Wait.... what's wrong with "Obamacare"?

[Fatman3001]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

If these exchanges really lead to more competition then both hospitals and insurance companies will have to work hard to get their business model more efficient in order to compete. That will result in lower costs and lower prices.

[1714696248]

1714696248

[1714696248]

1714696248

[1714696248]

1714696248

[1714696248]

1714696248

[Spendulus]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

If these exchanges really lead to more competition then both hospitals and insurance companies will have to work hard to get their business model more efficient in order to compete. That will result in lower costs and lower prices.

No, they won't result in "more competition", because the companies still only operate within states.  Regardless, the back door subsidies to the insurance companies will prevent any realistic sort of competition.

But please do Gruber on, it's entertaining.

[Wilikon]

Jonathan Gruber warned of Obamacare premium spike as president promised savings


Predicted massive health insurance cost increases for Wisconsin residents in 2010 report



While President Obama campaigned on a promise that his universal health care plan would lower premiums, his controversial adviser and plan architect was privately warning the state of Wisconsin that Obamacare was poised to massively increase insurance costs for average residents, internal documents show.

Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist currently under fire for suggesting the Obama administration tried to deceive the public about the Affordable Care Act, was hired by former Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle in 2010 to conduct an analysis on how the federal health-care reform would impact the state.

Mr. Gruber’s study predicted about 90 percent of individuals without employer-sponsored or public insurance would see their premiums spike by an average of 41 percent. Once tax subsidies were factored in, about 60 percent of those in the individual market were projected to see their premiums go up 31 percent, according to his analysis.


In addition, 53 percent of those insured by companies with fewer than 50 employees, would see their premiums rise by an average of 15 percent even after subsidies, Mr. Gruber forecasted. The report warned such increases could impact small companies’ decision whether to provide health insurance to their workers.

“There remains some uncertainty about employer reactions given the many forces which might impact their decision to offer insurance,” the report said.

The contrast between the Obama administration’s optimistic rhetoric on Obamacare and Mr. Gruber’s private warnings to Wisconsin is certain to attract new attention from the Republican-led Congress, which wants to know whether there was an effort by the administration to deceive the public about the true consequences of the law as Mr. Gruber suggested in a videotape that surfaced recently.


Mr. Gruber and the White House declined comment when contacted by The Washington Times this week.

The Gruber study, which was released publicly in August 2011 with little fanfare in the state of Wisconsin, was largely ignored by Mr. Obama, who campaigned in 2012 that insurance premiums would actually decrease under his healthcare legislation.

“So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it,” the president declared in a campaign speech in Cincinnati, Ohio back in July 2012, “you should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker, considered by many to be a potential 2016 presidential candidate, distrusted the campaign promises, largely because of the work Mr. Gruber had done for the state's previous administration, and has long advocated for repealing the law.

In addition to premium rate increases, Mr. Gruber’s work estimated that 100,000 Wisconsinites would be involuntarily dropped from their employer sponsored health insurance also running counter to the President’s claim at the time that if a you liked their health-care policy, you could keep it.

The study did project the implementation of Obamacare would decrease the state’s number of uninsured by 65 percent by 2016, but doing so would come at the expense of other groups.

Wisconsin’s working-class families would be forced to pay a hidden tax to pay for the purchase of health insurance for a family of four earning up to $89,400, the study said. It also showed Obamacare would shrink the numbers of people in the private insurance marketplace from 180,000 individuals to 30,000.

Mr. Walker has said he would like to see the Affordable Care Act repealed and after entering office in January 2011, he opted not to create a state-run marketplace and to instead rely on the federal one. Mr. Walker also has refused Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, refusing to accept federal aid offered under the Affordable Care Act, arguing he doesn’t trust the federal government’s pledge to cover the cost.

After entering office, Mr. Walker replaced Mr. Doyle’s Office of Health Care Reform which had been created to carry out the federal Affordable Care Act with Wisconsin’s Office of Free Market Health Care. It was that office that inherited Mr. Gruber’s study.

[...]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/

[Spendulus]

[...]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/

Field Marshall Herr Gruber!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhkQqA53v0

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

[jaysabi]

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin.  

