GOP reveals true colors in Boehner health alternative – and it isn’t pretty
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
For those who would like to believe that the health care bill introduced by the GOP this week represents their desire to deliver meaningful health care improvements in a way that does not break the bank, you might take a look at what is the most remarkable offering in the GOP plan.
The bill, as proposed by House Minority Leader Boehner, permits health insurance companies to choose a ‘primary’ state ”whose covered laws shall govern the health insurance issuer” and then market policies to other states without the requirement of adhering “to all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes of the state.”’ (see Amendment in the Nature of A Substitute Offered by Mr Boehner of Ohio.)
The proposal would allow health insurers to ‘shop’ for the state with the most favorable conditions while allowing the insurers to by-pass the consumer protections, rules and regulations of the other states where they wish to sell their policies.
At the least, it is difficult to believe that the party of ‘state’s rights’ would go to such an extent to avoid the protections offered by the individual states to their citizens.
However, the bill does require insurers to give adequate notice to policy holders so that they will know that they are not going to be protected by the laws of the state in which they live and purchase their health insurance policy.
1 THIS POLICY IS ISSUED BY ________________ AND IS GOV-
2 ERNED BY THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
3 OF THE STATE OF____________, AND IT HAS
4 MET ALL THE LAWS OF THAT STATE AS DE-
5 TERMINED BY THAT STATE’S DEPART-
6 MENT OF INSURANCE. THIS POLICY MAY
7 BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN OTHERS BE-
8 CAUSE IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE
9 INSURANCE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF
10 THE STATE OF _____________ INCLUDING COV-
11 ERAGE OF SOME SERVICES OR BENEFITS
12 MANDATED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
13 ___________. ADDITIONALLY, THIS POLICY IS
14 NOT SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSUMER
15 PROTECTION LAWS OR RESTRICTIONS ON
16 RATE CHANGES OF THE STATE OF
17 _______. AS WITH ALL INSURANCE PROD-
18 UCTS, BEFORE PURCHASING THIS POLICY,
19 YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW THE
20 POLICY AND DETERMINE WHAT HEALTH
21 CARE SERVICES THE POLICY COVERS AND
22 WHAT BENEFITS IT PROVIDES, INCLUDING
23 ANY EXCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, OR CON-
24 DITIONS FOR SUCH SERVICES OR BENE-
25 FITS.’’
House GOP Healthcare Bill
Speaking now to my Republican friends – I know what you’re thinking. How else can we have policies sold across state lines as a means to create the competition that will bring down the costs of insurance premiums if such policies have to comply with the differing laws in every state? What’s more important to Americans? Lowering premium costs is clearly more important to purchasers of health insurance than arcane state laws, right?
While I have never seen how cross-state line sale of insurance would truly make a difference in premium costs, I would be willing to acknowledge the argument – if it weren’t for the remainder what the GOP is proposing. It is truly … ‘special.’
The bill defines a “state” to include not only the 50 states that form the nation, but also includes as a ’state’, for purposes of the bill, possessions, protectorates and commonwealths of the U.S. including, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (see pages 121-122 of the Boehner Bill)
Northern Mariana Islands…why does that ring a bell?
Oh yes, that would be the same Northern Mariana Islands where goods are manufactured in sweatshops owned by the Chinese yet, because it is a Commonwealth of the US, qualifies to add the “Made In The USA” label to its products.
This would be the same Northern Mariana Islands that hired Jack Abramoff to lobby on their behalf and was at the center of the scandal that that led to Abramoff’s downfall and subsequent jailing.
Does the minority leader expect any American, of any political ideology, to believe that this is a location we can trust to do its utmost to create and implement safeguards designed to protect all the citizens of the United States from the predatory practices of health insurance companies who will immediately migrate to the Islands and call them home?
So remarkable is it that Boehner would include such a provision in his bill, one is left to wonder if the House GOP is so out of touch with today’s America that they thought they could slip it by without anyone noticing.
While those of us in the blogosphere can, from time to time, be a bit loose in our accusations of foul play and to point fingers at those who we believe seek to protect and further business interests at the expense of the public interest, is there anyone out there prepared to step up and defend this provision in Boehner’s Amendment?
It is difficult, given the above provisions, to find a way to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt or ascribe any good motives to their intent.
