Okay, let’s beat this damn dead donkey one more f*cking time!
Bi-partisanship is the buzzword in Washington and now the Prez is trying to grasp the concept with his new health care summit with Repubs…..good luck with that……
I have been accused by some as a basher of the GOP and that I do not think that they do anything right….Personally, I do not agree with this assessment but then I may be biased…..
Below is the alternatives that was recently handed to the Prez at a Repub Leadership Conference…….my comments on the proposals are in italics:
Some key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:
· Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform. I think this proposals is sterling….but I would like more info on just how they plan to accomplish this…..
· Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable 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. this is yet another GREAT idea and it was also when proposed by the Dems…..
· 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. This is just a typical GOP answer….lawsuits account for about 1% of the cost of health care….do not believe this would do much to solve the problems of paying for health reform….this is inevitable for Repubs to propose…..the reason is that they need to placate the insurance industry for their monetary support….but if it will get them talking then by all means throw it in…..
· Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual of lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits. Another good idea…but it sounds like an out for insurance companies, atr least parts of it…..but worth a look….
· Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do. I have NO prob with this proposal, in fact sounds like a good idea…..
· Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured. As long as this is used to benefit all the people of the states then I see NO prob here either….
· Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another. An EXCELLENT idea…….
· Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion. This one is just boring, but I guess if it is your main concern then why not…..
· Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles. This one I have a prob with….but that is for a much larger post because this involves much more than eating….
· Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums. A CRAP proposal! The recent economic meltdown should preclude anyone from considering this piece of crap!
There you have it….the Repubs alternatives and what I think of them…..if you took the time to read it then you will see that there is room for lots of bi-partisanship….the question to ask is why is there not?
One answer is the games politician play….instead of going before the American people and emphasizing their points and commonality of points, they would rather spend their time insulting, lying and just plain throwing negativity around….there is common ground why cannot they just work from there and leave all the BS behind?
Personally, I would not vote for any of these dickheads….they show a serious lack of country first….both sides…..there is plenty within the Repub plan that has the potential to be bi-partisan and worthy of negotiation…..if this does not take place for whatever reason then the American people will see that it is NOT about them but rather the egos and the idiocracy of Washington…….then it will be time to send these dinks a message to start acting on the people’s behalf or go home and service the wife/husband….because YOU ARE finished in Washington….
I don’t agree about the junk law suits thing – I’m convinced that it permeates almost ALL healthcare thinking and must cost FAR more than shows up in the figures – but then I’ve never known statistics of any kind to be accurate… not least because most statisticians are utter jerks and VERY unscientific in their thinking!
However, I so detest the “litigation culture” developed almost entirely by lawyers that I would make minor changes to the law which would enable a judge (and/or jury?) to decide that any private lawsuit was “frivolous” (they could appeal if they felt that was unfair) and once deemed to be so it would attract HUGE and punitive court costs – that’d put the skids under the fucking “no win no fee” ambulance chasers!
This whole section on lawsuits opens up a whole new thing about paperwork, red tape and bureaucrats…….I will agree that some of the stuff is worthless crap thought up by lawyers….but then that would make it harder to sue a doctor that left his golf scorecard next to your bladder…….
Not at all. I didn’t say there was a problem with “no win no fee” but, if the lawyers knew they were liable for a million dollars in costs for making a “frivolous” claim, then they would think very hard before going forward – the golf score card wrapped around your bladder – no contest – sue the bastard!
Equally, if you ask for a particular test and there is ANY reasonable concern behind that and the doc refuses, then that’s grounds, but doing an expensive test just for the hell of it in case of a one million to one chance that someone has something without symptoms just to avoid being sued – ridiculous – and if anyone DID sue in those circumstances and under my proposal, the lawyer, not the insurance co., not the doc and not even the patient would get screwed if they sanctioned it “no win no fee” – how just is THAT?
I like it! Yes they (Repubs) say that there are too many tests…they call it defensive medicine…but we could also call the same tests …”preventive medicine”…….I would agree with your proposal…sounds like a plan…
I would be interested in the fine print of the crossing state lines. An earlier proposal on the same vein effectively negates state level regulations and allows the insurance companies to be headquartered in banana republics.
I have to agree with Quin. The 1% number is direct costs due to tort. There is probably more costs that number does not capture such tests that are ran for CYA purposes. Something has to be done but it has to be something that does not hinder legitimate cases. Since it is obvious that the judicioary
The one percent would work out to about 54 billion in 10 years or $5.4 billion a year…and that is a drop ion the bucket as far as actual costs go……the big deal is not to protect doctors but rather the insurance companies that have to pay out and lessens the amount available for bonuses and the amount available to buy votes…..
If insurers are profiteering (which I don’t doubt they are), then opening the market up to competition will automatically correct that – it really will!
As to the question of “protecting the insurance companies” that is a valid thing to do – they WILL increase premiums in order to compensate and, since they are corporations and not a public service, I don’t see what’s wrong with that? It’s just business.
However, the thing that’s proposed that I don’t think even comes close to going far enough is – I think that asking health related questions should be banned altogether to remove one of the major sources of excuses the insurers find for not paying. The lowest premiums might rise a touch for the young, fit and healthy, but with vastly improved competition that would be minimal. Personally, I think that even age should only be considered in terms of say (for instance) under forty/over forty or something similar. That way the young and fit would pay somewhat towards the older and less fit, which in my view is right. But idf you set a minimum standard for cover, the “all singing all dancing covered for anything” policies are the ones where the insurers would make a real killing, just as they do in the UK.
The biggest piece of crap from the GOP mis the health savings accounts….this is just stupid….look at what happened to retirement accounts in the latest crash….then NO ONE would have health care…..they push this every time as well as the privatization of social security…….
Not crossing state lines with insurance is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard anywhere (and, trust me, I’ve heard some crap), they should open up the insurance business to the whole goddamn WORLD – you soon see premiums tumble!
Agreed…..I mean we here in the US can buy auto insurance across state lines……life insurance, but not health insurance and the insurance have an exemption from anti-trust laws meaning they can set prices with no one able to challenge…
I would be interested in the fine print of the crossing state lines. An earlier proposal on the same vein effectively negates state level regulations and allows the insurance companies to be headquartered in banana republics.
I have to agree with Quin. The 1% number is direct costs due to tort. There is probably more costs that number does not capture such tests that are ran for CYA purposes. Something has to be done but it has to be something that does not hinder legitimate cases which I think is their true goal.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sure sounds interesting!
I agree.