Shorter Economist: GOP Should Try Lying
| Mon Jul. 20, 2009 9:41 AM PDT
The Economist's Democracy in America blog is right about pretty much everything in this post:
Everyone in Washington knows that a delay of a health-care bill this year will mean the death of health-care reform for the foreseeable future. But they can't say that.... The Republicans can't really afford to be this blunt, because the White House will happily use that against them.
It's worth pointing out, however, that the (anonymous) blogger is essentially encouraging Republicans to go ahead and lie about their dreams of killing health care reform.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
They don't have to bother.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 10:07 AM PDT.
They don't have to bother. The fact that Republicans have been in power for the last decade and have done nothing on fixing healthcare is as clear a signal as we need that they're not interested in trying to fix it.
Well they certainly aren't
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 1:01 PM PDT.
Well they certainly aren't interested in 'fixing' healthcare if it means bankrupting the country. I mean are the Democrats interested in fixing healthcare through tort reform? Why discount the concerns of at least half of the people in this country who have legitimate questions about nationalizing healthcare? How are we going to pay for this when Medicare is already $35,000,000,000,000 in the hole in future liabilities. How are doctors going to accommodate another 40,000,000 people when it already takes months to see a specialist if you don't increase the number of doctors.
Please
Submitted by Douglas McClean (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 9:02 PM PDT.
"Fixing healthcare through tort reform" is something like fixing the titanic by installing heaters to warm up the ocean around it. As has been documented repeatedly on this blog. Also documented repeatedly: arbitrartion is largely a scam. According to the CBO, medical malpractice amounts to less than 2% of health care costs--after considering defensive medicine.
I'm all for a few basic reforms to the tort system, but since they aren't the "neener-neener-you-can't-sue-me" ones that big business is lobbying both parties so hard for they are unlikely to ever see the light of day. Quick hitters would be making punitive damages payable to the treasury instead of to the plaintiff and capping contingent fees; those alone would end much of the (dramatically overblown in some parts of the media) abusive filings. More long term, streamlining the process of adjudicating claims and allowing a stronger role for subject-matter experts in deciding cases with lots of sciency evidence could improve efficiency by allowing lots of people wronged to cheaply and quickly win lots of small cases rather than using punitive damages to (in theory) achieve the same costs for wrongdoers by having a small percentage of those wronged go to great lengths and then giving them punitive damage awards, but that is a lot harder to get right and would be even less popular with the bar.
What is your solution,
Submitted by concerned about health (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 4:25 PM PDT.
What is your solution, anonymous?
You’re going to hate this
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Jul. 21, 2009 3:16 AM PDT.
You’re going to hate this but here I go:
1. We need to allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines the way auto insurance companies do. We need a Safe Auto and Geico of health insurance with different products for different groups of people. A 21 year old does want or need the same coverage as a 55 year old. Why should we all have the same coverage? The laws that were enacted 50 years ago that prevented selling across state line were done so by politicians to protect insurance companies.
2. National competition combined with a change in the law (mandating this) would mean policies that are portable and available with preexisting conditions.
3. We need to eliminate states mandates- there are over 900 of them. Viagra is covered in one State and ‘in vitro fertilization’ in another.
4. The government would subsidize premiums for the poor and unemployed
5. Regardless of the company to you buy insurance from, there would be a mandated $4,000 deductible that comes out of your pocket but is reimbursed by the federal government as a tax credit against your federal income taxes. Whatever portion of the $4,000 you don’t use you get as a credit against your federal income tax as an incentive for you to think twice before you go running of to the doctor. There are many examples of this working in private industry. It works and it puts people back in the loop about some of their medical decisions.
6. To unclog waiting rooms I would allow doctors to charge for telephone consultations. You go to the doctor. That’s one visit. He orders tests. That’s a second visit. Now to get the results, you have to go back for a third visit. I’d give the patient a choice. For half the cost of an office visit, the doctor will call you with the test results and consultation. But this is paid for privately not by insurance. So you have a choice: Want to come back 10 days later for test results, and sit in the waiting room for two hours which the insurance company will pay for, or do you want test results by phone 24 hours later but its going to cost you $50.00 out of your pocket but it won’t waste three hours out of your day. (If you have an elderly parent you’ll know just how valuable this would be)
7. I’d make ‘truth in advertising’ law where each medication would be given with an easy to read pamphlet that tells you exactly what the odds are of the drug you are able to take to help you. Sure those ‘satins’ reduce the rate of heart attack but by what percentage? 1%?
8. The government would fund the big clinical studies that the pharma companies won’t do showing the efficacy of whole food diets, phyto-nutritents and other natural solutions in disease prevention.
It’s start. Fire away with your criticism (except for point #6. We need #6 badly)
Health Care reform and Republicans
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Jul. 29, 2009 3:16 PM PDT.
Well, in some cases I'd agree with some of the criticism of a public health plan with the conservative faction. The fact is that our specialists are leaders in their fields - but not our basic care. Basic health care could be an achievable aim with a public plan, but before we turn to a taxpayer funded option, there should be far more study in whether or not the private sector can make it more affordable without compromising quality and ease of access.
Another issue that hasn't been addressed is tort reform, and in the case of the medical field I would say that there is more than a small case for the need for it, but then again let us remember that there is a need for citizens to be able to sue for recompense because there are lousy, negligent, and malpracticing physicians. There are - which is why malpractice insurance exists, because there are rotten apples. But that said, there certainly are lawsuits that shouldn't have been brought, or judgments that were too harsh, and in many states the cost of malpractice is too high for a general practitioner to sustain their practice.
We should also bear in mind, about our nation's finances, that there is one spending item, and one alone, that has contributed more to our deficits and debt than any other, and that, ladies and gents, is defense. Our defense spending is the most in the world, and larger than the other 9 of the top 10 combined - if we were to halve that figure, we could easily insure most, if not all, of America. Feed the hungry. Send the less well off to college, or at least vocational school. But that would require thinking in a way that benefits the average American, and not the richest 10%, which is an act that your average Republican is just not capable of doing.
