passes age 26, and with part-time hours for the couple their child qualifies for the “free” state children’s health insurance program, but the dad is out of luck. Oh, and since their payroll taxes increased in January this young educated working couple can’t even dream of buying their own family health insurance plan. So in effect they could be penalized with higher taxes for not buying something that the rules embedded in the health care plan make it impossible for them to buy (by effectively encouraging their employer to cut their hours).

Out running errands after the tax appt., we saw more panhandlers than I’ve ever seen in daylight hours away from the downtown area–on street corners, drifting through parking lots, moving from place to place with their cardboard signs begging for help. And the real hard times haven’t even started yet.

What do you think?

Posted in Politics, Republicans. Tagged GOP, health care, Obamacare, Republicans.

80 Responses to Obamacare: Hope For The GOP?

← Older Comments

J says:

February 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm

The problem for the GOP is that they cannot articulate a solution any less problematic.

That was the politics to Democrats passing what they knew to be a flawed ACA and setting its implementation date to 2014. Republicans are cornered into either (a) forcing people out of insurance coverage or (b) proposing how to get inefficiencies and bloat out of health care.

The first gets a lot of poorer Americans motivated to vote against them or come up with implausibly convoluted rationales for blaming Democrats that only people who buy into Republican dogma buy into (see the opening post).

The second requires Republicans to turn on a large element of their donor base- health care is the great golden goose, the big remaining economic sector in which immoral/obscene kinds and levels of profiteering are open to entrepreneurs and investors. These people are not interested in reducing inefficiency and bloat at all until they’ve gotten their piece.

Republicans won the 2010 argument whether ACA passage made a faction of the Democratic Party (the conservative Blue Dogs) no longer necessary or of use- as indeed it did. Republicans lost the 2012 argument about the merits of the entrepreneur and wealthy investor class as political ruling class.

In 2014 the shortcomings of the ACA are forcing a debate about who the parasite class is in this game.

This dispute was foreseen in 2009 and 2010. Single Payer is known to amount to the parsimonious solution to the problem socially and economically. The unwillingness of either side to seriously unite around and back Single Payer on the merits told me (and some other people), if we hadn’t realized this before, that there was a dispute about something other than health care itself setting the terms. ‘Small government’ decodes clearly to claims of a parasitic underclass, and inefficiency and bloat claims to those of either incompetence or parasitic overclass.

The right answer is, of course, ‘they’re both parasitic’. But the election will turn on which is preponderantly felt to be the one requiring more regulation and to be put under duress to change now (we’ll get to the other one later). My present impression is that the 2014 election outcome will be equivocal- what majorities result in Congress will be too small to pass major legislation. On the state level I expect significant moderation and simple continuation of trends- Republican margins continuing to thin away in the Sun Belt and West and along the Atlantic coast, Democrats continuing to lose ground in the Rust Belt.
isaacplautus says:

February 17, 2013 at 1:13 pm

@Mike W

You’re exactly right. But the only solution to the cost of health care would be for the government to step in and regulate health costs. I’d be all for that. But is there the political will to do that in this country?

You say “Unfortunately, there is an unholy alliance between health care providers, drug and medical equipment makers, hospitals, and malpractice doctors.” It’s worth remembering that anytime a politician tries to do something about this, the conservative media screams “Socialist!” and sets loose the conservative base to drown them out. As modest as the ACA was, it cost a number of Congressional Democrats their seats in 2010: even Democrats who didn’t vote for it. It is all good and well to diagnose a problem like high medical costs. But getting the will of the electorate behind reform is a more difficult proposition altogether. On this issue, the Republicans still dominate the national debate, even with a Democrat in the White House. Fear of being called Socialist has a powerful silencing effect on politicians in modern America.
Mike says:

February 17, 2013 at 1:31 pm

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure;with that in mind,why do people object to universal access to healthcare ? Isn’t it better to ward off illness/disease or catch it early rather than wait until the cost ( human & economic) is truly steep? The US alone among first world nations still fails to guarantee all it citizens affordable healthcare- for a wealthy country it is shocking(And we are a rich country,deficits notwithstanding). A healthier populace would benefit us in innumerable ways- the well being of our fellow citizens should trump money. The money isn’t lacking,it’s the will.
Bugg says:

February 17, 2013 at 1:38 pm

All true.

