Skip to comments.GOP'S BEST MEDICINE: REPUBLICANS ALREADY HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE THAN OBAMA
Posted on 08/16/2009 3:22:32 AM PDT by Scanian
"The health care system in America is broken. Costs are rising at an unacceptable rate -- more than doubling over the last 10 years, which is nearly four times the rate of wage growth. Too many patients feel trapped by healthcare decisions dictated by HMOs. Too many doctors are torn between practicing medicine and practicing insurance. And 47 million Americans worry what will happen to them or their children if they get sick."
Who do you think said that? President Obama? Actually, those words were written by Republicans. They are part of the summary of the Patients' Choice Act, introduced this May by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in the House and by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) in the Senate.
To hear it from President Obama, the choice is simple: his plan or the status quo. He is wrong on both counts: he has no plan, and the Republicans do. In fact, Republicans have introduced meaningful health care reform for years.
In the 1990s, Republicans tried to change Medicare into a defined-contribution model, more along the lines of the plan that federal employees enjoy. The Republican-controlled Congress passed such legislation in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. Seeing that Medicare costs were out of control, Clinton set up a bipartisan Medicare Commission headed by John Breaux (D-La.). The Breaux Commission came up with a similar plan in 1999. Democrats killed that too.
When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, from 2003-06, they provided Health Savings Accounts and prescription coverage under Medicare for the first time. With the Democrats regularly using Senate filibusters, those were significant achievements.
Republican introduced precursors to the Patients' Choice Act in the House in July 2007, May 2008 and September 2008. All died in the Democrat-controlled House.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
bullcrap. ANY federally based health plan is unconstitutional, and Republicans should know better.
RINOCARE is no better than OBAMACARE. We have the best health system in the world, let the free market control it.
It's still redistribution. Giving deadbeats something for "free" (as in 'paid for by the taxpayers') merely rewards deadbeat behavior.
Real "reform" starts with tort reform, and breaking down the state-by-state barriers that prevent competition, and putting health care choices into the hands of the individual instead of the employer.
My opinion too. Any way you cut it this is a Federal takeover of health insurance from the States and is unconstitutional. If that matters anymore, I do not think it does.
[The Patients' Choice Act] will reduce costs. It will expand coverage. It will increase patient choice, moving decision-making away from government and corporations and toward individuals.
*moving decision-making away from government*. That part is a good idea.
we dont live in the perfect world, so we have to move it in the right direction gradually
“[The Patients’ Choice Act] will reduce costs. It will expand coverage. It will increase patient choice, moving decision-making away from government and corporations and toward individuals. “
Agreed. It is also funny that the DemocRATS did not allow health care reform and filibusters it each time the Republicans tried to change coverage to help the low income group. Ha got to love those caring demwits. This story proves that they DO NOT CARE about the people, it’s the control that they are after.
Interesting how the RATS are always most concerned with plotting our demise and rationing medical care BEFORE their bill is even passed.
Feds: Here is the only plan that will work:
Get the Government Bureaucrats and the Ambulance Chasing Lawyers out of the healthcare business. Do that, and the system will take care of itself.
But of course that isn’t your real goal. You RINOS and Demonrats really want to control healthcare, and through it, control the people.
” My opinion too. Any way you cut it this is a Federal takeover of health insurance from the States and is unconstitutional. If that matters anymore, I do not think it does. “
To draw a metaphor from the almost-forgotten Korean War —
I’m beginning to have some hope that this ‘health-care’ power grab will turn out to be our Pusan Perimiter, where the seemingly irresistable tide of Government power and intrusiveness is stopped cold, and then to be beaten back to at least the FDR border, or even, with good generalship, to Original Founding Principles....
I’m not minimizing - this will be a long, hard, fight.. But it could well be the turning point battle.....
Sorry, blueyon. I wasn't yelling at you. :)
It’s not a takeover by the Federal government; it gives power back to the individual consumer and does not impose any requirement to be part of a program. It takes private insurance and makes it more accessible by breaking down artificial barriers to insurance, such as removing restrictions on purchasing it from a company in another state.
This plan provides for all of that - tort reform, removal of state to state barriers, and the encouragement of individual purchase of insurance - so I don’t see what the objection is. As for the tax credit to get lower income families to buy insurance, that’s a lot cheaper than the current system that lets lower income families use emergency rooms at several times that cost (also paid for by us).
But a rational plan like this has no chance of succeeding under the Dems.
Don't give me "huh".
