The Real Republican Health Care Proposal
While in many cases it has fallen on deaf ears, we’ve made efforts in the past to clear up some of the misinformation being handed out by proponents of Democratic health insurance reform proposals around the web, including here at TMV. I was mentally adding a few check points to that list today while reading Rick Moran’s latest column at Pajamas Media, “Take Health Insurance, Please!” One of the non-technical but completely valid points is this continual complaint I hear about how the Republicans won’t “be reasonable” and compromise to work with Democrats on health care. Of course, what most proponents don’t want to talk about is the fact that if you are only offered choices which run completely against every basic tenet of fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility, that’s really not much of a choice at all.
Democrats informed the GOP that health care reform would include a public option and other “no go” provisions that are an anathema to the founding principles of the party and conservatism. And the Democrats expected … what? That the GOP would embrace that reform, betray its principles, and shatter the party just to give Democrats cover with the voting public who will probably not like this “stealth single-payer” idea?
…
But it is a mystery why Democrats can’t see that voting for a bill with a public option (or it’s weak sister, health care insurance co-ops) would doom the Republicans with most of the rest of their party and enrage their base. Of course, they wouldn’t see that as quite the calamity the objects of their scorn would view the matter. But the hypocrisy is getting pretty thick when the Democrats bitch about the GOP refusing, in effect, to walk the plank because they can’t swim.
This, however, isn’t the major piece of disinformation that I want to address today. Here’s one of the big complaints about the GOP which I myself addressed last spring: “The Republicans complain about the Democrats’ health care proposals, but they don’t offer any plan of their own!” I’ve seen that one here over and over again, as recently as this week. However, shortly after I sat wondering where the GOP proposal was, it was delivered without my even knowing it. (Thanks, media!)
In fact, I only found out about the final version earlier this week on Rick’s radio show and had to go look it up online. Sure enough, there it was. Rather than the 19 page summary so many of us saw and scoffed at, Rep. Paul Ryan introduced H.R. 2520, The Patient’s Choice Act, on May 20 of this year. It was immediately referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, along with two others, where it languishes to this day.
There are quite a few reasons for that, not least of which is the fact that it was developed and introduced by Republicans, but because it also includes some common sense proposals which are essentially anathema to Democrats and liberals in general. You can read the entire bill here yourself. Coming in at less than 300 pages, in the rare instance that a member of Congress actually chooses to read a bill, it will at least take less time than the 1,000+ pages of the various Democratic versions.
What’s included? First, Title 1 is based entirely on a concept which most Democrats seem to back… focusing on incentives for preventative medicine and healthier lifestyles. Title 2 deals with one of the great problems in health insurance, allowing for state based health care exchanges and federal incentives for multiple states to band together, crossing state lines, to offer more choices. And the state based exchanges would be charged with providing group rates to people across a multitude of circumstances to reduce rates.
Title 4 provides for supplemental health care assistance to low income families, along with both tax credits and advancement vouchers so they can purchase health insurance through these group plans. Limits are also placed on excessive premium charges by private insurance companies.
Why won’t this ever see the light of day? (That is, aside from the fact that the GOP suggested it.) Among other reasons, because Titles 4 and 5 also include fiscally responsible proposals which too many Democrats despise. First, they mandate means testing for the direct government assistance in the form of grants and advancements which would cover every American citizen who can truly not afford health insurance. Why this is such an abomination to my liberal colleagues I will never understand. Also, Title 6 has a provision to encourage the reform and limitation of frivolous lawsuits which, along with other waste and abuse, drives up costs across the board.
That last one is apparently a real deal breaker for most Democrats, who rely on a group mentality where everyone will eventually slip and fall on the sidewalk of a rich person and hit the lottery. None of these, of course, will come to an open vote and likely never even be read by the public. But you should know that one of the biggest lies being foisted off on you by supporters of Obamacare is that Republicans are unwilling to get involved in a better solution. They already have. But nobody is listening or talking about it, either in the majority or the lion’s share of the media.
