@cicerone imposter,
From cicerone imposter's post:
Quote:From Kaiser Health News:
Republicans Still Opposed Baucus Plan, “Even Though Some Elements Of Their Ideas Are Embedded In The Plan;” Policy Expert: “You Can See The Negotiation Process Here, A Bipartisan Process In This Bill.” Kaiser Health News reported that, “Republicans denounced the Democrats' latest health care proposal"even though some elements of their ideas are embedded in the plan.
"Some elements"? Why those ungrateful Republicans! Indeed, what "elements" were so rejected by Republicans and more importantly: Why? Were they mere half measures so watered down by Dems to be, at best, ineffective? Or were these "elements" purposely inserted into a budget busting pork addled bill that even 'Moderate' conservatives could not possibly accept thereby, setting up Republicans? This quote and the "Policy Expert" are both silent on this.
Quote:Baucus Proposed Measure To “Allow For The Purchase Of Individual Health Insurance Across State Lines.” Sen. Baucus’ chairman’s mark proposed that, “[s]tarting in 2015, states may form ‘health care choice compacts’ to allow for the purchase of individual health insurance across state lines…. Once compacts have been agreed to, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact
Really? Why do citizens need to wait until 2015 with merely the "Hope" that their individual state "may form ‘health care choice compacts’ "? Why can't those individuals in NJ merely sign up with an Ohio insurance firm? What's the need for both some "compact" and state approval? Who agrees (or not) to said compacts, the Feds?
Quote:The GOP plan would have allowed Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, but it provided nothing for driving down insurance premium costs such as it would have done with a "Public Option". All the ability to purchase across state lines would have done would be to allow the big insurance companies the opportunity to drive out any smaller insurance companies.
This a classic liberal talking point/spin and is invalidated by the answer to a real world question: Given there are about a thousand companies in the U.S. that sell health insurance, why would just one more, administered by the Feds, significantly lower premiums overall? The only real answer that satisfies this question is the same that the liberals don't really want the majority of Americans who have their own health care (and are happy with it) to know: a federally administered single payer system. Additionally, we see the argument that competition among insurance companies would allow these crafty evil entities (who supply a lot of retirement income to oldsters) the chance to realize consolidation and cost reduction thereby helping to lower premiums. I imagine the ultimate concern of the left here is that perhaps this corporate condensation will lead to one big Insurance Monopoly where consumers have no choice. Like, say, a single payer system. In reality,
if the government stayed out of this market, such feared market cornering and resultant price increases would encourage competitors to enter the market thereby lowering premiums. Would the lefty's Fed public option and its ultimate mutation, single payer, allow the entrance of a competitor? If not, how would the lefty single payer system keep costs down? Well, we all know now, don't we?
In response to conservatives call for “
the abolition of community rating and guaranteed issue” which would allow individual's more of an A La Carte selection of just the insurance they feel meets their needs and thereby lower individual costs you posted:
Quote:"From the NYT:
Sen. Baucus “Did Not Win Support From A Single Republican Despite Tailoring His Proposal To Be Less Costly And To Extend To Reach Of Government Less Than Other Health Bills Moving Through Congress.” The New York Times reported that, “[t]he chairman of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday unveiled his long-awaited plan to remake the nation’s health care system and insure millions of Americans. But he did not win support from a single Republican despite tailoring his proposal to be less costly and to extend the reach of government less than other health bills moving through Congress…Mr. Baucus’s bill is the least expensive of five major health care bills moving through Congress.” [New York Times, 9/17/09]"
This does not address the above two issues.
Tort reform honestly has been approached wrongly by the conservatives. Savings here do seem initially very small but the left's argument against such reform because those percentage of savings are small is no argument for not enacting tort reform especially given health care's 1/6 share of our economy. I sincerely believe class action suits should be curtailed. I would like to hear those arguments in favor of such that do not involve windfall profits for litigators. Put simply, those individuals who claim damage should have every opportunity to prove so...individually. Should those individuals want to give 6 million dollars, or whatever, of the proceeds of a judgement to their lawyers, so be it. However, the cases should be tried on the merits on an individual basis, period.
Quote:The GOP proposal wasn't real reform. It was more of a document that the Republicans had to put out just so they could say that they had some sort of health care bill.
This quote of yours puts the lie to your own "Party of No" argument since it is based on the premise of a "GOP proposal". Further, this uses the Dems false assumption that the system needs reform. Republicans have maintained it does not but made honest proposals to improve a system that most Americans like as is.
Quote:And finally, it's about the money:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued an analysis of the alternative health care bill from the House Republicans.
The GOP plan would have saved the federal budget deficit $68 billion over 10 years and on average reduce insurance premiums compared to what they would be under current law. This all sounds pretty good, but its success would still have depended on trusting the private insurance companies, which to date has been a total disaster. The Democrat´s bill will save $150 Billion over those same 10 years.
This is revealing. To conservatives and Americans that actually pay taxes and their own debts it’s always about the money. To statists such as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Emanuel it’s about gaining more power for themselves by decreasing our individual liberties. This paragraph admits that the GOP plan would save Americans money. The problem the left has is that, God forbid, somebody might actually make a profit providing a service/product that Americans might want and they don't get their piece of the action. ICAN's term 'Coveters' is apt. This has been the left's biggest problem like, forever (see ICAN's latest posts). Insurance Companies now join Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc. The irony that Ican rightly points out is that the very institutions and industries (in a word: BIG) that the left despises are those whose labor and services pay for the left's follies.
Lastly:
Quote:"The Democrat´s bill will save $150 Billion over those same 10 years."
Well, here's Howard Fineman's (hardly a conservative stalwart)
musings regarding Obamacare's merits in this regard:
Quote:" The result is a 10-year, trillion-dollar contraption full of political risk and unintended consequences for a health-care system that constitutes one sixth of the economy. Many of the people who will benefit directly from the reforms, the uninsured, don't vote. Insurance premiums will continue to shoot up for most of us; Democrats fret that they will be blamed for those increases in the 2010 elections. Some regulations on the industry kick in immediately, but most don't begin until at least 2013. And yet, to allow the bill to "save" money in the first decade, most new taxes and fees go into effect immediately. "We're collecting money before we're giving all the benefits!" lamented a Democratic senator facing reelection. "That is a political disaster.""
Fineman's column has some sobering information here at:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/228951 titled
Obama’s Health-Care Gamble
And why he may come to regret it. Another excerpt:
Quote:"But the crusade [Obamacare] that is dragging itself toward the finish line doesn't quite feel like a triumph, let alone the launch of a new New Deal. The reasons offered for the undertaking have been ever-shifting. In the campaign, it was about rationalizing the system and saving federal cash; then it was about protecting coverage of the middle class; then about the moral duty to cover the uninsured. By the time Bill Clinton met privately with Senate Democrats on Obama's behalf, it was (in his telling) primarily about the political optics: the need to pass something, anything, to avoid defeat."
Indeed, recently we have seen David Axelrod stooping to the lame plea that after the American people are forced into the system "they will like it". This is classic big government “Trust us, we know what is good for you” talking. Seriously, it’s time these people were forced to spend more time with their families.
JM
