The Republican alternative for Health Care...

And none of that addresses the central issue of fee for service. As long as doctors get paid for keeping you sick, medical costs will go up and health outcomes will go down. It's the brutal efficiency of the market.

Bear wrote:
New rules making it easier to extend coverage across state lines. States would lose a great deal of power to regulate insurance companies.

Meh, not sure on this one.

This could wind up being a very BAD thing. When you give power to the state to regulate or deregulate the healthcare insurance industry there will inevitably be a state or states that has the loosest regulations in the entire country. And if you allow insurance companies to extend coverage across state lines, you will see a huge consolidation of insurance companies into this one state where they can offer the crappiest insurance to consumers without the nuisance of government regulation insuring that they play fair. Competition may ensue and costs will go down but it's not going to be at a benefit to the customer. On the contrary, customers' will have a lower quality of policies to choose from as insurance companies trim "mandates" and other crucial features without having the government telling them otherwise.

Think about it. If this all happens, do we REALLY THINK that insurance companies will offer us the same or better policies at a reduced rate? Like they're going to say, "Whew! It sure is nice being here in Indiana where there is zero government regulation. Now, without the government holding us back, we can finally offer cheaper premiums and more coverage to our customers!" That's totally absurd. It's like those troglodytes who suggest that if all illegal immigrants were deported and if immigration were shut down, our pay would go up. As if employers would suddenly give everyone a pay raise because there's no low-wage workers available. No fools, those companies are just going to jump the border and setup shop in the native countries of those workers you had deported. When you close borders to labor but not to trade, that's what happens.

It's just another play out of the Republican handbook of giving favor to business at the expense of Joe Six-Pack. Yet the Joe Six-Pack's keep voting for them.

The Republican healthcare solution is like the auto insurance industry. Sure GEICO might be able to save you $500 a year on insurance, but that's without essential coverages and with low limits. So you can get it to save you money in the short term but if you get into an accident it's all coming out of pocket, baby.

The Congressional Budget Office just released a preliminary analysis of the Republican plan (fast work!)

The highlights are:

-The percentage of nonelderly residents without health insurance will remain about the same over the next 10 years.

-Relative to no reform at all, about 3 million more people will have health insurance. (For comparison, the Democrat's plan covers 36 million more people.)

-It's pretty good funding-wise--it reduces the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years. (Again, for comparison, the Democrat's plan reduces the deficit by $104 billion over the same period.

-Relative to doing nothing, it reduces the cost of health insurance premiums by a bit. For individual policies, premiums would be 5 to 8 percent lower than they would otherwise be. For small group policies, it premiums would go down by 7 to 10 percent, and for large group policies, it reduces premiums by 0 to 3 percent. (All figures are for total reduction by 2016.) Note that all premiums would still go up--they would just go up by less.

So, it looks like the legislation doesn't do much harm. But it saves less money and covers a lot fewer people than the Democrat's plan, and the health insurance premium savings are minor. If you think that the health insurance industry in the US needs significant change, this plan ain't it.

It is also notable that the proposal completely ignores pre-existing condition.

FSeven wrote:
Bear wrote:
New rules making it easier to extend coverage across state lines. States would lose a great deal of power to regulate insurance companies.

Meh, not sure on this one.

rage against state loopholes.

This, btw, is why pretty much every credit card company is based out of one or two states. It might be illegal to have a 23% credit card rate in Kansas, but it's sure not in Vermont! So Vermont gets a pile of finance industry jobs, and Kansas gets 23% credit cards.

(Vermont might not be the right state. my google fu is weak today)

Seth wrote:
FSeven wrote:
Bear wrote:
New rules making it easier to extend coverage across state lines. States would lose a great deal of power to regulate insurance companies.

Meh, not sure on this one.

rage against state loopholes.

This, btw, is why pretty much every credit card company is based out of one or two states. It might be illegal to have a 23% credit card rate in Kansas, but it's sure not in Vermont! So Vermont gets a pile of finance industry jobs, and Kansas gets 23% credit cards.

(Vermont might not be the right state. my google fu is weak today)

I'll chime in and point out that these kinds of loopholes are why so many corporations are based in Delaware: Link

Ulairi wrote:

HSA are great for younger workers who want some coverage without the full costs of an insurance plan and since they roll over from year to year, they're not a bad deal at all.

Where did you get this idea? Every HSA plan that I've been offered forces you to forfeit your balance at the end of each year.

GioClark wrote:

Where did you get this idea? Every HSA plan that I've been offered forces you to forfeit your balance at the end of each year.

