The Right Prescription
GOP’s Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted
Republicans have weakened support for Obamacare, but they have done nothing to advance an alternative view of the U.S. medical system.
Republicans may be scoring tactical victories in the current health care debate, but they are no closer to winning the long-term battle over the future of the nation’s medical system.
In 1994, Republicans defeated President Clinton’s health care proposal and took back Congress. But once that happened, the attitude was that they dodged a bullet, and for 15 years Republicans made no major effort to overhaul our over-regulated mess of a health insurance market. To the extent that they did act on health care, it was to pass the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan.
For the past several months, the Republican critiques of President Obama’s health care plans have centered on issues such as “death panels,” coverage of illegal immigrants, subsidies for abortion, and proposed Medicare cuts. Taken together, these criticisms have helped to weaken support for and build opposition to Democratic initiatives, but they have done nothing to advance an alternative vision for the health care system.
There’s a clear political rationale for the minority party wanting to avoid uniting around an alternative proposal that could be a huge target while having no real chance of passage. During the 2005 Social Security debate, Democrats merely hammered away at President Bush’s proposals rather than offer their own plan to address the crisis.
In lieu of uniting around a single alternative bill, it’s true that some Republicans have presented alternative proposals for reforming the nation’s health care system. But the problem is, when Republicans throw out catch phrases such as “consumer-based health care,” or propose changing the tax code and allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, it doesn’t really mean anything to most people who don’t pay attention to the intricacies of health care policy. Thus, before Republicans will even be in a position to present alternate solutions, they have to familiarize Americans with an alternate narrative about the problems with the current health care system.
Democratic proposals are focused on getting more Americans health insurance, but about 90 percent of the country’s citizens are already covered. What really is at the center of the nation’s health care crisis is the sense of powerlessness that individuals feel when interacting with the convoluted U.S. medical system. And that’s a problem that affects nearly everybody, even if they have insurance and do not have a preexisting condition.
In 2008, 176 million people, or 58 percent of Americans, obtained health insurance through their employers, according to Census data. While these people are viewed as being among the lucky ones, the reality is that they don’t have much health care freedom. In general, workers have to enroll in whatever health care plan their employer offers them — or maybe if they’re really lucky, they’ll get to choose among several plans. Once enrolled in the plan, they have to pick a doctor from a list of physicians who participate in that given plan, and often they have to make that choice blindly. The reason is that even though Americans have numerous resources at their disposal to decide which DVD player to buy, which hotel to stay at, or which restaurant to eat dinner at, they don’t have as many ways to find out which doctor is best for them.
In addition to the lack of choice, those with employer-based health insurance face the prospect of losing health coverage and doctors they are happy with if they switch jobs, and losing coverage altogether if they are let go.
Those who do not have health insurance through their employers or do not qualify for government health coverage are forced to navigate the individual insurance market. Not only do they start off at a disadvantage because they do not get the same tax benefits as they would if they obtained coverage through their employers, but they have only a limited amount of choices.
Most states place onerous regulations on insurance policies that require them to cover certain benefits government deems essential. There are over 2,000 of these benefits nationwide, which drive up the cost of health coverage by 20 percent to 50 percent, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance. That means that young and healthy people who may want basic health insurance plans with lower monthly premiums are forced by government to either buy a plan with a price tag that far exceeds their health care expenditures, or go without insurance, as many do.
Thus, the way the health care system functions in this country is completely different from the way any other part of the economy functions. Everywhere else, American consumers face a dizzying array of choices and they have the freedom to buy what they want, and the ability to shop around for the best price. But when it comes to health insurance, people can’t buy the coverage that they want, but the coverage that the government says they need.
Americans should have a health care system that allows them to exercise the same freedoms that they do in other parts of the economy. A system in which they could choose insurance policies that best fit their needs, take their policies with them from job to job, and hang on to them when they are between jobs.
Such a system would not only have benefits for the individual, but would remedy many of the problems facing the nation as a whole. If individuals had more control over their health care dollars, then they’d have more of an incentive to shop around for the best price for medical services and less reason to abuse the system by seeking unnecessary care. And while under the current system insurers expect to lose their customers every few years as they change jobs, in a free system insurers could potentially maintain somebody’s business for life. If that were the case, then suddenly insurers would have more of an interest in providing incentives to individuals to make healthier lifestyle choices such as losing weight and quitting smoking — the type of preventive measures that would help ease the strain on our health care system.
Only if Americans understand how much government meddling there is in the health care system and how an alternative system could function can Republicans begin to make the case for ideas such as allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines and ending the discrimination in the tax code against individuals who buy health insurance on their own.
While it’s unrealistic to believe that any such ideas could make it into any of the current Democratic bills, Republicans should take advantage of this time when the whole nation is focused on the health care debate to lay out a different vision. If they don’t seize this opportunity, they will continually be playing defense on the most important domestic issue of our time.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/02/gops-health-care-strategy-is-s
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
PCP Smoker| 10.2.09 @ 6:40AM
Not one comment on Paul Ryan, a leading GOP member, and his bill? Come on Philip, a little more diligence next time? Here is the info:
http://www.house.gov/ryan/healthcare/index.htm
John Spencer| 10.2.09 @ 1:02PM
I agree. Paul Ryan has a very sensible straightforward plan that should get more attention
ghd | 10.5.09 @ 3:41AM
Here at GHD Styler we are devoted to those who desire flawless hair and want to always look their best.We stock all of the latest ghd hair straighteners and accessories at competitive prices and offer a service that is second to none.
martin j smith| 10.2.09 @ 8:00AM
Republicans have gotten the message--being polite and "correct " in dealing with Democrats on health care ( or any issue ) is not going to work. It is a loser.
Republicans can be civil but in a much more aggressive manner. Sort of like to town hall protesters. Or the 9/12 ers. They have to use what media they have available--that means lFox News,the internet,talk radio and those news papers and others and spread their vision of health care. Second they should do poilitical activism. Have news conferences and news rel;eases exposing the public top their proposals and criticism the Obama care. I think more civil activism is key here.
Curly Smith| 10.2.09 @ 8:04AM
You might try reading something besides the New York Times. Go ahead, try an internet search on "GOP health care alternatives" and, among other things you'll find "
COMMON-SENSE HEALTH CARE REFORMS OUR NATION CAN AFFORD (at http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare).
Yeah, it's a stretch to think that a "journalist" would look at an obscure website, www.gop.gov, but if you had, you'd find:
"For more information about these and some of the other common-sense health care reforms proposed by Republicans, please visit these links:
House GOP Health Care Solutions Group Plan (Unveiled June 17, 2009)
Empowering Patients First Act (Republican Study Group Health Care Reform Bill, unveiled July 30, 2009)
Improving Health Care for All Americans Act (Shadegg Health Care Reform Bill, introduced July 14, 2009)
Patients’ Choice Act (Ryan-Nunes Health Care Reform Bill, introduced May 20, 2009)
Medical Rights & Reform Act (Kirk-Dent Health Care Reform Bill, introduced June 16, 2009)
Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act (Gingrey medical liability reform bill, introduced June 6, 2009)
Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2009 (Johnson small business health plans bill, introduced May 21, 2009)
31 Common-Sense Changes Republicans Offered to Improve Democrats’ Health Care Bill (GOP Leader Alert, July 28, 2009)
House Republican Leaders’ Letter to President Obama [PDF] Outlining Areas for Common Ground on Health Care Reform (May 13, 2009)
Nick| 10.2.09 @ 11:39AM
Mr. Smith,
Perhaps you missed this sentence in Mr. Klein's piece: "In lieu of uniting around a single alternative bill, it’s true that some Republicans have presented alternative proposals for reforming the nation’s health care system."
