Our dear leader going after the kids

[tchwojko]

In addition to a knowledge of the subject, YES.

But you should also work on how you search google.

Here is a quick list for those who like to claim the republicans have no proposals.

* House GOP Health Care Solutions Group Plan (unveiled June 17, 2009)
* Empowering Patients First Act (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 Outlining Areas for Common Ground on Health Care Reform (May 13, 2009)

So what do you think of those proposals? What parts do you like or dislike?

[keith]

In addition to a knowledge of the subject, YES.

But you should also work on how you search google.

Here is a quick list for those who like to claim the republicans have no proposals.

* House GOP Health Care Solutions Group Plan (unveiled June 17, 2009)
* Empowering Patients First Act (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 Outlining Areas for Common Ground on Health Care Reform (May 13, 2009)

Those sound grand, the titles I mean. Since tchwojko stole my rhetorical device perhaps you could cut to the chase and let us in on the policy.

On the '31 common sense changes'; I'm confused. The document advocates that "seniors not be stripped of their health care choices" and also to "Slow Medicare’s march toward bankruptcy.".

Strikes me that those aims might just run against each other, a touch.

Now there may be a coherent policy lurking somewhere in the GoP but you are going to have to help us find it. Pretty please, with a cherry on top .

[Bayou Bum]

Something resembling health insurance reform?

I don't see how any of those will solve some of the basic problems with the current system that we have.

So what do you think of those proposals? What parts do you like or dislike?

Sure, I'll tell you, but first, you tell me what you like or dislike about them. You didn't even know they existed, so if you are really open minded, you will read them. I read the democrats plan and the republican plans are not nearly as long or ambiguous.

[tchwojko]

Sure, I'll tell you, but first, you tell me what you like or dislike about them.

How mature of you.

You didn't even know they existed, so if you are really open minded, you will read them. I read the democrats plan and the republican plans are not nearly as long or ambiguous.

I'm reading, and I'd like to take some time to analyze it before posting pros and cons.

[tchwojko]

By the way, for those that are interested, here's a link that has links to all the aforementioned GOP plans.

[tchwojko]

Empowering Patients First Act

More tax deductions for health care premiums is good, I think, but I'd want to see more specifics of the consequences of that in the budget.

I don't understand how HR 3400 will help the pre-existing condition problems with the current system. (See Title II) It just pushes the problem onto the states. This is a pretty big gaping hole. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I worry that allowing people to choose between Medicare and a different insurance program will just recreate issues that currently exist. For example, currently healthy people pay little in insurance for coverage that won't cover them when something goes wrong, and those that get sick are pooled together, thus undercutting the whole premise of insurance: spreading risk.

Adjusting flexible savings accounts is good.

Competing across state lines is good, I think (I don't see that this will have too much of an effect).

I have to learn more about the Medicare suggestions, and the student loan programs for Primary Care Physicians.

Some careful tort reform is good. (Devil is in the details, and I need to know more about how big a problem this truly is.)

Government form/information/metric standardization is good.

So, this has some positive steps, some worrying items, but I don't see how this fixes the big issues.

[tchwojko]

The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act

I need to find the text of the Act. But from the rhetoric on their page.

I worry about using the statistic that 80+% of people like their health insurance. I want to know how many of those 80% have had a serious illness or accident, and then had to do deal with their insurance company. Or how many have had to change insurance companies and deal with pre-existing conditions. It also by definition does not count people who don't have health insurance!

ALL AMERICANS GET CHOICE AND COVERAGE.
The bill allows Americans who don’t have employer-sponsored care or those not satisfied with their employer-sponsored plan to buy their own plan on the same tax-advantaged basis their employer enjoys. Americans who pay income taxes get a dollar for dollar reduction in their tax bill up to $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family. Americans who don’t pay income taxes get the same amount from the government to buy a policy of their choice; $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family.

That's a sudden influx of cash available to buy insurance. What prevents the insurance companies from simply pocketing that money? How will we ensure that we get value for those dollars?

