GOP introduces their health care reform bill
At long last, House Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH), is ready to introduce the GOP version of health care reform.
While you can read it at GOP.com, I can pretty much give it to you here, as there isn’t much to provide.
1. Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
This is certainly okay with me. Yet,try as I may, I can never seem to find anyone who can explain to me how this is going to save us money.
There is a top line argument, particularly in states where one or two insurance companies dominate, that allowing insurance companies from other states to sell their policies will bring the competition that will bring down the prices. But is this really true?
I really don’t think so.
The truth is that health insurance companies do not set their prices to more effectively compete. In fact, they share information about pricing with one another – that whole anti-trust exemption thing. So, until someone can provide a rational explanation as to why this is going to make a difference, it is hard to see where this is anything more than a GOP canard designed to once again fool people.
You should also note that the Pelosi bill does permit insurance companies in the national exchange to sell across state lines, so long as they are licensed in every state.
2. 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.
Maybe I’ve been missed something, but I’m unaware of any prohibition that currently stops individuals, small businesses and trade associations to pool together and acquire insurance at lower prices. Oh wait…yes there is…the health insurance companies! If Boehner is suggesting that all three of these classes come together to buy insurance, that can’t work as the actuarial approach to each class would not support the mixture. If he means that individuals can come together with other individuals, small businesses can come together with other small businesses, etc. – nobody is stopping them. Obviously, they have not managed to negotiate deals that work or it would be happening. And if it is happening successfully somewhere, there is no legislation afoot that would stop it from happening. So, what in the world is Boehner talking about?
3. Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
I guess one would have to understand what he means by “tools”. I would assume it means ‘money’. Essentially, all this proposal does is kick the can down the road to the states – which is precisely where health insurance policy currently resides – so the Congress can avoid the politics of having to deal with this mess. Further, like it or hate it, the Pelosi bill does quite a bit to incentivize the states to innovate.
4. 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.
Alright, already. I’ve never met anyone (except some plaintiff’s lawyers) who does not hate junk lawsuits. The problem has always been to separate the junk from the reasonable lawsuits to redress true wrongs. I agree wholeheartedly that we should be exploring ways to do this. Medical review boards prior to permitting litigation, etc.
The thing is that medical malpractice, while annoying, costs us .5% of the health care expenditure compared to, say, the 30% of every health care dollar spent on unnecessary administration costs so that the insurance companies can keep money invested a few months more rather than pay it out on claims. So is this really the basis of repairing our health care system? If we were to suddenly end all medical malpractice lawsuits – which would never happen as the malpractice insurance companies are also an effective lobby in Congress – would this really do the trick? It would help — but it wouldn’t come close to fixing the problems that must be fixed.
Honestly, how does John Boehner make a living doing this? I can accept that there are other points of view as to how to fix the ailing health care system – even if I might disagree with most of them while agreeing with some – just as I would have thought that the GOP could have contributed something meaningful to the argument. Instead, the Democratic conservatives have had to do the disagreeing for the GOP, because the Republicans seem to have nothing.
Why can’t the GOP actually give us some proposals that have merit? They have some smart people…why not actually do the work if they want the nation to take them seriously? I can’t believe that William Buckley wouldn’t have proposed something of real substance were he still around. As it is, I think he would be ashamed of what the conservatives have become.
I caught Boehner on George Stephanopoulis this morning. All he wanted to do was talk about how many pages are in the health care reform bill and how many times the word ‘shall’ appears. The man had nothing on the substantive material contained in all those pages- just more rants on the government takeover of medicine. Yawn.
There is still a little time. Let’s see if the House Republicans can show us that they actually can follow the issues and put forth a meaningful argument., not only in opposition but something that might actually prove to be a real and better approach. It really is embarrassing. This is a national party who gave us our last president. Yet, they are apparently incapable of handling the complicated policy of solving an important national problem.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Semple and Dr Cure, Xzotto. Xzotto said: GOP introduces their health care reform bill – True/Slant: New York Daily NewsGOP introduces their health care .. http://bit.ly/5ru5f [...]
Rick,
I want to know the name of your book and when it’s coming out. You’re about the only guy who has ever made health care comprehensible to me.
Thank you Jerry. I am going to have to now make the modifications based on the whatever comes from the new law and then, back out to the publishes. I would, however, be very happy to send you the manuscript. Ok if I do so by email attachment?
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James T Pereira, Bruce S Preble and Sandy Desdine, Sarah. Sarah said: GOP introduces their health care reform bill http://bit.ly/mrQNi [...]
Rick, have you read the current 1,990 page bill?
I’ve started marching through it. Through all this debate & discussion & comment surrounding this “health care” situation, I have a 3-part question:
1. what is the exact problem the gov is trying to fix?
2. how, exactly, does this bill fix the problem?
