What Is The GOP Healthcare Reform Plan?

[Erand7899]

Let's not make this another topic attacking ObamaCare. ObamaCare should only be mentioned to serve as a contrast to alternate proposed solutions.

Let's focus on solutions we think will work.

Anyone can attack. It takes real effort to come up with solutions.

Propose, and be prepared to defend.

The answer boils down to simple macroeconomics. If you want to lower the price of a commodity or service, you increase the supply of that commodity or service, and/or lower the costs of delivering that commodity or service. And then, let market forces work on price.

The USA is twenty to thirty years behind the curve on medical services, and has yet made little effort to even keep up, let alone catch up.

The United States government needs to open at least 50 new medical schools with accompaning teaching hospitals. At least one in each state to train doctors, nurses and other medical personnel. The government should provide the training free of charge, with a provision requiring the trained personnel to serve the government in the armed forces, veterans hospitals, public health clinics, etc., for a minimum of one year for every year of schooling.

As people are trained, the government needs to open clinics and hospitals, as needed to care for the uninsured poor, veterans, and senior citizens. By removing the non paying patients, and by providing competition to the private sector, costs for the rest of the population should rapidly return to resonable pricing for services and insurance.

 

[bendog]

one premise of obamacare was to increase the number of doctors by increasing slots in med school, and offer tuition assistance, while at the same time squeezing costs via reducing medicare payment rates.

and further, adopting the gop plan of insurance exchanges where private insurors would offer insurance plans for private individuals to purchase with tax subsidies.

The gop cries socialism.

 

[Redfish]

.

The GOP is partially responsible for this disaster of a pig of a joke of a sloppy mess of a law.

There's nothing wrong with taking what we had, and making improvements in access, quality and cost. There are many plans out there that addressed those issues.

But no, the GOP had to just stand there, close their eyes, cover their ears and just scream "no" like a petulant 7-year boy who doesn't want to take out the garbage.

Increased access, lower costs and higher quality would help all of us - directly or indirectly. A plan to take health plans off the backs of business would have helped them dramatically. But no, the GOP had to stand its ground, and now we're most likely stuck with this flaming pile of shit. Congratulations.

.

not true. the GOP was banned from the debate on ACA. It was done behind closed doors with dems only, no debate was allowed on the floor of either house, no GOP amendments were allowed to be brought up for discussion or a vote. It was passed by dems only before anyone had time to read it. It is the worst piece of legislation in the history of the nation.

the GOP rightfully said "fuck it" let the dem/lib bastards have their bill and we will watch as it falls apart.

the GOP is in no way responsible for the disaster known as obamacare. its all on obama and the dems.

Red, the "plan" they "offered" was crap. The Dems were able to point at it, laugh, and tell the GOP to fuck off. Not only was the plan crap, it was late. I remember those days clearly - I kept wishing the GOP would come out with a clear, strong health plan that would force the Dems to compromise. And when they brought it out, I knew it was over. It was a joke. It gave the Dems an excuse to do it themselves.

This was in the days where the Dems were essentially saying, "we won, you lost, tough shit". They were able to get away with this because the GOP didn't present a real alternative.

We agree Obamacare is garbage, at least.

.

I watched it very closely too. whether you like the GOP ideas or not, they were never allowed on the floor of either house. it was rammed up our collectives asses by obama, reid and pelosi.

there was no attempt at compromise or even discussion.

 

[Redfish]

.

The GOP is partially responsible for this disaster of a pig of a joke of a sloppy mess of a law.

There's nothing wrong with taking what we had, and making improvements in access, quality and cost. There are many plans out there that addressed those issues.

But no, the GOP had to just stand there, close their eyes, cover their ears and just scream "no" like a petulant 7-year boy who doesn't want to take out the garbage.

Increased access, lower costs and higher quality would help all of us - directly or indirectly. A plan to take health plans off the backs of business would have helped them dramatically. But no, the GOP had to stand its ground, and now we're most likely stuck with this flaming pile of shit. Congratulations.

.

not true. the GOP was banned from the debate on ACA. It was done behind closed doors with dems only, no debate was allowed on the floor of either house, no GOP amendments were allowed to be brought up for discussion or a vote. It was passed by dems only before anyone had time to read it. It is the worst piece of legislation in the history of the nation.

the GOP rightfully said "fuck it" let the dem/lib bastards have their bill and we will watch as it falls apart.

the GOP is in no way responsible for the disaster known as obamacare. its all on obama and the dems.

What? It wasn't negotiated live on c-span as promised by Obama?

another obama lie, why should we be surprised?

 

[g5000]

Let's not make this another topic attacking ObamaCare. ObamaCare should only be mentioned to serve as a contrast to alternate proposed solutions.

Let's focus on solutions we think will work.

Anyone can attack. It takes real effort to come up with solutions.

Propose, and be prepared to defend.

