Sincere request - who can articulate GOP Healthcare Plan? State, National, International, posted by poster boy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I know people will take this as a troll post, but I am sincere when I say I'm hoping someone, anyone out there can articulate in clear detail the GOP plan or plans for healthcare reform. I've posted a request for this in several threads, but it's usually buried far down in the thread and never gets a response, so I'm hoping posting it as a new topic will get some actual responses. In particular, I'm wondering how the GOP plans to address spiraling healthcare costs, will eliminate pre-existing conditions limitations, dropping of coverage, and cover as many people as possible. Thanks in advance.
"Looking at the current political debate, it was evident in our focus group discussions that the divide between conservative Republicans and even the most conservative-leaning independents remains very, very wide. Independents like those in our suburban Cleveland groups harbor doubts about Obamaís health care reform but are desperate to see some version of health care reform pass this year; the conservative Republicans view any health care reform as a victory for Obama and are militantly opposed. Asked about the issues of greatest importance to them in choosing a candidate for Congress, health care ranked sixth among the Republicans, below issues such as tax cuts, immigration, and a candidateís personal values and faith; but for the independents, health care was number one."
Posted by Ben, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 7:40 am
Any healthcare alternative the GOP offers will be rejected by the Obama democrats because, despite the GOP alternatives making sense, they do not result in bigger government and more control over our lives. Hence, these alternatives are diametrically opposite of the Obama agenda and will be rejected.
If the democrats were truly interested in effective healthcare reform that benefitted the consumer, they would include the following in their reform formula...
- tort reform (tho democrats will not touch this since the malpractice attorneys are one of the largest contributors to the democrat party)
- opening insurance competition across state lines
- healthcare savings accounts
many more effective solutions are presented in the following links...
The GOP healthcare alternatives have been all over the net, tho mainstream media will not publicize.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 8:34 am
You are really too much. Yes, pb is avoiding healthy debate. That's why he started this thread. Avoiding healthy debate sounds something like "Google, republican health care reform ideas." Pulling up an old thread that got pushed back by prattle and tattle is supposed to prove what?
Please don't falsely accuse me of posting from a Soros - owned website and then scuttle over here and post two links to the Heritage Foundation and expect to be taken seriously.
Posted by Ben, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 8:53 am
Dear Stay Cool:
Your beloved party mascot of a donkey is very befitting in your case.
The Heritage Foundation harbors no illusions to the public as to what their mission and purpose is. They make it very clear that they are a conservative think tank and are dedicated to support conservative values on which this republic was based.
Your favorite websites of "factcheck dot org" , "media matters " and others attempt to fool the public by stating that they are independent and unbiased. They are a fraud and as bankrupt of ideas to strengthen America as yours are.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:01 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
If writing off a non-partisan group like factcheck.org that does the research you're not doing and presents evidence that conflicts with your opinions makes it easier to live in your reality, have at it.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:03 am
You are incorrect. Only one of many incorrect comments I expect you will make or have made on these boards.
You are incorrect, and rude. I point out the hypocrisy in your posts and you imply that I'm a jackass. Typical GOP strategy. If you look back at my posts, you will see that factcheck and media matters are the least frequent websites I've referenced. Nice try, though.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:07 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
BTW, I don't blame you. It's just the way the human brain works and we all are susceptible to it. It is only through awareness of this and logical methods (deeper thinking) that we can hope to observe the world in an unbiased way. The parts of the brain involved in such deeper thinking are evolutionarily newer.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:09 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Additionally, I'm not suggesting that factcheck.org is right all the time or that one should believe what is written immediately, only that writing them off wholesale because of perceived partisanship shows a real lack of engagement.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:27 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Republicans and Democrats both support using State power to have one part of society live at the expense of another. At least there's some common ground between the two parties from which bi-partisanship can be built!
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:30 am
I know, I couldn't think of another way to break it down. "Leftish or rightish comments," maybe. I am in no way trying to lump a whole group (dem v. repub, liberal(progressive) v. conservative, etc.) together in my observation. We know the players involved. I do not believe in pigeonholing.
