TownHall.com: Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare- by Chuck Norris

[Kilmer17]

Obamacare is doomed. Chuck Norris wont allow it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare

Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.

While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.




Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

more...

[The Evil Genius]

Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.

Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

Chuck Norris-Texas Birther

[Jeeb]

Should have stuck with Walker.

[The Evil Genius]

Now..does anyone know what Warrior Warrior's (the other faux celebrity go to guy) opinion is on this?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think he's been kicked in the head a few too many times.

[skinfan13]

I think he's been kicked in the head a few too many times. If those are legitimate excerpts from the bill, you really don't see a problem there? I think YOU have a few loose screws of your own then.

Here's the problem with health care, boiled down to its simplest form: a) we have no way to afford it. none. b) its invasive and unconstitutional.

anyone who says otherwise is being intentionally dishonest.

[ccsl2]

Unless you will have a gun to your head to make you use these programs, I am really trying to find an issue with what was quoted.

[Larry]

Wow. You mean this law would allow (and subsidize) the states if they chose to educate parents.

Obviously this cannot be permitted.

(Observing that the GOP really seems to have a problem with education. They oppose Doctors informing elderly patients about what their options are for medical care as they get older. They oppose people educating parents about child care and development. It's almost like they think that educated people won't vote Republican, or something.)

(Yes, that was (mostly) a joke.)

[Kilmer17]

Wow. You mean this law would allow (and subsidize) the states if they chose to educate parents.

Obviously this cannot be permitted.

(Observing that the GOP really seems to have a problem with education. They oppose Doctors informing elderly patients about what their options are for medical care as they get older. They oppose people educating parents about child care and development. It's almost like they think that educated people won't vote Republican, or something.)

(Yes, that was (mostly) a joke.)

You will have no problem with them teaching abstinence right? Or is it only okay if they decide to teach liberal approved ideals?

[Jeeb]

If those are legitimate excerpts from the bill, you really don't see a problem there? I think YOU have a few loose screws of your own then.

Here's the problem with health care, boiled down to its simplest form: a) we have no way to afford it. none. b) its invasive and unconstitutional.

anyone who says otherwise is being intentionally dishonest.

No I was taught reading comprehension.

[The Evil Genius]

You will have no problem with them teaching abstinence right? Or is it only okay if they decide to teach liberal approved ideals?

Right...because it's teaching abstinence that people object too.

[Kilmer17]

Right...because it's teaching abstinence that people object too.

Find an example then. The issue should be for EVERYONE. Depending on who is in charge, that will dictate what is taught. I have a HUGE problem with the idea of the Govt teaching people how to parent.

[ccsl2]

You will have no problem with them teaching abstinence right? Or is it only okay if they decide to teach liberal approved ideals?


I would love for them to teach abstinence...along with using condoms as well...it's the real world.

[Kilmer17]

I would love for them to teach abstinence...along with using condoms as well...it's the real world.

And for those people whose beliefs forbid the use of condoms? Does that mean that they cant get Govt help?

And what happens if the ultra right wing takes over all branches and then decide that part of "teaching parenting" will include teaching how abortion is wrong?

I dont want to get caught up in examples. Im concerned about the overall thought of the Govt deciding that XXXXXXX is the proper way to parent.

[greenspandan]

oh i see. it's cool to get political commentary from hollywood actors as long as they're reactonary right wing loony toons.

[gbear]

Kilmer,
I think you are on the death to grandma logic here. Try reading this as it answers somebody with your same logic on the death care (hint it's a republican who drafted this part):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html?hpid=topnews

As I read this, it is basically subsidizing states to provide social worker like services. As a foster parent, I have social workers in my house all the time. They offer advice. They often offer access to resources I may not even know about. They rarely force us into much, and they can only do htat because our kids are wards of the state. As my kids get access to camps, teachers and programs others don't even kow exist, I can understand wanting to fund outreach programs for families in need. I don't see anything in there about mandating condom usage. Silly partisan crappy misinformation is all I see here.

[skinfan13]

No I was taught reading comprehension. first off, I wasn't talking to you.

second, You're obviously smarter than me. me no understand reeding comprehenshun.

[SnyderShrugged]

Kilmer,
I think you are on the death to grandma logic here. Try reading this as it answers somebody with your same logic on the death care (hint it's a republican who drafted this part):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html?hpid=topnews

As I read this, it is basically subsidizing states to provide social worker like services. As a foster parent, I have social workers in my house all the time. They offer advice. They often offer access to resources I may not even know about. They rarely force us into much, and they can only do htat because our kids are wards of the state. As my kids get access to camps, teachers and programs others don't even kow exist, I can understand wanting to fund outreach programs for families in need. I don't see anything in there about mandating condom usage. Silly partisan crappy misinformation is all I see here.