The authority to do ANYTHING having to do with health care does not reside with the US Government. The power resides in the states.
The Republicans drafting anything at the federal level are no better than the Democrats. The problem is the power, not the form that the health care takes.
Those who would endorse such a thing from Republicans are no different than those who beg for health care from the Democrats. It is the very same, and it is unconstitutional.
That's all fine, and I approve of the concept.
As for the tax credit to get lower income families to buy insurance, thats a lot cheaper than the current system that lets lower income families use emergency rooms at several times that cost (also paid for by us).
The solution to a problem is not to continue to feed the problem. Cut 'em off - most of the so-called "low income families" are just welfare scammers, working under the table and gaming the system to get their earned income credit and food stamps. And, of course, there are the illegal aliens that should not be getting anything for free.
I could not disagree more. Every thin dime that makes it's way to federal coffers helps to fund the beast that will enslave us. The states are perfectly capable of running their own systems once the federal onus is off of their backs. The clean cut bleeds least.
Wow. You have actually bought in to this 1000 page monster. Are you aware that the Obama-Democrat “plan”. Creates 50 new government agencys and 200,000 NEW government employees to stand between you and your doctor? Explain how you can complain about insurance admin cost when 200,000 buerocrats are waiting in the wings?
Eliminate all government from medical care including paying for care for the poor!
Health care isn't a right, it's a privilege to be paid for by the recipient!
This article is about the GOP proposal, which does none of those things.
Well, I agree that many of them are welfare scammers. They’re scamming the system as it is, however, and this might give a little more accountability at a lower cost.
As for illegals, I have never understood why their home countries can’t be billed for the health care they receive here. If the countries refuse to pay up, then take it out of their foreign aid.
Why are the Reps using the 47 million uninsured figure?
That’s the main problem with the Republican Party. They always allow the left to frame the debate.
I live in the Real World.
Would love for the gubmint to crawl back in its hole but that won't happen.
They'll claim something like, How can you have portable policies without gubmint oversight? And that's at the very least.
Allow health care practitioners to write down any free care given to qualifying patients, on a sliding scale from poverty level, against their income. Buy one get one free! A doctor giving away $100,000 of time and care gets to keep $100,000 of income free of taxation. Problem solved.
LIVIUS "It takes private insurance and makes it more accessible by breaking down artificial barriers to insurance, such as removing restrictions on purchasing it from a company in another state."
Actually, in this case, the Fed DOES have some power via the interstate commerce clause, which, in this case would be a legitimate exercise of said clause. Specifically, the states are erecting barriers to commerce by their residents with businesses in other states, which is precisely what the "original intent" of the "interstate commerce clause" was intended to prevent.
Health care is not a right, but, often it is a necessity. Mostly, it comes at an inconvenient time. Over my lifetime somewhere near a $100,000 was put into health insurance in my name. When I lost my health insurance, I was not able to call upon that to help cover my expenses. (If you want to get rid of a health insurance salesman, just, say diabetes.) Medical bills are overinflated, because, medicine has to pay for the must treat government mandated users. Health insurance is covering the uninsured and is already taxing everyone who buys anything as a pass along business expense.
A solution is to add a tax onto all products to cover health care, so that, when Jose buys a Grande Mac he is paying for health care. Jose is doing this now, without a tax, but, since, private health care has to make up for Jose not paying his fair share, in higher prices for that Grande Mac. The government’s problem with corporate health insurance is that it is not taxed and is a business expense passed onto the consumer. Taxing brings in the intrusive hand of government, who will tell Jose he cannot have that Grande Mac because it is unhealthy.
1. Tort reform. (A side affect or socialization, since you can’t sue the government or its employees. So lawyers, you better support reform instead of nationalization.)
2. Universal access, but, let the market determine rates.
3. An FDIC like fund where insurance companies can purchase catastrophic insurance and fund the uninsured.
4. Keep the government out of decisions.
While this is miles better than ObamaCare or PelosiCare, one of the problems with these proposals is the acceptance that federal government should have a direct role (at least, financial, initially) in providing health care. It’s somewhat akin to expanding Medicare / Medicaid, and we already know the road it leads to...
Yes, the GOP should not be a “Party of ‘No’” but far better for Republicans would be to point out the failures of states like MA, TN, HI, KY implementing their own insurance reforms and schemes (single payer, coverage mandates, taxes etc.) and the utter unnecessity of federal involvement in what could be considered a state issue.