Mr. Klein's important point is it is not enough to have alternate proposals. You have to get out there and make the case. Sell it.
Instead of John Boehner taking an around the world trip in August, why was he, and the rest of the leadership, not doing a media blitz?
You can play politics and do what's good for the country at the same time. Americans know the democrat plan stinks, now is the time to show them the better way.
Ken| 10.2.09 @ 10:52PM
A single, enormous bill is the exact wrong way to go. We should be making targeted, smart, manageable steps to solve the problem that are easily understandable. Many of the GOP proposals are just that. This column is basically garbage.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 1:23PM
I think one of the key points of this column is that since Americans killed Hillary care in 1994, what sort of alternatives and fixes did we advance. Sure there are some proposals from the GOP on the table now, but not much was done - other than the prescription medicine entitlements. That is a valid point despite what might be currently going on with Paul Ryan or any of the other bills. The point is, what did we do when we had power? Answer, not much, or not enough of the right things. Perhaps if we had, we'd still have Congressional power right now. It's not too late to do the right things.
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 8:04AM
Philip, while you make a very cogent argument, the fundamental flaw in all Republican programs is the dependence on insurance as a vehicle for coverage. There is a reason for the onerous state regulations. Left to their own devices, insurance companies are driven by profits -- as they should be. They are rewarded by dropping customers who cost them money. This includes techniques like pre-existing conditions, redlining, policy limits, etc. State laws have been built up over the years to prevent this from occurring, that's why this industry is so highly regulated. Left to their own devices, insurance plans would only cover the healthiest and youngest among us. Insurance companies would welcome genetic testing for this reason. I know this is true since I was once an insurance executive.
The reason employer based plans work is that you have an employee census. You have a mix of of young and old who are capable of holding a job and thus the rates are low. In fact, most of the large companies self-insure which is why they don't offer alternatives. All they do is farm out administration to one of the health care insurers. These plans also do not cover the uninsured who go to emergency rooms which is why the burden on small business and individuals is so high.
Individuals obtaining private insurance on the other hand, are much higher risk since that pool has lower employment levels, tend to be older, and have much higher medical costs. In addition, since there is no self-insurance, individuals must also carry the cost of profits as self-insured companies don't make a profit on their health care plans.
Deregulating insurance, or providing more individual competition, then, will raise the cost of insurance dramatically as insurance risk is higher, profits are included, and at least a third of currently covered individuals would no longer be able to afford health insurance due to radically increased segmentation and costs.
I would like to live in a world where yours, or Ryan's, solutions work -- but they can't because market and product fundamentals are not aligned with market needs.
So what is the solution? I wish I had a free market solution -- especially to lower the overall cost of medical care in this country. We will not bring back the middle class without lowering these costs. Your solutions will actually raise costs -- and that is a severe problem.
Ideally, I'd like to find an employer type solution for those that don't work for large companies. But the concept of "self-insurance" requires an insurer willing to make no profits.
So, perhaps instead of government "managing" health care, we make them the self-insurer for all people not covered by employer plans. They pay the bills, but these programs are administered by private insurers who then compete on who has the most efficient processing and claims schemes.
Again, the problem with most solutions that provide "choice" is that they will cost a lot more because they increase the risk levels for insurers because their insurance census is more random.
Employer based, self-insured, health insurance fundamentally works -- we've just got to find a way to extend this to individuals and people who work for small companies.
Bob K.| 10.2.09 @ 10:04AM
Contracting out the administration of business owned self insurance programs can work, at least for large employers. In Pennsylvania, the state government is the self insurer of health benefits for all state employees. Employees are covered under the Pennsylvania Employee Benefit Trust Fund (PEBTF). This program is administered for a negotiated fee by Capital Blue Cross of Pennsylvania and Capital Blue Cross runs it just like their own Blue Cross program,
Bob K.
Len| 10.2.09 @ 6:48PM
The main and only important point; government (other people) have no right to dictate to anyone how to conduct their business, it's that simple. The rest is icing on the cake. Seriously do I have a right to tell you to open your home to strangers for dinner a few times a week in order that the less fortunate are helped? No! One's business or company is their property and as long as their not committing fraud, dumping medical waste, employing unqualified practitioners the government is to PROTECT their business from interference.
As to your SPECULATION that the scenario you assert willl happen in regard to insurance companies only insuring the wealthy and healthy, well, as I said that's speculation, and really unprovable without restoring our rights in the US.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 7:04PM
As to your SPECULATION that the scenario you assert willl happen in regard to insurance companies only insuring the wealthy and healthy, well, as I said that's speculation, and really unprovable without restoring our rights in the US.
++++++++++++
This brings up another question. Is health care a right of every American? Is it a right like 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?' I don't think it's a right, like those are rights.
Now, there may be a moral quesiton at stake. What should our society do for its citizens? What should our society do for its less fortunate citizens.
That said, we can also instruct ourselves by looking at this 46 million figure, people throw around for uninsured. Probably 12.4 million of that figure are ineligible and illegal aliens. Of the remaining 34 million some large number of those -17.5.
The true number of those Americans who are uninsured without any choice in the matter, is about 16 million, not 46 million touted by the liberal advocacy media.
http://www.freedomworks.org/files/FreedomWorks Issue Analysis Source of Insurance.pdf
Now the question is, what is our moral responsibility as a society to those 16 million Americans who cannot afford health care coverage currently.
I think with good old fashioned American innovation we can figure out ways to help those 16 million receive coverage without upending the entire system that works for 95% of Americans.
Tort reforms
Competition across state lines
The End of Community Rating
Health care savings in conjunction with catastrophic coverage
Tax deductibility for individual health care purchase
etc
etc
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 7:06PM
http://www.freedomworks.org/pr.....uninsured-
This links to the numbers of uninsured Americans pdf I tried to link above.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 1:36PM
"Again, the problem with most solutions that provide "choice" is that they will cost a lot more because they increase the risk levels for insurers because their insurance census is more random. "
+++++++++++++
But wouldn’t this be counteracted by the market forces of competition and competition across state line – that is to say, bring a huge new market together, for which to compete – small employer market. While that may be a more randomized and granular market, on the aggregate, it’s huge and has, it seems to me, and I stand to be corrected by someone like yourself who has had access to actuarial tables, similar demographics of a large pool of employed persons (of all ages.) Is that not the case?
Thanks for your insight - fascinating - and most needed for us to get to some coherent solution to this thorny issue.
MasterofPlaster| 10.4.09 @ 1:49PM
"I know this is true since I was once an insurance executive."