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 11:54 am
Stay Cool - Since no political party has a healthcare plan articulated in clear detail then we as a community need to get educated on the positions/ideas/concepts/solutions being offered. Since you recently wrote "Seems to me if SOME of you folks would spend more time researching the facts and less engaging in elementary level playground tactics, these boards would be a lot more productive," seems we are in agreement.
Certainly posterboy is capable of finding (or even using a bowser bookmark of) his own posts no matter how prolific Prattle & Tattle becomes. That posterboy is avoiding debate still stands.
Let's get back to healthcare. We've now had some posts about what conservatives/GOP say are solutions. Where are the posts that articulate the liberal/DEM solutions?
Posted by poster boy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 12:46 pm
RE: "Certainly posterboy is capable of finding (or even using a bowser bookmark of) his own posts no matter how prolific Prattle & Tattle becomes. That posterboy is avoiding debate still stands."
I have been posting on this forum for about a month now. To claim that I haven't engaged in any debate regarding healthcare, haven't articulated the plans coming out of congress, or shown any need for them is false. You ask for links, here they are a few of the many i found doing a search of the forum threads:
and these links represent only a portion of what I've posted regarding healthcare reform over the past month.
After reading the last thread i've linked above, for you to claim i'm avoiding a debate is simply ludicrous. The fact that you either haven't been paying attention or don't have the intellectual curiosity to read through long posts and threads doesn't allow you the right to throw around baseless accusations.
RE: "That posterboy is avoiding debate still stands." In several posts and threads across this forum, a few of which are linked above, I've taken strides to articulate the position of healthcare reforms: 1. why there's a need for reform, 2. why doing nothing will cost more than doing ANYTHING, 3. why a public option is so important to lowering the growth of costs, 4. why tort reform and health savings cuts, while nice to haves, will not be enough to lower costs, as it's proven ineffectual in states that have tort limitations in place (like california and texas). etc, etc...
And in none of these threads when challenges to reform pop up or someone asks me to articulate the position did i respond with something as ridiculous as "google 'democratic health reform plan'". Talk about avoiding the debate...
At least Ben pointed me to some links in his post earlier in this thread and listed a few items the GOP is pushing as a reform plan. I will be reviewing these links when I get the time and will post my responses to them.
"We've now had some posts about what conservatives/GOP say are solutions." Dark Corners, Ben posted one thread that contained a few bullet points and some links for me to read. I don't have time to read them right now but will get to them later today and post my response. The only other post was some vague addendum of yours: "allow associations to create health insurance plans for their members." Yes, this is very clear and detailed and easy to understand. Exactly the kind of detailed articulation I was looking for. Then you do this: "Where are the posts that articulate the liberal/DEM solutions?" That wasn't the point of this thread, because this thread was requesting a detailed articulation of the GOP plan, and all I got in return was one response full of links to outside sources. But if you're looking for that I'll refer you back to this thread which goes into great detail of the democratic plans:
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Here's the Associated Press' account of how clear the Democrats in the House and Senate are about their solutions to the supposed healthcare crisis. With one of the biggest issues being how to pay for it.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 2:15 pm
The need for compromise amongst democrats doesn't take away from their efforts toward providing a solution to the "supposed" (I love that) healthcare crisis. Of course there are a lot of details to be hammered out, and, in spite of what some posters on this forum would like to believe, Democrats are not actually some kind of socialist Borg of one mind on how to resolve the healthcare crisis. Or how to best shred the constitution and destroy the country, whichever you prefer.
Nor does pointing that out answer the original question on this thread, which is "...articulate in clear detail the GOP plan or plans for healthcare reform. I've posted a request for this in several threads, but it's usually buried far down in the thread and never gets a response, so I'm hoping posting it as a new topic will get some actual responses. In particular, I'm wondering how the GOP plans to address spiraling healthcare costs, will eliminate pre-existing conditions limitations, dropping of coverage, and cover as many people as possible. Thanks in advance."
"Q. A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isnít it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?
A. Because itís a red herring. Itís become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesnít accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.
Q. Why not?
A. As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means itís part of the medical price inflation system, but itís not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.
According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. Thatís a rounding error. Liability isnít even the tail on the cost dog. Itís the hair on the end of the tail."
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 2:28 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
"Q. But itís not just the cost of premiums and litigation. What about the charge that it causes doctors to practice ďdefensive medicine,Ē ordering tests that are expensive and unnecessary?
