Posted on 08/16/2009 3:22:32 AM PDT by Scanian
"The health care system in America is broken. Costs are rising at an unacceptable rate -- more than doubling over the last 10 years, which is nearly four times the rate of wage growth. Too many patients feel trapped by healthcare decisions dictated by HMOs. Too many doctors are torn between practicing medicine and practicing insurance. And 47 million Americans worry what will happen to them or their children if they get sick."
Who do you think said that? President Obama? Actually, those words were written by Republicans. They are part of the summary of the Patients' Choice Act, introduced this May by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in the House and by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) in the Senate.
To hear it from President Obama, the choice is simple: his plan or the status quo. He is wrong on both counts: he has no plan, and the Republicans do. In fact, Republicans have introduced meaningful health care reform for years.
In the 1990s, Republicans tried to change Medicare into a defined-contribution model, more along the lines of the plan that federal employees enjoy. The Republican-controlled Congress passed such legislation in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. Seeing that Medicare costs were out of control, Clinton set up a bipartisan Medicare Commission headed by John Breaux (D-La.). The Breaux Commission came up with a similar plan in 1999. Democrats killed that too.
When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, from 2003-06, they provided Health Savings Accounts and prescription coverage under Medicare for the first time. With the Democrats regularly using Senate filibusters, those were significant achievements.
Republican introduced precursors to the Patients' Choice Act in the House in July 2007, May 2008 and September 2008. All died in the Democrat-controlled House.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Eliminate all government from medical care including paying for care for the poor!
Health care isn't a right, it's a privilege to be paid for by the recipient!
This article is about the GOP proposal, which does none of those things.
Well, I agree that many of them are welfare scammers. They’re scamming the system as it is, however, and this might give a little more accountability at a lower cost.
As for illegals, I have never understood why their home countries can’t be billed for the health care they receive here. If the countries refuse to pay up, then take it out of their foreign aid.
Why are the Reps using the 47 million uninsured figure?
That’s the main problem with the Republican Party. They always allow the left to frame the debate.
I live in the Real World.
Would love for the gubmint to crawl back in its hole but that won't happen.
They'll claim something like, How can you have portable policies without gubmint oversight? And that's at the very least.
Allow health care practitioners to write down any free care given to qualifying patients, on a sliding scale from poverty level, against their income. Buy one get one free! A doctor giving away $100,000 of time and care gets to keep $100,000 of income free of taxation. Problem solved.
LIVIUS "It takes private insurance and makes it more accessible by breaking down artificial barriers to insurance, such as removing restrictions on purchasing it from a company in another state."
Actually, in this case, the Fed DOES have some power via the interstate commerce clause, which, in this case would be a legitimate exercise of said clause. Specifically, the states are erecting barriers to commerce by their residents with businesses in other states, which is precisely what the "original intent" of the "interstate commerce clause" was intended to prevent.
Health care is not a right, but, often it is a necessity. Mostly, it comes at an inconvenient time. Over my lifetime somewhere near a $100,000 was put into health insurance in my name. When I lost my health insurance, I was not able to call upon that to help cover my expenses. (If you want to get rid of a health insurance salesman, just, say diabetes.) Medical bills are overinflated, because, medicine has to pay for the must treat government mandated users. Health insurance is covering the uninsured and is already taxing everyone who buys anything as a pass along business expense.
A solution is to add a tax onto all products to cover health care, so that, when Jose buys a Grande Mac he is paying for health care. Jose is doing this now, without a tax, but, since, private health care has to make up for Jose not paying his fair share, in higher prices for that Grande Mac. The government’s problem with corporate health insurance is that it is not taxed and is a business expense passed onto the consumer. Taxing brings in the intrusive hand of government, who will tell Jose he cannot have that Grande Mac because it is unhealthy.
My solutions:
1. Tort reform. (A side affect or socialization, since you can’t sue the government or its employees. So lawyers, you better support reform instead of nationalization.)
2. Universal access, but, let the market determine rates.
3. An FDIC like fund where insurance companies can purchase catastrophic insurance and fund the uninsured.
4. Keep the government out of decisions.
While this is miles better than ObamaCare or PelosiCare, one of the problems with these proposals is the acceptance that federal government should have a direct role (at least, financial, initially) in providing health care. It’s somewhat akin to expanding Medicare / Medicaid, and we already know the road it leads to...
Yes, the GOP should not be a “Party of ‘No’” but far better for Republicans would be to point out the failures of states like MA, TN, HI, KY implementing their own insurance reforms and schemes (single payer, coverage mandates, taxes etc.) and the utter unnecessity of federal involvement in what could be considered a state issue.
Instead of experimenting with providing money and/or insurance for health care on grand scale on national level, let each state devise their own form of financial suicide / bankruptcy. Why have “one size fits all” health care / insurance, when “progressive” states could do the one their citizens want [to pay for]?
If, as liberals say, the reforms should cover more people at lower costs and better care, wouldn’t states that implement their reforms attract more people to these states, making health care even cheaper and better, at the expense of neighboring, “conservative” or less “progressive” states? States will then have to compete with each other on cost, access, choice and quality of care, something that’s lacking right now, and people can vote with their ballots, feet and wallets. If particular states’ systems / experiments fail (and we know which will), they can change their system or their voters can change it for them.