That's an HRA. That's probably the wrong acronym, but a healthcare Reimbursement account is forfeit at year end. health Savings accounts roll over indefinitely, assuming you have a HDHP.

Also, thank you -- it's Delaware, not Vermont.

Paleocon wrote:

It is also notable that the proposal completely ignores pre-existing condition.

From the official site:
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf

Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.

I haven't read the detailed bill yet, but this is on the summary page.

Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.

yeesh. They want to turn the country into McAllen.

Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.

In other words, your employer has greater freedom to punish you for smoking, eating unhealthy, or not exercising an hour a day.

In fairness, I assume that the Democratic bill has this second thing in it, too. The whole "voluntary disease" thing is really catching on.

Sounds a bit like discounted booze to help you with the cancer to me. I especially loved the first two points:

# No requirement for anyone to have health insurance, or for employers to offer it. No 'mandates.'
# No crackdown on insurance companies when it comes to pre-existing conditions. Insurers can continue deny coverage to anyone they deem medically unworthy.

EDIT: GOP page summary including pre-existing conditions bullet point went up while typing this post.

Doesn't sound like it'll fix much of anything to me, no matter what the CBO says.

-Relative to no reform at all, about 3 million more people will have health insurance. (For comparison, the Democrat's plan covers 36 million more people.)

-It's pretty good funding-wise--it reduces the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years. (Again, for comparison, the Democrat's plan reduces the deficit by $104 billion over the same period.

So what you're saying is, by covering 3 million people we save 68 billion, but we could cover an additional THIRTY-THREE million for an additional 36 billion in savings? Even if these are theoretical numbers, why is there a debate here? Think of all the work time not lost due to preventable/treatable illness, for example (not that Americans get much sick-leave anyway...).

I just had an ultrasound done for my kidneys, liver, and bowels here in Hungary. The less-than-ten-minutes procedure cost 7000 forint (about 35-37 USD), of which I paid zero. Coincidentally, my mother who lives in Alabama, had practically the same procedure done within a week of mine. Total billed to insurance: $422.00. Twelve times as much! Even though doctors in the US make more money and have shinier equipment, I somehow think a few procedural price caps wouldn't be such a bad thing. Charge 3x as much as here for all I care - that's still over $100 every 10 minutes, theoretically, but twelve times??

MattDaddy wrote:

I haven't read the detailed bill yet, but this is on the summary page.

That's a goal, not a expected result. The idea is that their plan will make everything so cheap that there will be a plan for everyone, regardless of their medical condition. It's a complete fantasy, of course, but both parties use that kind of rhetoric all the time.

The reason Republicans don't address pre-existing conditions isn't because they hate the American people but because you can't force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions unless you force everyone to have health insurance all the time....otherwise people just wait until they get sick to get insurance. And since Republicans are against mandates, they have no choice but to continue to allow insurance companies to deny people. Perfectly understandable tradeoff....there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

AUs_TBirD wrote:

Even if these are theoretical numbers, why is there a debate here?

Because one solution is bedwetting Socialism that hates America and pees on the Bible, while the other one preserves the sanctity of the insurance companies.

AUs_TBirD wrote:

Doesn't sound like it'll fix much of anything to me, no matter what the CBO says.

It won't. By design. This plan doesn't set out to fix health care...it assumes the system isn't broken, just in need of tune up. They're just tinkering with the margins.

So what you're saying is, by covering 3 million people we save 68 billion, but we could cover an additional THIRTY-THREE million for an additional 36 billion in savings? Even if these are theoretical numbers, why is there a debate here? Think of all the work time not lost due to preventable/treatable illness, for example (not that Americans get much sick-leave anyway...).

Because that's not what anyone is saying. The Democrat plan will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over 10 years, but it's going to cost a hell of a lot more than the Republican plan. The Republican plan assumes no raiding of medicare fund or new revenue streams. I'm pretty sure the Democratic plan includes both.

Little Raven wrote:
AUs_TBirD wrote:

Doesn't sound like it'll fix much of anything to me, no matter what the CBO says.

It won't. By design. This plan doesn't set out to fix health care...it assumes the system isn't broken, just in need of tune up. They're just tinkering with the margins.

So what you're saying is, by covering 3 million people we save 68 billion, but we could cover an additional THIRTY-THREE million for an additional 36 billion in savings? Even if these are theoretical numbers, why is there a debate here? Think of all the work time not lost due to preventable/treatable illness, for example (not that Americans get much sick-leave anyway...).

Because that's not what anyone is saying. The Democrat plan will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over 10 years, but it's going to cost a hell of a lot more than the Republican plan. The Republican plan assumes no raiding of medicare fund or new revenue streams. I'm pretty sure the Democratic plan includes both.

