And the Alternative is ... ... ... Lacking?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So its been over a month since Obamacare has been presented. I think the general consensus I have seen is that people agree the Health Care delivery System in the United States needs to be changed/tweaked/overhauled, something but many do not agree with Obamacare. The issue is, where/what is the alternative plan? The Republicans have said from the beginning that Obamacare is flawed, and they (Republicans) want to work towards a better (relative term I know) solution. So, where is it? No one in the Republican Machine can come up with an alternative plan that can be discussed? Did Obama come up with this idea and completely took the Republicans by surprise to the point they can't respond?

[evmori 11]

I think the reason no one has come up with a solution is because no one can actually define the problem. Is the problem there are a lot of employed people & their families without health care or is the problem there are a lot of unemployed people and their families without health care? No I understand not all employees are eligible for health care but that would fall into a different category.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Since when has a lack of understanding of a problem ever slowed down Politicians in producing an answer to the problem?

 

Where is the answer to Obamacare? Is that too much to ask?

[Eagle92 110]

Did a quick search, and this may have your answer. Don't have time ot read it at the moment

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm

[Hal_Crawford 15]

You should read it. Not much there in terms of a plan.

 

Hal

[gcnphkr 11]

You are joking right? Do any of these ring a bell?

 

Remove restrictions on interstate health insurance.

Tort reform.

Remove state mandates.

Increase the limits (or remove them) on medical saving accounts.

Changes to professional licensing rules and controls on medical schools.

Decouple medical insurance from employment.

 

This whole, "Where is the alternative?" bit is getting tiresome.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Where are the details, what is the Bill Number so I can look it up? What changes to Medical Schools are contemplated, what changes to licenses? Dont tell me about Tort Reform, what are they planning to Reform? To what end? Don't give me platitiudes, I want specifics and not the same vague terms that Obamacare is written in. I want distinct prose that I can read and understand. If that is tiresome, I would like to say I am, sorry, but I cannot.

 

I have heard lots of rips on Obamacare, most deserved mind you, but I have not heard a specific rebuttal. So, back to you suck, and you suck more, thanks for the edification

[evmori 11]

Before you can fix a problem you need to know what the problem is. Just stating "there is a problem with health care" isn't good enough. That's like saying "we got a leak" but not knowing where the leak is!

[Tokala 16]

My guess is that the lobbyists haven't finished handing off the plan to their legislative representatives (not party specific mind you). Once the lobbyists finish writing legislation and stashing cash in the partys' bank accounts, then we'll hear specifics.

 

You get what they pay for.

[gcnphkr 11]

Here are two to get you started.

 

H.R.3217/S.1459 Provides a mechanism to purchase insurance from other states

H.R.502 Allows indivduals to deduct the cost of insurance premiums

 

Learn to use THOMAS http://thomas.loc.gov/

[BrentAllen 10]

I didn't think Obama had a plan...yet. From what I've seen, he tossed it to congress. Maybe we will see tonight, at least those who watch it might hear a plan. The polls say Obama has done a pretty bad job of selling and describing what he wants.

 

WASHINGTON Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.

 

The grade people give Obama on health care has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.

 

The poll underscores how the president has struggled to win public support to reshape the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system and to put the brakes on a deep recession.

 

Forty-nine percent say they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.

 

People are about evenly split over what lawmakers should do now on health care: About four in 10 say they should keep trying to pass a bill this year while about the same number say they should start over again.

 

Significantly, though, only about two in 10 say the health care system should be left as is.

 

There is a clear public desire for a bipartisan approach on the issue. Eight in 10 say it's important that any plan that passes Congress should have the support of both parties, while two-thirds want Obama and Democrats to try winning support from Republicans, who with few exceptions have opposed the Democratic drive.

 

[eisely 13]

Defining the problem to be solved is not a trivial exercise. One of the difficulties with the proposals from the liberal left is that they are not clear on just what problems they are trying to solve. So far I have heard three things cited as problems requiring a solution:

 

1. Health care costs a lot.

2. Medicare is going broke.

3. There is some number of uninsured people that must be covered somehow.

 

The one easily legislated thing that could make a big dent in costs is tort reform. Since the Democrats are a wholly owned subsidiary of the trial lawyers' lobby, they have not proposed anything positive here and would oppose anything that would rein in this lobby.

 

There are a variety of ideas that might help Medicare, but Obama's idea of simply cutting expenditures without somehow reducing benefits defies common sense. Medicare already is subsidized by patients with private insurance that enable providers to cover their losses on Medicare. I don't see any alternative to increasing taxes in some way to cover increased costs of Medicare.

 

You notice that I referred to "uninsured people" not "uninsured Americans." Since most people would equate the term "Americans" with "citizens of America," there is an important distinction to be made here. The figures I have seen indicate that some 10 to 12 million of the uninsured are illegal aliens. Illegals already have access to emergency rooms. There is an important policy issue here that deserves open debate, but that has been covered up. To what extent do American citizen taxpayers want to pay for coverage for illegal aliens?