I didnt know you were a foster parent! Kudos to you man! Thats honorable and one of the best ways to contribute to society in my opinion (my wife was in foster care her whole childhood).

[Kilmer17]

Kilmer,
I think you are on the death to grandma logic here. Try reading this as it answers somebody with your same logic on the death care (hint it's a republican who drafted this part):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html?hpid=topnews

As I read this, it is basically subsidizing states to provide social worker like services. As a foster parent, I have social workers in my house all the time. They offer advice. They often offer access to resources I may not even know about. They rarely force us into much, and they can only do htat because our kids are wards of the state. As my kids get access to camps, teachers and programs others don't even kow exist, I can understand wanting to fund outreach programs for families in need. I don't see anything in there about mandating condom usage. Silly partisan crappy misinformation is all I see here.


I have lots of problems with it. First and foremost, when did social work become part of healthcare?

[Burgold]

Good grief... Now, Republicans are supporting celebrities when for eight years they told them to shut the heck up. I support Norris' right to state and publish his opinion, but poor Streisand, Sarandon, etc.

Can you really build a platform that says, "Celebrities need to be ignored because they are not subject experts unless they agree with me"

Madness.

[Burgold]

I have lots of problems with it. First and foremost, when did social work become part of healthcare?

Really? Is this a serious question? Social workers have a great deal to do with healthcare esp. for psych issues. Nurses who come into an elderly person's house to do OT and teach the family how to use medical equipment is pretty common too.

[Kilmer17]

Really? Is this a serious question? Social workers have a great deal to do with healthcare esp. for psych issues. Nurses who come into an elderly person's house to do OT and teach the family how to use medical equipment is pretty common too.

That's different than "parenting".

[Larry]

You will have no problem with them teaching abstinence right? Or is it only okay if they decide to teach liberal approved ideals?

:secret:Abstinence is a liberal approved idea. But thanks for playing.

[JMS]

I have lots of problems with it. First and foremost, when did social work become part of healthcare?

Since medical schools started graduating psychiatrists and psychoanylists?

[Kilmer17]

:secret:Abstinence is a liberal approved idea. But thanks for playing.

Again, dont get caught up in examples. Find some nutbag right wing ideal that you hate and imagine Govt Social workers teaching it to expecting parents.

[Burgold]

That's different than "parenting".

Perhaps or perhaps it is part of the skillset required to parent kids with disabilities.

[JMS]

Good grief... Now, Republicans are supporting celebrities when for eight years they told them to shut the heck up. I support Norris' right to state and publish his opinion, but poor Streisand, Sarandon, etc.

Can you really build a platform that says, "Celebrities need to be ignored because they are not subject experts unless they agree with me"

Madness.

Bugold, did you ever fight Bruce Lee? I don't think so. I think you need to just sit back down and be quiet. I've seen about 30 of chucks films and he's only been the bad guy once to my knowledge.

Odds are in our favor if we go with him.

[Larry]

Again, dont get caught up in examples. Find some nutbag right wing ideal that you hate and imagine Govt Social workers teaching it to expecting parents.

If you're waiting for me to come up with some subject where I advocate ignorance over knowledge, you're going to be waiting a long time.

I'm not a Republican.
:movefast:

[Kilmer17]

Perhaps or perhaps it is part of the skillset required to parent kids with disabilities.

Again we're getting caught up in examples.

It's obvious to me that liberals do not have the same concern about the govt intrusion into their lives as conservatives do on this issue.

To break my own rule though- What if the Govt decided that diseases contracted by lifestyle choices wouldnt be covered? Or only certain ones wouldnt be?

In part of this parenting class, shouldnt the govt teach parents how to teach their kids to make safe lifestyle choices? It can be as simple as "eat few sweets" to "dont have multiple sex partners" and down the rabbit hole we go.

ANy govt intrusion is going to set the precedent for even more govt intrusion.

[Kilmer17]

If you're waiting for me to come up with some subject where I advocate ignorance over knowledge, you're going to be waiting a long time.

I'm not a Republican.
:movefast:

Bwahahahaha.

Classic Larry on display. You're pure gold some days.

[JMS]

That's different than "parenting".

It's really not. I've taken my 3,4,5 year old daughter to a social worker to be diagnosed for ADD and also to hear suggestings on how best to break her will and make her follow my instructions.....

Get to bed... get up... get your shoes on... hurry up.. etc...

[Burgold]

Again we're getting caught up in examples.



I suspect you are asking for the impossible again...

You said, "When are social workers a part of health care"

Larry and I said, "since psychiatry became a part of health care"

You then said, help me out here... what does psychiatry have to do with social working and parenting.

I explained.

