Yes I'm familiar with the Romney "plan": pass the buck to the states and wash your hands of it. While I support the idea of allowing states to experiment and make improvements, I do not support having 50 different HC plans and bureaucracies. The AHCA allows states to experiment and make improvements while maintaining a HC standard for all Americans.
Nothing else in Romney's plan will reduce the cost of HC IMO. Tort reform will have no effect as medical malpractice lawsuits represent less than .6 % of all HC costs. Allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines would lead to companies "cherry picking" the healthiest customers and circumventing consumer protections which would lead to states with the poorest consumer protections to attract more insurance business and probably bring standards down for everyone. And the rest doesn't sound too promising either.
Look, Romney's plan has no working examples in the real world. The AHCA does -- in Switzerland and in Massachusetts. Romney's plan only works in theory. The AHCA works in reality.
I stand corrected. There will be some subsidizing over the poverty line. However:
So any such "redistribution" will disproportionately benefit the poor.
Because you lose the money and still have no health insurance. Besides, what makes you think you will be paying $6000/yr?
Yes I agree that is a problem. And we have much more work to do. The AHCA is the beginning and not the end. But the AHCA has been demonstrated to work in the real world and Mitt's plan has not.
If this becomes a problem then the law can be amended. I don't expect that the AHCA is in it's final state.
Well, here's an article you may want to read from a nice, conservative source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...h-care-system/