143 Responses to “The Real Republican Health Care Proposal”
SteveK, proving Jazz was right.
Oh BTW the Public Option just had another nail in its coffin, Steny Hoyer is backing off of it.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/hoyer-not-f…
How feeble, Leonidas. You mean instead of buying Anthem of Colo coverage, I could buy Anthem of CA? Oh boy. That sure sticks it to them. Hey, I want a business in which the government forces everyone to buy my product and guarantees my profitability. Love that free market. </snark>
and to PM: At least sil is willing to stick to her principle of people before self-interests, something that seems rare among the right at the moment.
That's all fine, Wannabe. What I reacted to was the “anybody who doesn't want to do this my way is soulless”.
Thanks for the compliments Kathy [way up above]. It's nice to hear once in awhile. Since this has degraded into a “who is conservative, moderate or liberal” debate..
****
Jazz great to see a post that isn't left of center for a change, I do enjoy the moderate left postings as weoll here, but they have been buried lately in far left threads of late~ says Leonidas
******
What isn't being grasped is that this isn't a partisan issue at all. This is an issue of an overwhelming majority being convinced it is a partisan issue. If we were debating only the pure mechanics of the de facto public option already in place, the astronomically expensive ER-option, then we'd have an avalanche majority supporting a cleanup of that option by legitimizing it once and for all.
Instead we've been cleverly lead to believe this is a partisan issue. That way the GOP can pick up more numbers from sheer blind obedience than if people opened their eyes and realized THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING WAY TOO MUCH FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION…that the revised public option proposed would save taxpayers [gop faithfuls and dems alike] SCADS of money by its simple enactment. Add to that supplimental funding from taxing of harmful substances with little or no healthful values, add a tiny monthly premium per individual and you'd have yourself the best health care program in the world, hands down…and operating in the black..
Yeah, the GOP/MedMob momentum would be dead in the water at that point…
“Tort reform needs to be looked at as more than just reducing the cost of malpractice insurance, and the numbers GreenDreams cites are really a red herring.”
Outcomes are never a red herring. You're welcome to cite examples in which tort reform DID lower costs. As for needless tests, see, I think THAT is a red herring. Doctors and hospitals get paid for doing tests, hence there is a pure profit motive unassociated with malpractice fears. What evidence do you have that they're covering their asses, which are already covered by malpractice insurance?
Not only tort reform but getting government out of the business of deciding where the people can buy their insurance from. If the ability to purchase across state lines was opened, people in New Jersey wouldn't have to pay twice what people in California do for the same coverage. The high cost states would see tremendous reductions and the lower cost states would see reductions in costs as well as competition occurred.
@ PM – It's hard not to feel like sil does when everyone has rediscovered their inner fiscal scold during the healthcare debate but were ambivalent about the war, bailouts, etc. It may be just me but it seems that Jazz has argued more passionately for fiscal responsibility during the Great Healthcaremoot than any other issue. I'd love him more if he was as consistently obsessed about finances in trade, war, the bailouts, subsidiaries, etc etc.
@ Leonidas-so what then prevents insurance companies from merger and upping the rates for the entire nation? I'm not convinced cross state insurance is an awesome idea, mostly (like so many other ideas in the Great Healthcaremoot, no one seems to have any firm evidence of what it would actually do).
Doctors and hospitals get paid for doing tests, hence there is a pure profit motive unassociated with malpractice fears.
I agree with you on this, and part of health care reform also need to be reducing the reimbursement gap between cognitive services and procedures. However I think it's wrong to say that all excessive testing is due to the profit motive and none is due to fear of lawsuits. It seems to me both are reasons for excessive testing, and the existence of one doesn't cancel out the other.
To my knowledge there are no studies saying tort reform reduces excessive testing, since over-testing is extremely hard to quantify. Maybe the best indirect evidence would be the excessive C-section rates in the US which are currently around 50-60% higher than in Canada and the UK, but even that is not direct evidence.
[...] article itself (via Hot Air) is reasonable enough, but the real fun is watching the screaming in the comments [...]