Yeah sure Bob. You're not even a real person so how could you have a real job?
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 8:14AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short- links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michael L. Hauschild| 10.2.09 @ 8:37AM
".......we've just got to find a way..."
Right, and if the dinosaurs would have had canned food they would have survived the KT event.
This has nothing to do with what is possible, it is in totality to do with what is being made impossible. There will be no republican input what so ever. There will be a "single payer bill on the Senate floor soon and it will be nuked. Harkin has already stated "no republicans at the health care table."
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 1:39PM
There will be no republican input what so ever. There will be a "single payer bill on the Senate floor soon and it will be nuked. Harkin has already stated "no republicans at the health care table."
++++++++++++
Right. But a large part of what Klein is saying is, what did the GOP do to lead on this issue since 1994? Sure, now we're in this bind with the arrogant Democrats.
Trackback| 10.2.09 @ 8:42AM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted, on PunditKix, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ryan| 10.2.09 @ 8:46AM
Bob - I understand the points you're making, but I also think that you may be selling the free market a little short. A substantial change to a more market-based system will have both unintended side effects, true, but it could also result in unpredictable benefits.
The other side of the problem is looking at the current solutions - control by government or corporate beaureaucracies and not doctors and patients.
The problem is that the whole system needs a "reset," and we need to go from there. It probably won't happen.
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 9:09AM
Ryan -- the free market works well when outcomes can be aligned with profits and people have the option to buy or not to buy. If something is too expensive, you just don't buy it.
The underlying problem with health care is that we fundamentally believe that all people need medical care at some time. That's why we require doctors and hospitals to treat everyone that comes through the emergency room door. If this were really a "free market", then if people couldn't afford care, they wouldn't get it.
This is where Republican plans fail. Republicans do not want to admit that a free market solution will result in people dying. Free market solutions also will result in rationing as people will always buy the cheapest plans if they can't afford the premium plans.
Personally, I'm much more libertarian on the issue. I fundamentally believe that health care is a privilege, not a right. I have no problem with denying care (other than triage) to people who don't have coverage.
However, most of you would not go that far. Therefore, there is no reasonable free market solution available which is why there are no real Republican plans that will work.
That's why the only workable solution will be based on the public sector having a significant part of the process.
Len | 10.2.09 @ 6:54PM
"people dying"? You mean immortality is possible? Please say something that makes sense. It's somewhat difficult to make assertions as you do, without having a "parallel universe" where their is true liberty and a true free market to see what would happen if people were forced to be more responsible in their lives, and how much more wealth would be freed up and created without our liberty constantly impinged upon.
MasterofPlaster| 10.4.09 @ 1:53PM
Bob's choice of language is called "Brain Twisters". Only he thinks he is smart, but he is always trying to fool the world.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 7:34PM
This is where Republican plans fail. Republicans do not want to admit that a free market solution will result in people dying. Free market solutions also will result in rationing as people will always buy the cheapest plans if they can't afford the premium plans.
+++++++++
The current solution actually works for 95% of Americans.
[http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-foundation-finds-number-of-uninsured-]
So the degree that Republican 'plans fail' is 5% of Americans - or 16 million Americans. For this limited portion of our population, a private/public combination could be enacted, but I totally disagree with you Bob about this outrageous statement:
"That's why the only workable solution will be based on the public sector having a significant part of the process. "
WHAT? There are about 10 targeted actions we can take that will have GREAT impact before doing what you suggest is the 'only workable solution.' I think the more we have the private sector do what they do well, with some government input, primarily at the state levels, with some federal input as to standards the 5% uninsured, the better.
Let's outsource a large portion of the almost insolvent Medicaire to the private sector and states while we're at it.
Ray| 10.2.09 @ 9:48AM
Maybe, the 'Pubbies have figured out that government intervention breaks more things than it fixes.
If the GOP needs a Health Care Strategy, perhaps it should be "What perverse incentives has government intervention created and how can we end them?"
martin j smith| 10.2.09 @ 9:56AM
Let me be blunt. Being on the web is not good enough. there need to be more 9/12s plus additional activism by heaven forbid Republican leadership. They have to get out there not waite for talk radio,Fox or whathave you. Leadership has to lead.
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 10:14AM
So, Ray, how many votes will Republicans lose when they abolish Medicare -- the ultimate in government intervention? Seniors are the only group that went for McCain over Obama. Lose seniors and the Republican party will just be a memory.
Face it, you can't get elected if you want to get the government out of health care. You will hear no elected politician call for this. However, after they've been kicked out like DeLay and Gramm, they will then call for it. When the day comes that politicians care more about issues than re-election -- well, that will never come.
Ray| 10.3.09 @ 9:54PM
And this why it health care "reform" absolutely must be stopped and destroyed and nothing allowed to take its place.
Once this thing is in place in any form, it will, inevitably, grow. And it will be political suicide to oppose this growth.
Its time for political scorched earth.
RW Exterminator| 10.4.09 @ 1:55PM
Bob is so happy that Socialism has now taken hold in America that he can bearly contain his joy.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 7:41PM
So, Ray, how many votes will Republicans lose when they abolish Medicare -- the ultimate in government intervention? Seniors are the only group that went for McCain over Obama. Lose seniors and the Republican party will just be a memory.
+++++++++
So, Bob, Medicare is going bankrupt. What do you think we should do about that? Worry about electability. You say that the day may never come where politicians put their country first. Well it better come NOW, because we're bankrupt as a country and we need leaders to stand up NOW and put their country first.
We need government to get more OUT of the way more to fix Medicare and other ailments of the health care delivery system. Let's enact the 10 or so dramatic reforms - tort reforms, cross state competition, health care savings accounts, catastrophic coverage plans, tax deductibility, ending community rating, etc., and once we do that, let's see what else needs to be done and what role government should have.
Government should lead on this by guiding and allowing the private sector to come up with solutions and then filling in a few gaps, as needed. Government should lead on health care, by getting its massive inefficiencies out of the market - and only intruding when absolutely necessary.
alwaysfiredup| 10.2.09 @ 10:27AM
Health care is too large a part of our economy to change to an untested system all at one time. What we need are trial cases where conservative reform ideas can be tested. Then the "unintended" costs and benefits could be evaluated, and what works could be extended to the rest of the nation. (How about it, Texas?)
Ryan| 10.2.09 @ 10:50AM
Bob,
It's why we have charities, which I don't know that you've taken into account. We have VERY GOOD medical charities in the US, with typically good funding until recently. Doctors give their time, and some rather wealthy - and not-so-wealthy - people and companies give their money. Re-working the health care in the US to a more free-market based system, where the citizen keeps more of their money and makes more of their own choices may actually benefit charity medical organizations, because people will be able to give more (and tax breaks prodding them will encourage charity).
Actually, not a bad idea - insurance companies given incentive, like tax breaks, to fund medical charities for those people they don't cover under preexisting conditions.
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 11:09AM
Ryan,
Medical charities don't come even close to good coverage. Lately, when they've had free clinics, they've had to turn 2/3rds of the people away.
