# GOP offers alternate Health Care Reform..but are any Dems listening?



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2010)

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare



> Page 1 of 2
> 
> Page 1 of 2
> 
> ...






> Republicans Common-Sense Reforms Will LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS
> 
> Americans want a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosis
> costly, 1,990-page government takeover of our nations health care system.  Republicans alternative solution
> ...


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 24, 2010)

could you post the nancy pelosi solution, so we can compare the 2? You've posted only the republican one.

I'd like to see both.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 24, 2010)

What has been happening is the Republicans have been running a smear campain from the get-go. They refuse a meeting that they have been asking for for a year, and now they are bitching about how the Dems aren't listening. Its obvious that you won't need medicare or medicade if the system were universal.
Sean


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 24, 2010)

I haven't seen too much evidence of either side listening to the other... or to the American people for that matter. Politics as usual has become something entirely different than what I remember from years gone by. There was a time when arguments had at least a thin veil of logic to the back and forth. Now, it's simply your plan won't work because you're a republican/democrat. Nothing at all to do with the merits of the plan. I'm a bit sick of it myself. If I wanted childish shennanigans I'd go to Chuck E. Cheese. :jediduel:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 25, 2010)

Well, some of those Republican ideas are also included in the Democratic Plans, for example, encouraging healthy lifestyles.  But the ideas you listed are a little thin on details.  

For example, _how_ would they lower premiums?  Insurance companies don't voluntarily lower premiums, even if they save money.  They just take more profit.

What about those pre-existing conditions? They may mandate that insurers cover pre-existing conditions, but there's nothing I can see that would prevent insurers from making the coverage unaffordable.

As for the threat of government interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, that's just a red herring, as far as I'm concerned.  As a doctor, I can tell you that it's the PRIVATE insurers that interfere the most in the healthcare of my patients--they choose the drugs and dictate what tests I can order.  And that's mainly because they swing financial deals with the drug manufacturers so they can make the most profit.  It has nothing to do with the benefit of the patient.  It's gotten to the point where I don't even choose treatment anymore. It's more like, "What does your insurance company want?"

I think we have to bear in mind that it isn't a matter of "government healthcare" vs a vacuum.  It's the difference between a government non-profit system, and corporate for-profit system.  Personally, I'd remove the profit motive altogether.  I don't understand how a system where the administrator _must_ make a profit will _save_ money.


----------



## cdunn (Feb 25, 2010)

In theory, a for-profit system encourages the leaning down of administration, in order to prevent it from getting in the way of profit. It also encourages a double check on the efficacy and cost of a service route - which is why the insurance companies are writing your prescriptions for you instead of you writing them, and if anyone threatens to spend more money than they're likely to put into the system over a given time period, out on your *** you go, missy. 

Also, I read the first twenty or so pages of the Republican unproposal. It looked like a giant unfunded mandate to the states to me.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 25, 2010)

Every so often I call an insurance company to ask, "What would you like to prescribe for my patient whom you've never met?"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2010)

I believe the senate webpage has links to Pelosi's plan, as well as more in depth information on the GOP suggestion.

Personally, I think they should scrap it all and leave it alone. I'm against anything that raises taxes on anyone.


----------



## chaos1551 (Feb 25, 2010)

I'd like to see a few changes in regulation, then we leave it alone for awhile and see how it works.  A few changes like allowing healthcare purchases across state lines and putting a cap on lawsuit eligibility and compensations.  It would also be nice to see healthcare changed to non-profit across the board.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 25, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> For example, _how_ would they lower premiums?  Insurance companies don't voluntarily lower premiums, even if they save money.  They just take more profit.



Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains


> Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin. Right behind that were healthcare real-estate trusts (firms that are basically the landlords for hospitals and healthcare facilities) and application-software (think Windows). The worst performer was copper, with a profit margin of minus 56.6 percent.
> 
> If you're wondering about Exxon, with its history of gargantuan profits, its profit margin was 9 percent over the past 12 months, according to the research firm Capital IQ. The average for the oil and gas industry overall was 10.2 percent, three times the margin in the health insurance industry. And that's nothing compared with high-fliers like Googlewhich had a 20.6 percent marginand Microsoft, at 24.9 percent.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 25, 2010)

I don't think that healthcare purchases across state lines would make any difference at all.  In New York, we have so many different plans that you need an army of billers to deal with all of them.  It certainly doesn't lower costs.  It increases costs just dealing with the bureaucracy.