[...] article itself (via Hot Air) is reasonable enough, but the real fun is watching the screaming in the comments [...]
Leonidas, I would suggest that instead of New Jersey seeing “tremendous reductions”, CA would see tremendous increases. Apart from “medical loss” (paying claims), insurance company profit and overhead “are not expected to vary by a percent or two” according to the insurance industry itself. Perhaps “medical loss” is higher in NJ than CA. But the industry won't compromise its profit to compete with itself. It will simply increase rates in CA to cover the costlier NJ customers.
Let me return to what I think is the central problem with insurance-company mediated health care.
Insurance companies will NEVER care as much about your health as their profit. The more they deny and refuse, the higher their profit. So does that refusal to pay yield reduced costs? Never.
Lets face facts, most doctors don't even know the cost of the tests they do. Who cares because insurance pays them. Even if they are doing extra tests for the money it's still the same thing, who cares insurance pays them. Insurance has done more to jack up prices than anythng else.
Part of the point of allowing people to buy across state lines is to allow people to opt out of the regulations that are imposed by their own state.
A lot of the recently uninsured are people in a few states that have been priced out of the market because their states will only allow gold plated insurance plans to be offered. MA was one of those states, in fact- their health insurance costs were the highest in the nation. And coincidentally (that was snark), they also had regulations that forced all insurers to include coverage for chiropractic, full dental and vision, mental health, and I think even IVF. And mind you, that's not a regulation which insists that all companies must OFFER such all inclusive plans- they're just not even allowed to sell a product that doesn't cover everything, even if customers might want that to reduce their cost for the insurance.
And here in GA where the regulations are not like that, products have recently come on the market which offer really low cost, high deductible plans. The problem is that all of those people in NY, NJ, etc, aren't allowed to buy those kinds of products. That's why in this case, I don't think it makes sense to argue that the states should be able to do their own thing if it means that it limits the choice for their citizens.
Insurance companies will NEVER care as much about your health as their profit. The more they deny and refuse, the higher their profit. So does that refusal to pay yield reduced costs? Never.
This is true in virtually every industry though and it's only a problem with regard to healthcare because we don't really have the option of choosing another provider if our current one screws us over.
My grocery store could refuse to sell fresh food, or refuse to sell bread for less than $50 a loaf- but since they know I can go to another store, they know they can't get away with that. The gas station on the corner could dilute their gasoline with water, but again, they know they wouldn't have customers any longer if they did so.
And CStanley brings the argument full circle to “the public option”.
Or not.
Actually, I'm very curious about something. Given the hue and cry, and the widely held belief that insurance companies are fleecing the consumers for the sake of very high profits, wouldn't you think some kind of competition would have shown up by now, even within the system we have?
I'm not so sure that simply opening up the state lines to nationwide insurance competition will do the trick of pushing down the costs of the healthcare system. Sure it will increase competition in the insurance market but it doesn't do anything to restrain the cost of health care procedures, which are also increasing rapidly. If the costs of actual treatment aren't dealt with, it won't matter how many insurance options there are, premiums will still be high. Also, a majority of Americans dont directly participate in the insurance market, they get it through their employer.
Still I think it's probably a good idea. It just isn't a magical solution any more than a public insurance plan is.
PM- in another thread, I pointed out that lower cost plans ARE showing up, in states that allow them. Some states have mandates though that all insurance products have to cover everything, including some services that a lot of people will never use or would be perfectly happy paying out of pocket for instead of buying a jacked up insurance plan.
“It may be just me but it seems that Jazz has argued more passionately for fiscal responsibility during the Great Healthcaremoot than any other issue. I'd love him more if he was as consistently obsessed about finances in trade, war, the bailouts, subsidiaries, etc etc.“
No problem, It is,in fact, just you. Go do a quick search in my author archives here over the years. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (and even marched in the streets against it) and also complained about the cost of the war in, yes, money, in addition to the greater cost in blood wasted. I screamed about the Bush administration's spending ways, as did Ed Morrissey (who has also been maligned in this thread, though the far Right castigated him for it as well.) I oppose NAFTA, opposed the bailouts in TARP and the Porkulous bill. I argued against subsidies for Big Corn for ethanol and other agricultural interests. It's all right here on TMV. Feeling more love more me now, Lit3Bolt or would you care to dig up some non-existent posts where I'm inconsistent?