Even that part is more than a bit disingenuous. The conservatives have a hard on for raiding Medicare as well. They call it "restructuring mandates". They would just rather turn it into tax cuts for the rich than into universal coverage.

Yeah, Little Raven's right. Giving medical insurance to 36 million uninsured people is gonna cost money, there's no way around that. Hiding it in taxes, deficits, or program cuts (like insurance subsidies in Medicare) is the absolutely, unavoidable consequence.

The reason Republicans don't address pre-existing conditions isn't because they hate the American people but because you can't force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions unless you force everyone to have health insurance all the time....otherwise people just wait until they get sick to get insurance. And since Republicans are against mandates, they have no choice but to continue to allow insurance companies to deny people. Perfectly understandable tradeoff....there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

An excellent synopsis.

AARP endorses House health care bill

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...

That's gotta sting a little.

Single payer + Military cuts, please.

That is all.

That'll still bankrupt us, NSMike. We need to cut the military, raise taxes, and not start new consumption programs until the books are truly balanced.

Malor wrote:

That'll still bankrupt us, NSMike. We need to cut the military, raise taxes, and not start new consumption programs until the books are truly balanced.

I don't have a problem with that. Foreign policy has been the focus of the US for so long that we need some serious introspective reform. It's going to happen one way or another, and unfortunately, with the attitudes of many loud voices out there, it's only going to happen disastrously.

It sounds like it would be cheaper, and it would fix some of the problems, but it completely ignores the problem of the uninsured. It also sounds like it's designed primarily to protect the insurers before the patients, which is fine if you don't think the insurers are at the heart of the problem. I do like that they want to crack down on rescinding health care but I'd like to know exactly what that means. How are they going to crack down on it? What measures will be taken, and what penalties will there be if companies keep doing it? I also like the small business association thing.

Some of this is good but some of it is also worrying. For all the shrieking I've heard about "death panels" deciding if you live or die, this proposal solves the problem by never insuring those people in the first place.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I do like that they want to crack down on rescinding health care but I'd like to know exactly what that means. How are they going to crack down on it? What measures will be taken, and what penalties will there be if companies keep doing it? I also like the small business association thing.

Not from this specific proposal but in general the discussion seems to be that many would like to make rescinding policies illegal and if the insurer continued to participate in that activity they could be fined or even barred from certain lines or venues of business. Basically most insurers say they have to be able to rescind policies for things like material misrepresentation but most insured's view it as the big bad insurance company just trying to skip out on a bill.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

AARP endorses House health care bill

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...

That's gotta sting a little.

The Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage et al. explanation...."those old people are crazy Socialists".

Bear wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

AARP endorses House health care bill

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...

That's gotta sting a little.

The Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage et al. explanation...."those old people are crazy Socialists".

And those are the same people that applauded them when they were on their side in 2003.

Hey it's easy to be all for higher taxes when most of your members don't actually pay them anymore.

Bear wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

AARP endorses House health care bill

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...

That's gotta sting a little.

The Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage et al. explanation...."those old people are crazy Socialists".

Citation please.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

AARP endorses House health care bill

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...

That's gotta sting a little.

Not really surprising, condsidering their CEO contributed almost $9,000 to Obama's campaign last year.

EDIT: New and improved with links

MattDaddy wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

AARP endorses House health care bill

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...

That's gotta sting a little.

Not really surprising, condsidering their CEO contributed almost $9,000 to Obama's campaign last year.

EDIT: New and improved with links

What has got to be like what, a nickel to you or I?

Nosferatu wrote:

Hey it's easy to be all for higher taxes when most of your members don't actually pay them anymore.

You're absolutely right, but the AARP is probably the closest you can get to shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to finding traditional conservative membership of old white people. the GOP might want to be careful how much they gamble on the premise that old folks hate gays and the reefer more than they love the AARP.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Not really surprising, condsidering their CEO contributed almost $9,000 to Obama's campaign last year.

EDIT: New and improved with links

What has got to be like what, a nickel to you or I?[/quote]

It is the maxiumum allowed, according to the link. Compared to the penny that the former CEO made in campaign contributions it's a big difference.

LobsterMobster wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

AARP endorses House health care bill

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...

That's gotta sting a little.

Not really surprising, condsidering their CEO contributed almost $9,000 to Obama's campaign last year.

EDIT: New and improved with links

What has got to be like what, a nickel to you or I?

It's the equivalent of about two and a half days of pay for him. He pulled down $902,171 last year. Who said there wasn't any money in non-profits?