3. where can I find supporting data that the bill authors & supporters rely upon to show that this bill fixes the problem?
Because, in order to really solve a problem, it must first be clearly defined. Especially when it’s a complex problem and many alternatives exist. But where is the problem defined?
Then, after the problem is clearly defined, begins evaluation of alternatives that might fix the problem. Where is the supporting info related to the various alternatives that were considered?
We the People cannot make a decision about whether we support this or not without seeing the data & support that was used to come up with the solution.
I admit that I’m not as in-the-know as many others, so I just haven’t been able to find this critical information. Dems have their plans & ideas & bills, so many of them, and they’re so long & convoluted that it’s impossible to figure out what it is the new laws will accomplish. The Repubs now have their own version, but it seems to not be solving the same problem as the Dems.
Ron Paul has introduced several measures that would be a good start at fixing the problem – at least as far as what I believe is the problem – but nobody ever talks about his solutions. So it makes me believe that I don’t understand the problem.
And I’m hoping you can help with this. Thank you.
Lawyerlynn- I’m in the process of reading and have been providing a synopsis of each section on this blog page if you wish to have a look.
To answer your questions-
1. The exact problem – (a) too many people do not have affordable access to health care , (b) of those who do, insurance premium costs are well exceeding inflation, causing more and more Americans to face a future without coverage as it gets more difficult to afford it; (c) the costs of health care have been an excessive percentage of GDP, and promises to grow out of control very soon.
2.The bill actually does quite a bit to (a) give a lot more Americans access to affordable health care and (b) creates some mechanisms designed to control health insurance costs. What it does not do particularly well, is address the rising costs of health care and its percentage of GDP.
3.There is no such thing as supporting data that proves success. There are theories on all sides of the debate. The only way you find out what works and what does not is to try things and see how it goes. But, for a certainty, trying nothing will accomplish nothing and this is very much not an option.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, thank you for the response. You’re right in that more people will be covered, because it’s my understanding that EVERYONE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE. So, it looks like they’re creating a full market. In addition, it also looks like the Commissioner will be mandating the make-up of the policies and various offerings.
So, we see that they are creating a market, dictating exactly what the market has to buy, and setting price points.
You said: “There is no such thing as supporting data that proves success.” But I didn’t ask for supporting data that proves anything.
I’m asking for data that supports these alternatives as solutions to the problems. What data was used to determine that these solutions – and in 1,990 pages, there must be alot of solutions – what data shows they will or can solve the problems? There must be some data – projections, calculations, studies, etc. If there’s no data to support, how do they make the decisions as to what might work?
I have an MBA so I know that scientific means exist to quantify problems and then use various models to likewise quantify solutions. “Show me the data” is all I’m asking. It has to be there. And until we see the data within the context of the various alternative solutions, we have no valid means of evaluating the decisions that were made.
Rick, have you reviewed any of Ron Paul’s legislation with regard to this health care situation?
In response to another comment. See in context »lawyer- to be honest, I haven’t followed Ron Paul’s ideas, but I certainly would be happy to do so if you can refer me.
As for mandated coverage, I’m not a huge fan. This is really something that is being done to appease the insurance company interests. The only way the gov’t. could get the insurance companies on board with respect to getting rid of some of their more onerous policies was to say that they would replace the losses with additional business – not the best solution.
As for the data in support, there just isn’t much because so much of this is being done for the first time. The only thing we can go by, vis-a-vis gov’t supported health care is Medicare which, setting aside some of the costing issues, has actually worked out pretty well. As for the rest, it is more along the lines, for the most part, of seeing what is not working and trying out ideas that would resolve those problems. Clearly, not a perfect science. Like so many things, it will have to be trial by error. IF the country were not so resistant to making repairs to the health care system then we would be a lot farther along in discovering what will – or will not – work. But, as you know, health care reform come vary rarely in this country, and that doesn’t provide much room to experiment.
In response to another comment. See in context »So these people who want this bill to become law are forcing everyone to buy insurance – whether you want it or not – to appease insurance companies? The only jobs of this fed gov is to defend our country & protect our liberties. But here they are stripping our liberties, again, and for the sake of insurance companies. Yet people everywhere believe that this effort at “reform” is benevolent government. “Yes, citizens, we love you & care about you, and we want you to have health care you can afford. So, to show you how much we love you, we’re going to pass this 1,990 page bill. What? What? You didn’t have time to read it? Couldn’t understand it? Couldn’t find the laws referenced therein that modify other laws? Oh, don’t worry, please, just believe us (we’ve proven that we can be trusted) … we have your best interest in mind.”
They’re creating a huge, massive new bureaucracy. Taking more civil liberties. Engaging in blatant unconstitutional actions. And after they’ve proven beyond any doubt that they don’t give a poop what the people say or want OR what’s really in the best interests of the people.