APR- the thing is though that there's no real market pressure on the procedures right now because the insurance companies negotiate price but they'll still pay probably more than anyone would if they had to pay it from their checking account.
SteveK,
Greendreams' tired screeds against anything and everything that anyone who isn't a died in the wool liberal has ever proposed have already been taken to task. Failures in some instances of insufficient tort reform are not a basis to throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of his tirade is nothing more than a poor man's screed complaining about people who make more money than he does. He doesn't think there is a place for insurance companies in America. He probably doesn' think there's a place for banks who charge interest on loans, either. Everything should be free. That single player plan should be looked at by people in the UK, one of whom we interviewed on our radio show this week. He loves the NHS. Of course, he's always been poor. I asked him why there were still private hospitals and private insurance companies. He said it was because those were for people who “had more money and wanted better conditions.” That pretty much said it all.
These liberal arguments on health care are driving us toward a cliff. The sad part is that they will likely eventually come true and when their dreams are realized, it will be several years before the country is broke and we all realize how much we've all been screwed.
If Obama were to completely accept Ryan's plan tomorrow the Republicans would be against it. The “health care exchanges” sound like co-ops to me. Or should I say a government takeover of health care?
It's fairly clear at this point the Republicans will not support anything proposed by or agreed to by Obama. It's about a lot more than health care reform at this point.
“No problem, It is,in fact, just you. Go do a quick search in my author archives here over the years. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (and even marched in the streets against it) and also complained about the cost of the war in, yes, money, in addition to the greater cost in blood wasted. I screamed about the Bush administration's spending ways, as did Ed Morrissey (who has also been maligned in this thread, though the far Right castigated him for it as well.) I oppose NAFTA, opposed the bailouts in TARP and the Porkulous bill. I argued against subsidies for Big Corn for ethanol and other agricultural interests.”
Ok, so you finally burnished your cred and came out of the woodwork. Took you long enough. So, Jazz, would you agree that costs not being discussed in regular political discourse is a feature, not a bug? Why are you arguing as if Republicans are acting in good faith and the Democrats are not and secretly want to hang crushing entitlements on the American people? Both parties have committed egregious violations of fiscal trust. The fact that you don't address these issues at all and just launch rhetorical bombs exclusively at the Democrats makes me suspicious of the purity of your motives. So if you actually ADDED the crushing cost of the Republican (and now Obama's) wars in the same breath as healthcare, I'd believe you. But you don't and write a post that would fit in great at Redstate. Your ONLY retort to this is “B-b-but you don't call out Kathy on her behavior!” which makes you a hypocrite because I don't see you constantly prowling the messageboards consistently calling out conservative BS.
So no, Jazz, you can't participate in the healthcare fight and pretend to be above it at the same time. That's my problem with your attitude.
Secondly, your argument against Greendreams is so blatantly classist I don't want to dirty myself by addressing it. What, do we come to TMV to drop our incomes? Jesus.
“Of course, he's always been poor.”
That's some gooooooood moderation right there! If this is “moderate,” I don't want to associate with it.
What principles are you referring to, Kathy? Jazz suggested means testing and discouraging frivolous lawsuits are anathema to Democrats, which seemed like a straw man; I was unaware Democrats defined themselves as the Party of Frivolous Lawsuits. But y'all seem to be conceding one or both are indeed inviolable principles.
“Jazz suggested means testing and discouraging frivolous lawsuits are anathema to Democrats, which seemed like a straw man; I was unaware Democrats defined themselves as the Party of Frivolous Lawsuits.”
You realize you just addressed a straw man argument that was rebutted with a personal attack with another straw man, right Dr J?
