The Republican Party insists that it has been shut out of the health care reform process by the Obama administration. This is clearly not the case. It’s all spelled out clearly and distinctly, on the web. It is because of this brand new transparency, brought to all of us via the White House's website, that we can examine just what the Republicans have brought to the table as we discuss the urgently crucial need for health care reform.
In my opinion, the Republicans’ concerns which have been contributed to this health care reform bill have more to do with policing the costs and expenditures of Medicare and Medicaid than reforming the insurance companies, which brought us to this health care cost crisis in the first place.
At this point, the battle for health care reform rages on in front of the television cameras, allowing all of us to see what solutions are being presented and by whom. The American people are watching, for the most part in utter disbelief, as this power struggle between the two parties, the Democrats in power, and the Republicans who want the power back, unfolds.
Let’s look at the website now and see what the Republicans have brought to the plan; they have clearly been invited to sit down.
The President’s final proposal blends both House and Senate bills:
* Personal responsibility incentives: health insurance premiums will vary, based on participation in employer wellness programs. these are employer based (Sources: H.R. 3468, (Castle Bill); H.R. 4038,(Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3970,(Kirk bill),"Coverage, Prevention and Reform Act")
* Advances medical liability reform through grants to states: Jump-start and evaluate medical liability reform to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums. (Sources: S. 1783, (Enzi bill); H.R. 3400, (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 4529, (Ryan bill); S. 1099, (Burr-Coburn, Ryan-Nunes bill)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Jeannie -
You realize, of course, that it is treasonous to tell people that they shouldn't be afraid of seeing the doctor of their own choice, and of being able to afford the care they need.
If you were a true conservative - as all red-blooded, red-meat-eating, red-with-the-blood-of-your-enemies, real (white) Americans are - you'd know that you must be afraid, so very afraid of this government takeover of every bit of our medical care!
Look at the freedoms that Obamacare's taking away from us!
We will no longer have the freedom to be denied health care when we need it most!
We will no longer have the freedom to not be able to afford our health care!
We will no longer have the freedom to be driven into bankruptcy by our health care costs (unlike every other modern democracy on the planet)
We will no longer have the freedom to watch our sons and daughters suffer and die because of pre-existing conditions!
But all is not lost!
At least we still have the freedom to have significant portions of our health care costs go to hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to the CEO's! At least we still have the freedom to finance their Gulfstream jets and their several-times-every-year trips to hideously expensive resorts!
Yeah! Join the Republicans so we prove to Obama that "they can't take away...our...freeeeeeeeeeeeeddddoooooommmmm!!!!" [said in a voice suspiciously like that of a certain famous anti-semite]
2 - roger nowosielski
I thought it was William Wallace, the Braveheart.
I didn't know he was anti-semite.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Rog -
you know very well who I'm referring to - and he was the director of that movie, IIRC. I used to really, really like his movies till he opened his big drunken mouth.
4 - roger nowosielski
Well, let's settle for Russell Crowe then.
5 - jeannie danna
Glenn,
I am so glad, that yours was the first comment in this thread!
Now, I can take the pain medication, that the VA single-payer insurance prescribed for my back.
Yes, I'm going to sleep well tonight.
Thank you Glenn, I even laughed, lol!
:] See you tomorrow, I hope.
6 - Silas Kain
Jeannie,
I want a single payer system. I also want parity for people in the medical profession. I want the medical system in this country to morph into a not-for-profit paradigm. I want insurance companies out of my medical treatment and I want politicians out of my bedroom.
Unfortunately, that which we want will never come to pass unless we take the lobbyists out of the equation. The health care industry has invested $400 million in lobbying Congress on stopping the train which has already derailed. That $400 million could have been saved thereby halting the horrific increases in premiums -- especially by Anthem Blue Cross in California.
The people we have sent to Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. The problem is the Constitution they uphold is that which governs corporations -- not the people.
Once again, I must remind everyone that any reform of any type cannot be accomplished until we stop the financial madness taking place in Washington. The BILLIONS of dollars spent peddling influence comes out of OUR pockets. Our economic disaster is a direct result of the free flowing money coming out of K Street and into the pockets of politicians WE have returned to office ad nauseum. Congressman Charlie Rangel has wrangled plenty of cash from special interests -- it's high time he resign from all leadership positions immediately as well as withdraw from running in the Fall.