I am a tax attorney. For those of you who do have health isurance, notice in box 12 of your W2 the entry of “DD” which is the amount your employer pays for your health care. Simply there is no reason to put that on your W2 . Unless, of course, at some point that will be considered taxable income.

The Obama administration has also made claiming common tax credits difficult and will soon phase them out entirely(whether they will say as much, different story). The college tuitiion tax credit document is incomprehensible, and almost nobody now qualifies. The Alternative Minimum tax continues to hurt more people each year. The tax credit for energy efficient home improvments have been knocked down to next to nothing, and no one can file those docs until early March.

When Obama talks about closing “loopholes” he’s talking about taking away things that people planned their finances around. If you wipe out the mortgage interest and real estate tax deductions he will devalue home ownership and radically harm banking, construction and residential realtor businesses. Our Dear Leader fails to grasp that people are very rational about their economic decisions, and his decisions will so impact millions for the worse.In short we have a economic illiterate for a president.

Only thing bailing out many people this year are the casualty losses from Sandy. After the deluge of 2012, another fiscal deluge in 2013 and beyond.

My personal dealings withFEMA and the SBA continue to confirm everything I saw in the first days after the disaster. Both federal agencies are staffed with unfailingly polite and superficially helpful people. And substantively and collectively they could not make a baloney sandwich if you spotted them a loaf of bread and a pound of cold cuts. We were told by the SBA we would be eligible for a loan at market interest rates of $137K. We told them throughout we were expecting a flood insurance settlement; this was not a secret. When we got to the closing table we explained we had in fact received such a settlement and were told that we were now eligible for a mere $14K, for which a bureaucrat in Texas would have to review our receipts to verify every nail and piece of sheetrock before releasing any funds. All sound and fury, happytalk bureaucracy, documents, faxes, phone calls, emails, paper on top of paper, accomplishing nothing. Our lovely bureaucrat was lucky my wife, a retired cop, was not armed. She usually has to restrain me. I have never seen my wife as upset as she was for this idiocy spare family deaths. FEMA also gave my mom, she of an incenerated house, the grand sum of $-0-.A more complete waste of time and energy I have never seen. Yes, brilliant idea, let’s put these people in charge of health care.
MBunge says:

February 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm

“proving that this baby was always about increasing taxes, and never really about reforming health care.”

I just want to point out that the person making that statement apparently thinks Democrats want to raise taxes for…well, no particular reason. Democrats want to raise taxes because, I guess, they’re just bad. And I suppose Republicans want to cut taxes because cutting taxes is always the best answer to any economic problem and la la la, I can’t hear you.

It’s somewhat difficult to discuss any policy when that policy has been detached from reality and enters theological “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” territory.

Mike
MBunge says:

February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm

“Yes, brilliant idea, let’s put these people in charge of health care.”

As opposed to the folks in charge of the private health care system which was/is bankrupting the U.S., leaving millions without insurance and providing health care that was NOT the best in the world, no matter how many times people said it was?

Mike
Tyro says:

February 17, 2013 at 4:12 pm

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure;with that in mind,why do people object to universal access to healthcare ?

For a lot of people, their early professional lives were consumed with the race to find a job that provided health coverage. You work a lot of low-paid menial jobs, or temp office jobs that pay no benefits (and if you’re a woman, you get your basic women’s health care through Planned Parenthood, and this is what screwed over Republicans when they tried to launch a crusade against every uninsured woman’s local go-to clinic for primary care), and once you’ve “made it” you get a “job with health insurance.” It’s your accomplishment. Even more, if you were smart enough to start out in a professional where you get a full time job straight out of college with health insurance (engineers, represent!), that’s just a sign of how smart and accomplished you were.