Instead of experimenting with providing money and/or insurance for health care on grand scale on national level, let each state devise their own form of financial suicide / bankruptcy. Why have “one size fits all” health care / insurance, when “progressive” states could do the one their citizens want [to pay for]?
If, as liberals say, the reforms should cover more people at lower costs and better care, wouldn’t states that implement their reforms attract more people to these states, making health care even cheaper and better, at the expense of neighboring, “conservative” or less “progressive” states? States will then have to compete with each other on cost, access, choice and quality of care, something that’s lacking right now, and people can vote with their ballots, feet and wallets. If particular states’ systems / experiments fail (and we know which will), they can change their system or their voters can change it for them.
Problem solved! GOP is no longer a “Party of ‘No’”, the debate about necessity of national (and nationalized) health care becomes immediately derailed, and all eyes turn to the failures and bankrupt policies in MA, TN etc. - something that’s close to home and that the people can relate to, instead of looking at Canadian or UK’s NHS systems they don’t know or understand.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2303225/posts?page=11#11 - The universal health care dogs that aren’t barking (The failures of MA and HI are being ignored) - FR, 2009 July 28.
TORT REFORM FIRST
Wait AT LEAST a full year to see what changes evolve in medical care as a result of that.
IF the Congress wishes to pass a pilot HealthCare program that would MANDATE that all Federal employees, including themselves, be enrolled in, that would be fine with me, too. Lets see how well they can design something that they and their union and non-union buddies are required to purchase. Of course, ANYONE else would be allowed to VOLUNTARILY enroll in that program at any time for the same premium.
Lets see how what type of money saving, excellent, desirable, keep doctor, public health care program that they design for themselves and their minions first.
PROVE IT FIRST, Dear Leader and CONGRESS
Edmund Burke, before the British Parliament way back in March 1775, observed the colonists' fierce "spirit of liberty." He said:
"In other countries the people . . . judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle." He said Americans could detect "misgovernment at a distance and sniff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."
James Madison put it this way, "The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much, soo to forget it."
Any Republicans or Democrats who "compromise" for the sake of popularity now on this important principle involving future generations should be recalled at the next election cycle!
This is not about a frivolous question of which provisions are acceptable and which are unacceptable. This is about a power struggle between the principles the founding generation were willing to stake their "lives, property, and sacred honor" for, and those who, throughout the history of civilization have arrogated unto themselves power over other people's lives.
The current "issue" called "health care reform," or its equally obnoxious semantic twin "health insurance reform," is just the invasion of liberty by arrogant elected officials which has finally aroused citizens who, heretofore, ignored the decades-long power grab by those who were supposed to protect "We, the People's" constitutional principles.
Now, citizens are seeing that it is a matter of "principle," not an issue of semantics over wording.
They should not allow their elected representatives to be coopted by "blue dogs" or any other "wolf in sheep's clothing" that would allow what may turn out to be the most important watershed moment in the history of American liberty to be further threatened. Now, Conrad and Sebelius, and others, sensing the voter mood are throwing out "compromise" talk this weekend, all to punt for better position down the road. Seize the moment for the sake of posterity and just say, "no"!
A word from the author of our Declaration of Independence regarding citizens and oppressive government might give some backbone to today's citizens:
"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate . . . the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that they may. . . know ambition under all its shapes, and . . . exert their natural power to defeat its purposes." - Thomas Jefferson
And, for more wisdom from the same source:
" . . . this is a tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers. . . have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follws that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."- Thomas Jefferson
Amen. They're still not listening.
No, it isn't.
And by cooperating in this big lie, the Republicans are assuring 50+ years of Democrat dominance.
The counter to the Democrat plan for the destruction of the greatest health care system on earth is - no plan.
One does not plan for nonexistent contingencies.
The health care system is NOT broken - not yet.
Democrats have fought HSAs tooth-and-nail from the very start. Too much individual control over their own welfare.
HR3200 eliminates HSAs, by the way...
I disagree. It may be that individual stories don’t mean much in the larger heatlth care argument, but here goes..
My soon to be 21 year old daughter is going to be dropped from my health care on Nov 1.
She is employed and going to school, but not fulltime in either case. The company she works for keeps her just under the eligible hours for thier healthcare plan, and this is not by accident. This is their MO.
To continue along on my plan is not possible,(Why not?) but there is another offer out there. It costs over $900 for a quarter, paid upfront, through Humana.
So far as I can tell..This is the only option for her, other than getting on with another company that will give her full time benefits (9.4% unemployment), or getting her care through the emergency room via “Illegal Alien Style”.
