We Don’t Have to Repeal Obamacare to Eliminate It — Mike H

 

The American people are not going to be receptive to repeal of Obamacare because it sounds radical at this point. But that’s OK, because we don’t have to sell repeal in order to get elected and we don’t have to pass repeal in order to trivialize Obamacare.

We simply need to pass very reasonable sounding “fixes” that will have the effect of neutering the legislation while not disruptively altering the status quo.

First, we obviously get rid of the mandate, freeing people to buy the healthcare products they want.

Then, we pass legislation that allows companies to sell products will little or no regulation. If done in the ideal fashion, we would overule the state regulations using the same supremacy of federal law that has made Obamacare such a nuisance. Companies could sell products that meet what people want, in the amount they want, for the price they are willing to pay. When the left complains that the proletarians won’t have all the coverage that the benevolent caretakers think they should have, just point to the Obamacare option: it’s still there.

In addition to this, many of the good ideas that have been proposed as part of a replacement to Obamacare can be implemented, overriding parts of Obamacare in the process: decoupling health insurance from work and taking your plan with you, eliminating the tax preference for employer-provided plans, etc.

Most of this should be an easier sell than “lets eliminate everything we have and replace it with all this new stuff right now,” which would trigger citizens’ status quo reflex and turn them against us.

Then we wait … and allow businesses and entrepreneurs to solve the problem for us.

Things could shift quickly but smoothly under this new paradigm. The flailing remnants of ObamaCare can be left to continue to do what they do best: fail. 

When people have all but forgotten about ObamaCare — or become even more disgruntled by dealing with it during the transition — they will either beg us to put it out of its misery or allow us to quietly drop it when no one’s paying attention any longer.

It’s not repeal and replace; it’s replace then repeal.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    skipsul:

    Mike H:

    How about “free will.”

    Too heady a concept. Think in marketing terms. AA’s concept is good too in that regards. Use the phrase “Free Will” and people will think you’re talking religion.

    Well, that’s why I’m a scientist and not a business owner. I like your words, and there needs to be a simple phrase to go with the idea.

    • #31
  2. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Mike H:

    skipsul:

    Mike H:

    How about “free will.”

    Too heady a concept. Think in marketing terms. AA’s concept is good too in that regards. Use the phrase “Free Will” and people will think you’re talking religion.

    Well, that’s why I’m a scientist and not a business owner. I like your words, and there needs to be a simple phrase to go with the idea.

     Just call it the Healthcare Equality Act. Everyone likes equality.

    • #32
  3. PsychLynne Inactive
    PsychLynne
    @PsychLynne

    skipsul:

    Mike H:

    skipsul:

    Mike H:

    Think we could call it the Free Market Option?

    ”Free Market” is a poison pill term. Too many voters distrust is as a code word for corporatism and cronyism, or else “being thrown to the wolves”.

    Try something else. Phrases with “Individual” or “Personal” play better.

    How about “free will.”

    Too heady a concept. Think in marketing terms. AA’s concept is good too in that regards. Use the phrase “Free Will” and people will think you’re talking religion.

     Something like “tailoring a plan to your needs” or “making health technology work for you”
    Build on the Apple and app culture.

    • #33
  4. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Salvatore Padula:

    Mike H:

    skipsul:

    Mike H:

    How about “free will.”

    Too heady a concept. Think in marketing terms. AA’s concept is good too in that regards. Use the phrase “Free Will” and people will think you’re talking religion.

    Well, that’s why I’m a scientist and not a business owner. I like your words, and there needs to be a simple phrase to go with the idea.

    Just call it the Healthcare Equality Act. Everyone likes equality.

     “Equality” is too loaded too, turns off conservatives especially.  Not everyone likes equality anyway.  Connotations of jealousy, nannyism, and a nasty undertone of “special priveleges” among white audiences.  People see that word think “Oh, who is whinging about “unfairness” now?”

    • #34
  5. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    PsychLynne:

    skipsul:

    Mike H:

    skipsul:

    Mike H:

    Think we could call it the Free Market Option?

    ”Free Market” is a poison pill term. Too many voters distrust is as a code word for corporatism and cronyism, or else “being thrown to the wolves”.

    Try something else. Phrases with “Individual” or “Personal” play better.

    How about “free will.”

    Too heady a concept. Think in marketing terms. AA’s concept is good too in that regards. Use the phrase “Free Will” and people will think you’re talking religion.

    Something like “tailoring a plan to your needs” or “making health technology work for you” Build on the Apple and app culture.

     “Custom” or “Customize” work well in this context.  As does “Portable” or “cloud”.  Emphasize words like “your” and “yours”.

    • #35
  6. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Albert Arthur:

    Proud Skeptic: the Republicans, in failing to define who they are over the last couple of decades, have caused themselves big problems with credibility.

    This is perhaps a different discussion, but I disagree with you that Republicans have not defined who they are.

     Heh.  That’s a whole lot of conversations there.

    • #36
  7. Covert Conservative Member
    Covert Conservative
    @

    The very phrase, “Repeal & Replace” unfortunately needs to be stricken from the public dialogue.  Now that the system is implemented, for better or worse (definitely worse), the phrase will just introduce more uncertainty in the minds of low-information voters, who’ll fear (and will probably be told by Democrats) that they’ll be left without health coverage between the process of “repealing” and “replacing.”  It’ll be just more of the “Republicans want the Wild, Wild West back where you fend for yourself” demagoguery.  So Repeal & Replace is out — it’s going to have to be something far more palatable to the public, like “Revise & Restore.”

    • #37
  8. Proud Skeptic Inactive
    Proud Skeptic
    @ProudSkeptic

    skipsul:

    Albert Arthur:

    Proud Skeptic: the Republicans, in failing to define who they are over the last couple of decades, have caused themselves big problems with credibility.

    This is perhaps a different discussion, but I disagree with you that Republicans have not defined who they are.

    Heh. That’s a whole lot of conversations there.

    (Proud Skeptic) I suppose I was inexact in saying they have not defined who they are.  They have defined themselves as something it is very hard to get excited about.  As for it being beside the point, I’m not so sure.  All this stuff is theory unless we get a Republican in the White House.  It all starts with that.

    • #38
  9. user_48342 Member
    user_48342
    @JosephEagar

    Whiskey Sam:

    Won’t work. Unless it is repealed, it will continue to be tinkered with and turn into a mess just like every other bureaucratic program we’ve made this mistake with. Short of complete repeal, it never stops.

     That option flew out the window when Obama won reelection.

    • #39
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.