So our professional culture depends on a subclass of uninsured people to make the insured people feel good about their personal accomplishments in life. Sure, you might be a software Q&A tester toiling away at $35k/yr or a junior accounts manager with a business degree, but you’ve actually accomplished something more than the admin in your office that was sent there from the temp agency who majored in sociology. Lack of universal health care is a self-esteem subsidy for young Republicans.
Tyro says:

February 17, 2013 at 4:15 pm

. If you wipe out the mortgage interest and real estate tax deductions he will devalue home ownership and radically harm banking, construction and residential realtor businesses.

Our Lady of London, Margaret Thatcher, did away with these deductions, and while it wasn’t pleasant, it was probably a good idea in the long term.

You can either have higher marginal income tax rates, or you can have a parade of deductions. Since our political culture considers it too burdensome to have marginal taxes raised a few % points on those making more than $250k/yr, this is what will have to happen.

And we know what will happen after that: loss of the deduction will take a big chunk out of my clothing budget, and I will have to be less fabulously dressed than I usually am. And while this might be a disappointment to the ladies in my life, I will get by.
Thaomas says:

February 17, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Bugg:

The amoount in DD was put there to remind the Catholic bishops that it’s employees that pay for their health insurance, not employers, and to butt out of the discussion about what should be covered.
Richard Parker says:

February 17, 2013 at 4:55 pm

“Plus, anti-tax propagandists have them terrified of making a mistake.”

As has the IRS.
Solara says:

February 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm

As a mom with a 19 year old who flunked out of college and is now floundering and trying to find a full-time job, I welcome the part of the ACA that allows me to keep him on our health insurance plan until age 26. He has been to a few job fairs where he has been told that the employers want experienced people. He will have his part-time job when the local amusement park opens, but that won’t help him pay his $5500 student loan.
Our daughter managed to finish college, has a job, and is now on her employer’s health insurance plan after a 30-day waiting period. So now I can drop her.
My husband has Parkinson’s Disease. His generic Stalevo cost $455/month, his Requip cost $712/month, his Advair for his asthma cost $554, and his Azilect cost $389/month. With our high-deductible plan, he manages to clear his deductible by April or May of each year.
Last year, I had some health problems which necessitated taking a steroid medication to the tune of $680 for 60 capsules.
We are fortunate to have fairly decent insurance through my employer (our high deductible plan is $2500 individual/$5000 family). My husband’s employer’s high deductible plan is $4000 individual/$4800 coinsurance/$10,000 family. His sister’s health insurance plan is $12,000 deductible for family with no prescription drug coverage.

So, right now, my family is in a good place insurance-wise. However, I haven’t heard what the GOP plans to offer as an alternative.
Jon S. says:

February 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm

“Does the GOP have a plan to reduce health care costs while increasing access and improving outcomes?” So asks WorkingClass at 12:51pm. First, during the “health care debate” the congressional GOP had a website with dozens of ideas. But that didn’t make it onto Steven Colbert so I guess it doesn’t count.

Second, and more to the point, this question reflects, to me, on of the problems with the whole debate. We want the best medicine available to all and a low price (or at least at a slower rate of growth). We cannot have all three things. At best you can get two. High quality health care is expensive. One way to limit the cost is to limit access, which is what the ACA does, just in different ways than most systems. Instead of saying “You don’t have insurance so you don’t get care” it’s “We deem that paying for you isn’t worth it, so we won’t.” Thus the “Medicare savings.” While “death panel” is clearly a demagogic term it gets at something real: he who pays the piper calls the dance. When the government pays the health care bills, then health care is part of a budget and they get to decide what is covered and what isn’t. And if care for your elderly mother is deemed non-cost effective, well I guess mom will die. Now, that might be in some sense the right thing, but it’d be nice if mom could decide “Hey, I want to live longer and I am willing to pay a high premium to do so.” Or, “I am dying and paying this amount isn’t worth it.” Instead, the ACA takes us closer to the government making that decision for us, or in the short run, by telling insurance companies that they can’t charge the sick and elderly more, it just simply means the young pay the cost.

I am getting off topic. The point is we have to make choices. We cannot have low cost, high quality, universal access. Let’s figure out which two are the most important. Me, I go with the latter two.
JonF says:

February 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm

Re: Democrats continuing to lose ground in the Rust Belt.