Health pools: good! Who makes sure that they get the same rates as corporations?

I don't understand how the high-risk pools will work. There will be a pool of people who are high risk, and therefore high cost, and therefore have to pay a lot of money for premiums. It spreads the risk a little, but will it be enough to be affordable?

[Hauptman]

By the way, for those that are interested, here's a link that has links to all the aforementioned GOP plans.

I wonder if BB can understand the skepticism of these plans when even the Republicans don't really seem to be talking about them.

Now if I heard people at the town halls asking about these proposals, or if I heard Fox News talking about these proposals, or better yet if I heard Republican congressmen talking about these proposals....

But unfortunately what is largely heard are cries of "liar", "socialist", "fascist", and "death panels".

[tchwojko]

Paul Ryan's long summary of his act is way better than the previous acts. Instead of screaming "This is the not-Democrat plan!" or "Keep government away!" he launches into discussing problems and their solutions. He also has specifics and footnotes. Kudos. Unfortunately they're to media like the New York Times and CNN. Secondary and tertiary sources suck. But at least they're something.

Creating a market that plays by the rules...

That just screams the need for regulation, and hence government as a referee.

This means federal programs should
not promote or support unhealthy behaviors

Can we stop subsidizing high fructose corn syrup production?

States should provide direct oversight of health insurers to make sure they are playing by fair rules.

Doh! Passing the buck.

Gotta stop reading for now. I'd like to hear others' analysis of these plans. And the Democrat's plans as well.

[tchwojko]

One more item:

The new agency, renamed the Healthcare Services
Commission [HSC], will be governed along the same lines as the Securities and Exchange Commission

Uhh...does he mean it will also be underfunded and understaffed so that no* executives will be inconvenienced with bothersome rules and laws?

*Except for a few high-profile token prosecutions.

[migopod]

I've been looking at the 31 ideas one, and although I'm short on time, a few that come to mind:

- Stop the government-run health plan. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered an amendment to improve the Democratic legislation by taking out the section of the bill that would create a government-run health plan to compete with private sector health plans. Reps. Phil Roe (R-TN) and John Kline (R-MN) offered similar amendments in the Education & Labor Committee. The GOP amendments were all killed in committee at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and her chairmen.

so... No to the Public Option. Not much there, just restatement of their opposition to the public option.

- Prevent bureaucrats from making personal medical decisions for patients. Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA) offered an amendment in the Energy & Commerce Committee to bar federal political appointees and bureaucrats from intervening in patient treatment decisions. The Gingrey amendment would have ensured patients and doctors remain as the sole individuals responsible for making these critical decisions. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) led Democrats in opposition to the amendment, which was defeated.

Sure, but only if you equally prohibit insurance company bureaucrats from making the same decisions for patients. If it's only referring to enrolees in a public option, you'd be essentially saying that although insurance companies can ration care and refuse to cover specific treatments, the public plan may not. Perhaps a better way to approach this would be to introduce language that while specific treatments may or may not be covered, the government will not prevent you from seeking treatment from other sources at your own expense. Not a bad idea that way.

- Keep the federal government out of health care decisions. Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) offered an amendment to prohibit the federal government from conducting so-called comparative effectiveness research, in which the federal government would ultimately help determine which medical treatments are administered to whom in America – otherwise known as government rationing of health care. The Herger amendment was killed at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel. Days later, in a July 22 prime-time press conference, President Obama told the nation the health care bill “will keep government out of health care decisions,” despite the fact that the comparative effectiveness language remains in the bill.

So no more pushing for federal abortion bans or Terry Schaivoesque intrusions into private medical choices. I'm okay with this. I still believe that if the government is essentially acting as an insurance provider, that they should be able to not approve experimental or excessively costly treatments in lieu of other known good solutions.

Comparative effectiveness research is good. The idea that two procedures that have vastly different costs associated with them but may in fact have similar or identical rates of success isn't too weird, and knowing which was more cost effective would be a Good Thing(tm).


- Prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. Reps. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mark Souder (R-IN) offered amendments to remove language from the Democratic legislation that would result in American taxpayers subsidizing abortion-on-demand. A recent Zogby survey determined that more than 70 percent of Americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion. Speaker Pelosi and her committee chairmen killed all of these amendments.

While still keeping the government out of health choices and also while prohibiting the government from denying treatment? Slightly contradictory.
Also while 70% of americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortions, 80% of americans with private health insurance already pay for abortion services.

- Require the government-run plan to operate under the same rules as private health plans. Rep. Boustany offered an amendment to improve the Democratic legislation by requiring that the government-run plan established in the bill maintain reserves and other margins in amounts consistent with the standards that apply to private plans. Reserves would have to come from premiums, not federal subsidies. This amendment was killed at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel.

That's what President Obama's been saying all along.



There's more, but I'm off to fence.

[Bayou Bum]

By the way, for those that are interested, here's a link that has links to all the aforementioned GOP plans.

Good, learning to google is a good first step. Your education is off to a good start.

[tchwojko]

Good, learning to google is a good first step. Your education is off to a good start.

That post met expectations.

[Bayou Bum]

I wonder if BB can understand the skepticism of these plans when even the Republicans don't really seem to be talking about them.

Now if I heard people at the town halls asking about these proposals, or if I heard Fox News talking about these proposals, or better yet if I heard Republican congressmen talking about these proposals....

But unfortunately what is largely heard are cries of "liar", "socialist", "fascist", and "death panels".

Again, your ignorance is apparent. I thought you said there were no plans. As usual, you are wrong, and obviously lying because if you did listen to fox news you would have heard it. Unless your ears are still clogged from having your head up your arse.

[Bayou Bum]

I've been looking at the 31 ideas one, and although I'm short on time, a few that come to mind:

- Stop the government-run health plan. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered an amendment to improve the Democratic legislation by taking out the section of the bill that would create a government-run health plan to compete with private sector health plans. Reps. Phil Roe (R-TN) and John Kline (R-MN) offered similar amendments in the Education & Labor Committee. The GOP amendments were all killed in committee at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and her chairmen.

so... No to the Public Option. Not much there, just restatement of their opposition to the public option.

- Prevent bureaucrats from making personal medical decisions for patients. Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA) offered an amendment in the Energy & Commerce Committee to bar federal political appointees and bureaucrats from intervening in patient treatment decisions. The Gingrey amendment would have ensured patients and doctors remain as the sole individuals responsible for making these critical decisions. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) led Democrats in opposition to the amendment, which was defeated.

Sure, but only if you equally prohibit insurance company bureaucrats from making the same decisions for patients. If it's only referring to enrolees in a public option, you'd be essentially saying that although insurance companies can ration care and refuse to cover specific treatments, the public plan may not. Perhaps a better way to approach this would be to introduce language that while specific treatments may or may not be covered, the government will not prevent you from seeking treatment from other sources at your own expense. Not a bad idea that way.

- Keep the federal government out of health care decisions. Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) offered an amendment to prohibit the federal government from conducting so-called comparative effectiveness research, in which the federal government would ultimately help determine which medical treatments are administered to whom in America – otherwise known as government rationing of health care. The Herger amendment was killed at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel. Days later, in a July 22 prime-time press conference, President Obama told the nation the health care bill “will keep government out of health care decisions,” despite the fact that the comparative effectiveness language remains in the bill.

So no more pushing for federal abortion bans or Terry Schaivoesque intrusions into private medical choices. I'm okay with this. I still believe that if the government is essentially acting as an insurance provider, that they should be able to not approve experimental or excessively costly treatments in lieu of other known good solutions.

Comparative effectiveness research is good. The idea that two procedures that have vastly different costs associated with them but may in fact have similar or identical rates of success isn't too weird, and knowing which was more cost effective would be a Good Thing(tm).


- Prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. Reps. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mark Souder (R-IN) offered amendments to remove language from the Democratic legislation that would result in American taxpayers subsidizing abortion-on-demand. A recent Zogby survey determined that more than 70 percent of Americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion. Speaker Pelosi and her committee chairmen killed all of these amendments.