People in this country are HOMELESS and HUNGRY. In my city, if you go down to the river by the railroad tracks, it’s crammed with people – and they live there.
I’ve heard people scream about health care is a right. But this isn’t about health care. It’s about health insurance. Why is it that health insurance is more of a “right” than having a home or food to eat – if we’re going to start manufacturing “rights” ??
These politicians claim to care about the people’s health, but then engage in rampage to outlaw simple yet efficient means of staying healthy, like using vitamins & herbs. Now we can’t advertise health benefits of those, even if true. Stores are being put out of business & owners fined & jailed. By the same people that say they are helping us by passing this law.
Why don’t they just expand VA to include those without health insurance, and who want to have the care?
There are a multitude of possible solutions to the problems, as you defined them, without having to implement a new bureaucracy and without slashing more civil liberties. Pelosi says health care is a right. And this bill will help insure that right. Yes, just like Janet Reno allowed the gassing & burning of the children at Waco because she was concerned about the children. Or that we bomb Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan to protect them from the bad guys.
None of it makes any sense and I sure hope people will realize it while we still might have a chance to stop it.
If you are sincere in being open-minded to Ron Paul’s ideas re: health care, CampaignforLiberty.com is the HQ for solutions that make sense.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] the rest here: Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – GOP introduces their health care … Tags: anti-trust-exemption, insurance-companies, more-effectively, not-set, prices, their-prices, [...]
lawyerlynn-
I actually thought you were trying to understand the legislation. Turns out you were just looking to set up a political statement. In the future, it would be good if you would just make the political statement as it would save me the time of answering your questions – which you really didn’t want answered.
Actually – nobody has ever said that health care is a right because, in fact, it is not. Of course, this it is the only nation in the western world where health care is not a right but rather a privilege. Indeed, this the only country in the industrialized world where owning a gun is a right while health care is a privilege. In the others, it is the exact opposite.
I did take the time to go look at Ron Paul’s suggestions. Some of them were fine – most were, pardon me, ridiculous. I think Ron Paul is a very well-intentioned guy. But he goes too far. When someone votes against SCHIP, which is the only health care available to millions of little children, that’s not okay with me. You express concern for the homeless and the hungry- as well you should. But you don’t think children should be getting health care even if it’s being paid for by the government? Sorry, but that doesn’t work for me. And anyone who would vote against providing this to needy kids does not see the world that way I see it.
Why do you leap to the conclusion that I’m not trying to understand the legislation?
Why do you say I’m “just looking to set up a political statement?”
What kind of baloney is that now? Because I have an opinion or a statement, then that negates any sincerity I had in asking the questions? Do you have to pin that type of negativity to me – make me out to be a backdoor manipulator, not interested in true understanding. What do you have to do that for? If I just wanted to make a statement, why would I need to set it up with questions? Is it because I don’t agree with you that I shouldn’t be allowed to have questions or have my questions answered?
You jump to these conclusions and you make broad sweeping statements with no support at all – Ron Paul’s suggestions were, excuse me, ridiculous. And which suggestions are ridiculous and what makes them so?
I doubt that you could substantiate any of these wild leaps to conclusion, just as you apparently can’t substantiate or support this legislation to be able to solve the problems you outlined.
Because Ron Paul voted against SCHIP, doesn’t mean he’s against insurance for children. He’s against this model of subverting the constitution to do it. And as many others would be, if they weren’t dumbed-down by journalism like this & shady politics, that try to make things into something they’re not.
This entire exchange is another example of shoddy & dishonest politics & tabloidism.
If the people of each state want these policies (insurance, health care, etc) then they should get together & vote to create state-wide laws for their community. The fed gov has no authority for this, and it’s not efficient. Some day, people will be sorry they relinquished control of their lives & ditched the Constitution.
Didn’t take much of a leap. Nothing you wrote in comment was, in fact, a comment on the information I provided you just as none of it was a comment on the article. It was, in fact, a political statement, not a discussion, in any way, shape or form, on the post.
But, as I said, go for it! Political statements are welcomed and encouraged. I only asked that you skip the pretense of interest in the article (which, based on your comments was clearly of no interest to you whatsoever) and just make your statement. My page is your page.
By the way, you seem to have this driving need that everyone who has an opinion or an approach have a ‘backup’ to justify their statements and/or believes. That I need when I go to court – when stating my opinion, well- it’s my opinion. What exactly is your ‘backup’, authority or whatever for your strongly held beliefs??
But, hey, as you clearly believe, it is all about ideology, right? Kids who need medical care? Nothing but a blip when we have bigger fish to fry over whether the federal or state government should be helping them. Again, no backup – just my opinion- but I’ll take a pass on any political ideology that is more concerned with it’s value as ideology over the lives and health of kids.