Problem solved! GOP is no longer a “Party of ‘No’”, the debate about necessity of national (and nationalized) health care becomes immediately derailed, and all eyes turn to the failures and bankrupt policies in MA, TN etc. - something that’s close to home and that the people can relate to, instead of looking at Canadian or UK’s NHS systems they don’t know or understand.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2303225/posts?page=11#11 - The universal health care dogs that aren’t barking (The failures of MA and HI are being ignored) - FR, 2009 July 28.
TORT REFORM FIRST
Wait AT LEAST a full year to see what changes evolve in medical care as a result of that.
IF the Congress wishes to pass a pilot HealthCare program that would MANDATE that all Federal employees, including themselves, be enrolled in, that would be fine with me, too. Let’s see how well they can design something that they and their union and non-union buddies are required to purchase. Of course, ANYONE else would be allowed to VOLUNTARILY enroll in that program at any time for the same premium.
Let’s see how what type of “money saving”, “excellent”, “desirable”, “keep doctor”, “public” health care program that they design for themselves and their minions first.
PROVE IT FIRST, Dear Leader and CONGRESS
Edmund Burke, before the British Parliament way back in March 1775, observed the colonists' fierce "spirit of liberty." He said:
"In other countries the people . . . judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle." He said Americans could detect "misgovernment at a distance and sniff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."
James Madison put it this way, "The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much, soo to forget it."
Any Republicans or Democrats who "compromise" for the sake of popularity now on this important principle involving future generations should be recalled at the next election cycle!
This is not about a frivolous question of which provisions are acceptable and which are unacceptable. This is about a power struggle between the principles the founding generation were willing to stake their "lives, property, and sacred honor" for, and those who, throughout the history of civilization have arrogated unto themselves power over other people's lives.
The current "issue" called "health care reform," or its equally obnoxious semantic twin "health insurance reform," is just the invasion of liberty by arrogant elected officials which has finally aroused citizens who, heretofore, ignored the decades-long power grab by those who were supposed to protect "We, the People's" constitutional principles.
Now, citizens are seeing that it is a matter of "principle," not an issue of semantics over wording.
They should not allow their elected representatives to be coopted by "blue dogs" or any other "wolf in sheep's clothing" that would allow what may turn out to be the most important watershed moment in the history of American liberty to be further threatened. Now, Conrad and Sebelius, and others, sensing the voter mood are throwing out "compromise" talk this weekend, all to punt for better position down the road. Seize the moment for the sake of posterity and just say, "no"!
A word from the author of our Declaration of Independence regarding citizens and oppressive government might give some backbone to today's citizens:
"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate . . . the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that they may. . . know ambition under all its shapes, and . . . exert their natural power to defeat its purposes." - Thomas Jefferson
And, for more wisdom from the same source:
" . . . this is a tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers. . . have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follws that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."- Thomas Jefferson
Amen. They're still not listening.
No, it isn't.
And by cooperating in this big lie, the Republicans are assuring 50+ years of Democrat dominance.
The counter to the Democrat plan for the destruction of the greatest health care system on earth is - no plan.
One does not plan for nonexistent contingencies.
The health care system is NOT broken - not yet.
bttt
Democrats have fought HSAs tooth-and-nail from the very start. Too much individual control over their own welfare.
HR3200 eliminates HSAs, by the way...
Sorry Jim,
I disagree. It may be that individual stories don’t mean much in the larger heatlth care argument, but here goes..
My soon to be 21 year old daughter is going to be dropped from my health care on Nov 1.
She is employed and going to school, but not fulltime in either case. The company she works for keeps her just under the eligible hours for thier healthcare plan, and this is not by accident. This is their MO.
To continue along on my plan is not possible,(Why not?) but there is another offer out there. It costs over $900 for a quarter, paid upfront, through Humana.
So far as I can tell..This is the only option for her, other than getting on with another company that will give her full time benefits (9.4% unemployment), or getting her care through the emergency room via “Illegal Alien Style”.
There is something wrong with our healthcare system..Denying it doesn’t make it any less true. However, there is a myriad of ideas out there that do not include socialism or government healthcare.
For instance..Why is it that my daughter cannot get healthcare as a part time employee? She would pay the same as everyone else, or even a little bit more (to offset the employer portion) But, at least it wouldn’t average $300 per month for a single person.
Something does need to be done with health care. The problem is that the Dems went straight Alinsky on it, out of the gate. The cannot be trusted to make it anything but a social program.
Tell me..
Why would it be a problem for a business to offer a healthcare plan to part time employees? It would increase thier pool and negotiating power..and it could be priced comensurate with the employee’s contribution. Even if it were more expensive for the part timer, it would still be beter than the plan I quoted..and far better than COBRA coverage or straight out of the box.
Why is any company that claims to offer medical/dental as a benefit gets away with keeping the majority of thier employees on an ineligible schedule? My kid has asked repeatedly for the hours, and the lower management folks are quite open about the reason they will not offer those hours (eligibility)
Why can’t my kid stay on my plan, and skip all of the above BS that forces employers to do anything at all?
You see. I don’t like socialism or any kind of forced employer mandates. I, and my daughter are willing to pay a fair price for her to be medically covered but as it stands, she will be without care unless I pony up an out of proportion amount for her care. There is a problem and it needs to be fixed.
Justin Tevis Gets Radical Back in front of Lois Capps office
Why? Because you can't or won't buy what you want?
This issue of yours has NOTHING to do with the health care system. NOTHING.
Hospitals, doctors, and nurses consume billions and billions of dollars every year doing what they do. Do you seriously contend that $3600/year for your daughter isn't a fair share of this tab, in exchange for coverage?
If she doesn't pay it, who will?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.