I don't think people's health care should be a business that "shareholders" and CEOs can profit from.  Complete waste of money.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I believe the senate webpage has links to Pelosi's plan, as well as more in depth information on the GOP suggestion.
> 
> Personally, I think they should scrap it all and leave it alone. I'm against anything that raises taxes on anyone.


Just as England can not compare their tax structure to ours given say a higher tax on feul or what have you, wouldn't a higher tax for health care be off set by lower prices elswhere? Because, its seems we are talking about a potential re-adjustment of the tax structure.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2010)

I still maintain that government involvement at this level is unconstitutional.

CNN has a running update on the show 
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/25/health.care.summit.updates/index.html?hpt=T1


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 25, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I believe the senate webpage has links to Pelosi's plan, as well as more in depth information on the GOP suggestion.
> 
> Personally, I think they should scrap it all and leave it alone. I'm against anything that raises taxes on anyone.



depends on the tax. Not all taxes are bad.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2010)

Depends on your position in relation to them.  I'm all for a $20 per pack tax on cancer sticks, but a smoker might disagree with that, for example.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 25, 2010)

When your ship is taking on water (like TRILLION dollar deficits, very high unemployment, and nutso Iran with nukes) you don't spend your time trying to upgrade your first aid kit.

I saw Obama & Co. on their little confab. The great 'leader', well he don't lead, he referees, if you could call it that, and sits there with his face in one hand telling Sen. McCain the 'campaign is over' while Biden says, "I'm always reluctant after being here 37 years to tell people what the American people think. I think it requires a little bit of humility to be able to know what the American people think, and I don't, I can't swear I do. I know what I think. I think I know what they think. But I'm not sure what they think. And the second point I'd make is..."

How could these two bozos get elected? One is a egomanic wannabe 'leader' and the other a buffoon posing as a, uh, buffoon.

Now how can you lead by sitting there doing nothing but look bored? Can you imagine Gen. Patton sitting there with his generals and just lets them talk and make all the decisions by committee and still Gen. Patton says he is a great leader?

Every place from the more balanced FOX to CNN to CBS to NBC to NYT all say the Republicans came out looking good while the Democrats look&#8230; well like Democrats.
If this meeting was supposed to get Obamacare 2.0 to reboot well, lots of luck. It looks more like the Democrats just went down in the citizens confidence polls (Congress right now is at 10 percent favorable, so they can&#8217;t go much lower.) Thank goodness Mid-Term elections are coming in Nov. Time to clean house in November. I mean really clean house.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> When your ship is taking on water (like TRILLION dollar deficits, very high unemployment, and nutso Iran with nukes) you don't spend your time trying to upgrade your first aid kit.
> 
> I saw Obama & Co. on their little confab. The great 'leader', well he don't lead, he referees, if you could call it that, and sits there with his face in one hand telling Sen. McCain the 'campaign is over' while Biden says, "I'm always reluctant after being here 37 years to tell people what the American people think. I think it requires a little bit of humility to be able to know what the American people think, and I don't, I can't swear I do. I know what I think. I think I know what they think. But I'm not sure what they think. And the second point I'd make is..."
> 
> ...


I know medical things may not seem important to you, but when you are in charge, its all on the table, and you are responsible for all of it. New Orleans didn't seem important in the face of everything that was going on in the world, but it sure did get important as time went by.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2010)

The Dems will shut out the GOP and any of their own party who have a clue and push their disaster through regardless.   They know that come November, most of them will be reelected. They have utter contempt for what American's want, and they continue to show it.  