Next, the pathetic, tired and discredited meme about “tort reform”. Several states have already capped damages. In every case, malpractice insurance rates in those states went UP, not down. So, ZERO savings.
In Texas, Proposition 12, passed in 2003, doctors have seen malpractice insurance rates drop by almost 50% since the proposition was passed (ref: http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=780). It may be possible to make a case that lower malpractice insurance premiums for doctors does not translate into lower health care costs, but at least in the case of Texas, the blanket statement made about tort reform having no impact on malpractice insurance rates is inaccurate.
By law, we would all become their customers unless we're too poor (in which case they still get the customer, compliments of Uncle Sam).
If there is a mandate for individual health insurance coverage, then we'll all be customers of either the public or private plans. Is it OK to force everyone to have a plan if it's a public plan but not so if it's a private plan?
Can we stick to the facts? We definitely have crushing health care costs, which crush 5% harder every year. The Democrats are in fact proposing to turn those costs into an entitlement. The only exaggeration is that they're doing it in secret.
As for who's acting in better faith, that's a religious argument best avoided by anyone hoping for a productive dialog. The gist of Jazz's original post was that it should would be nice if people stopped saying Republicans are opposed to any health care reform and haven't put forth a plan, because they're not and they have. Looks pretty accurate to me. Why turn it into a religious hundred-years-war?
“You realize you just addressed a straw man argument that was rebutted with a personal attack with another straw man, right Dr J?”
No, Lit3, I asked a question. What inviolable Democratic principle is at stake?
Lit – as someone who has sat and debated issues with Jazz for well over a year now, I can assure you that he is more moderate than a vast majority of the commenters in this thread. Jazz would get kick out of the “conservative club” because of his stands on all of the social issues (not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan – have you forgotten about the war?)
Just because you disagree with him on this does not make him a “conservative” by any stretch of the imagination….
LL
Sil – you are getting the same “keep it partison! Keep it partisan! Above all KEEP IT PARTISAN!!” out of the Democrats too so what's your point?
LL
Silhouette,
I enjoyed your introduction of the ideas of morality and souls into the debate. Honest question: When do you believe human attains that soul, and do you think it's moral to kill (or allow to do) a human after they've attained a soul?
Lit – then you have not been paying attention to Jazz's writings in previous years….you know that whole “body of work” thing that you so quickly dismissed….Jazz spent a lot of time excoriating President Bush on his free spending ways ESPECIALLY when it came to the war!
LL
What a great comment thread. I took some more time to go out and finish some badly needed edge trimming around the yard and then came in to read the rest of the invective. And the funny part is, I'm not bothered by the arguments, or feeling driven to further argument. It's actually kind of endearing. I don't ascribe any false, evil motives to the people who so fervently argue against the items I'm pointing out. In fact, I'm almost envious. I do get that it's a strongly held belief in an ideal. You honestly do believe that, even after all this time, that if we just try hard enough, if we elect the right people and write up the correct pieces of paper, that everything is going to be ok. If we just, finally get it right, government will provide the answers to all of our problems and he bad parts of the world will simply go away. It's almost like those hobbits in the Lord of the Rings. If we can just win this one more fight then the good king will marry the elf queen and a thousand years of peace, prosperity and love will settle over the world.
Unfortunately, it's the government. It's composed of people with all the same flaws as all the rest of the people. And it's not going to happen. And every time you hand over more power and control to them you are setting yourself up to be screwed by those you keep surrendering control to.
Good luck with that,though. Let me know how the rainbows taste.
@ LL
My problem is this specific post and Jazz's recent body of work. I realize Jazz is an Elder holy moderate, but he cannot argue in good faith that quotes like:
“Among other reasons, because Titles 4 and 5 also include fiscally responsible proposals which too many Democrats despise.”
“most Democrats, who rely on a group mentality where everyone will eventually slip and fall on the sidewalk of a rich person and hit the lottery.”
“He loves the NHS. Of course, he's always been poor.”