Look at it this way. Health care is almost 17% of our economy. Medicare/Medicaid is about half of that. Thus, would EVERY working person donate 8% of their income to this effort? I doubt it.
I can't find the reference right now, but from what I remember, charity now covers less than 1% of medical costs at present. Much of this has to do with medical costs rising twice as fast as the CPI and the fact that we have a declining middle class as we have the highest percentage of concentrated wealth in our history -- even more than when we had robber barons.
The strength of a society comes from the strength of its middle class as trickle down has never worked on a macro basis. So with continued rising medical costs and a declining middle class, the problem will only get worse.
Fired up -- I've recommended "test marketing" of Republican health plans several times on this site. However, there is a reason there has been no Republican health care activity in the past 15 years, i.e., free market plans will cause less people to be covered and seniors to lose coverage. Therefore, any state that implements such a plan will guarantee Democrat victories. People want benefits for themselves -- not others. People want lower taxes but are not willing to give up anything for it. Ask any senior if they are willing to go for lower taxes by reducing Medicare.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 7:51PM
Fired up -- I've recommended "test marketing" of Republican health plans several times on this site. However, there is a reason there has been no Republican health care activity in the past 15 years, i.e., free market plans will cause less people to be covered and seniors to lose coverage. Therefore, any state that implements such a plan will guarantee Democrat victories.
+++++++++++
So, instead we're $37 trillion in unfunded obligations through the government plan and bankrupting the nation through Democrat/Socialist policies. There's got to be a better way. Test driving the Republican/Libertarian ideas doesn't mean junking the entire government Medicare/Medicaid system - but clearly, that bankrupt system will need to be reformed NOW...so let's get to it.
The Democrat plans are insane and will massively bankrupt us even further than we are now.
We need to get on with some real solutions, and if that means risking losing some senior votes we're going to have to explain why our plans make MASSIVELY more sense than the socialist plans that have bankrupted this nation.
Are seniors and others really that shortsighted to not care if we further bankrupt this nation?
We need to present the compelling case for all the sensible reforms to the seniors and all others - and this nation is on the brink of insolvency DISASTER.
After that, it may not really matter who wins elections...we'll be enslaved to our debt...and whoever happens to rise to the top of this debt ridden nation.
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 11:11AM
Health Care BS - THE GOP “HAS A PROBLEM” WITH REFORM links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.2.09 @ 11:15AM
Bob
I won't argue with you. Evidently you have endless hours to throw turds in the punch-bowl.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Bob is diastrously wrong! The tell-tale term in all his rants is that little perjorative term, "profits".
With that single term, he dismisses any free market solutions to ...well anything truly important. That is the communist trick on reality.
I could offer you all so many examples of the efficiencies of free market solutions over gubmint's big flatt feet and bored bureaucrats...heh I could bore even Bob to death.
But then he would argue every one of them down with that communist perspective of his...that perspective even has a name folks: "Progressive dialectic".
In that mind-set one can argue using half truths, revealed truths, new truths, throw away truths, etc. to win the argument, or at least muddy the argument until rational people get bored.
Please remember that term: "Progressive Dialectic"
In my opinion, Bob is not a TROLL, but rather a skilled "progressive" operative.
Simply skim over his rants, and if you want to respond to him, simply type in ""Progressive Dialectic".
You know, in a sad skewed way, Bob is right, but his play-pretend logic turns right around and bites him in the rear.
See, IF our Senior citizens had not been stuck in Medicare those years ago...If they instead had been given a simple cash subsidy and their own chosen insurance company plan, the costs offerred by several "Actuaries" of major companies indicate that the overall, "profitable", costs of medical care for seniors would have been about 40% of the costs of government administered "Medicare" to date.
So now the seniors are trapped...and Bob wants all of us to be trapped as well. Neat trick huh?
In the song that opens "CSI Miami" "Don't be fooled again...".
Mike| 12.22.09 @ 11:58PM
Please offer a citation regarding the 40% number. Anonymous 'major companies' are just as bad as Bob's arguments.
Grzmlyk| 10.2.09 @ 11:42AM
Bob, I agree with much of what you say.
I'm still digesting the various evolving sides of issue - and I admit I'm no expert - but you are right about no Republican wanting to vacate government-sponsored health care. No question about it.
Yes, we've woven ourselves into this bi-partisan mess for 75 years or so and there are no solutions that offer sunshine and lollipops to everyone. Although I think that, as Ken says, had we never gotten into bed with government for health care, the market would not be so skewed. But here we are.
Then, too, the pace of technological progress, and the higher costs associated with newer technologies, cannot be ignored. With an aging population, the problem grows more critical every day.
The fact is, everything that is finite is rationed, either by the market or artificially by the government. And it's true that craven and cowardly Republicans do not want to fess up to the fact that there is no sword that will cut this Gordian Knot cleanly.
But the Dems' "plan" isn't even about health care at all. Their cynicism and corruption take my breath away.
Nonetheless, the point of my post is to express my appreciation for the civility of your tone. Well done.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 8:02PM
Republicans do not want to fess up to the fact that there is no sword that will cut this Gordian Knot cleanly.
But the Dems' "plan" isn't even about health care at all. Their cynicism and corruption take my breath away.
++++++++++
That said, there are 5 to 10 reforms that could be enacted, of the kind that John Mackay nicely summarized a couple months ago in the WSJ, and that many others have been discussing also.
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....65070.html
If we don't even TRY these items, what is that saying about our society? It truly tell us that the Dems care more about trial lawyers and their money, then they do about our country and her people and TORT REFORM. Or it tells us that the Repubbie establishment care more about the senior vote than to try to reform a completely bankrupt government health care program like Medicare (like they could have done while in power.)
The Democrat/Socialist plans don't even bother mention - they are ridiculous and ridiculously expensive and power grabs at their root.
JP| 10.2.09 @ 11:51AM
Bob,
Old Texan has a point. We have never had a "free market" health care system. What is in place is a relic from World War II. And congressional reform laws such as the institution of HMOs to PPOs to SCHIPs, not to mention the myriad of state mandates and laws have made the health insurance, and attendent health care a mess. Add in Medicare and Medicaid laws and mandates, and it is no reason why things are so convoluted.
The current Democratic moves in Congress are the final touches to a 60 year effort that would make the federal government the final arbiter of our health care.
For the GOP, the problems are manifold, but not insurmountable. The root issue for them politically is this: do they wish to be just a party that argues that they can best manage whatever the Dems concoct, or is there a plan to totally reverse in a series of rather quick legislative actions (less than a decade) the harm that all of these federal and state mandates and laws have enacted? One cannot reform around the edges our complex, gordian knot of laws pertaining to health insurance, tort laws, and mandates. It isn't enough to say lets cap tort awards, or remove state mandates. Entire sections of our federal tax code would have to be rewritten; portability rules would have to be established, as well as laws pertaining to pre-existing conditions. The entire framework of risk and risk management would have to be seriously looked at as health insurance companies will have to have some means of spreading risk without totally discriminating against those who are chronically ill. Some have suggested federal catastrophic health insurance that would be mandatory.