Where in the Rust Belt have the Democrats lost any strength? At the state level all the Rust Belt states, even Illinois, always had highly competitive Republican parties. Post-Reagan however it’s been very hard for the GOP to translate state level successes into presidential victories– or increasingly even Senate victories in those states. The big reason is the fact the GOP is increasingly hostile to the interests of working people– and ostentatiously stands on the side of the boss. A lesser factor is the cultural Southernism of the GOP which simply does not play well with folks up north. At the state level the GOP is freer to play to the local electorate, and hence its ability to capture state houses and governors’ mansions– though with the antics of governors like Scott and Snyder even that may be endangered.
JonF says:

February 17, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Re: “Plus, anti-tax propagandists have them terrified of making a mistake.”

As has the IRS.

As long as you are not doing something obviously malicious the IRS is not that unpleasant to deal with, Yes, you will have to pay what you owe, plus some small interest on it. I’ve been there, done that. Some years ago a very complicated, messy transaction left me with an additional tax liability of c 2400$. The IRS dealt very politely and decently with me, and the man I talked to there was able to explain to my staisfaction (if not my pleasaure) why and how this was the case. I was allowed to design my own payment plan, and paid off the amount owed in a year. They aren’t jack-booted thugs, they won’t toss you in the Gulag or sell your children into slavery. Paranoia about the IRS (assuming you aren’t doing anything deliberately wrong) is as silly as paranoia about addition and multiplication.
By the way my younger sister-in-law is one of those numera-phobics. Her taxes are so simple she can use form 1040EZ. Yet she has always had someone else do her taxes.
Charlieford says:

February 17, 2013 at 5:55 pm

American employers have been shifting to relying on part-time workers and temps for a long time now, and especially since the recession. Of course Republican employers are going to blame it on Obamacare–it gets them out of the cross-hairs and makes Obama seem likie the perp. I would suggest looking through the propoganda rather than spreading it.
EngineerScotty says:

February 17, 2013 at 5:57 pm

If the GOP’s hope is that the Democrats will screw up (or that Obama’s signature policy achievement will end up being a failure), that’s not a good sign.

‘Tis far better to control your own destiny, rather than waiting for the other side to stumble.
LaurelhurstLiberal says:

February 17, 2013 at 6:02 pm

I think that tax preparer is using (or misusing) its role to spread fear about the ACA. The mandate to have health insurance was always there — the system doesn’t work without it — but it wasn’t a “tax” until 5 Republican Supreme Court justices made it a tax.

The stuff about kids losing jobs might be true, or it might be scare tactics; people on the Right have been saying that Obama was going to destroy capitalism and the stock market since before he was elected the first time, and they haven’t stopped yet. These folks will keep scaring people about Obamacare, regardless of the true state of affairs, for the next decade and beyond.

The real political question is how things work out for the average voter, and we won’t know that for a while yet. Some features, like being able to get insurance with pre-existing conditions and being able to keep college kids on your insurance, are probably here forever because they’re widely popular.
Ampersand says:

February 17, 2013 at 7:17 pm

I’m uninsured. As a liberal, I’m not going to worry about the GOP’s ability to win on healthcare until they come up with something better than “Just go to the hospital,” “It’s not our problem”, or “If we cut taxes for the rich, it’ll magically trickle down to you!” The GOP is asking 40 million uninsured people to be afraid of someone that might give us a tiny little bit of healthcare, instead being afraid of our current situation. I especially love how they keep talking about lines. The one time I tried to get a GP appointment, they were backlogged for months, and I don’t know if I could have afforded it anyway. Compared to that, lines sound great.
alcogito says:

February 17, 2013 at 7:20 pm

I had an eye-opener this week when I went for my annual physical with the doctor I have been seeing for many years. Instead of dashing in and getting right to the exam, he dashed in, sat down with his computer and SEVEN pages of Medicare forms to fill out. Most of these pages were exactly the same history that I had already filled out myself, but this time he had to do it himself too, and give me boiler plate suggestions, like ‘don’t have throw rugs’. It took a lot of time that he used to spend with me. Fortunately I am excellent health and don’t even take any drugs, but still…