“when several frequent authors here post things about Republicans “lying” and “fooling the gullible” on health care and repeating lie after lie after lie, such as the lie that Republicans never put forward any proposals.”
are made from a stance of moderation and decency. There is only blatant hypocrisy and an argument from authority, because since Jazz can claim he's a moderate and above all this petty partisan bickering which he dives into with glee and jumps out untouched by the mud he's wallowed in. Anyone who disagrees with him on this issue is a filthy partisan, especially when we point out that he is carrying water for the Republican party, big time. So what, the Iraq War never happened? Bailouts? Medicare Drug Plan? The Republican party was for all these things, is STILL for all these thigns, and now Jazz is credulous enough to advocate a Republican healthcare plan over the Democratic one?
Jazz can flaunt his blogger cred all he likes (and he deserves to), but to paint the Democrats as flithy tax and spenders while holding up the Republican minority as a model of fiscal restraint and ingenuity is dishonest. And that is what Jazz has recently been doing. Being a “moderate” is no excuse, and not a get out of jail free card for Jazz to polish snark on the Democratic party but then clutch at pearls and sniff smelling salts when he gets the same treatment. I'll repeat myself: If he is tired of the Itchy and Scratchy BS, he should act like it and not participate in it. If he's tired of Democratic lies, he shouldn't repeat Republican lies.
“Good luck with that,though. Let me know how the rainbows taste.”
Ok, this is the argument from cynicism aka “realism”. Then why do you even post Jazz? What about YOUR Republican rainbows? Didn't you trot out a 3 month old piece of legislation that no one has heard about, discussed, and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing just to “get even” with all the people who have asked to see the Republican plan for healthcare? Don't you toss rhetorical bombs and lies as well? Will you deny that? And let's see, here, what's this:
“I don't ascribe any false, evil motives to the people who so fervently argue against the items I'm pointing out.”
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA. This is too easy, Jazz! Make me work a little!
Also there's this:
“And every time you hand over more power and control to them you are setting yourself up to be screwed by those you keep surrendering control to.”
So you trust corporate bureaucrats more than government bureaucrats. Fair enough I suppose.
In any case, I bow to your superior moderate wisdom, in all things.
Still waiting for you to cite the specific parts of the legislation on the other thread Katty. Let me know when you have.
Here you are, Leonidas.
By the way, my name is Kathy, not Katty.
That is a fair point and here lies the problem: no one really wants to compromise on their core principals. There are core principals that I admire from Republicans and Democrats. But will either side REALLY want to compromise to make a truly bipartisan bill?
Thank you for acknowledging my point, T. I appreciate that.
As for whether either side will really compromise, I would argue that Democrats made a huge compromise at the very start of this process by taking single-payer off the table before any discussion even got started. Republicans and other conservatives who insist that the public option has to go, and who berate Democrats for not being willing to jettison it, fail to appreciate that the public option, for Democrats, IS the compromise.
Now, having said that, we all know that the White House and some Democratic leaders have been indicating their willingness even to get rid of *that.* And having offered to give up everything that makes health care reform a reflection of Democratic core principles, the Republican leadership has actually — amazingly, astoundingly — said straight out that they will oppose the bill anyway!
I totally agree with you, T., that compromise and bipartisanship is important. But Democrats have shown their willingness to do that, even beyond what's reasonable, and Republicans have refused.
GreenDreams
” Leonidas, I would suggest that instead of New Jersey seeing “tremendous reductions”, CA would see tremendous increases.”
I don't think you understand market forces very well at all, LOL. So tell me, why haven't generic drug makers raised their prices to match name brands? If there is a profit to be made by keeping prices low, someone will take that market segment. Pretty much always has been (except during the great monopolies of the Robber baron days) and always will be.
The only way public option is a true compromise is to take it out of the budget and make it support itself outside of tax revenues paid by non-subscribers. What do I get out of a “compromise” that requires me to fund both the before-compromise and after-compromise construction? Where's the option for me to be totally uninvolved?
Polimom
“Actually, I'm very curious about something. Given the hue and cry, and the widely held belief that insurance companies are fleecing the consumers for the sake of very high profits, wouldn't you think some kind of competition would have shown up by now, even within the system we have?