These are huge issues that turn on a dime what we are all use to. This also sets up a potential political problem between the young and healthy and the middle aged-elderly populations. The problems are both economic and moral.
And then there is the huge problem of Medicare.
Jim O'Brien| 10.2.09 @ 3:46PM
If medical care were simply left to free market capitalism, it would be even better than it already is. For example, people complain about HMO's, not realizing that they were defined by Congress with the HMO Act of 1973 as amended. Congress created the monster.
SeattleBruce| 10.4.09 @ 8:05PM
If medical care were simply left to free market capitalism, it would be even better than it already is.
+++++++++++++
Right. But how do we get there from here. I agree that we need a series of legislative actions, over say the next 1o years - to bring more free market to this insane jumble.
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 11:52AM
The Daily Grind | The Latest Conservative Blogs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ryan| 10.2.09 @ 12:03PM
Bob,
I think that I'm talking more about high-end charity care, not the day-to-day emergency room stuff. Rare diseases tend to have a chunk of change thrown at them. The charity hospital in Louisiana isn't too bad (it used to be worse, but is getting better under Jindal).
Will there have to be some sort of government element? Probably. Medicare isn't going away, but to assume that the government is going to have to be a player is putting it too much in a box.
I partially agree with you about the market pushing out people, and there will likely have to be regulations, but we need free-market experimentation. I don't know that you can come up with an argument against experimentation.
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 12:11PM
Grzmlyk, except for Ken, the posts on this blog have been civil -- and I will respond in kind. Klein's post, as usual, is rational and well stated. In a perfect world, I would agree with him 100%. But health care is a dichotomy. All of us want people to have unlimited coverage and don't want people to die, but we cannot afford the cost. People want everything and are willing to pay nothing for it.
The Dem's don't have a plan. It has been gutted for the lobbyists and does little to solve the cost issues. In my mind, the cost issue is, by far, the most important because in the end, jobs will continue to be lost unless we can build things in the U.S. that are cost competitive with the rest of the world. My view is economically based, not based on coverage or even "free market" issues. I want the U.S. to be competitive again.
As I've said several times in the past, I would like to see "free market" tiers of coverages on a national basis so we have more competition. This would be on top of government sponsored basic care that covers only catastrophic and emergency procedures. Then, we could all ration our own care. Those who pay more would get more coverage. The fact that you might have a basic plan that would not cover your high end cancer treatment -- and you may die -- is just fine with me. You always have the option of going bankrupt.
I don't think the Dem's are any more corrupt than Republicans. All politicians are corrupt because their primary job is to get reelected by appealing to monetary interests rather than their constituents best interests.
And in response to Ken, I am an unabashed capitalist and believe in profits. The problem is that health insurance profit incentives work against preventative care and coverage issues because the fewer claims you pay the more you cause harm to people. That's why large companies are self-insured and have premium plans -- they have a vested interest in keeping salaries low and employees on the job.
In addition, I don't mind rationing at all -- it is the only way we can control costs. We keep people alive far too long. If they want to spend their own money living longer, that's fine with me. But don't ask me to pay for their extended lives. I don't want to be a burden on my family or society. When my time comes, my strong DNR will be in effect.
Expose| 10.4.09 @ 12:54PM
Bob is an unabashed Capitalist?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 12:30PM
One more comment about costs. Let's take heart bypass surgery, for example. Average cost for this procedure is about $200,000. Canada does this for about half the cost and you can take a trip to India and get it for about $10,000 plus travel.
Interestingly enough, outcomes for these three countries are about the same. The largest portion of this expense comes from the surgeon's fee and medications. Surgeons get 3 to 4 times the amount they pay in Canada and 10 times more than they get paid in India. (For $10,000, you'll get a U.S. trained doctor in India). Medications are double that of Canada and 3 times that of India.
In Canada and India, you'll have an assembly line where each doctor will do 3-5 bypasses per day. In the U.S., it is highly inefficient as your doctor must make a special trip to the hospital to do your surgery.
Understanding why health care costs so much is important. Tort reform should be done, but it is not a major component of costs. We are paying a high price for individual choice of doctors. Is is worth having more people unemployed? It only gets worse from here.
Expose| 10.4.09 @ 12:52PM
Bob is in love with Socialism, aren't you Big Bobber?
Etiquette Man| 10.2.09 @ 12:35PM
You can't out-wonk a wonk, and it's a mistake to try.
The Dems have a stinker of a bill. Sometimes "no" really IS a good answer.
Playing defense is also good politics when the enemy is trying to storm Gibraltar with the equivalent of a contingent of French boy scouts.
The only "alternative" the right needs to come up with involve de-regulation (including allowing insurance companies to offer coverage to customers in other states) and getting the feddle gummint the h**l out of the way. To his credit, Mr. Klein alludes to this, but doesn't follow through on what could (and, IMHO, should) have been the main thesis of the article.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.2.09 @ 2:07PM
"PROGRESSIVE DIALECTIC"
BOB PULLED THOSE NUMBERS ABOVE OUT OF HIS...well you know...
PS: I have no interest in being "civil" to "progressive truth" tellers. It is time to call a spade a spade.
Question.....................
Does anyone else here copy Bob's and Toddard's posts here to a word doc. for reference?
I do.
Each of you might be edified to do the same. Set up a word doc. to keep these guys honest.
Bilwick| 10.2.09 @ 2:11PM
Here's my radical health plan: You buy health insurance, or your employer gives it to you as part of your compensation. If that doesn't work, you ask affluent "liberals" to buy you health insurance. After all, if they believe it's a "right," then they have a duty to pay for it. And then you leave the rest of us the heck alone and keep your #@$%ing hands out of our pockets.
I call this radical plan "liberty." Both parties should look into it.
Martin j smith| 10.2.09 @ 2:16PM
here is the deal--people who went to 9/12 rally to Town Halls wh0 cheered those opposing Obama care DO NO TRUST GOVERNMENT in their personal lives period !!!!. I would also add that beyond health care I strongly suspect that the lack of trust in government is well beyond healthcare. So--In my view the vast majority of American citizens who happen to vote will support reforms of our health care system BUT
THEY WILL BE REALLY REALLY MAD if any kind of government controlled health care passes.
That is why the Democraqtic lefty Party refuses to allow their bills to be read before debate and why there are rhumors of around the bush methods of trying to get Obama care thru. If it was so hot: 1) Why does Obama himself and his minions in government and Hollywood be the first to sign on. and 2) Why is there no tranparency about the legislation. The reason is simple: The Democrat lefties know " It stinks".
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 2:33PM
I see that Ken, who relies on personal attacks rather than facts and knowledge, again makes a dumb statement.
Ken, here is the reference since you seem to know so little about health care:
http://www.surgery-guide.com/b.....-cost.html
http://www.treatmentabroad.net.....s-surgery/
If you would spend more time studying the issues and less time on personal attacks, you might learn something.
So, Ken, do you have anything intelligent to say about the topic? Do you even understand I am a free market advocate where it works? If you keep up your vitriolic responses, you may be in need of some heart bypass surgery....
Expose| 10.4.09 @ 12:50PM
Go Bob Go! See Bob go! See Jane run from Bob! See Bob Keep running. And running, and running!