There is something wrong with our healthcare system..Denying it doesn’t make it any less true. However, there is a myriad of ideas out there that do not include socialism or government healthcare.
For instance..Why is it that my daughter cannot get healthcare as a part time employee? She would pay the same as everyone else, or even a little bit more (to offset the employer portion) But, at least it wouldn’t average $300 per month for a single person.
Something does need to be done with health care. The problem is that the Dems went straight Alinsky on it, out of the gate. The cannot be trusted to make it anything but a social program.
Why would it be a problem for a business to offer a healthcare plan to part time employees? It would increase thier pool and negotiating power..and it could be priced comensurate with the employee’s contribution. Even if it were more expensive for the part timer, it would still be beter than the plan I quoted..and far better than COBRA coverage or straight out of the box.
Why is any company that claims to offer medical/dental as a benefit gets away with keeping the majority of thier employees on an ineligible schedule? My kid has asked repeatedly for the hours, and the lower management folks are quite open about the reason they will not offer those hours (eligibility)
Why can’t my kid stay on my plan, and skip all of the above BS that forces employers to do anything at all?
You see. I don’t like socialism or any kind of forced employer mandates. I, and my daughter are willing to pay a fair price for her to be medically covered but as it stands, she will be without care unless I pony up an out of proportion amount for her care. There is a problem and it needs to be fixed.
Why? Because you can't or won't buy what you want?
This issue of yours has NOTHING to do with the health care system. NOTHING.
Hospitals, doctors, and nurses consume billions and billions of dollars every year doing what they do. Do you seriously contend that $3600/year for your daughter isn't a fair share of this tab, in exchange for coverage?
If she doesn't pay it, who will?
(How do you think self-employed people get coverage?)
Well, as pointed out earlier, they crafted the popular and useful HSAs, which are a sensible product and real hot seller here.
Everything is not the same in all states, and in some, it just absolutely sucks....(Northeastern states)
I agree that the feds have no business crafting a federal plan (and that probably should include MediCare and Medicaid) but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they were to ban a couple of public policy practices that are truly killing people and small business.
The feds should outright ban Community Rating and Guaranteed Issue. They should do this with the threat of withholding federal dollars.
Those together can double or triple the premium and for no good reason other than they destroy the concept of insurance.
Other than that, I agree with you.
900 a quarter?
Jeez. I know it varies state-to-state but even when I hit the big 30 and lived in Seattle I had a VERY good PPO plan for half that per quarter.
In the two or three states that I’ve checked, health insurance shouldn’t run a young woman in good health (and not a smoker) more than 100 buck a month. And that should be a really good plan that covers doctors visits, not just extreme emergencies.
The problem is lost on you, Jim.
You refuse to admit that, outside of my personal story, there just might be a young person out there who wouldn’t have the $300 per month to pay. A figure which is easily 30% of a low wage worker’s wages.
Your whole answer to this is T.F.B! It’s regretable that you cannot see the forest.
Through an employer, you are correct. But if a person cannot optain insurance through thier job (for whatever reason) the price becomes much higher.
However, there was an earlier posetr who mentioned that self employed people get a good deal somewhere else..I’d love to know more.
It’s my daughter, not me. I retired from the military and have good enough coverage, at a great price. What you’ve written is good advice and I will look into it further. So far we’ve not found such coverage, but I will not say it doesn’t exist until we’ve looked thoroughly.
As for looking for employers to provide coverage, well that is exactly how the majority of our population gets health insurance. It’s not unreasonable to expect it as part of a benefit package, and good employers are acutely aware of that. Of course, with 9.4% unemployment, they hold the upper hand.
What this whole conversation is coming to (see posts) is that my daughter should be happy to have either (1) no coverage at all (2) pay more for equal coverage than anyone who already gets it through thier employer, or (3) get on a plan that doesn’t cover much other than catastrophic care.
This is akin to the NIMBY philosphy, or the “I got mine, to hell with you” philosophy.
I think there’s an assumtion being made that I’m not conservative enough in my approach, or that I might even “support” the idiotic plan coming out of Filthosi’s fat trap. Not so, not even close.
What I do expect is for conservatives to appraoch this in a realistic fashion. It’s not just about saying NO. It’s about solving a problem that really exists. Putting forth our own ideas would be better than just telling the rest of the country T.F.B.!
