Journal damn_registrars's Journal: A couple republicans claim to have a health care proposal... 19
Over three years ago, The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 was signed into law by President Lawnchair. It was, of course, primarily authored by conservatives who claimed they weren't getting a chance in the discussion - and then because it had only 90% of what they wanted, they voted against it when it came up to vote in congress. Nonetheless, since President Lawnchair knew he would never see another healthcare related bill, he signed it into law so he could say he signed a bill, even if it didn't do anything useful and didn't resemble any of his initial goals.
Naturally, the GOP had a shit fit. They spread all kinds of lies around about what this would or would not do, and the "mainstream media" dutifully reported those as the truth. The GOP furthermore has made it a point to vote on at least one bill in the house (on average) every 4-5 weeks to cripple or overturn the Bailout Act.
Now, a few of the same GOP critters have claimed to have finally written a proposal of their own to "reform" health care. Slashdot member smitty_one_each mentioned this in a recent JE that he wrote, with a link to a highly biased comment on this "alternative". The problem, of course, is that it largely isn't an alternative to the current situation.
Here's my blow-by-blow on the summary:
Naturally, the GOP had a shit fit. They spread all kinds of lies around about what this would or would not do, and the "mainstream media" dutifully reported those as the truth. The GOP furthermore has made it a point to vote on at least one bill in the house (on average) every 4-5 weeks to cripple or overturn the Bailout Act.
Now, a few of the same GOP critters have claimed to have finally written a proposal of their own to "reform" health care. Slashdot member smitty_one_each mentioned this in a recent JE that he wrote, with a link to a highly biased comment on this "alternative". The problem, of course, is that it largely isn't an alternative to the current situation.
Here's my blow-by-blow on the summary:
I clicked the link to your GOP alternative proposal. Color me unimpressed.
First of all, I will point out that the Health Insurance Bailout Act of 2010 was passed in 2010. The republicans have had more than 3 years for a do-over and this is all they can come up with?
That said, it doesn't really do much. Much of what is in this is already in the bill that they so desperately want to kill.
- Article 1 - just kills the Bailout Act, and does nothing else.
- Article 2 - is a tax cut for buying health insurance, which we already have in the Bailout Act. It adjusts a few other things like HSAs but that isn't anything that rocks the earth.
- Article 3 - Only removes a COBRA requirement for people who are high-risk and currently unemployed. Being as the coverage is - to be kind - extremely biased, I'm not convinced that such a requirement actually exists but we'll let them claim it to be so for now.
- Article 4 - Is about "purchasing across state lines". This is at best massive window dressing, and at worst could make health care far more expensive. First of all, in the majority of situations nothing currently prevents people from purchasing health insurance from other states whcih makes this window dressing. However, if they want to make it law then they will force health care providers to accepts any number of crazy plans and train their staff to work on this, which will massively increase the cost of running a health care office.
- Article 5 - is about medical liability law. Sounds great, except in reality it has little to do with the cost of health care beyond what providers pay for malpractice insurance; which is a cost that is only minimally passed on to the consumer. In particular this targets the attorney's part of the take (while placing no limit on the patient's award) whch should tell you enough of what this proposal's author is after.
- Article 6 - an anti-abortion statement. This really doesn't have shit to do with this and doesn't belong here.
In other words, the parts of this that are not obviously partisan attacks on conservative boogeymen are taken from the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010. I will love to see what they say when the CBO evaluates the cost of this proposal.
Startling (Score:2)
It was, of course, primarily authored by conservatives who claimed they weren't getting a chance in the discussion
Could you please substantiate that claim? How anyone who claims to care about liberty could be in favor of big government/big business collusion on this scale defies description. I could see where some GOP elite RINOs [amazon.com] may have been lining the portfolio. Is that what you're on about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He also hates republicans, George W is liberal(!) now, and he doesn't remember Nixon [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I support & defend the Constitution...
When I see you demand the abolition of prohibition, I just might believe you. Otherwise you're just performing hollow, meaningless internet masturbation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, how many years? About 5 now, right? And very selectively. Some things are noticed by their absence, like that half second of silence between crashing waves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thing is, you haven't changed your position. You still preach randian, neo-liberal reaganomics like it came from the holy bible itself. You only changed your opinion of the government because of the faction running it right now (there you were, cheer leading for McCain and Romney all the way, illustrating your support of the status quo), but it hasn't changed direction at all over the last 40 years. The decline has accelerated, most notably in the 80s, but it has "stayed the course" throughout (and yes, tha
Re: (Score:2)
Wealth and power remain synonymous as redundant, interchangeable terms as it has been since the beginning of the universe.
And so the irony you deliver seems to be that, while I don't dispute the truth of this assertion, you're on the cusp of delivering something much closer to the Founder's ideals, and you. . .seem kinda complacent.
Furthermore (Score:2)
per the Holy Narrative, does not exist
is that, in controlling the Narrative, the existence of alternatives is completely ignored. The precise suckage of the RSC proposal is a follow-on debate. Anything that isn't redistributing power, not wealth, should be attacked, as you do here.
Re: (Score:2)
per the Holy Narrative, does not exist
This is the first proposal I have seen since 2009 that has been presented by the republicans as an alternative to the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. They had at least three full years and this is the best they could come up with? Half of it is pretty much taken straight from the Bailout Act and most of the rest won't do anything to improve affordability or accessibility. Some parts are quite simply not related at all to those aims.
Considering the amount of time that has passed, this is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, I'm pointing out that "The GOP is just saying 'No'" is an inaccurate charge. Reply to This Share
From what you've provided, that only became true in the past few months. I'm not saying it is impossible for them to have provided a proposal prior to this one, but I have never seen one.
That said, a strong argument exists that if this is the GOP proposal, it isn't much of one. Many parts are the same, many parts won't help, and some parts are just partisan points that don't do anything at all towards a goal of making health care more accessible. It is important to look at the proposal though if you w
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if your going-in assertion is that "government has to take over healthcare" then anything short of that cannot be seen as legitimate.
Conversely, a really huge chunk of the citizens of this country are very strongly opposed to such a government takeover.
The idea of a government takeover of healthcare is supported neither conceptually, nor practically.
Many oppose this activity both on principle, and be
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if your going-in assertion is that "government has to take over healthcare" then anything short of that cannot be seen as legitimate.
I see that as an oversimplification of the proper solution to this problem. A single payer system and a true government takeover of health care are two very, very, different ideas. You seem to feel that the UK system is a takeover, however I would argue it is far from it. While it does put health care practitioners on the government payroll, it does not decide for them what to do for any given situation. People are still free to find their preferred specialists and talk to multiple physicians to get th
Re: (Score:2)
it does not decide for them what to do for any given situation. People are still free to find their preferred specialists and talk to multiple physicians to get the treatment they want.
My German wife works in pharma, and is intimately familiar with the evil that the IPAB will become.
The much-ballyhooed "death panel" operates by maintaining control over the entire supply chain. She has recent knowledge of a medication disallowed for sale in a European country because, for all that country had citizens who are in need of the medication, the government demanded it be sold at a certain price point, and the pharma balked, due to inability to run a business at that price for that medication.
N
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that isn't redistributing power, not wealth...
Didn't Alan Grayson... (Score:2)
...already outline the the GOP health plan?