The Republican Health Care Plan: lower costs, reduced deficits, smaller document
Up until last week Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Congress would not even hear a Republican plan for health care reform let alone vote on one.
However things have changed and the Republicans now get to at least offer a plan of their own. Of course that puts to rest the moonbat charges that anyone opposed to Obama/Reid/Pelosi-care is opposed to all health care reform. They must really hate it when reality spikes their stereotypes.
The Democrat complete overhaul plan is over a 2,000 pages and Pelosi does not want anyone to read it. The Democrat plan also calls for an "abortion premium." Yeesh. And it costs $1.3 TRILLION dollars.
However now the Republicans get to introduce their health care reform legislative plans. It is still early but with the plan being around 200 pages it will be much easier to work through.
One big part of the plan right off the bat is the cost. It only costs $61 billion dollars and will actually cut deficits by $68 billion.
However the biggest thing, to me anyway, differentiating the two plans is that one of them (the Republican) is actually "reform" while the other is a complete risky experimental "over-haul."
Why on earth would a reasonable person want to risk an experimental overhaul of our nation's health care system when some reasonable reforms can be tried first?
Over and over Americans say that what gripes us the most about our health care system is the cost. Well the Republican plan allows you to shop across state lines and thus reducing costs. You reduce costs and more people will be able to afford health care. Makes sense to most folks.
When Ford started the assembly line system his goal was to reduce the cost for each automobile in order to expand his market and put a car in every garage. It worked magnificently.
Also allowing businesses and non-profits to pool their companies together (like labor unions and big corporations get to do) it will allow smaller organizations to shop for better and lower priced coverage.
It all makes sense.
Meanwhile the Democrat experiment puts small businesses at risk and can make the average John and Jane Doe law violators if they do not have coverage. That's complete madness. Some might even say totalitarian.
What, for the American people, is the downside of adopting the Republican plan? If it works to reduce costs and get more people insured then great. It is easy and very doable. If it doesn't work then the issue can always be revisited.
But that is probably the great fear amongst the extreme progressive/liberal/Democrats. That it might actually succeed and thus they would lose their shot at increasing their power base Huey Long style.
The big question is whether or not many of the blue-dog Democrats will take a serious look at the Republican package. Will they consider putting partisanship aside and embrace some common sense reforms that will help this country and their constituents.
Posts
9 comments:
The republican plan reduces the deficit less than the D plan does (by about 30 billion dollars), and does virtually nothing to address the problem of the uninsured. It does nothing to help those with pre-existing conditions obtain insurance or have it taken away from them. It's a plan written entirely behind closed doors (i.e., its a wholly partisan effort), in contrast to the current D proposals that have gone through committees, public discussion, barrages of demagogic and false descriptions of their contents, to reach their current state.
And now the R's drop a plan that has not been publicly vetted, and fails on almost every area of needed reform, and you're telling us to go along because we should not take a risk
You have it entirely backwards, Coyote.
Are you just ignoring the CBO report?
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10705&type=1
Don't Get Sick! If you do, die quickly.
Health care uber wonk Ezra Klein has the goods:
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.
Can the opposition party do anything but scream incoherent falsehoods, rail at imaginary demons and throw tantrums like small children?
Relevant to the discussion, we have this little anecdote from yesterday's group temper tantrum at the capitol:
Yesterday at the tea party rallies to protest proposals to give the government a limited role in our countries health care system one of the protestors had a heart attack. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office –a government-run health care operation-- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and gave him oxygen and an IV drip and perhaps saved his life.
A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was saved and taken to a facility (perhaps a government run VA hospital) on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone to denounce the government's involvement in health care.
By the time the rally was over, medics had administered government-provided health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they repudiated any government role in health care.
"GOP spend $61B to cut the deficit by $68B.
Dem spend $1.5T to cut deficit by $104B"
Here's the dirty secret; the reason that the deficit is reduced more by the Democrat plan than the GOP plan. It is because it increases the deficit by over $1.361 Trillion, but $1.465 Trillion is transferred to the States, which cuts the Federal deficit by $104B, while adding the $1.465 Trillion to the deficits distributed among the 50 states.
The GOP plan transfers $0 to the States. That is stated in the GOP plan. I'd still like to see that link that represents your assertion to see if it explains the dynamics of this giant shell game by the Dems, who have refused to show their bill on-line 72 hours before the vote. What a bunch of fraudulent a-holes!
Herein lies part of the story some may not be aware of yet;
A Tale of Two Approaches:
Pelosi Plan
Unfunded Mandates on States? YES. Federal mandated
expansion of Medicaid to cost
states $34 billion over first ten
years according to CBO.
GOP Alternative
Unfunded Mandates on States? NONE.
Pelosi Plan
Medicaid Coverage Mandates? YES. Raises threshold for
mandatory Medicaid coverage to
150% of FPL ($33,000 per year
for a family of four); Requires
states now covering above 150%
of FPL to maintain eligibility.
GOP Alternative
Medicaid Coverage Mandates? NONE.
Pelosi Plan
Foster State Innovation? NO. In fact, Sec. 2531(a)(4)
prohibits states from receiving
new incentive payments to adopt
liability reforms if they put limits
on attorneys' fees or impose caps
on damages.
GOP Alternative
Foster State Innovation? YES. Gives states the tools to
create their own innovative
reforms that lower health care
costs.
Pelosi Plan
Real Medical Liability
Reform? NO. No real medical liability relief is included.
GOP Alternative
Real Medical Liability
Reform?
YES. Implements reforms that will reduce costly, unnecessary
defensive medicine practiced by
doctors trying to protect
themselves from overzealous trial
lawyers.
Anonyobat 1:47 - where do you get your facts besides out of thin air ? I challenge to back up your assertions with evidence, and while you are at it, address the fact that the House Dem. bill being proposed is unconstitutional as it can't force by fines to have people purchase Health Insurance.
8:23, that was not "relevant" to the discussion.
And speaking of temper tantrums, I'd guess you would call the election of 2008 one big temper tantrum?
Not only that, but that 2000+ page bill that Pelosi doesn't want anybody to read (though there are versions online - I suppose it's only Congressmen she doesn't want to read it), ...
... It provides for fines and possible jail time for people whoo don't buy insurance. They figure it'll cost about $15,000 per year for you to buy it.
Fines and jail
"Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings."
Here's a more recent opinion:
Fines and Jail
"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual ... who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself nad each of his qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.
...
Thus, a taxpayer convicted of a criminal tax offense may be subjec to both criminal and civil penalties ...
...
Criminal penalties:
... fine up to $25,000 and imprisonment up to 1 year...
... felony willful evasion ... up to $250,000 ... up to 5 years..."
Anon @ 5:17: "And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process."
So howcome nobody has really read it????? I'd as if you have, but I hesitate to embarrass you.
And howcome Harry Reid admitted that "there is no bill"???
You must think we're drinking the same koolaid as you guys.
> Over and over Americans say
> that what gripes us the most about > our health care system is the cost. > Well the Republican plan allows you > to shop across state lines and thus > reducing costs. You reduce costs
> and more people will be able to
> afford health care. Makes sense to > most folks.
Rob, how can you be so intellectually dishonest?
Do you actually believe what you write?
How many more people will be able to afford health insurance if they can shop across state lines? That's the important question.
Be sure to include the added expenses of those who buy cheapo policies without mandates and who will later have exactly the conditions once mandated for coverage.
Also, please tell us how many of the people now unable to buy health insurance at any cost, due to preexisting conditions, will be able to buy it if state border barriers are dropped.
Without this kind of information, your implications are unfounded and worthless.
Post a Comment