You said, don't give me examples. So, basically you want a completely abstract method of dealing with things in concrete terms.

As I said earlier... MADNESS

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If those are legitimate excerpts from the bill, you really don't see a problem there? I think YOU have a few loose screws of your own then.

Here's the problem with health care, boiled down to its simplest form: a) we have no way to afford it. none. b) its invasive and unconstitutional.

anyone who says otherwise is being intentionally dishonest.

I agree with problem a) that you outlined. I have serious reservations regarding the cost. And I would like to see that addressed.

As far as b), its mostly bogus. I haven't read the bill, but here's what I do know: you don't take one line from a bill and pawn it off as reflective of the bill. Its downright stupid to go through a 1000 page bill, pick out five consecutive words you don't like and write some alarmist column that the government wants to run your life from the day your born till the day you die.

There is a very legitimate debate to have about healthcare. Unfortunately, its not really being had.

[Madison Redskin]

It's obvious to me that liberals do not have the same concern about the govt intrusion into their lives as conservatives do on this issue.

What intrusion? You are acting like the bill contemplates sending people into camps to be "re-educated." The bill contemplates offering services, which people can choose to accept or ignore. You're getting worked up over nothing, which is par for the course these days for conservatives. Oh, and I don't like any current iterations of the plan (too costly, piss-poor timing).

I realize some members of the left acted like 2 year olds and went ape **** over everything GWB did, but does that give the members of the right to do the same with Obama? Only if you are 4 years old.

[Kilmer17]

What intrusion? You are acting like the bill contemplates sending people into camps to be "re-educated." The bill contemplates offering services, which people can choose to accept or ignore. You're getting worked up over nothing, which is par for the course these days for conservatives. Oh, and I don't like any current iterations of the plan (too costly, piss-poor timing).

I realize some members of the left acted like 2 year olds and went ape **** over everything GWB did, but does that give the members of the right to do the same with Obama? Only if you are 4 years old.

It's an intrusion of MY WALLET to pay for someone else to get parenting tips from a Govt official. It's a further intrusion if I dont agree with the tips they are giving.

I cant ignore the tax increase.

[ljs]

have any of you read the bill? Probably not- just like most of our congressmen haven't read the bill. That is the issue I have. I don't want the people I elect to make decisions unless they know what they are saying yes or no to....

So in reality- everyone on both sides are spewing poo out their ass cuz they haven't even read the bill.

[Madison Redskin]

It's an intrusion of MY WALLET to pay for someone else to get parenting tips from a Govt official. It's a further intrusion if I dont agree with the tips they are giving.

Join the crowd. I don't like paying for government messages about the evils of marijuana, but I do. Others don't like paying for the Iraq war, but they do.

Also, government officials already provide advice to families regarding parenting. Guess what your state's Department of Social Services does?

But, if you want to pretend that this is some unprecedent and unconstitutional program, go ahead. Reality hasn't stopped the either the right or the left from engaging in hyperbole and propogating lies.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Chuck Norris is so powerful that he can make sure he never actually thinks.

[Toe Jam]

How about fixing your thread title?

EDIT: And your link doesn't work, either.

[Vicious]

Jesus Christ would be very upset with Chuck Norris. Not wanting to give people health care? Isn't that like, EXACTLY what Jesus Christ used to do?

What the hell is wrong with these people? Are they so ingrained with Anti-Obama rhetoric that they would toss aside the teachings of their supposed Lord and Savior? Disgusting.

[Mark The Homer]

Kilmer - you need to preclude the thread title with a source. Thanks

[Midnight Judges]

I fully expected this thread to be a joke. And seeing as how Republicans are taking healthcare advice from Chuck Freakin Norris...

[Larry]

Jesus Christ would be very upset with Chuck Norris. Not wanting to give people health care? Isn't that like, EXACTLY what Jesus Christ used to do?

What the hell is wrong with these people? Are they so ingrained with Anti-Obama rhetoric that they would toss aside the teachings of their supposed Lord and Savior? Disgusting.

Haven't you heard? Jesus was a Republican.

Just ask any Republican.

:)

[Jeeb]

I fully expected this thread to be a joke. And seeing as how Republicans are taking healthcare advice from Chuck Freakin Norris...

He wrote some equally mind numbing article about drilling in ANWAR last summer pretty much stating that drilling there would immediately lower prices while neglecting the whole pesky concept of the time it takes for exploration, drilling, and refining the crude.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Haven't you heard? Jesus was a Republican.

Just ask any Republican.

:)

Hey the Bible does say that he ate with tax collectors and publicans...doesn't that count?

[Predicto]

Haven't you heard? Jesus was a Republican.

Just ask any Republican.