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 2:41AM
Bob: "I am a free market advocate where it works"
++++++++++++
Problem is the free market has not been tried with health care delivery - and that is a huge shame. We need a radical reset button - and not in the direction of socialism, but in the direction of free markets, with reasonable regulations.
As to $200,000 heart bypass surgeries, if free markets were in place and qualified heart surgeons were competing they and their staffs would treat you like kings and queens so that you'd have them do the $10,000 to $30,000 surgery with them. Doctors with great reputations would still be able to charge a premium.
Ken (Old Teican)| 10.2.09 @ 2:54PM
"PROGRESSIVE DIALECTIC", Bob.
I know the facts, and you do too. Your numbers and your LINKS are..........."progressive dialectic". (ie: momentary truths...kinda' sorta' )
(ie: notTruth.)
When do you want me to start copy/pasting your "progressive dialectic" here? I shall let our audience read your so-called free market themes.
Heh!
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 4:21PM
Just as I expected, Ken, the you are the poster boy/girl for the extreme right with a total lack of factual information for any retort of consequence. I know you are so enamored with me that you want to save every morsel of my posts. If you want to waste your time in that endeavor, then it speaks volumes about your capabilities.
Perhaps if you believe my numbers are not in the right ballpark, you could do some research to debunk them. You do know how to do research, don't you? Do you really understand what it means to be progressive versus an intelligent conservative? Do you understand what it means to be objective?
By the way, did you see what Steve Schmidt said yesterday about your beloved Sarah?
Expose| 10.4.09 @ 12:43PM
Bob is probably good old Liberal Reader in one of his/her many facades.
Expose| 10.4.09 @ 12:49PM
By the way, Bob is the poster boy or girl for the Progressive extreme Left Wing. Don't let his or her smooth talk fool you. He or she has no idea how to make any sense at all, but he or she will persist until someone engages him or for for a lengthy talk. It always reaches a point where the other person can tell that this Lefty makes no sense. At which point he or she is revealed to be the fraud that he or she really is.
By the way Bob, did you see the look on your Obama man's face when Chicago lost out to host the Olympics? Hmmm?
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 2:48AM
Bob: "a total lack of factual information for any retort of consequence."
+++++++++
Bob, you said you'd be for tort reform, but that it wouldn't have much impact. What about:
--competition across state lines
--transparency in medical costs, drugs, supplies and procedures
--health care savings accounts
--catastrophic coverage
--tax deductibility for those purchasing their own insurance
--eliminating community rating systems for private insurers
--stressing preventative care across all health care delivery systems
--using the 16 million figure vs. the 46 million figure [http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-foundation-finds-number-of-uninsured-]
Please address these factual suggestions.
martin j smith| 10.2.09 @ 4:56PM
ignore Bob
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.2.09 @ 5:04PM
Quote Ronald Reagan "...there you go again".
Folks, we at TEAM America are RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER CONSTITUTIONALISTS.
We LOVE the "Bobs".
They remind us each day of what lies sound like.
.....Probably, Bob got fired for incompetence from an in surance company.
He will hate them until he dies.
He could contact me to begin his new career...except he already has one...kill private enterprise.
OK, knothead, Bob..........contact me at kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com and I will try to get you a job in private industry.
Otherwise, just keep spewing communist manifesto here.
George True| 10.2.09 @ 5:24PM
Bob: I would take issue with your contention that employer group health insurance is less expensive. In my 20 years of experience as a health insurance broker, it is on average a lot more expensive than an individual policy with similar benefits. The reason is simple: In true group coverage, insurance companies cannot discriminate based on health. Thus if a company has 100 employees of which 90 are healthy and 10 are very unhealthy, the only way the insurance company can effectively insulate itself from the guaranteed large losses that will be incurred due to the unhealthy 10 is to spread the risk to the other 90. This can easily cause the average premium to be double what an individual policy would cost for a healthy person.
The obvious solution is for the company to carve out the unhealthy employees and put them on a special plan (Currently forbidden by law). Then let the government reinsure those policies so that if the claims exceed a certain threshold, the government picks up the excess. That way the insurance companies wouldn't need to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, and premiums would be a lot more reasonable.
Health insurance reform can be accomplished with logical solutions that make sense and really address the real problems. But a national socialist healthcare system is insanity and in no way addresses any of the actual problems.
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 2:53AM
The obvious solution is for the company to carve out the unhealthy employees and put them on a special plan (Currently forbidden by law). Then let the government reinsure those policies so that if the claims exceed a certain threshold, the government picks up the excess. That way the insurance companies wouldn't need to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, and premiums would be a lot more reasonable.
+++++++++++++
Interesting. I wonder how much this would cost compared to the billions and trillions we're already spending. I think your other points are also well taken - there can be real health insurance reform and real health care delivery reform.
But not looking down the barrel of the socialist gun.
We are better than this.
We have the ingenuity to make this happen.
jr| 10.2.09 @ 5:25PM
Sounds like a good debate but keep it low key. It is the important points that make a difference, not opinions. I think that is okay for the Repubs to squeal with a few important points but it is now time to move on to improve the talk. There are several important points that include tort reform, crossing state lines, and pre-existing conditions. Those things should be current focus of the minority. The other things have already been said loud and clear but they will not carry to the end.
George True| 10.2.09 @ 5:39PM
PS - I wouldn't put much stock in anything that Steve Schmidt has to say. He ought to know about epic failure, as he ran the slow motion train wreck that was McCain's campaign. Also, I suspect that he knows that he will most likely be served up on a platter in Palin's book, and he is trying to do some advance damage control.
Bob| 10.2.09 @ 6:01PM
George -- You are absolutely correct that health insurance for very healthy individuals costs less than group coverage in many companies. However, as an insurance broker, you were probably not involved with self-insured large employers. I was involved with both since I was in corporate. The group rates for small and medium sized businesses that you saw were 30-40% higher than the total expense for large, self-insured employers and well below individual rates even for healthy individuals when tax incentives were added.
The problem is that you are comparing apples and oranges. If you calculated the average rate for the total of employees -- including that 10% with problems -- the average individual rates would be much higher than the group rates.
That said, I do like your solution as it is similar to mine where the government provides basic emergency and catastrophic care for all and you go to private insurers for everything else. This might cover one physical exam per year, but no other doctor visits -- it would be VERY basic.
And by the way, you do understand that if the government provides reinsurance for the unhealthy it is a redistribution of income and thus, socialism....
Matt| 10.4.09 @ 4:36AM
"That said, I do like your solution as it is similar to mine where the government provides basic emergency and catastrophic care for all and you go to private insurers for everything else. This might cover one physical exam per year, but no other doctor visits -- it would be VERY basic."
I like that idea about sharing the burden without a complete government takeover...could be a reasonable compromise and one step closer to making this more bipartisan
Mike| 12.23.09 @ 12:18AM
Sadly, none of this more rational thought ever saw the light of day. I mentioned this to a few liberal friends and they largely agreed with the catastrophic only, very basic coverage. Instead, fellows like Ken above managed to shape the debate by screaming death panels and plotting primary challanges against anyone who would even consider saying anything but absolute no. I'm still kinda pissed at the 15 wasted years. If someone other than Palin was shaping the debate we could have made substantial changes to this bill w/ the promise of real bipartisanship.