It's also time that Mitch McConnell and John McCain step down as well. Senator McCain has spit in the face of his constituency across this country. The man I supported in 2000 is completely extinguished. Rather than continue the good fight of the Maverick Senator, he's sold his soul to the GOP and Far Right. He's so determined to return for another term that he'll turn his back on all that he believed and fought for. That soldier who was held captive in the Hanoi Hilton has succumbed to the wiles of an intrinsically evil Far Right managed by equally malevolent religious leaders who are no better than Mullah Omar. I thank God every day Megan McCain continues to carry out the legacy of her father who died with his candidacy in 2000 at the manipulative hands of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. I'm am flaming mad and wish others would hop on board this Subway to Hell.
7 - jeannie danna
Silas,
Thank you for this comment. I know that some people can hear me.
I agree that the corruption in this world has gone through the roof. The question is, "What can we do about it?"
I tell people, over and over, that I am an independent without a party or a voice.
I back Obama, because he still is the best hope we have left, that anybody in power is actually looking out for us.
We certainly cannot go back to anything that closely resembles the last thirty years in this country.
I'm up in the middle of the night looking for a free punctuation checker, similar to my Goggle spell check. Do you know the name of one that I can add to FF for free?
:]Hope so, nite Silas, thanks again!
8 - jeannie danna
Please ignore my punctuation question! I just changed the settings in word, so now I should be OK.
9 - jeannie danna
LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big. I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?
Need I say more?
10 - Baronius
Jeannie - Limbaugh was being satirical. He made the point earlier that just because you acknowledge problems in the health care system doesn't mean you have to agree that the Democrats' reform package is any good. During the summit, quite a few Democratic leaders cited horror stories as if they proved that their bill would be beneficial. It's been the Republican position that Congress should do something good, not simply "do something".
11 - jeannie danna
Baronius,
That is the problem with the Republican/Conservative agenda. You seem to think that if you say, "Oh, we are just being satirical.", then everything will be justified, no harm done.
BTW, did you actually read this article, or are you just trying to get the last word on this thread?
12 - Baronius
Jeannie - The left doesn't use satire? What about Jon Stewart?
Yes, I read the article. I thought it was well laid out, but I didn't agree with it. You say that the Republicans weren't shut out of the health care debate because some of their suggestions were incorporated 13 months into the presidency.
13 - Silas Kain
It's been the Republican position that Congress should do something good, not simply "do something".
And on that GOP point, I heartily agree. I don't want Congress to slam through a package which will ultimately fail. As much as the GOP hates single payer, I don't see a better solution. Operating costs have to be made more efficient. Medicare has helped millions of Americans including me. It's not the greatest but it's better than having nothing or paying for insurance which won't be half as effective.
You know, one thing I have heard nothing about is dental care and how essential oral health is to overall body health. Debilitating and even fatal illness can be caused by poor oral health yet insurance companies and the government minimize its' role in medicine. The same could be said for eye care.
14 - jeannie danna
Silas,
This fact is absolutely true, they are more concerned with how much Medicare and Medicaid costs, rather than making the for-profit model change. After all, we are not talking about most Americans' bottom line here; we are talking about theirs.
I will be back, after a short rest.
15 - jeannie danna
Baronious,
John Stewart, isn't being propped up as the voice of the Democrats' Party.
You shouldn't even place Stewart in the same sentence as Limbaugh,there really are no similarities between the two.
That's all I'm saying for now.Bye
16 - Baronius
My concern with single-payer is that it isolates the individual from the service. I realize that in emergencies, a person isn't going to have the luxury of shopping around. But we make can decisions about preventative medicine on our own. We can shop around for pharmaceuticals. We even have some say in dealing with chronic conditions. We should be allowed to exercise our freedom in these areas.
You're onto something really important, Silas, that no one's talking about. Health care isn't a single commodity. If you were to listen to the debate over the past year, you'd think that there are two kinds of health care, Abortion and Other. We should be talking about specifics. If we're serious about giving everyone access, then let's ask, access to what? Bone saws and sulfa drugs? Heart/liver transplants?
There are a couple of reasons we don't talk about the specifics. One reason I've been thinking about a lot lately is that preventative care on the one hand has the best roi, and on the other is most likely to violate our individual freedom. And if we're serious about this, we need to stop playing games. For example, I don't see a reason that I should give a penny to health care for anyone who smokes. But I don't want to ration care away from smokers. Where's the balance?