I mean… if the dollars are that big, why hasn't a company shown up that will take only 5% (like grocery stores, for instance)? It's not as if that still wouldn't be a LOT of money…”
Yes you would, where is the George Soros insurance company???
Thing is, Insurance companies do no provide healthcare. That is a critical fact that gets ignored in the effort to demonize them, what they do is risk management. If you want to bring down the costs of risk management outside of increased insurance competition, you have to reduce the risk, in this case the cost of healthcare. Whats driving those costs? malpractice insurance that doctors pay, the cost of pharmaceuticals, research, doctors fees, expensive tests, non transparency of health provider costs. These have to be addressed if we want real solutions.
Dr. J
” The only exaggeration is that they're doing it in secret.”
not such an exaggeration let me refer you to the Obamameter
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promise…
“To achieve health care reform, “I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”
Sources: Town hall meeting on Aug. 21, 2008, in Chester, Va.
<snip>
Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn't delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we've gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there's a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken.
Dr.J,
“The only exaggeration is that they're doing it in secret.”
not so fast check the Obamameter
Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn't delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we've gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there's a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken.
Kathy, sorry about calling you Katty, it was an honest mistake no insult intended. that name is just not so easy to read with the first and last names run together, again my apologies.
Ok you cited a part of Ryans bit, although its not actually from the legislation just a summary, but thats ok. What problem do you have with what you cited regarding healthcare?
Do you oppose the dollar amounts? if so what do you think fair ones are? Do you opposed to buying insurance across state lines, or allowing folk's insurance to follow them when they move? Are you opposed to reforming the high-risk pools? Are you opposed to greater State flexibility to tailor to the needs of their populations? oppose to those under 55 becoming medicare eligable? opposed to the adjustments for inflation and income? opposed to lower income folk recieving more support?
I need to know exactly what your objections are if I am to address them.
Kathy
“fail to appreciate that the public option, for Democrats, IS the compromise”
Two points:
1. Not all Democrats favor single payer or even the public option, thats why the Democrats can't pass either one despite a filibuster proof majority. So when you claim Democrats are Compromising here your not accurate, you should say Liberals instead.
2. What liberals fail to appreciate is the government getting involved at all for Conservatives (Democrats as well as Republicans) IS the Compromise.
Casual Observer
” he only way public option is a true compromise is to take it out of the budget and make it support itself outside of tax revenues paid by non-subscribers.”
I could potentially accept a public option under those terms, provided there were provisions against bailouts with federal revenues.
[...] I’m sick and tired of hearing about the health care “debate” in Washington. The American people might be having a debate, but in Washington all we’re getting from the democrats is “my way or the highway.” Perhaps “my way or the nuclear option” is more appropriate. Did you know the republicans have a health care bill that won’t increase the deficit, create death panels, or impinge upon our freedoms? If not, it’s not your fault. The media shies away from this sort of story. [...]
[...] I’m sick and tired of hearing about the health care “debate” in Washington. The American people might be having a debate, but in Washington all we’re getting from the democrats is “my way or the highway.” Perhaps “my way or the nuclear option” is more appropriate. Did you know the republicans have a health care bill that won’t increase the deficit, create death panels, or impinge upon our freedoms? If not, it’s not your fault. The media shies away from this sort of story. [...]
Why didn't more people start car companies to compete against the big three? The reason is that their are little sweet regulations that the industry had a hand in writing that allows them to cut out anyone large that is not in on the game, and then anyone small can be crushed with rising prices that your larger customer base can more afford once distributed. This is the way our capitalist system works. Small businesses are wonderful I agree but fewer and fewer of them exist that really matter because the mega corps get their ways and they continue the dance for their stock holders of ever rising returns but that is not sustainable for the nation because those profits come from us in the guise of higher prices and ever more paperwork and legalize.
Saying the Public Plan is not a moderate idea is a bit problematic considering the fact that the Public Option continues to poll above 50%.