What ideas do the GOP have for health care reform?

Posted on January 27th, 2011 by admin1 in GOP marketing company

The GOP has collectively dug its heels in and refused to entertain any idea the democrats have put forth. This suggests that they either deny that there is a problem or have much better ideas of their own. When cornered, here is what they will say:

*Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines: So far every bill the democrats have written has been centered around the establishment of a national health insurance exchange in which private insurers could offer policies (so long as they meet certain minimal standards) and anyone could buy them. Moreover the house bill lifts the status quo anti-trust exemptions that health insurance companies currently enjoy. So aren’t we all in agreement on this point?

*Tort reform: This could be a good idea, depending on how it is implemented in practice. Obama even signaled an interest in tort reform during his speech to congress a few months ago. But it is also not enough – it does nothing about the abuses perpetrated by the insurance companies against their consumers (dropping coverage, denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, etc.) nor does it affect the inefficiencies and bureaucratic overhead in the private sector that are driving up costs. Why is tort reform a reason to kill this health care bill?

*Government takeover isn’t the answer: This really is a silly objection, but let’s just set that debate aside. Whatever we get when the House and Senate bills are reconciled, there will be no single payer system, no public option, and no expansion of medicare. There might be some sort of subsidized insurance co-ops at the state or federal level, but the insurance system will still be run by private industry at least as much as it is today. What government takeover are you talking about?

*No new taxes!!!: Taxes suck, it’s true. If you can find a way to control health care costs in the long term without throwing some money at the problem now, then let me know and I’ll see you at the next tea-bagger rally. But otherwise, if we don’t pay now then we are going to pay huge later; that’s just the way it is. You people are all about the free market; aren’t you familiar with the notion that investing a little now can save you a lot later?

*Don’t cut medicare: First, since when are the conservatives all about defending medicare? This is the first time in the history of medicare that conservatives (yes, you too libertarians) have advocated anything but slashing medicare spending. If medicare is so great, why did you all scream at the top of your lungs when the democrats tried to expand it to the 55-65 age group? Second, the proposed medicare cuts don’t actually affect coverage, only the way prices are negotiated between insurers and providers. In other words, the goal is to trim some of the waste in the system that conservatives are always complaining about. Do you want to fix medicare or don’t you?

So is there some other idea that I missed? Or are you only against health care reform because you think it will give you a better shot in 2010 if it dies on the floor? Just to warn you: even if you gain ground in 2010, you’d better come up with some ideas then or it’s your butts that will be thrown out the door in 2012.

1st for an insurance policies to be even worth the paper written on the company has to survive. Tort reform, Buy insurance across state lines (1st required to even enable fed to regulate insurance companies), If the government is forcing the insurance companies insure individual(s) with preexisting conditions then they need to have a larger insured base, therefore, younger individuals have to carry insurance. Based on the date the law comes into effect, the preexisting conditions buy in privilege has to have a time table otherwise one wouldn’t buy insurance until they are sick. It doesn’t make economical sense for them to.

20 Comments on “What ideas do the GOP have for health care reform?”

  1. Mr. Wolf

    The same old same old.References :

  2. Proud Texan

    Die quickly and don’t complain.References :

  3. Data

    Something simple: let the free market decide. Unfortunately, we will proabably never see a free market again in our lifetime.References :

  4. vinny_says_relax

    Same as what Bush proposed in 2003 (that the Democrats shot down):

    Combine Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP and Welfare under the Dept of Health and Human services, then re-charter the organization into the Federal Dept of Health and Human Services, assign them a secretary and give them a budget.

    And the Democrats said no…gee what a shock huh?References :

  5. Typical Oregon Person

    Its called service. Its what has evolved for 50 years. The hospitals, doctors, researchers have made US medicine #1 by a long shot. And you are trying to change it into something else.

    How about taking the current regs and tearing them up. Even the repubs dont say this. I do.References :

  6. Blessed Cheesemaker (cancelled)

    Most republican’s don’t realize that they are simply being played by big business.References :

  7. Pundit

    In the absence of bipartisanship on the Democratic side, what does it matter what plans the Republicans have?References :

  8. Shovel Ready

    I didn’t get any farther into your rant than the first sentence. In reality, it is the Democrats who are in power, and they shut the Republicans out of healthcare reform, even changing the locks on the conference room door to keep them out. If you cannot google the Repiblican healthcare proposals, you are telling me that you are an imbecile.References :

  9. KatrinaLimited

    From my understanding health care is not the primary on the agenda of the GOP. I thought they wanted to focus on less government, tax breaks for employers so americans can get back to work. Also I thought their primary objective was to focus on jobs, getting people back into their homes, and families on their feet.

    Our economy should be primary…not Nationalized health care.References :

  10. princejohn

    None just if you are sick and poor dieReferences :

  11. Pfo

    On your first point, it was only recently that the idea of exchanges is being considered. Many of the first drafts did not work like that, they wanted blanket public option government run insurance. And speaking of exhcanges, while their is a national exchange, the exchanges will operate at the state level. The main problem with health care at the state level is the differing regulations among states create 50 different health care markets. This problem is not solved by any current version of the legislation.