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 2:59AM
And by the way, you do understand that if the government provides reinsurance for the unhealthy it is a redistribution of income and thus, socialism....
++++++++++
There' s really no point in sticking this point in the eyes of people here. Make your other points - but you really don't need to go *there.*
By the way, having the government involved in something that transfers resources around a bit, doesn't automatically make is socialism.
Silly talk.
Dave| 10.2.09 @ 6:17PM
BOB: "Individuals obtaining private insurance on the other hand, are much higher risk since that pool has lower employment levels, tend to be older, and have much higher medical costs."
In my state, my family premium is less per month than in an employer based policy with an insurer. This is because there is no exclusion of any employee in an employer plan, which means pre-existing conditions cannot be rejected in an employer based policy by the insurer. However, the insurer can reject my individual policy for pre-existing conditions. Since my family is subjected to medical questions in order to qualify for coverage, the premium is less if we are healthy.
So, what are the forces at play in order to reform health care? First of all, real reform can only take place if everyone has a place at the table. The powerful lobbies for insurers, drug companies, etc. must be removed from the process. I don't think either side of the political aisle is capable of pulling off real reform that truly helps the average American while taking money from these lobbies. The American citizen needs to be front and center at the table. The issue of the uninsured paying cash for services at 3-4 times the negotiated rate of insurance providers is only one example of a system gone wrong. Why in a capitalistic environment do we allow businesses to extort prices 300-400% higher than the normal price for those who choose not to buy health insurance, but instead pay cash? Existing regulations have created a number of regional economic oligarchies controlling health care. This does not resemble the free market system we as Republicans preach.
We lack credibility if we dismiss needed reform by using the same old scare tactics of the past. We need to roll up our sleeves and tackle a difficult and critical need of reforming health care. The system is out of control. I believe we have a responsibility to shape the solution, instead of dismissing the problem.
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 3:01AM
Why in a capitalistic environment do we allow businesses to extort prices 300-400% higher than the normal price for those who choose not to buy health insurance, but instead pay cash? Existing regulations have created a number of regional economic oligarchies controlling health care. This does not resemble the free market system we as Republicans preach.
We lack credibility if we dismiss needed reform by using the same old scare tactics of the past. We need to roll up our sleeves and tackle a difficult and critical need of reforming health care. The system is out of control. I believe we have a responsibility to shape the solution, instead of dismissing the problem.
+++++++++++
Absolutely right.
George True| 10.2.09 @ 6:36PM
Bob, you are right - I have no experience with large and medium sized corporations that self-insure, and as such I know very little about it. I thought I had read once that Chrysler had self-insured a long time ago, and that it went very well for a long time, but as their workforce aged their healthcare expenses eventually went throught the roof. Perhaps that was a somewhat unique situation?
Yes, if the government became the reinurer of high risk health policies, that technically is indeed a form of socialism. But how is that much different than government agencies such as FHA guaranteeing home loans, or the FDIC guaranteeing bank deposits, etc? It would still be a hundred times less intrusive and less Orwellian than the government taking over the entire health insurance and healthcare delivery industries.
William Tucker| 10.2.09 @ 6:37PM
Bob is making a very good point about how simply freeing up the market will not work 100 percent because there are people out there that nobody wants to insure. But I don't think that's any reason not to be working in a free-market direction, undoing a lot of the bad mistakes that have come from overregulation and then trying to deal with uninsurable people as a small, targeted problem. I don't see any point in even talking about getting rid of Medicaid or Medicare. Both are firmly entrenched. They may bankrupt us all but nobody is going to repeal them.
What I think we want to avoid at this point is going any further down the road to nationalized medicine by trying to undo the mistakes of past government intervention with more intervention. I'll be posting a story next Tuesday about the effects of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, whch exempted insurance from federal antitrust laws and allowed the state to set up their regulatory systems. My text is a May report from Health Care for America Now!, an AFL-CIO, AFSCME, ACORN affiliate, which outlined how the insurance industry is being "monopolized" by a few big players. What the report doesn't seem to realize is that these state oligopolies are only maintained by the state insurance commissions. They not only limit entry, they have recently been encouraging consolidation under the theory that the bigger the insurance company, the better they will be able to bargain forcefully with the providers.
Throwing a big government-owned insurance provider into the mix will only create more distortions. I think we should go back to a free market and then try to pick up those who are left out with limited, targeted subsidies.
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 7:19PM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted | daveramsoy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 8:06PM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted | My Health and links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 9:56PM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted « Top Health Ins links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
philfl63| 10.2.09 @ 10:49PM
It ain't rocket science, and I am not tactful. Those dumbsh*t Republicans are no different than the DemoCraps. They want only power, and they do not really want to change the status quo. Gov't needs to back out of the healthcare system completely excepting the military and VA and let Americans pay for their own health care.
BD57| 10.2.09 @ 10:53PM
I see the pissing match has broken out ....
Philip,
How do you advance an alternative when no one's listening to you?
Seems to me a lot of people believe THEIR health care is just fine, it's everyone else who has a problem - they'd like to see "them" get helped, but at the same time they don't want anything to change for themselves.
In that environment, the right place to start is "First, do no harm" - and Obamacare (roughly defined) does harm.
It seems the more it's talked about, the more people think "these are the guys who gave us the Post Office .... who have Social Security and Medicare headed toward bankruptcy .... maybe they're not so bright about this stuff."
Seems Republicans would be better off talking about concrete steps that would make things better - don't talk about "Health Care Reform" (tearing it apart and rebuilding it), talk about "health care reforms" (like a national health care market, for example) - the pitch being "this doesn't 'fix' it, but it's a step in the right direction."
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 3:04AM
don't talk about "Health Care Reform" (tearing it apart and rebuilding it), talk about "health care reforms" (like a national health care market, for example) - the pitch being "this doesn't 'fix' it, but it's a step in the right direction."
+++++++++++
Good thoughts. Or you could market it more agressively - 'these are 3 major steps in the right direction' - 1, 2, 3...
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 11:08PM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted | Cat care new o links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Rob| 10.3.09 @ 12:59AM
How about states declaring their own sovereignty re health insurance via the Tenth Amendment, and chartering companies within their own states that provide health insurance solely to residents of their states? So long as no state boundaries are crossed, they could argue that the issue of interstate commerce doesn't arise, and thus federal legislation and regulations do not apply.
Pingback| 10.3.09 @ 1:18AM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted | health links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.3.09 @ 3:03AM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted | Alternative he links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.3.09 @ 5:59AM
The American Spectator : GOP's Health Care Strategy Is Short-Sighted links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
martin j smith| 10.3.09 @ 8:20AM
If I were going to make a bet--which I wont-- I would guess that the majority of American voters would agree on one thing at least" Keep the doctor patient relationship --out of government control--as much as possible. Here is another one: Keep medicare for seniors (65 and older ) do not flood the system. Third: do not create even more debt on the backs of voters and future generations. Four: Medical decisions should be based on medical need and no other basis. And why do I say this: Simple: When your ass is on the line --so to speak--don't tinker with my medical care in my backyard.
