I've seen some mention that the Republicans have no plans of their own, but simply want to block 0bama. Completely untrue, and in fact, the Republicans have offered quite a few options that have been flatly rejected by the dems. This is a separate thread, because it is the opposite of what the dems are trying to do:

GOP health-care reform cost: $61 billion, cut deficit $68 billion

Their plan, which relies on interstate competition, HSAs, and tort reform, would only cost $61 billion in the first ten years of the plan — or slightly less than 6% of what Democrats plan to spend to overhaul the entire system:

-------------------------------------------
This evening, CBO released a preliminary analysis of a substitute amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proposed by Representative John Boehner, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.

------------------------------------------------
Unlike the Democratic proposals, the bill would actually reduce premiums:
------------------------------------------------

CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.
----------------------------------------------


Bottom line, spending more is only going to make things worse. The entire story:

http://hotair.com/archives/200...-deficit-68-billion/

Edit: Removed a comment about koolaide

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HayateAce,

Watch this if you want some truth. Forcing Americans to purchase a product or service against their will is unconstitutional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8_XcSHHxDk

No fair, Hayate. You're introducing facts and alternatives.

Next thing you know, people might start thinking for themselves, making decisions on their own, deciding their own destiny or being self reliant, a catastrophe for any decent Koolaid drinking liberal .

Busy day at work so don't have a chance to look at the material yet but I just wanted to say this, if the Reps have a good plan, then I'm all for it. I never claimed the Dem plan was the best way to do things, I just railed against the lies going on about it. I hope this is a good plan, then maybe the debate can shift from one of "my propaganda is the truth", "No, mine is!", to an actual debate about how to actually implement reform.

Oh, and all the "kool-aid" talk does NOT help win anyone who thinks rationally over to your side, whoever is using the term. You don't convince people of your argument by sounding like an extremist.

Yeah, what is this 'Kool-Aid' stuff anyway? Is it something they produce that turns you liberal? Have they been releasing it into the water supply? Does it contain flouride?

It sounds like a good plan, however I am cynical enough to wonder if it would pan out as proposed.

Remember this example of estimates?:

NY Times article about Budget Estimate

From what I have seen, any future cost saving proposals on paper are usually plagued by severe cost overruns with the final product that dwarf the original proposed savings, and the little people get to pay for it all.

I think that whatever plan is decided upon that has private business as a provider will need legislation at least at the state level. Here are links to legislation such as Prop 103 automobile insurance reform here in California, and it's positive results:

Affordable Car & Home Insurance
Insurance Reform & Prop 103

$62 Billion Savings on Auto Insurance in California Since Voters Approved Insurance Reform Proposition 103 Twenty Years Ago, According to National Study

Note that if this was not still a profitable business after the passage of Prop 103, the insurance companies would have most likely left the state. I do recall that there were threats from the industry that they would definitely leave if this legislation was passed.

The Republican proposal that Hayate listed above might work in a similar fashion with health care reform in that a private industry is regulated by the state, and not by the Federal government.

Fair enough U_S on the koolaid comment, point taken.

As far as what to do about health care and insurance, surely there is some middle ground all these left and right political geniuses can make work for us.

In my opinion, and I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, I really think the Republicans made it more likely that a public option gets passed by refusing to come to the table and working with Dems on health care--instead they just refused to negotiate and latched onto the health insurance companies' scare tactics.

I think if they had negotiated with the Baucus bill, and said "ok we will all vote for it but only if you do this and this and this and here is the realistic price tag that is our limit" then it would have been passed without a public option and with more conservative stuff in it (though it's already pretty conservative). But they refused to join the negotiations, and only Olympia Snowe joined in and negotiated in good faith.

I think Republican politicians got used to being the majority party and aren't used to being the minority and compromising and making deals with the majority. But they know that the Dem majority isn't all powerful so they have gambled on obstructionism, but again I think all it's done is made it more likely that a public option will get passed, because Dems don't feel like they can pass a plan with GOP support so there's no reason to bother compromising. And now the GOP comes up with a plan, some 6 months after the whole health care debate started.

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
Fair enough U_S on the koolaid comment, point taken.