Patton would have shot the sons of bitches.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 25, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Depends on your position in relation to them.  I'm all for a $20 per pack tax on cancer sticks, but a smoker might disagree with that, for example.



well sure. That's true what you wrote.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 1, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> I don't think that healthcare purchases across state lines would make any difference at all. In New York, we have so many different plans that you need an army of billers to deal with all of them. It certainly doesn't lower costs. It increases costs just dealing with the bureaucracy.
> 
> I don't think people's health care should be a business that "shareholders" and CEOs can profit from. Complete waste of money.


 
This is partly true, I believe. One thing that really drives up the cost of insurance are health care mandates by the state, ie. you must have X level of coverage and it must include these features. The insurance companies can't even control their own product. No, not health care, but the coverage provided by the insurance plan. That is dictated to them. So it doesn't matter whether person A in California can buy insurance from company XYZ in New York, if company XYZ must provide the exact same plan as every other company in California.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 2, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> This is partly true, I believe. One thing that really drives up the cost of insurance are health care mandates by the state, ie. you must have X level of coverage and it must include these features. The insurance companies can't even control their own product. No, not health care, but the coverage provided by the insurance plan. That is dictated to them. *So it doesn't matter whether person A in California can buy insurance from company XYZ in New York, if company XYZ must provide the exact same plan as every other company in California.*


At this level, and all things being equal, it deals with the profit each insurance company needs/wants to make. If an insurance company is running lean and mean, then, they can provide the same coverage at a reduced cost. If this is not the case, it is a waste of time crossing state lines looking for a better price for ins.


----------



## chaos1551 (Mar 2, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains


 
I like how one of the comments at the end of the article rounds it out:

Reality Check! 
Consider that 30% of all insurance premiums are paid back out in commissions. In other countries a 15hr admin person signs people up. A 20% savings. 
Another 20% is spent in efforts to NOT pay claims. 
That is admin costs in the US average 25% of all premiums and world average is 6%. They have teams of analysts and lawyers hand processing all claims to find a way out. In other countries they are just processed by administrative personnel and a lot of it totally electronic (never viewed by human eyes). One dollar in every five we/our employers pay is waisted trying not to pay our claims. 
The industries 3% profit is also after they pay executive compensation of 3%-5% of premiums to the top 10 executives. CEO of Atena last year made 25 million. Thats over 400K a week. Prior to exec comp they earned 6% last year. A year they lost more subscribers than in any year in history and the execs took half it (3%). 
Also during good economic times more healthy people carry insurance. During bad times...like these, the less healthy tend not to drop coverage and the healthy do. This cuts their profits in times of high unemployment. When unemployment was at is lowest sense the 2001 recession in 2006 the industry earned 7.1% (after exec comp, was more like 12% before) profit and their sector ranked as the 21st most profitable. 
Add it up, 20, 20, 7, 3=50%. Now do you know why other countries pay 50% less that we do? That is 8% of GDP compared to our 16%. 
Its time to join the rest of the civilized world and take profit out of health care. Making money off of people being sick is wrong, and its even more wrong to let people die because they DONT make someone rich. We need single payer, universal free health care as a basic right, like every other industiralized county has, and they do it while spending less on healthcare than the US does now.

Aww... fun with numbers...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 3, 2010)

seasoned said:


> At this level, and all things being equal, it deals with the profit each insurance company needs/wants to make. If an insurance company is running lean and mean, then, they can provide the same coverage at a reduced cost. If this is not the case, it is a waste of time crossing state lines looking for a better price for ins.


 
I would agree with you, all else being equal.  What I am addressing though is the fact that insurance companies would not be able to put together packages that people could actually afford, because the state mandates what they have to provide.  If they could actually tailor their product towards individual needs, then people would be able to afford at least some coverage, if not all that they want.



> chaos1551
> 
> Its time to join the rest of the civilized world and take profit out of health care. Making money off of people being sick is wrong, and its even more wrong to let people die because they DONT make someone rich. We need single payer, universal free health care as a basic right, like every other industiralized county has, and they do it while spending less on healthcare than the US does now.


 
Yeah, not with the people we have in office right now that would be running it.  No thank you.  I don't trust these people to run the post office, much less be responsible for my level of health.

I still would make the case that although you could argue that there may be a sound financial reason for single-payer health insurance, socialogically, it would not work in the U.S.


----------