17 - Baronius
Jon Stewart has the exact same role on the left as Rush does on the right. Exactly. They're both entertainers who use humor to promote their ideologies. They'll jab at people in their own parties, but attack the other side's principles. When called on it, they both hide behind their profession as entertainers. They both have daily shows with clips that, unfortunately, leave people thinking they just watched the news. They're both naturally funny people. They both exploit the public's frustration with politics.
18 - Jordan Richardson
Lol, right. Rush doesn't consider himself a comedian and Stewart knows full well that what he's doing primarily is telling jokes. There's a big difference between a radio pundit and a comic, Baronius. Big difference.
19 - El Bicho
"Jon Stewart has the exact same role on the left as Rush does on the right. Exactly."
Please cite example of where a politician on the left renounced Stewart and then later apologized to him. We'll wait.
20 - Baritone
Jordan is correct. Stewart makes no pretense. Yes, he's a liberal, but he makes no pretense that what he's doing is "news."
Limbaugh on the other hand puts his views out there to be taken as gospel, and the right wingers lap it up as just that. Limbaugh is openly racist, anti-gay, anti-feminist and, needless to say, anti-Obama, anti-Democratic and anti-liberal. Actually, it's a little difficult to discern just what he is for.
Only when someone attempts to pin him down does Limbaugh use the "entertainer" card. Anyone who believes Limbaugh's schtick is simply satire needs to study the meaning of the word. Limbaugh is dead serious in his delivery on most occasions. What supposed satire he employs is usually obnoxious and on the low end of any propriety scale.
B
21 - Dan(Miller)
There is no such thing as a health plan "all of us" want; we are not identical and have neither identical needs nor identical desires. I have the following problems, among others, with the current health care proposals. Please excuse the article-length comment, but I don't feel like writing an article.
1. The version currently pushed by President Obama, which is said generally to follow the Senate version, would require that I buy U.S. approved health insurance or pay a tax penalty. I don't need it, don't want it and couldn't even use it if I had it. I reside permanently outside the U.S. and have pretty good health insurance here in Panamá. The House bill provides an exemption for expats; the Senate bill does not. I have written two articles about medical care in Panamá, here and here. Generally, I like it and in some respects it could advantageously be emulated in the U.S. Medical insurance costs us about $1,000 per year; I am almost sixty-nine years old and my wife is sixty-five. Costs are lower for younger folks. The insurance company is associated with the best hospital in the nearest city and it has real, live humans prepared to discuss and resolve any problems which may arise. My wife and I know the general manager and his staff on a first name basis; they know us on the same basis and are familiar with our medical histories. When there is a reason to do so, they act with extraordinary promptness. Special procedures, including major surgery, have to be approved in advance -- by a general physician in active practice designated for the purpose by the insurance company, rather than by a clerk looking up stuff in a manual. A few years ago, I required emergency back surgery. When my physician and I got through talking for an hour and a half about the problem and alternatives at 6:00 p.m., the insurance office was closed for the day. He telephoned the head of the company at home and an MRI (total cost $400, my cost $200) was approved for the next day; my surgery (more than five hours followed by three days in hospital and several follow up sessions with the surgeon) was on the following day (total cost $14,000, my cost $7,000).
Were there an option to purchase U.S. medical coverage on a short term basis -- a week or two -- my wife and I would both get it for our infrequent and short trips to the U.S. That is apparently impossible.
2. I understand and agree with the exclusion of preconditions. In 1998, I had cancer. Following surgery and radiation treatment in the U.S. (we then had reasonably good U.S. coverage), my radiation oncologist told me that I had a twenty-two percent chance of five year survival. My surgeon gave me an eighty percent chance. Both were right; twelve years later I have had no recurrence and am still very much alive. However, I am not eligible for cancer coverage here. My wife has such coverage, and it costs a whopping seventy-eight dollars per year. Were it available, I would of course have it as well. However, the low cost of her coverage presumably reflects the refusal to cover people with prior cancer problems.
Preconditions are unfortunate and it would be great if there were none. It would also be great if nobody needed medical attention and if nobody had congenital disabilities. These perfect conditions do not exist. However, were all preconditions required to be covered the cost of insurance would increase, significantly I think. Somebody has to pay for such things, through higher insurance premiums or higher taxes. The costs may be hidden cleverly, but they are there. Money is a finite resource and the more is spent for X the less is available for Y and Z. Some people die because their medical preconditions are not covered. People also die due to inadequate roads, inadequate flight safety, inadequate snow removal, inadequate automobile maintenance, and a long list of other stuff. The educational system is dysfunctional. Fuel costs too much. Housing is sometimes unaffordable. Most likely, everyone would like it if perfection were available and free. It is not.