While still keeping the government out of health choices and also while prohibiting the government from denying treatment? Slightly contradictory.
Also while 70% of americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortions, 80% of americans with private health insurance already pay for abortion services.

- Require the government-run plan to operate under the same rules as private health plans. Rep. Boustany offered an amendment to improve the Democratic legislation by requiring that the government-run plan established in the bill maintain reserves and other margins in amounts consistent with the standards that apply to private plans. Reserves would have to come from premiums, not federal subsidies. This amendment was killed at the behest of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel.

That's what President Obama's been saying all along.



There's more, but I'm off to fence.

So, now you admit that the republicans do have a plan. See how much you have learned in one day. You're welcome!

[tchwojko]

...trash talk...

And what do you think of the Republican plans?

[migopod]

So, now you admit that the republicans do have a plan. See how much you have learned in one day. You're welcome!

I was aware that the Republicans were proposing various amendments. The ones I was commenting on are a touch vague, as they don't contain actual language and don't indicate which of the proposed bills had these amendments proposed for them. The ones I noticed via cursory glance were in the house, so with the Republican uberminority they stand less of a chance of inclusion than they would in the current senate bill, but most people are expecting a much more progressive bill out of the house than out of the senate.

Since the thrust of the right's strategy has been loud and occasionally coherent shouting, I'm surprised they haven't done a better job to bring attention to their actual positions... well, not really surprised. The angry mob thing has been pretty good for them over the summer recess.

I'm interested in reading more. Thanks for bringing these positions to my attention.

[tchwojko]

Hmmm...here we are trying to discuss something reasonably, but Slim and Bayou Bum are nowhere to be found.

Meeting expectations yet again.

[I_luv_saber]

I wonder if BB can understand the skepticism of these plans when even the Republicans don't really seem to be talking about them.

Now if I heard people at the town halls asking about these proposals, or if I heard Fox News talking about these proposals, or better yet if I heard Republican congressmen talking about these proposals....

But unfortunately what is largely heard are cries of "liar", "socialist", "fascist", and "death panels".

Now, I don't think that's quite fair. You're taking an extremist, vocal minority and assuming that this is the only voice of Republicans. This is a very unfair generalization. I could make a similar sweeping generalization in saying that a large portion of Democrats are trying to shove the public option down people's throats and are "just saying no" to any plan that doesn't involve a public option (Just look at Pelosi).

Both statements are just as true. The most vocal part of the party is saying this... not everyone, though.

[Hauptman]

Now, I don't think that's quite fair. You're taking an extremist, vocal minority and assuming that this is the only voice of Republicans. This is a very unfair generalization. I could make a similar sweeping generalization in saying that a large portion of Democrats are trying to shove the public option down people's throats and are "just saying no" to any plan that doesn't involve a public option (Just look at Pelosi).

Both statements are just as true. The most vocal part of the party is saying this... not everyone, though.

I admit it is a generalization as when I stated "what is largely heard...".

But it is accurate. Are we hearing legitimate discussions of the pros and cons of the Democratic, or even Republican, health care proposals at the Town Halls, or on Fox News? No, we're not; we're hearing this very vocal crazy rhetoric.

At least if Democrats are fighting for a Public Option, as in your example, it is a legitimate issue and not a fight about socialism, death panels, or screaming "liar" when there is no lie.

Of course, it is a generalization. We have some very reasonable conservative voices here on F.net inspite of the more shrill voices.

But if the Republican party is not being well represented whose fault is that? Let's see the Republican voices of reason step up in the public spotlight.... although I pity those who do because they get villified not by the left but by their own party (McCain, Powell?)

Edit: Here's a quote I found online...
“Neither party has an exclusive on wack jobs,” says Republican media consultant Mark McKinnon. “Unfortunately, right now the Democrats generally get defined by President Obama, and Republicans, who have no clear leadership, get defined by crackpots — and then they begin to define the Republican Party in the mind of the general public.”