Michael L. Hauschild| 10.3.09 @ 10:27AM
First off let me state, as I have enumerated ad nauseum, that there will be an Obama Health Bill passed. As part of that contentious process the Democrats will cover there ass by setting a date for implementation beyond the 2010 elections. The reasoning for this is primarily, of course, to provide cover for the "marginal" candidates and secondarily to allow "The Orator" and his MSM chorus time to indoctrinate the public. I doubt either of those propaganda endeavors will be successful but there will be a positive out come. It will be "repeal" by the new Republican (conservative voice this time) majority and an amendment agenda that will include portability, Tort reform, and interstate competition.
Yosemeti Sam| 10.3.09 @ 11:03AM
How about an immediate GOP-sponsored
Round Table event - covered by true journalistic elements - where an honest debate may flourish among true medical experts as to the practical 'cure' for health care coverage shortcomings; apart from Big Brother involvement.
Michael L. Hauschild| 10.3.09 @ 12:26PM
Yosemeti Sam,
Would not be "covered," would be preaching to the choir, and would be countered by RINO/non-conservative buffoons. Don't believe me? Check out what Frist did this morning.
Vipinans | 10.3.09 @ 1:17PM
Dear admin, Thanks you. Its very interesting.
Pingback| 10.3.09 @ 2:04PM
Massive Tax Increases Attached to ObamaCare, And Yes, ObamaCare WILL Pay for Illegal links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Osamas Pajamas| 10.3.09 @ 10:14PM
I like the idea that the Republicans and libertarians who oppose OhBummerCare should expose the current healthcare system's inefficiencies and offer point-for-point market alternatives. It is a mystery to me why Republicans especially would treat healthcare as a "Democratic" issue rather than one for which free-marketeers can offer a superior market-based system characterized by freedom of choice across a broad spectrum of insurance options and lower pricing for market segment-specific insurance customers. A committee of Republicans and libertarians ---- with Republican money ---- should be able to blow the Democrats out of the water on this subject ---- permanently.
Matt| 10.4.09 @ 4:17AM
Stop wasting money on the 2nd and 3rd Vietnam and we can provide everyone with health care without a complete government takeover and push to reform the system as far as freedom of choice and not allow insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 3:08AM
Stop wasting money on the 2nd and 3rd Vietnam
++++++++++
Do you know what happened on 9/11/2001?
Nick| 10.4.09 @ 10:56AM
No we can't.
somnolence| 10.4.09 @ 11:42AM
In regards to the proposed penalty "proviso" on the yearly tax return; what is to stop someone from buying a plan just before tax time and then immediately cancelling it after? Then the individual can buy another plan, say in late December or January, get approved, then cancel again after April 15--year after year. What is to stop the infinite, endless fraud that will ensue with phone locations or agencies that are merely a front, etc.? The cost of enforcing all of this insanity would offset any imaginary benefits of this whole bad dream. Remember there are thousands of insurance agencies out there, it will take time for even Big Brother to decimate them. Ben Stein has the best advice of all---provide some sort of plan for the poor and "leave the rest of us the hell alone."
unibob| 10.4.09 @ 12:37PM
These messes will NEVER be addressed by EITHER party because BOTH parties are comprised of LAWYERS and LAWYERS like DOCTORS are in a SPECIAL group of UNTOUCHABLES and have a CREED that says dont do anything to screw up our CLUB !! Therefore LAWYERS of both parties will NEVER pass any meaningfull TORT reform,which is at the HEART of the increasing costs of health care !!Now watch how many LAWYERS reading this try to deny this FACT ! Somehow someway the political system has to be PURGED of the LAWYERS and refilled with Bluecollar Americans ,who server ONE term then go back home !!
SeattleBruce| 10.5.09 @ 3:11AM
These messes will NEVER be addressed by EITHER party because BOTH parties are comprised of LAWYERS and LAWYERS like DOCTORS are in a SPECIAL group of UNTOUCHABLES and have a CREED that says dont do anything to screw up our CLUB !!
++++++++++
I agree to some degree. We need to treat people that think and act like this as the greedy slime they are...
This issue is too much of a powder keg for them to continue to be so utterly selfish.
Oldefarte| 10.4.09 @ 3:02PM
The ONLY major alternative issue to the Democrats' WELFARECARE is """"TORT REFORM"""" which numerous Republicans [including Boehner] have mentioned; but since the Democrats won't even allow Republicans' ideas to be considered, what's the use? The only solution is defeat [beginning next year] of each/every Democrat and/or Republican who supports Obama's/Democrats' ideas for wealth redistribution via healthcare!!!!!!!!!
whyyeseyec| 10.4.09 @ 5:28PM
Nonsense. The GOP has introduced various health care alternatives. All have been shot down by the dems with no coverage by the Old Media......
bobmontgomery| 10.4.09 @ 8:55PM
MR. KLEIN: Please do not pooh pooh the saving of the republic by the likes of Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Secondly, this health care thing is NOT the most important domestic issue of our time. Do you get your talking points from Rahm Emannuel? Thirdly, conservatism does not demand that Republicans come up with an "alternative" to everything the Democrats propose. The high cost of health care is PRECISELY due to GOVERNMENT. If the Republicans want to do anything at all they can start, when they regain the majority, AGAIN THANKS TO SARAH PALIN, RUSH LIMBAUGH, GLENN BECK, JOE WILSON AND FOX NEWS, they can start getting rid of the Departments of Commerce, Education and Interior, as well as the EPA. Then they can proceed to gut the CDC which does everything under the sun but fight disease. There's a whole lot more, Mr. Klein, but you'd better get on board with restoring the Constitution and stop parroting the liberals and accepting their premises.
silverapple| 10.4.09 @ 10:23PM
This bobmontgomery guy is Right On! Keep 'em comin' bob! Finally someone who makes sense.
ghd | 10.5.09 @ 3:53AM
GHD MK4 Kiss is absolutely great, it leaves your hair so silky smooth and soft and trust me. I was a little worried about GHD MK4 Black hair straightener bc the price was lower than I expected.
bookshe| 10.6.09 @ 1:44AM
you may also be interested in
GOP's Health Care Strategy 1
GOP's Health Care Strategy 2
Pingback| 10.14.09 @ 1:47AM
Sure Steps To Affordable Health Care Insurance « Wicked Blogging links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
arlene | 10.17.09 @ 12:17AM
2 day diet
2 day diet japan
fghgfh| 2.25.10 @ 4:12AM
Mac AVCHD Converter,
Blu-ray to AVCHD for Mac
kopwe| 4.23.10 @ 9:02PM
Poptropica
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 4:00PM
American Spectator links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
7DaysHerbalSlim | 12.21.10 @ 2:47AM
7DaysHerbalSlim.com is the Only OFFICIAL website for
7 Days Herbal Slim. We support Fake-proof Inquiry and Online order. Welcome global distribution.