 

Ironically many illegals are also taxpayers, and the IRS encourages them to file returns without turning them over to ICE. I don't know where the balance is here, but I suspect that, even if coverage was extended somehow to illegals who actually paid taxes, most American citizens would still not want to extend coverage to the balance of the illegals.

 

There are also several million uninsured people who fall into other categories: (1) eligible for Medicare but not participating, (2) eligible for Medicaid but not participating, (3) eligible for SCHIP (acronymn correct?) and not participating, and (4) sufficient income to purchase coverage but decline to do so. The figues I have seen, after all these categories are excluded leaves less than 10 million citizens who presumably desire coverage but do not have it. Surely there is some way to address this problem without screwing up the entire system.

 

If we could eliminate the inefficiecies arising out of the culture of jackpot justice and defensive medicine, we could probably pay for the few who really need help. But don't expect that reform, as noted above.

 

Further reforms that may actually happen are to open up interstate commerce in insurance, and increase the supply of doctors. Both of these would work to hold down costs.

 

So there are plenty of ideas out there and the Republicans have submitted bills. Those bills will be killed in committee and never make it to floor votes because the Democrats are not interested in anything from their opponents.(This message has been edited by eisely)(This message has been edited by eisely)

[Lisabob 13]

One of the (Democratic) proposals in committee discussion at present is over 1000 pages long. It may leave a lot to be desired but I don't think it is fair to say it is lacking in detail.

 

I think one problem in this whole debate is the question of scope. Do we want to (and can we) tackle the big picture, or do we want to just fiddle around with the edges? Do we want overhaul, or do we want incremental change?

 

Seems to me that more Democrats want big-picture overhaul, while more Republicans want incremental tweaks at the edges. Overhaul is scary. Incrementalism is often stagnant.

 

(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[eisely 13]

Lisabob,

 

Polling figures show that as many as 85% of americans with health insurance are happy with what they have. Even if 85% is high, this clearly indicates that the larger system as a whole is not in a state of crisis requiring urgent overhaul. Incrementalism is a perfectly sound approach.

 

One thing that I forgot to mention in my earlier post is providing tax equity to individuals who do not have access to insurance through employers. This would make individual coverage more affordable and probably motivate more people in this category to buy their own insurance, thus further reducinng the numbers of the uninsured at a relatively minor cost to the treasury. This would be very easy to accomplish.

[CalicoPenn 729]

This past month, I've heard a number of things that the GOP thinks should be considered - among them the list that Jet has provided.

 

I've heard Tort Reform bandied about many times - yet I wonder if most people understand that Tort Reform can't be done on a federal level (the only federal malpractice lawsuits would be against the VA). Tort Reform is a state issue - malpractice lawsuits are filed in states - and therefore states must pass Tort Reform. The idea behind tort reform is that if there is a limit to what a jury can award for damages, then malpractice and hospital liability rates will come down, which will help bring down the cost of health care. Indiana passed medical tort reform - yet in Indiana, malpractice premiums, hospital liability premiums, and health care costs have continued to rise. Malpractice premiums in Indiana are at about the same level as malpractice premiums are in Illinois, which doesn't have medical tort reform. When I read that, my first thought was "Hmmmm".

 

Changes to professional licensing rules? Again, a state issue - the Federal Government doesn't regulate the professions, states do. And controls on medical schools? Heck, that's not even a government issue - that's a matter between medical schools and the American Medical Association, a private, non-profit organization - in a sense, a "union" for doctors.

 

Decoupling employers from health insurance? What does that mean? I suppose it could mean Single Payer Health Insurance, but since it's the GOP, and they're opposing single payer, I can only guess that it means passing some kind of law preventing employers, who are currently under no obligation in law to provide health insurance (except under certain contractual laws), from providing health insurance, requiring people to go out and get their own (as many employed people are already required to do if they want health insurance).

 

Looking at the GOP list, only one thing is federal in scope - increase (or remove) limits on medical savings accounts. Everything else is state or private. So I guess that's the GOP plan for improving health care insurance in the US - punt it to the states.

 

Other alternatives I've heard:

 

No death panels. Yep, it's pretty obvious the neo-cons don't want death panels. Except there were no death panels envisioned (beyond the already existing private "death panels" (Transplant Board anyone???), so that's easily accomplished.

 

No funding of abortions. Ok - none of the proposals mentioned funding of abortions, and there's been no movement to repeal the Hyde amendment - I think we got that one covered.

 

No coverage for illegal aliens. Yeah, that's pretty much spelled out in all the proposals already, and had been since the beginning. Sure, the Dems in a committee voted against a GOP amendment for a residency test - because it was expensive, and redundant - a shocking switch some would say - but nevertheless, nothing in any of the proposals would give illegal aliens paid government health care coverage.

 

And of course the granddaddy of them all: "Keep government out of my Medicare". Well, I think the Dems and the rational GOP might just want to go ahead and ignore that one - save you from yourselves. Though it's not surprising considering the contempt neo-cons have for government that they would want to see Medicare completely dismantled - and if they get their wish, who's going to take care of Aunty Mildred in her dottering years?(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)