3. The U.S. medical insurance bureaucracy is enormous and cumbersome, and at least in my own experience, does not provide the personal -- human to human -- contact I enjoy here. When I had cancer surgery and radiation therapy in the U.S., some of the costs were covered and some were not. It was impossible, in reviewing the bills I received, to determine the nature of the charges which were not covered. I had no idea, for example, what procedure "7xy28" might be and upon inquiry could find out from neither the insurance company nor the billing entity. I declined to pay unexplained and incomprehensible charges. In most cases, my queries went unanswered aside from an occasional "attorney letter" threatening bad things. I responded that I was ready, willing and able to pay if they would tell me what the charges were for and with a threat that I would sue for defamation of credit if the threats were carried out. They were not, and the charges were dropped. By superimposing multiple new layers of federal and federally mandated bureaucracy the costs -- direct and indirect and having no relationship to the actual cost of medical care -- as well as the hassles would obviously increase. Ever deal with the IRS, the Social Security Administration or even the local school board?
I understand that some families in the U.S. now pay more than $25,000 per year for medical insurance. Although there are other systemic factors, insurance costs have a lot to do with the cost of medical care in the U.S. Here, my annual coverage limit is $15,000 per year; that would not go far in the U.S. but it seems quite adequate here. Medically unnecessary tests and other procedures are not prescribed to avoid malpractice liability. Liability insurance costs for many specialists in the U.S. exceed the annual income for most physicians here.
4. The ObamaCare plan presented in advance of the "summit" was eleven pages long, repetitive and replete with unsupported and unsupportable conclusions. The Congressional Budget Office has been unable to analyze the costs and benefits. It resembles the rocket ships I designed as a ten year old: fun but unlikely ever to get off the ground, much less to Mars even if I had the resources to build it, which I didn't.
There are a few ideas which seem to make sense. For example, repeal of antitrust exemptions for the medical insurance industry would make some sense, if the antitrust laws were enforced which they rarely are. Expansion of local clinics to take care of people who would otherwise go to hospital emergency rooms for minor problems at far greater cost makes sense. They clog up the emergency rooms and delay care for those truly in need of emergency room treatment. We have such local clinics here, in abundance. The only time I needed to go to an emergency room here, for a reaction to a spider bite, I was seen immediately and provided the necessary treatment. Various lab tests were quickly performed and I was there for about two hours. My total cost was less than $30.00. Limits on malpractice claims would also help, although Federal assistance to a few pilot programs seems far from adequate and the problem should be one for the states to address on their own.
Dan(Miller)
22 - Baronius
So, the difference between Stewart and Limbaugh is that liberals accept Stewart's partisan humor as humor, and treat Limbaugh's as partisanship. I don't really have to stretch my definitions to take that into account. As for El B's point, I don't recall a liberal politician ever denouncing Stewart. Does that mean he's less powerful or moreso?
23 - jeannie danna
Baronius,
Single-payer, would not take your freedom of choice away, in fact, it would get out of the way of your present doctors and put their profession back into their hands.
[My concern with single-payer is that it isolates the individual from the service. I realize that in emergencies, a person isn't going to have the luxury of shopping around. But we make can decisions about preventative medicine on our own. We can shop around for pharmaceuticals. We even have some say in dealing with chronic conditions. We should be allowed to exercise our freedom in these areas.]
I just went through my single-payer health care, and i have a say in where I go and what types of treatment is going to be best for me. My doctor, doesn't look at me as a consumer, he looks at me as what I am, his patient, at the moment. Also, please don't say that grandma will die, if we adopt, single-payer; grandma, is not going anywhere until she is ready to go.
24 - roger nowosielski
Stewart is a comic whereas Limbaugh is a clown. Perhaps that's one kind of difference that might sink in.
25 - jeannie danna
Baronius,
Stewart, doesn't resort to racial slurs to get a rise out of people.
Where as, Limbaugh, calls out to a base hatred that is present in some people, a small cold and stingy belief that you should be judged by the color of your skin, your sexual preferences,or your religious beliefs, instead of who you are, as a person.
Limbaugh is a racist in the worst sense.