Other charming result of Medicare and looming Obamacare: his clinic will not take Medicare patients anymore, although they will keep the “legacy” patients. Another big clinic in the area will not continue to serve any of their patients after they turn 65. Swell. This is an improvement? Lesson: don’t move.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

February 17, 2013 at 9:26 pm

this young educated working couple can’t even dream of buying their own family health insurance plan

By 2014, if the Republican obstructionists don’t find a way to prevent it, they will. Either the state they live in will set up an exchange, or the feds will provide access to one directly. Depending on their income, there will be a sliding scale available to determine, commensurate with what the family income really is, how much they have to actually pay.

That’s much better than paying a tax, or penalty, for not bothering to have any coverage. When the law was first passed, the Kaiser Family Foundation web site had a very informative page on what people would be expected to pay. I’ve been without insurance since July 2009. My income has varied a good deal since then, but I’ve never been able to afford individual health insurance — and I’d be happy with a high-deductible policy and a Health Savings Account. What I will be expected to pay on the exchanges is manageable. And I will be covered.

JonF is of course correct that choices have to be made. We can’t have skyrocketing prices, endless quantities of the best of everything free for everyone, and no taxes to pay for it. SOMEONE has to pay. Optimally, we all pay something, we share the risk for expensive but statistically unlikely events, and those with more pay somewhat more. But there do have to be limits.

My mother is dying, and while her in home hospice care costs something, she has declined expensive, invasive, high-cost therapy, that would make her last months miserable while adding very little time. I would prefer that once I am chronically or permanently incapable of giving informed consent, there would be, e.g., no triple-bypass heart surgeries, just keep me comfortable until its time to scatter my ashes on the rose garden.
stef says:

February 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm

How about people boycott any companies which have publicly stated they are cutting peoples’ hours because of the ACA? There are a few I have on my list.

What we need to do is amend the Medicare law to make it apply to every US citizen from birth on. It’s time to join the rest of the developed world.
Ken T says:

February 17, 2013 at 10:32 pm

Jon S says: “We cannot have low cost, high quality, universal access. ”

Why not? EVERY other industrialized nation in the world manages to do just that. The US spends twice as much on healthcare as the next country, while achieving results that are at or near the bottom of every category, outside of the third world.
Dakarian says:

February 17, 2013 at 11:07 pm

@Richard

“How naive do you think we are? It is easy to foresee the future as the employer cut-off is lowered to 25, 15, 10, and then to 5. It is easy to foresee the future as regulatory formulas are developed to compute the number of employees working list than 30 hours who “should be” working more than 30 hours based on some shifting criteria. It is easy to see foresee the future as the criteria of hours worked drops from 30 to 25 to 20 and maybe below.”

Funny, that future has nothing to do with actual history, which tends to show that loopholes and exceptions rarely get followed up, even if the public demands the change. Even when they try, i.e. the ‘doctor fix’ to medicaid, it just gets can kicked then retracted since it’s unpopular.

Besides, once you play the “they can tweak it” game, it’s easy to morph ANYTHING into a monster. The government taxes me at 15%.. but I can see a future where they move it to 20%, then 50%. OMG the government is just out to steal all of my money!

My state just made it illegal to text while driving.. but I can forsee them making it illegal to have a cell phone, or have a passenger, then eventually drive!

Short of it is: slippery slope is a false logic for a reason. If a lawmaker attempts to put in an amendment claiming that 1 worker is enough to require insurance then we can get to saber rattling (seriously. I’ll join you)

“Re: Translate to “If your employer offers insurance then you’re stuck with it.”

How does the ACA change that one whit? That’s always been the case for most people.”

Personal grumble. I wouldn’t mind being able to trade my plan for one at the exchange at 1/3rd the cost. Aka: It’s not going to change it and I wish it did.

(Not fully advocating for that change, mind you. The insurance is a well working one for what we need and it’s good t oknow that if they try to hyperbump the price too high that it’ll trigger my access to the subsidy.)