The ultimate problem with healthcare is that costs are growing by leaps and bounds every single year. There are a lot of reasons for that. Illegals, Lawyers..whatever. The point is that if some tweaking isn’t done soon, even large employers will become unable to provide health care as a benefit.
Shall we wait until then before effecting a solution? Is it going to be only when some of our louder memebrs of FR have lost thier own insurance that they will begin to see that healthcare, just like social security and the schol system had better be fixed or they will completely fail?
Healthcare needs repair. It does. It should be done in the most free market way, with the most choice for the average citizen. It should be withheld from illegals in all but life or death circumstances, and lawyers should only be allowed to sue for amounts based on actuarial factual losses, and not go for the gold based on the sympathy of a jury on any given day.
WHY THE HELL IS THIS PLAN NOT BEING TOUTED BY REPUBLICANS ?
Please define the problem that really exists.
Do you dispute that, over a lifetime, $3600/year is a reasonable cost share of expenses that anyone will likely accrue? Of course not.
So, the question then becomes, do you want someone else to pay for what people such as your daughter use, or do you want everyone to pay their own share?
And, if as I suspect your answer is "someone else should pay", exactly who is that someone else?
And if your answer is $3600/year is too much (because of illegals, or price-gouging, or fraud, or whatever), then who or what should have the power to close down enough hospitals and doctors offices to reduce the annual tab to a level that you DO think is "fair"?
I don't know why that is true. I hear some union benefit plans are going broke and HR3000 will supposedly pick-up the tab for that. But they're going broke because union membership has been in a long period of decline and is only now picking members through immigration. Perhaps you know more about that?
Shall we wait until then before effecting a solution?
I don't know what this impending peril is, so I can't answer that.
Is it going to be only when some of our louder memebrs of FR have lost thier own insurance that they will begin to see that healthcare, just like social security and the schol system had better be fixed or they will completely fail?
I'll speak from my own experience. HSAs are a pretty good way to gauge what things really cost. Here's what I get:
My annual out-of-pocket limit is $5,200 (the highest limit available.) There are some as low as $500 but they have higher monthly premiums and more co-pays. My lifetime benefit limit is $6,000,000. (That's six million.) My monthly premium is $237.
I get a complete annual physical mostly because it costs me $35. I don't have vision, or dental, or any other add-ons.
Professional services Office visits: No charge after deductible
Preventive care Annual routine physical exam, gynecological exam, well-baby care office visits (includes Pap test or other approved cervical cancer screening tests, and routine mammography when received as part of the annual exam or preventive care visit): $0 Outpatient services Non-emergency services and procedures, outpatient surgery in a hospital: No charge after deductible
Outpatient surgery performed in an ambulatory surgery center: No charge after deductible
Outpatient X-ray and laboratory: No charge after deductible
Hospitalization services Inpatient physician visits and consultations, surgeons and assistants, and anesthesiologists: No charge after deductible
Inpatient semiprivate room and board, services and supplies, and subacute care: No charge after deductible
Emergency room services ($75 or $100 copayment/visit is waived if the member is admitted directly to the hospital as an inpatient) No charge after deductible
ER physician visits: No charge after deductible
Ambulance services (surface or air): No charge after deductible
Prescription drug coverage (outpatient; subject to the plan medical deductible): No charge
Formulary brand-name drugs: No charge after deductible
Durable medical equipment: No charge after deductible
Home health services (up to 90 pre-authorized visits per calendar year): No charge after deductible
Rehabilitation services Provided in the office of a physician or physical therapist (up to 20 visits per calendar year): No charge after deductible
Chiropractic services [Insurer's] payment is limited to $25/visit: No charge after deductible(up to 12 visits per calendar year)
Out-of-state services (full plan benefits covered nationwide/worldwide) No charge after deductible with participating providers
Now, this boils down to me getting the access to these services for $2,844 a year, with deductible payments up to $5,000 a year. Worst case scenario is $7,844 a year. This is not an HMO. It is a "Preferred Provider" network.
My insurance premiums are not tax deductible, but any payments I make for health care services from the health savings account are. Employers CAN make contributions to an employee's HSA.
Is this expensive? Hell yes!
But, I DEFY the US government to provide this level of service and choice in health care to every man woman and child in America for $7,844 a year. Can't happen.
Healthcare needs repair. It does. It should be done in the most free market way, with the most choice for the average citizen.
There are no hybrids in a free market. The most free market way is a FREE MARKET, and with the government's mandates on health care, WE DON'T HAVE ONE!
P.S. HR3200 will eliminate HSAs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.