While you seem to think that its fine that Ron Paul voted against extending health care to more children based on his ‘belief’ that there is a better way to do it, those children would have continued to go without health care had Paul had his way. Sorry, but when you are willing to hurt children in the name of ideology, I’m just not going to like you.
Next time I see a mother with a sick child and no insurance, and I see them often, I’ll just say, “hey lawyerlynn and ron paul don’t think your kid should get help from the federal government, so sorry. Of course, if the state decides to come up with something to help your sick kid, I’ll let you know. We should be able to get him to see a doctor in about 5 years when California recovers.”
If you don’t understand that there is something wrong with someone who would let sick children go untreated in the name of ideological belief, or would risk the lives and health of the elderly in the belief that doctors will take care of them out of the goodness of their heart (as, apparently they did back in Ron’s day), then I hope you don’t have children that ever need the help or grandparents or parents who rely on Medicare to keep them alive. Because, yes, that argument is ridiculous.
In response to another comment. See in context »I just watched the “60 Minutes” piece on the H1N1 flu vaccine and I hope — no, I trust — that all these bozos who are so adamantly against government involvement in our health care will forego the vaccine, thereby risking their lives and the lives of their families, so that people who believe that government has a place in protecting us from illness can have first access to the vaccine.
Now if this trusting government could actually supply an adequate supply of vaccines…
In response to another comment. See in context »Regarding tort reform, I thought the net cost savings came from cutting back on defensive medicine, not decreasing overall payouts.
It’s suppose to come from both. However, it’s an interesting thing about tests. People are always in support of cutting back on tests – until they are tests to be performed on them. When it becomes person, and one feels their is even a fraction of a chance that their own health might be in jeopardy, they become all for tests. The ‘defensive medicine’ testing thing has some truth to it, but not quite as much as people believe.
In response to another comment. See in context »I figured it would be something like that. Defensive medicine, it would seem to me, is practiced for a lot more reasons than just avoiding a malpractice suit.
Glenn Beck espoused almost exactly your point a couple weeks ago on a townhall-type show where he spoke with a bunch of doctors. Glenn was saying that when it’s you who has the unidentified syndrome, you want a lot of tests. He mentioned a friend of his who inexplicably was overproducing spinal fluid, which put the guy in tremendous pain, and all the doctors could do was drain it periodically. Beck basically said if he were that guy, he’d want all the tests he could get to figure out what was wrong.
Of course, Beck brought this point up to criticize the government’s attempts to institute some best practices guidelines with doctors who treat Medicare patients, and didn’t care that he just cut a leg off his tort reform argument.
In response to another comment. See in context »Although I generally agree with the weakness of the GOP ideas, I see them as being less risk to the existing system. If they don’t work then apply a more regulatory option; little damage done. Opening the system should always be the first approach. Historically, it is easier to restrict than to open regulations (and take power away from Government).
Also, correction the full cost for medical malpractice is around 8-10%.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=az9qxQZNmf0o
(But not all that can be accounted for since some defensive measures will always be there, as you noted below)
And the 30% admin costs is not accurate and includes legitimate costs to a business including advertising. Subtract the 5-10% medicare costs wasted on fraud and you have a different picture.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2505.cfm
So you either get high fraud rates or difficult reimbursement process to guard against fraud. 2nd option is more cost effective, but has negative effects to consumers.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
Based on these comments, it looks like you’re a proponent of the “try something…anything” approach. If that’s the way that we’re going to try to resolve this so called issue we see, then shouldn’t we put in some stipulations that are designed to set up some “triggers” but triggers that would shoot the bill dead if they are not met? Why is it that all these grand legislative items never come with them metrics for evaluation of success or failure? Every business is continually evaluating operations to determine if a plant should be relocated or a product is performing well enough to continue production. The government is the only entity I am aware of where critical analysis is not performed. There are rarely metrics and when there are, they are idiotic things like “jobs saved”. Things that are impossible to measure.
If these morons in congress want to fling (crud) against the wall and see what sticks, there should be provisions set up that stipulate that the legislation is repealed if certain expectations are not met. For instance, if health care becomes rationed or if premiums do not drop or if more people are forced into the government option than identified in the estimates.
I pose the question to you…what are the metrics this bill will be measured by and what are you prepared to do when those measures are not met? Are you going to simply say “we need more” of whatever the gubment is doling out? Or are you prepared to be on the front lines to repeal the bill?
Guess not, huh Rick? Just ram something through…Anything. Let’s not evaluate the consequences. Let’s not understand how we’re going to make any of it work. Instead of starting small and fine tuning, let’s start with a full takeover and when that doesn’t solve the problem, we’ll just throw more money at it.
In response to another comment. See in context »