The answer boils down to simple macroeconomics. If you want to lower the price of a commodity or service, you increase the supply of that commodity or service, and/or lower the costs of delivering that commodity or service. And then, let market forces work on price.

The USA is twenty to thirty years behind the curve on medical services, and has yet made little effort to even keep up, let alone catch up.

The United States government needs to open at least 50 new medical schools with accompaning teaching hospitals. At least one in each state to train doctors, nurses and other medical personnel. The government should provide the training free of charge, with a provision requiring the trained personnel to serve the government in the armed forces, veterans hospitals, public health clinics, etc., for a minimum of one year for every year of schooling.

As people are trained, the government needs to open clinics and hospitals, as needed to care for the uninsured poor, veterans, and senior citizens. By removing the non paying patients, and by providing competition to the private sector, costs for the rest of the population should rapidly return to resonable pricing for services and insurance.

Thank you for your submission. You provided some specifics, which is what I was looking for.

I like the principles involved, although I am not certain quantity equals quality. Some countries which have a higher per capita doctor population do not have the life expectancy or health care access the US does.

So something more than quantity is needed, but that is certainly a factor.

Thanks again.

 

[g5000]

I watched it very closely too. whether you like the GOP ideas or not, they were never allowed on the floor of either house. it was rammed up our collectives asses by obama, reid and pelosi.

there was no attempt at compromise or even discussion.

The GOP is not interested in debate. The GOP is all about bringing the Senate to a halt by phoning in filibusters.

So the Democrats have no choice but to react the only way they can react in that kind of dysfunctional environment. The Invisible Hand of governing, if you will.

When the tables are turned, we see a role reversal. It is the process and the rules which are broken.

The Senate is no longer a body where the majority rules. It is a body which can only function when a supermajority rules.

 

[bendog]

Well, the basic gop response still remains: 1) the only way to get high risk people insured without mandatory coverage is to offer more federal assistance for high risk pools. (this crap about the states taking care of it is beyond absurdity because of the amounts of money and the fact that insurance companies are national corporations that have created state monopolies via market share, ie nobody else can get market share because the monopolist corp has contracts with the biggest providers in each state).

2) Either you mandate employers provide healthcare (as Obamacare does) OR the fed govt allows tax credits to individuals to buy care. I prefer the latter.

3) Then, you attack the in-state monopolies via, what was prior to the tea party, the gop proposed. State run insurance exchanges in which each insurance companies may submit plans that fit various critiera that cover various beneifits. The insurance commissioner groups these plans into classes by cost and coverage. Anyone can buy any plan.

The problem is the gop no longer supports what it supported six years ago.

 

[g5000]

Well, the basic gop response still remains: 1) the only way to get high risk people insured without mandatory coverage is to offer more federal assistance for high risk pools. (this crap about the states taking care of it is beyond absurdity because of the amounts of money and the fact that insurance companies are national corporations that have created state monopolies via market share, ie nobody else can get market share because the monopolist corp has contracts with the biggest providers in each state).

2) Either you mandate employers provide healthcare (as Obamacare does) OR the fed govt allows tax credits to individuals to buy care. I prefer the latter.

3) Then, you attack the in-state monopolies via, what was prior to the tea party, the gop proposed. State run insurance exchanges in which each insurance companies may submit plans that fit various critiera that cover various beneifits. The insurance commissioner groups these plans into classes by cost and coverage. Anyone can buy any plan.

The problem is the gop no longer supports what it supported six years ago.

I agree with 1 and 3, for the most part. I disagree with 2.

The tax credit was part of McCain's plan. It was coupled to employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI). The current tax exemption for ESHI would be removed, then replaced with a $5000 tax credit.

This continues the entrenchment of ESHI, while I believe EHSI must go away as it bends the cost curve upward.

 

[DiamondDave]

one premise of obamacare was to increase the number of doctors by increasing slots in med school, and offer tuition assistance, while at the same time squeezing costs via reducing medicare payment rates.

and further, adopting the gop plan of insurance exchanges where private insurors would offer insurance plans for private individuals to purchase with tax subsidies.

The gop cries socialism.

Government not empowered to give healthcare.. let alone pay for school.. but hey.. you just want more and more freebies, right??

 

[bendog]

Well, the basic gop response still remains: 1) the only way to get high risk people insured without mandatory coverage is to offer more federal assistance for high risk pools. (this crap about the states taking care of it is beyond absurdity because of the amounts of money and the fact that insurance companies are national corporations that have created state monopolies via market share, ie nobody else can get market share because the monopolist corp has contracts with the biggest providers in each state).

2) Either you mandate employers provide healthcare (as Obamacare does) OR the fed govt allows tax credits to individuals to buy care. I prefer the latter.

3) Then, you attack the in-state monopolies via, what was prior to the tea party, the gop proposed. State run insurance exchanges in which each insurance companies may submit plans that fit various critiera that cover various beneifits. The insurance commissioner groups these plans into classes by cost and coverage. Anyone can buy any plan.

