O'Brien strikes again

Here's something I wrote a while back, after Kevin O'Brien of The Plain Dealer wrote one of his usual ranting anti-Obamacare columns, this time touting two of the Republican "alternatives." Secure in his employer-provided health care, Kevin O'Brien appears to be so consumed by his hatred for Obamacare that he overlooks the numerous flaws in the Republican plans he cites. Both appeal to those who wish to shift more of the burden of paying for health care onto sicker people and the tax burden onto the middle class. The Patient CARE Act is the more interesting of the two, but its problems are numerous, even if you take the Republicans at their word and stick with their second, smaller reduction in the employer tax break for health insurance. This plan would leave many more people at greater financial risk, would allow states to force people onto particular insurance plans, would allow insurance companies to sell substandard insurance policies by removing minimum coverage requirements, would allow insurers to continue to refuse to cover pre-existing conditions in the previously uninsured, and would disrupt the existing system far more than Obamacare. It would be great unless you're sick or poor. The so-called 2017 Project isn't much better. It would restrict the uninsured with pre-existing conditions to high-cost, low-benefit "high-risk" pools that would be out of reach of many poor people. It would rely on tax credits that would be too small to purchase reasonable insurance (how much of a policy can you get for $100/month?). It resurrects the idea of buying insurance across state lines, which leads to a race to the bottom in terms of coverage. Finally, it resurrects tort reform, which has not reduced medical costs where it has been enacted. It's fairly simple. Rather than "freeing us from shackles," O'Brien simply wants the uninsured to stay uninsured. If that costs some lives, so be it -- at least he won't be paying for it.