A. A 1996 study in Florida found defensive medicine costs could be as high as 5 to 7 percent. But when the same authors went back a few years later, they found that managed care had brought it down to 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the total. No one has a good handle on defensive medicine costs. Liability is supposed to change behavior, so some defensive medicine is good. Undoubtedly some of it may be unnecessary, but we donít have a good way to separate the two. "
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 2:32 pm
poster boy - Thanks for the links to your other posts. I'll revise my claim to say that you continue to avoid answering responses to at least *one* of your postings. Stay Cool seems to think you got lost in the Prattle & Tattle flurry. No?
If you read the articles that would appear using the google suggestion, you'd have a description of association based health care plans. Do I really need to copy/paste for you? Surely with your expertise on the subject of healthcare reform, you've heard of this, no? Well, for you, here is a description. It contains details of other ideas as well. Web Link
And do I really need to create a new thread asking for a clear articulation of the Dem plans? Why can't we use this one, and both plans can be examined in one thread? I read the link you provided to your thread and to claim that it goes into 'great detail of the democratic plans'...well, it is a start, but hardly comprehensive.
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Stacey - thanks for the great link about medical tort reform. I liked the answer the professor gave to the question: If medical malpractice doesnít explain the high costs of our health-care system, what does? His answer?
"A variety of things. The American population is aging. Weíve had advances in technology that are expensive. Weíre also a rich nation, and the richer you get, the more money you spend on health care. And compared to other countries, we have heavy administrative costs from the private-insurance system."
So according to the professor (who provided the basis for the entire article) we should either 1) get younger 2) stop innovating 3) get poorer or 4) get more administratively efficient. I'll take #4. Let's see if the legislation being drafted provides for #4.
And if tort reform can provide 4% cost savings (1% for litigation costs and malpractice insurance and 3% for reduction in defensive medicine) I'd say it's worth it. A couple more solutions that each provide 4% reductions and I'd say we're on the way to a more cost effective medical system.
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Regarding the supposed healthcare crisis:
Here is a recent Gallup poll (Web Link) opening paragraph:
"Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied."
Later on it says:
"According to a Sept. 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll, the 85% of Americans with health insurance coverage are broadly satisfied with the quality of medical care they receive and with their healthcare costs. At 79%, satisfaction with costs among Medicare/Medicaid recipients is particularly high.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Um, the people without health insurance? Who might lose their health insurance? Who can't get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Wow, if you're asking that question, there really is a huge gap between us.
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Stay Cool - I don't think there is a huge gap. A certain percentage of the US is in poverty, or homeless, or without health insurance (not by their choice), or hungry, or with homes in foreclosure. At what point does any of these become a crisis such that the federal government remakes an entire industry (like medical care)? The point of the gallup poll is to show that the majority of people in the US may not think this is a crisis.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 7:34 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Dark Corners wrote: "Exactly who is having a 'crisis'?"
I'll post this here again. I've posted it in the past, but it's always worth repeating: Web Link
Dark Corners also wrote: "And if tort reform can provide 4% cost savings (1% for litigation costs and malpractice insurance and 3% for reduction in defensive medicine) I'd say it's worth it."
I agree, it could be worth it, but the point is that tort reform alone doesn't solve the big picture. Some of the other items the professor in the interview brings up are analyzed in more depth in the link I posted above.
Posted by poster boy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 8:08 pm
RE: "avoid answering responses to at least *one* of your postings"
At first I was totally confused about this *one* posting I hadn't responded to and realized you'd linked to it above. Yes, I had stopped following that thread and didn't see that you'd responded to the second of the issues I'd listed. I sincerely apologize for this. This thread did get pushed off the first page and I was off the forums a few days and never went back. If you notice, I did answer your response about Dick Cheney in that thread, but I stopped following after that. I will pick up that thread and respond to your very valid response about why certain governors refused the stimulus funds, but I promised my significant other that I wouldn't spend all night tapping away at the keyboard and would actually spend some time with her tonight. I do have a response for you on that thread and would like to continue that debate, so please keep checking back there over the next few days for my reponses...