For the GOP, this not about putting forth competing approaches to solve a problem – this is about protecting the insurance companies. Period. One would think they could, at least, be more clever in attempting to do so rather than putting their chicanery out there for all to see.
Shame on John Boehner and shame on the Congressional Republicans for allowing him to embarrass his party on so vital a public issue.
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 lachendwolf and Oregon Chiropractor, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: GOP reveals true colors in Boehner health alternative – and it isn’t pretty http://bit.ly/2QPkf1 [...]
From nihilist party to sweatshop party. Nice.
Just kidding. I didn’t watch tonight but I know it passed with 2 votes to spare. Any fireworks that were particularly entertaining? I have it on tape from CSPAN but won’t watch ’till tomorrow.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey Rick you watching the votes in the house?
Yes, there’s probably some stupid stuff in the GOP’s 200-page bill.
Good thing no one is trying to ram through a 2000-page bill before the public has a chance to see what’s in it, huh?
Correction on that one – I’ve read it all. Nothing like letting the insurance companies move to an island where they aren’t regulated and prohibits regulation of them in every state.
In response to another comment. See in context »You gotta admit, when trying to make the point the GOP has been wishing to make, isn’t this a crazy thing to do?
You read the entire 2000-page Democrat health care bill already? Wow.
I can’t read that fast, and I doubt most of the people that voted for it can either.
In response to another comment. See in context »Did you watch it? Did you see it? It was glorious! LOL
I watched the procedural vote this morning, which was a good sign. Watched some of the debate but nothing that wasn’t expected. Anything interesting happen this evening?
In response to another comment. See in context »It was nerve racking and scary, but when the tally clicked at 218 on the Yea side it was an amazing moment! Kudos to Rep Coa, the bravest man in DC!
In response to another comment. See in context »Is Koa the one Republican who voted for it?
In response to another comment. See in context »Coa, yes he’s the one that made it bi-partisan!
In response to another comment. See in context »Cao represents William “Cool Cash” Jefferson’s heavily Democratic district.
He was a one-termer anyway. What’s so “brave” about cutting a deal with Pelosi that may save him his seat? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him flip to Dem or Independent caucusing with the Dems.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh I’m sure he’ll be tossed out of the GOP by next week, we’ll happily welcome aboard!
In response to another comment. See in context »The Democratic plan:
Lots of little rules to make up for not having the political guts to offer universal health care
The Republican plan:
Solve the health care crisis by helping the insurance companies rip off their customers
I’ll take option 1
I would have preferred Medicare for all – but wasn’t going to happen. The point is to make a difference in making health care available to everyone and to fix some major problems in how the health and health insurance system works. This bill does make a real difference in those regards. So, while it may not be everything hat you want- and it certainly takes too long to kick in, give them credit as they did’t do such a bad job.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick I suspect once the bill is signed into the law the start date for a lot of benefits will be moved to an earlier date. It doesn’t serve the Dems well to have benefits not kicking in before the 2012.
In response to another comment. See in context »There are some emergency items that will kick in sooner, but the language in the House bill does not really allow for many of the programs to kick in before 2013. The only way this could be changed would be to amend the bill – which I suspect is unlikely. You have to keep in mind why it was pushed to 2013. While they will tell you that this was to give the new commissioner of health choices time to get the program in place – and there is truth to that- the real reason is that to make the numbers work in the first decade (no increase to the deficit), they had to delay a lot of the expenditures to 2013.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think this does present the Dems. with a bit of a let-down factor that could be a political problem. All this excitement and then…nothing happens. We know how impatient Americans can be.
What will help is that in the 2012 elections, Obama will be able to say, “two months after election day, the greatest improvement in health care since Medicare will begin – thanks to me.”
Oh boo hoo
You know, just once I’d like someone to give me a rational argument as to why affordable health care ought not be a right in this country. Health care already is a right, in the sense that we provide it for our elderly (who’d otherwise be screwed) and for some of our poor (who’d likewise be screwed) and for people in health emergencies who show up to the ER with full blown pneumonia that wouldn’t have gone past bronchitis if they’d had insurance. Health care is a right when you’re about to die and can reach an ambulance, but God forbid we rework the system so that fewer people show up at the ER with preventable health issues that have been ruining their lives and which wind up costing taxpayers billions in hospital bills.