The problem is the gop no longer supports what it supported six years ago.

I agree with 1 and 3, for the most part. I disagree with 2.

The tax credit was part of McCain's plan. It was coupled to employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI). The current tax exemption for ESHI would be removed, then replaced with a $5000 tax credit.

This continues the entrenchment of ESHI, while I believe EHSI must go away as it bends the cost curve upward.

I'm not really arguing with you. Rather, just setting the peramter of basically what the gop's though process was.

The tax credit and elimination of employer sponsored was sort of a bedrock mainstream gop position. Wyden Bennett compromise. Of course Bennett lost to Lee, who now savors a govt shutdown to defund obamacare. Lovely.

It's ironic that the liberals of the 60s wanted single payor and the big 3 automakers fought back saying their responsibility was to provide healthcare.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying employer sponsore plans bend the cost curve upwards? I might agree, at least for private sector employees. Healthcare is not a free market with free competition. Medicare actually pays less per procedure than an employer sponsored plan. But, the mainstream gop would never go single payor, and it would just be a deficit driver unless it essentially became a free standing govt, with no congressional or exec input, and God what a disaster that'd be.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Redfish]

I watched it very closely too. whether you like the GOP ideas or not, they were never allowed on the floor of either house. it was rammed up our collectives asses by obama, reid and pelosi.

there was no attempt at compromise or even discussion.

The GOP is not interested in debate. The GOP is all about bringing the Senate to a halt by phoning in filibusters.

So the Democrats have no choice but to react the only way they can react in that kind of dysfunctional environment. The Invisible Hand of governing, if you will.

When the tables are turned, we see a role reversal. It is the process and the rules which are broken.

The Senate is no longer a body where the majority rules. It is a body which can only function when a supermajority rules.

thats the way the senate was designed. Reid prostituted it in order to ram obozocare up our asses.

because the dems controlled both houses they were able to completely shut out the GOP. And the result is the worst piece of legislation in the history of our nation.

 

[Redfish]

more lies from the talking parrot.

 

[Mustang]

Without looking, can you say what the Republican Party's plan for healthcare reform is? I bet you cannot.

I think most right wingers know as far as, "Repeal ObamaCare."

Okay. Then what?

Pray to Jesus for a cure to what ails you. If you get worse or you die, you didn't pray hard enough. That's not their fault. But the good news is you'll be with Jesus. Your family might be worse off, but whatcha gonna do? No plan is perfect.

 

[kaz]

The way to get fix the healthcare system is to get government out of it

 

[g5000]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

 

[Ropey]

Without looking, can you say what the Republican Party's plan for healthcare reform is? I bet you cannot.

I think most right wingers know as far as, "Repeal ObamaCare."

Okay. Then what?

They leave it up to the individual states to apply their own lipstick.

 

[rightwinger]

more lies from the talking parrot.

Which part is a lie?

Just the parts that make you uncomfortable?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given the inane and naïve responses from the right, obviously 'let them die’ is the republican 'plan.'

The problem is we're confusing health maintenance with health insurance - they are not the same.

Some 50 years ago families and individuals could pay out of pocket for health maintenance, annual checkups and the like. Families and individuals would buy health insurance policies for catastrophic illness or injury; this was insurance you hoped you never used, like homeowners' insurance or auto insurance.

By the early 70s, however, with advances in medical technology, procedures, and medications, health maintenance became too expensive for many, hence the advent of health maintenance 'insurance.' It was at this point the wheels came off of the healthcare delivery system, as the cost of health maintenance 'insurance' became prohibitively expensive.

Clearly neither the ACA nor the 'state level' approach represent 'solutions.'

'State level' universal healthcare programs won't work because too many states will refuse to implement a healthcare program for either partisan reasons or because they can't afford it. It's unacceptable that a low income American who can't afford health insurance should go without because he lives in a poor red state such as Mississippi or North Dakota.

In addition, the notion of ‘voting with their feet’ is equally idiotic – if a low income American can’t afford healthcare, he’s not going to be able to afford to relocate. Many low income Americans work jobs specific their state or region, or aren’t in demand in a more prosperous state or region. And many low income Americans can’t relocate because they depend on family for support such as daycare and housing.

The only logical, appropriate solution is to implement a single payer system, 'Medicare for all.' Not only would single payer afford every American at least basic insurance coverage, it will allow health insurance companies to go back to being actual health insurance companies again. Indeed, those who can afford to do so and are concerned about the quality of single payer services would be at liberty to purchase health insurance as a supplement to Medicaid for all.

 

[kaz]

Given the inane and naïve responses from the right, obviously 'let them die’ is the republican 'plan.'

Yes, it's inane and naive to think anyone can do anything for themselves and not recognize that we need government to do it for us. In your case, maybe that's true.