I would like to say that I appreciate both the tone and content of your posts. I don't agree with them in most cases (though we have more in common on tort reform than you might think), but I do appreciate that you're not descending into the ranks of knee-jerk obama derangement syndrome we often see around here. I enjoy a challenging argument rather than baseless charges and delusions of conspiracy. So I honestly am not avoiding a debate with you and will revisit that other thread when I find the time.
As for your comments above, "who is having a 'crisis'?" This is another topic I've posted several times about. Break it down like this, healthcare costs have gone up 131% the last ten years according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (apologies to Ben or JimF01 where I mistook this number for the estimated predicted costs over the next 10 years...131% is in fact the rate of increase over the last ten years, my apologies). This same study also predicted that if nothing is done and the status quo remains in place, the annual premium for a family of 4 will rise from it's current costs of 13.5k per year to over 30k per year in 10 years. If you think this won't push more employers to drop insurance for their employees then I don't know what to say.
The point is, if nothing is done, the healthcare system will implode, the budget deficit will make today's current level seem quaint, and our entire economy will collapse under the exploding costs. The question of whether the current plans under debate will prevent this from happening is another question (and one I'm waiting for the GOP to answer, which was the original point of this thread), but to question whether or not there's an actual crisis is pretty much answered by these numbers. If the status quo remains in place, no one's heath insurance is safe.
As for tort reform, I agree that 4% can add up to a lot when we're talking about a trillion dollar plan, and I do think there is a place for it, but a sense of balance needs to be maintained. If someone is injured or killed due to negligence and their family loses out in a lifetime of earning potential from that individual (say a 35 year old man dies on the operating table due to negligence and he was earning 150k/year, his family is out easily millions in potential earnings over the next 30 years of that man's working life), place a 250k cap on damages is hardly justice served. I think having a fund that doctors pay in to from which damages are paid would help. Some form of balance needs to be maintained...swinging the balance all the way from the litigant to the doctors is not the way to go.
And the GOP talking points that the key to reform is tort reform as if that's the magic bullet to fix this whole mess is flat wrong. But as Obama said in his address to congress, there should be a place for tort reform in the package. Of course, we know how the GOP responded to that fig leaf...
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 8:19 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
The other silent "crisis" is the growing number of underinsured. These people have insurance already, but maybe that plan they are on has caps they've exceeded or they've got high deductibles that they can't really afford.
"One reason the exponential growth in underinsured Americans hasn't made headlines is because this group isn't yet tracked by the government"
"The Commonwealth Fund defines underinsured as those who incur high out-of-pocket costs - excluding premiums - relative to their income, despite having coverage all year.
Using that measure in consumer surveys, Collins' firm estimates that 25 million adults under age 65 were underinsured in 2007.
More importantly, Collins pointed out that the number of underinsured increased 60% from 2003 to 2007. That compares with a 5.1% increase in the number of uninsured Americans - to about 46 million - over the same period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau."
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I can't find tort reform being positioned by anyone as the "magic bullet to fix this whole mess" [poster boy] or "solve the whole picture" [stacey]. Can you help me find someone or some organization who does this? That would be absurd. But at a 4% savings, if we can agree on four more 4% solutions, then we'd be looking at a 20% reduction in health care costs. That would be real money. Let's support efforts to find 4 more.
Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Stacey - thanks for the article on the underinsured. The first sentence of the article is: "Americans already shouldering the cost of millions of people without health insurance should brace for a double-whammy: a surge in the number of the "underinsured," or consumers who have some but not enough coverage." - I don't understand why I am shouldering the cost of people without health insurance. If healthcare reform could fix that, maybe my premiums will go down (and not up as poster boy says) and I might actually support it.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 10:01 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
The article mentions a vicious cycle in how hospitals recoup the costs of giving care to those who can't pay (something they are required by law to do) by raising prices they negotiate with private insurance companies. Those companies in turn raise rates and thus the number of people who can't afford the health insurance increases. Yes indeed, if healthcare reform can stop that cycle, that's a good thing.
Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin, on Oct 19, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Exactly ONE person dying from lack of insurance or anyone being denied what they're entitled to by virtue of paying their premiums requires an over-hall. That means the gap is already too big. The insurance companies wrote the Baucus bill so you know ultimately it's garbage and does nothing but fill their pockets further with hard-working people's money. What do you agree needs to be done? Should they be able to deny people with preexisting conditions? How about dropping people when they decided their payout has become too costly? I know you don't want your money to go for others, but what else do you think should be done. How do we make it affordable for every single citizen? If we're going to continue to rely on these vultures, we should at least legislate what they are allowed to do so their financial rampage is stopped. Have you ever had insurance not provide as it was supposed to? Many people who are against reform, from have never had their coverage fail, which is why they're happy and don't want change, regardless of what others are going through.
An uninsured hospital story for you. My daughter got a gash on her head that we thought required stitches because it seemed deep. So we took her to ValleyCare (it was at night). My children were uninsured at the time, but are now on state insurance. So she was not covered at the time by probably three weeks. Well, I got a $1,200+ bill from VC, then as if that wasn't bad enough (she ended up getting looked at for 5-10 minutes and the doctor put a single staple in), I got a second bill from a doctor's service for over $400. I'm mentioning, this because as Stacey mentions above, the cost always finds it way back to the consumer and usually those who most cannot afford it. I was even more upset when my own pediatrician, who took the staple out for no charge, told me we could have used liquid bandage instead. My family and I are among those right now who cannot afford to make up for the short-fall and I shouldn't have to. Again, why is the burden falling on those with the least money. I guess that's the way it is. That's why it all has to change.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Well I know they want a few KEY, CRITICAL items that the DEMS have ignored. First just ALLOW insurance companies to compete in any state across state lines(currently restricted in each state). Then require them all to take pre-existing conditions. Those 2 points would open the base & make it more affordable. The best way to make it affordable is to REFORM the liability insurance that keeps the DEM LAWYERs RICH & the DEMS larger CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS...which is why we can't even discuss it. The EXCESSIVE jury settlements & the COSTLY< NEEDLESS TESTS THAT HAVE TO BE IN THE FILE FOR THE DOCTOR's legal protection....Right there premium costs would drop in half...& has not effect on care. Also, outlaw drug TV ads (cig & booze ads were outlawed 20 years ago). WE CANNOT write our OWN prescriptions...why spend Trillions on TV ads. Hypocondriacs, & lonely elders, & anybody with generous insurance RUN to the DR & hammer him for the newest patented drug, Dr caves in, doesn't cost him so we'll give it a try....instead of the cheap generic. These are a few things Repubs have wanted, but fell on deaf ears. ..I know Repub are not doing all these incredible gyrations all for the purpose of insuring 20 million unemployable & uninsureds, while cutting our plans. We cannot COPY Medicare, since Medicare is going BANKRUPT !! Is it worth it to give up your insurance...hope you won't end up with regrets after it's too late...& America is stuck in trap forever. You know SACTO or DC never go back & review & pull what doesn't work or what goes broke. And, when will we see all this on C-Span for discussion & understanding, under the new TRANSPARENCY promise ???
Posted by poster boy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2009 at 9:43 pm
I haven't seen or heard a single instance of the GOP proposing a ban on pharmaceutical television ads. To claim this is part of the GOP proposals is false. Furthermore, it was the GOP-controlled congress that lifted the ban on pharmaceutical television advertising about 12 or 13 years ago...
That being said, I'd love to ban those ads too because it seems a large part of the increasing costs of pharmaceuticals costs are driven by excessive marketing budgets.
Stacey already responded to your note about tort reform, and that's been covered already in this thread.
As for Dark Corners, I did some digging around and it's true there's no quote of anyone claiming tort reform as "the magic bullet", to the contrary I found many instances of critics saying "it's no magic bullet". The thing is, the substance of the GOP plan, in terms of cutting costs IS tort reform. They have the same vague notion of cutting fraud and abuse in medicare without a specific plan or amount of savings, but they do point to the 54 billion in savings the CBO claims tort reform will bring as the main bullet point of their plan to cut costs. This being their main source of cost savings just won't cut it as a viable plan.
I'll say it again, I do think tort reform should have a piece in this legislation, but it must be done carefully for the reasons I stated and it must maintain a sense of justice for those harmed by malpractice. The notion that a viable healthcare proposal has this to offer as its only source of savings is why I continue to believe either the GOP isn't serious about reform or has no ideas to achieve it...