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. [1] Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: [2] life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

And thank you as well for your civil responses! It is nice when someone actually gives what one writes some thought. I am not going to offer any real counter argument other than identify a couple of issues that may lead to the basis of our disagreement. [1] In order to make such a claim you need to view the world in far more relativistic terms than I am willing to concede. [2] I believe it is insufficient to view this particular right as a purely negative right. It needs to be a positive right as well, ie. if your life is at risk the state/society should be obligated to help you.

Ah yes, to point two, I think that succinctly states our difference of opinion. I won't offer much else but to justify my opinion a little more.

I don't believe you can force someone to help another, or that you can impose a burden on them for another's circumstances. The reason I believe this is because if everyone is created equal, you do not owe anything to another, so their burden cannot be assigned to someone who doesn't have it. That's not to say that not helping someone in need doesn't make you a bad person; it absolutely does. But the state forcing you to help others is wrong because the initiation of force is wrong.

[RodeoX]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

I actually have better coverage with a lower deductible and a higher covered amount. It was so much of a better deal that I assume I had a very bad contract before. I can't compare service though. I have not filed a claim with the new place.

[jaysabi]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare





Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

[BootstrapCoinDev]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

[Spendulus]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

Are you fucking kidding me?  Hospitals have provided emergency care by way of being funded through property taxes for what, a century?

[picolo]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

If you were paying for the care you receive or if you were paying a true private insurance in a free market you would pay less, have better care and there will still be emergency care regardless of insurance status.

[deluxeCITY]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

This is not true. The hospital is only required to stabilize you, not provide free care to you. If you are already stable then they may not accept you as a patient if you cannot pay. They also generally charge higher rates to the uninsured so if you can pay then you are paying for those who cannot.

[Spendulus]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

This is not true. The hospital is only required to stabilize you, not provide free care to you. If you are already stable then they may not accept you as a patient if you cannot pay. They also generally charge higher rates to the uninsured so if you can pay then you are paying for those who cannot.

I personally know of dozens of cases where county hostpitals have provided long term care for people who initially came in through the emergency room.  It may be that you don't have "a right" to long term care, someone like the doc makes a decision.

Yes, it has been the case that if you can pay at the hospital level, you are paying for those who cannot.  THAT HAS NOT CHANGED!

Virtually none of that actual problems with health care pricing and delivery have been corrected by this law which attempts to cast in stone the "rights" of the insurance companies to rape you and me under the cover of alleging it gives you "rights" to health care.

[Wilikon]

OBAMACARE'S BACK-END STILL NOT BUILT; OFFICIALS VERIFYING APPLICATIONS BY HAND



Obamacare was signed into law four years and eight months ago, yet the highly unpopular program's back-end computer systems still remain unbuilt.

The problem is so bad, health officials have been forced to perform some verifications by hand.
"Health insurers have been exasperated by the delays, as health officials verify some account and application details by hand," reports The Hill.

Far from denying the headaches caused by its busted Obamacare website, the Obama administration blamed its recent enrollment figure embarrassment on the unbuilt back-end system. When it was revealed that the Obama administration had inflated its Obamacare enrollment number by 1.3 million people, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner sent the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a letter blaming its unfinished back-end system for the inflated figures.

"Once the automated system for effectuated enrollment is functional, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will be able to more easily report the number who has paid their premiums," wrote Tavenner.

The Obama administration now claims just 6.7 million, not the widely-touted eight million figure, are enrolled in Obamacare. How many of those are among the five million individuals who had their plans canceled due to Obamacare and were forced to enroll in the program the administration won't say.

Nationally, Obamacare remains as unpopular as ever. According to Gallup, a record-low 37 percent of Americans support Obamacare.

Over the next ten years, Obamacare will cost American taxpayers $2.6 trillion.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/29/Obamacare-s-Back-End-Still-Not-Built-Officials-Verifying-By-Hand



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The back-end will never be built as 0bamacare was designed to fail. That is why they re hired the same company that built it... to fix it. Getting paid to NOT fix it. It is by design.

[BootstrapCoinDev]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.