I have some very conservative friends who like to engage in Facebook debates about politics. One guy supposed that if he or one of his family got really sick, he’d simply take out a huge loan to pay treatment and then work it off. He spoke about it like it would be some ten year long character-building experience he’d relish as a hard-working American iconoclast. And while such an experience would certainly teach him how to pinch pennies and be more mindful of his and his loved ones’ health habits – what the fuck? The guy is a 25 year-old with a good college degree and leadership qualities. He should be working 70-hour weeks, cutting his teeth at a small business, then starting his own small business that takes advantage of our surplus manufacturing capacity, manufacturing weird things that make escalators less dangerous or creating Nintendo Wii games that help injured employees rehabilitate fine motor movement more rapidly. He should not be packing away his entrepreneurial urges so that ten years from now he’s closing out his shift at Applebee’s to get to the bank early and make that last payment because his Aunt was underinsured and needed a brain operation years ago. How the hell is that good for our economy?
Let me give you a story from my teenage years. My father is a very good electrical engineer. He’s had his current job for 13 years, working on the International Space Station for government contractors. Ten years ago he interviewed at another firm for his dream job, got the gig, and had to turn it down, because the benefits sucked. A tiny firm simply couldn’t afford the benefits that his then employer could. So my very talented father couldn’t move to the company where he’d do the best work of his career because he couldn’t afford it if I or my mother or one of my siblings got sick. None of us have gotten all that sick since then, by the way. If my father were a remorseful man, he might look back on his time since then and thought, “Boy, I could have taken that job! Fuckin’ wife and kids…”
So, yeah, the healthy should be pooled with the sick. I’ve got young friends who are pissed off beyond words that they’ll have to pay a fine or else buy health insurance. To them I say – once you’ve found a lump in your armpit (Mine was an ingrown hair, but it was scary) or had an HIV scare (Two months ago I got shingles, which usually happens in the elderly or is a sign of immuno-deficinecy when the young get it), you’ll be damned thankful you have health insurance. When this insurance reform passes, you’ll still be able to move wherever you want, say whatever you want, practice whatever religion you want, start whatever business you want as long as you meet certain requirements. It’ll be the same America. Only more people will have health insurance and fewer people will go bankrupt because they get sick.
“so called poor”? What an odd term.
The president was a millionaire before he won the election, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Yes I find your use of the term “so called poor” odd, I’ve never really understand the GOP’s contempt for those less fortunate among us. I’ve always found it odd that a party that claims to be the defender of “christian values” shows such contempt for the actual teachings of Christ.
In response to another comment. See in context »Andy
In response to another comment. See in context »If you recall, I indicated that unless I saw an apology for the gassing the death camps thing, you wouldn’t be welcomed as a commenter. So, I will be taking all your comments off.
Does it say in the constitution where I can go to the bathroom?
Because quite frankly, i’m wondering if the strict constitutionalist crowd has been “holding it” all these years.
SHADEGG IS AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT! THE WORST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA! THE INFANT COULD HAVE MADE MORE SENSE IF SHE COULD TALK THEN HE DID. THANK HEAVEN THE GOP HAS IDIOTS LIKE SHADEGG HE PROVED JUST HOW USELESS HE IS & THAT HE HAS NO INTELLIGENCE WHAT SO EVER AND SHOULD REALLY RESIGN. BUT WHY WOULD HE? HE HAS A CUSHY JOB AND DOES NOTHING 24/7 BUT ANNOY THE MORONS WHO ELECTED HIM! BOY ARE THESE MORONS SORRY THEY VOTED FOR THIS JACKASS WHO ONLY HAS SHIT LEFT IN HIS BRAIN CAVITY! SHADEGG IS A LOSER LIKE KYL, MCCAIN, LIMBAUGH, PALIN, BAUCUS, BECK, BUSH, CHENEY, LIEBERMAN, ETC. WE ARE SO A SHAMED TO HAVE THIS A.H. ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BEAUTIFUL STATE! SHADEGG IS AN EMBARRASSMENT! HE ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT BE REELECTED! WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT ANOTHER MORON BESIDES THIS IDIOT GOV. BREWER. THEY ARE TIED AS FAR AS MINIMUM INTELLIGENCE! PERHAPS BEING OVER WEIGHT & UNHEALTHY WHICH COULD BE HIS DEATH WARRANT AND WE WOULD BE DONE WITH HIM, IF WE ARE LUCKY!