As far as what to do about health care and insurance, surely there is some middle ground all these left and right political geniuses can make work for us.

Agreed, the middle ground is where it's at for sure. As with what I said above, this is the danger of the current "Us vs. Them" political environment, no cooperation when it is very much needed. If both camps go to the extremes they have been then something will get passed but it will likely not be good for us. I believe in a public option, but I also agree that careful precautions need to be taken to ensure the health of the private insurance industry, but at the same time give people enough incentive to have one or the other and not opt for no coverage. It's sticky, and needs EVERYONE involved to have a hope to get it right. I kinda agree with what BSword said, I think the Reps may have shot themselves in the foot somewhat by being so divisive on the issue.

I think I'd take the obstructionist bit with a grain of salt. From what I've read, Republican suggestions have been turned down flat. I think that for as much as Republicans are blamed for blocking proposals, the Democrats can be equally blamed for not listening to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideas. Probably as a result of having enough of a majority that they felt they didn't have to work cooperatively.

As to the Republican proposal, I think it's a good start, and certainly the first proposal that actually addresses 'reforms' in our system. The CBO numbers may well be wrong, but so much better to be wrong on a $61 BILLION than a $1 TRILLION proposal. This plan will also be attacked for not providing enough in the way of universal coverage. But I think that something along the lines of what San Francisco is doing could work in most cities, and be much cheaper.

I liked the $850-ish billion House bill but the one they are talking about now that is over a trillion is way too bloated and has stuff that has nothing to do with providing a simple public option.

The Senate bill with a public option that states can opt out of seems a lot more no-nonsense.

Yeah it's still expensive but it is projected to cut the deficit. Even if it broke even it's still better than the money pit we have now where many people who put in a hard day's work get zero coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by erco415:
I think I'd take the obstructionist bit with a grain of salt. From what I've read, Republican suggestions have been turned down flat.

I believe this is very much the case.

I can agree that both parties are to blame, they usually are, lol.

quote:

I think I'd take the obstructionist bit with a grain of salt. From what I've read, Republican suggestions have been turned down flat.

The "Gang of Six" of Dem and GOP Senators were supposed to come up with a bipartisan health care bill. You had GOP Senators like Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi saying they would work hard to create a bipartisan plan. Then all the tea partiers started showing up at town hall meetings in August to scream and yell, and pretty soon you have Grassley talking at town hall meetings about death panels and how he wants to kill any health care plan from the other side.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

At least finally they are coming up with plans but for the last several months they've mainly just been complaining from the sidelines or repeating the dumb fearmongering about death panels and stalinist medicine that we got when Medicare was introduced in the 60's.

i am not very used to some expressions in the political speak, and less in business and market-terms.

so, in simplified summary (and pls correct me, where i misunderstood something):
- the republican plan won't cost much - relative to the democratic proposal
- it is considered to reform medical malpractice and show up in savings/revenues of $55 bio (at the moment overall spendings are $ 2.2 trio)
- it will reduce federal deficits just minimal by $7 bio per year during the next decade
- it won't reduce the federal budget (which is 7.5% GDP at the moment, or $1 trio)
(i am not sure what the difference between 'federal deficits' and 'federal budget deficits' is?)
- it is anticipated to help mainly small business to afford insurances for the employees
- the effect for families and individuals are subject to a great deal of uncertainty
- it doesn't deal with those without insurance

i would say, it is a good approach on lowering costs... but is it considered to be an alternative solution for a reform of the health care system?
imo, it doesn't relate much to the problems, which are laid out as the reasons for a reform by the administration. the republican plan seems to aim for supporting small business, but i can't see any substantial approach on getting a grip on the actual spending 16% of GDP for healthcare, the question of uninsured or the principal problems like preemptive conditions, preventive costs and dropped coverage.

as i said, probably i didn't get all of the terms right and i am also sure, that the suggested measurements would have some positive effects. but so far the plan only makes sense, if the system in it's actual form is considered well enough. it is not at all about reforming.
so it still comes down to the same political decision: is the healthcare-system in need of reorgansiation or not.


has anyone information where to find calculations for the costs of the administration's bill, pls? thx in advance.