Mostly brought it out as SOME suggestion of a viable critique rather than the mix of “IT’s bad because it’s government and all government is BAD!” or the slippery slope “It’s ok now, but JUST YOU WAIIIITT TILL PART 2!” arguments.
Ken T says:

February 18, 2013 at 12:14 am

Richard Parker: If you are “terrified” of the IRS, it’s only because you have spent too much time listening to either the anti-tax propagandists or tax preparers who deliberately try to frighten people into using their services. I have on two occasions over the years made an error that required me to deal with the IRS to get things straightened out. Both times, the folks I dealt with were professional, respectful, and helpful. On one occasion, they walked me through the process of finding proper documentation that resulted in a reversal of the error with no penalty at all. On the other occasion, I truly had goofed and did owe some interest and a small penalty, but that’s hardly the stuff of “terror”.
JonF says:

February 18, 2013 at 12:33 am

Re: What we need to do is amend the Medicare law to make it apply to every US citizen from birth on. It’s time to join the rest of the developed world.

Stef,
Most national health systems are not pure single payer of the sort you imagine there. There’s usually some mix of government coverage and non-profit sector plans. The key thing is that there’s no pretense in any of them that they are providing “insurance”. They are healthcare financing systems, and for everyone, period.
Tyro says:

February 18, 2013 at 5:56 am

I especially love how they keep talking about lines.

When people complain about the potential for “lines” as a result of the ACA, what they’re complaining about it is that with full implementation of the ACA, “too many” people will have health insurance and have access to a doctor. Our health care system has evolved into an unfair subsidy for the insured tier of Americans, providing them with a life in which they didn’t have to compete with those who are sick and uninsured for jobs (because the latter had remained sick and/or bankrupted by medical expenses), and found the current supply of doctors satisfactory because they didn’t had to share their doctors with tens of millions of uninsured people.

When their complaints are effectively that they will no longer have the advantages that came with having a leg up on people without insurance all their lives, it is hard to take them seriously. It would be like me complaining that rural broadband initiatives would mean that blog comments would be overwhelmed by too many people and that online classes would get too crowded.
Consequences2 says:

February 18, 2013 at 7:57 am

At some point thinking that people in their upper 20s are full adults and no longer “children” is a concession?

Is it the GOP’s job to decide when a child is no longer part of the household of the parents? What about disabled children? What about a 26yo woman who has chosen to carry her child to term instead of abort it and, as a consequence, lives with her parents?

The GOP “family values” crowd ironically doesn’t seem to understand what “family” means. It’s not about creating autonomous nuclear families to serve the needs of corporate America, no matter how nicely that boosts you portfolio’s performance.
Gus says:

February 18, 2013 at 10:49 am

Bugg, I have to thank you for using the phrase “Dear Leader.” Your post is long, and when I see that I know I can disregard the rest of it.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

February 18, 2013 at 9:14 pm

Richard Parker, were you in a prior incarnation a spokesperson for the largest mutiny in the history of the British navy?
Rob in TX says:

February 19, 2013 at 6:46 am

The inherent problem with rising health care costs in this
country for the last 50 years or so has been the dis-connection between the person receiving the treatment and the person (institution, really) paying the bill. The bills get paid now and under Obamacare all bills will be paid by a third person. What other activity in our lives operates under this system? (Public education perhaps–and look how well that works).

Here is a thought problem: what popular medical procedures’ costs have been consistently going down in price over the last years? Two come to mind immediately: Lasik Surgery for eyes and all cosmetic surgery. Notice anything interesting about these two? Of course, Insurance and Govt Medicare and Medicaid don’t pay for them! People and the doctors involved (the market) sets the price. Ongoing competition causes the prices to go down. Amazing! What might happen if the remainder of the medical system operated under similar market systems?

The answer to this is not government single payer- for that will set prices and the prices will always go up. For the price fixers out there: name one government program that is cheaper today than when it started? The REAL answer was outline by Dr. Ben Carson last week at the National Prayer breakfast. Give people individual health savings accounts and let them spend that for their health care. This makes people directly responsible for their own health and medical services. I think that most people know what is best for them. I trust them with their own health care decisions.