    I could go on, but I won’t waste my time, because you won’t read this…References :

  12. Albert's America Blog

    how many health insurance companies are in America? Close to 1300.

    how many compete nationwide? About 5.

    What’s the solution to create more competition? Open the state borders and allow all companies to compete nationwide. This will lower prices and improve care – that’s what happens when there’s competition…

    What else? Tax Credits to companies which lower their prices and improve care. People react to incentives, not punishments. They pass the burden to the consumer if taxed/punished.

    What about the Public Option? It will raise private care costs and keep competition low.
    How? You try selling air for $10 when someone can go outside and breath it for free. You will have no competition.

    How do i get this solution? Just read a basic economics book idiot…References : Econ 101

  13. J P

    When employers began offering insurance as a benefit, it removed health care from market forces. People don’t care much what things cost when someone else is paying for it. Just look at the two areas of medical care that are primarily governed by market forces: lasik and cosmetic surgery. Both have become more efficient and less expensive due to competition.

    You mischaracterize the argument when you say that the national exchange will satisfy the "allow consumers to buy across State lines" argument. There will be much, much more than "certain minimum standards" imposed. Government will dictate coverage, premiums and eligibility. Allowing consumers to pick from a variety of providers is an empty illusion, when each of those providers must conform to Government regulation of all material elements of the policy.

    Your argument about tort reform is ludicrous. First, Obama merely mentioned it in one speech. But as we can see, the powerful Plaintiff’s Bar successfully lobbied to keep it out of either version. Mentioning it in a speech and then doing nothing is a transparent sham. Further, you complain that it would do nothing about "inefficiencies and bureacratic overhead of the private sector." Can you seriously argue that Government control will reduce inefficiency and bureacracy?References :

  14. gyt

    I’m a conservative but not a republican but here are the ideas that they have come up with:
    1. Tort Reform to cut the costs of tests done just to prevent lawsuits. It will also lower the costs of malpractice insurance for the doctors. It doesn’t keep patients from having a chance to sue, it just wipes out the tremendous over payments that lawyers get from suing for high amounts.
    2. No turning down patients for preexisting conditions. This is done by making a law but it doesn’t cost taxpayer money to implement.
    3. Allow workers to take their insurance from job to job
    4. Allow people to buy insurance across state lines. This brings more competition so that the insurance companies will try and keep their costs low to get more business.

    This is the plan that the republicans have had and the one that the democrats would not let in the discussion.References :

  15. Well Duh!

    Increased competition, no, you are not comprehending what increased competition across state lines is all about.
    Tort reform – So you think obama assigning tort reform to the trial lawyers chief lobbyist a good faith move on his part? lol……Tort reform has dropped insurance costs in Texas by an astronomical amounts and have saved hundreds of millions of dollars.
    If there is no government takeover then we do not need the over 100 New bureaucracies that are currently slated to be developed by the plan, is that right?
    There will be no savings later. There is nothing in that bill to lower costs on health care or insurance rates, when in fact they will be going up. Those waste in medicare they keep talking about is cutting payments to doctors, hospitals, and elderly homes. Learn the facts.

    What did you miss? All of it.References :

  16. Tsar Brainless Harry Reid

    That is almost impossible to answer. The Republicans have brought forth so many, that Pelosi, Reid and Obama (the three stooges) have ignored and blocked from being discussed that I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that. Suffice it to say, there have been many, and 99% were better than this Frankenstein bill that is being pushed through now.References :

  17. raymond

    Since no one knows what the dem plan truly is, I don’t know how you expect
    someone to offer the Republican view. I think part of the issue at large, is the
    fact nothing has been explained or shown in black and white, You have 2074
    pages of contradiction, Would you sign onto something so ambiguous. Or are
    you smarter than they are.References :

  18. Keith M

    Cons simply mouth the concerns of the big wealthy fatcats. Its like dancing puppetsReferences :

  19. RU Quazee

    Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;

    · Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;

    · Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and

    · Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

    For Starters.

    H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act. REJECTED
    Improving Health Care for All Americans Act REJECTED
    Medical Rights and Reform Act REJECTED
    Medical Liability Reform legislation REJECTED

    Wanna couple dozen more?References :

  20. viablerenewables

    1st for an insurance policies to be even worth the paper written on the company has to survive. Tort reform, Buy insurance across state lines (1st required to even enable fed to regulate insurance companies), If the government is forcing the insurance companies insure individual(s) with preexisting conditions then they need to have a larger insured base, therefore, younger individuals have to carry insurance. Based on the date the law comes into effect, the preexisting conditions buy in privilege has to have a time table otherwise one wouldn’t buy insurance until they are sick. It doesn’t make economical sense for them to.References :

Leave a Reply