:)

There's even a song about it. :silly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-er9FqhYA

[AAARedskin]

Ha! Notice how NONE of the Senators, Congressmen, NANCY PELOSI, or ERKEL himself are signing up for this "National Health Care." Oh no.....they have their own health care plan. Hmmmmm......how can the plan they want to IMPOSE on the nation be any good if they themselves won't use it? Oh, and notice how NOT A SINGLE LIBERAL has stepped forward to show you how much money you'll save each month with the "National Health Care" plan...........that's because it won't end up saving you a dime!!!!!!! Worse care coverage, yet JUST AS COSTLY.......brilliant. Yeah....sign me up....sure.

[Burgold]

kinda hard to sign up for something that hasn't been finalized.

[mbws]

...

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

more...


This just proves that Schmuck Norris is as stupid as I thought he was.

It does not say anything about principles or values. It's about physical, mental and emotional development as it relates to the age of a child, not the background of a child. It also says it is "Provided," not mandated.

[mardi gras skin]

When my wife and I adopted our first child, we had a lot of hoops to jump through. We received counseling on disciplining our child (3-2-1 magic is good, spanking is child abuse), we had a home visit to determine if our home was child proof, economic counseling, etc. It was fine. They needed to be comfortable that we would be competent parents before they would entrust a child to us. I understood that.

But it felt invasive...controlling. Something about an institution with power behind it giving me "advise" and waiting for my response made me feel very vulnerable. They could keep me from receiving my child so I was completely at their mercy.

If this program offers voluntary ADVICE on parenting techniques for anyone that requests it, that's fantastic. If this program is not voluntary, or if it has "teeth" that can enforce that the advise given is carried out, I would be very much against it.

Cost is a separate issue. I really do think much of this can be done effectively through partnerships with local religious and civic organizations taking advantage of a large volunteer workforce looking for ways it can serve the community.

[mardi gras skin]

As for the side discussion about celebrities being listened too, I agree with the majority. Why would ANYONE assume that a performer has meaningful insight regarding the medical community or the economy? When he gives advise on proper makeup to wear under harsh lighting conditions, I assume he knows what he's talking about. Otherwise, who cares.

[ccsl2]

And for those people whose beliefs forbid the use of condoms? Does that mean that they cant get Govt help?

And what happens if the ultra right wing takes over all branches and then decide that part of "teaching parenting" will include teaching how abortion is wrong?

I dont want to get caught up in examples. Im concerned about the overall thought of the Govt deciding that XXXXXXX is the proper way to parent.

Come on Kilmer you are better than that. If they don't want to hear it than I don't believe a doctor or healthcare professional will refuse giving these services based on their relgion. Seperation of church and state.

And wouldn't these be doctors or health care professionals giving the advice and not right wing or left wing organizations???

I mean who said religion would come into play here.

[mistertim]

You know...this whole reactionary fear mongering thing could actually be good for the economy. I, for one, will be thinking pretty hard about buying up stock in Reynolds Wrap because of the number of aluminum hats that are likely to be made in the coming year.

Seriously, there isn't a single instance in there where they talk about something being involuntary or that you can't get your medical care unless you listen to the gov't Men in Black who will show up at your door and brainwash the child and parents so they are godless heathens who will only be taught to use condoms and that abstinence is bad. But of course, that didn't stop Chuck from employing partial, selective quotes and then using his own words in front of and behind them to make it SOUND like that is the case. Disingenuous to say the least.

He has said he wants to secede from the US. I say let him do it, then we won't have to worry about him writing bogus articles that try to scare people into thinking that there is some huge conspiracy about the gov't taking over people's lives.

[JimboDaMan]

As for the side discussion about celebrities being listened too, I agree with the majority. Why would ANYONE assume that a performer has meaningful insight regarding the medical community or the economy? When he gives advise on proper makeup to wear under harsh lighting conditions, I assume he knows what he's talking about. Otherwise, who cares.Because he's the Chuckster, and he'll rip your head off just for thinking things like that.

As for the OP, what the heck is wrong with people? We need an honest discussion of the issues on the table. But the latest tactic is to scour the bill for services that will be offered, put a right-wing boogeyman spin on the service, then pretend that the government will FORCE you to do these things. That doesn't help at all, although it does encourage folks to show up at town halls and shout down anybody who tries to explain different.

[Burgold]

You generally can tell when a political party or ideology has no solutions. Instead of positing alternatives they create boogeymen and scapegoats. The Republican strategy is showing.

Now, Chuck on the other hand is entitled and should go through a document like this and say, "Wait a minute! I don't like the way this sounds! Does this really mean???" It's when the analysts and worse, our politicians, leaders, etc. play up the fear angle (especially when they know that they are pushing falsehoods or pushing the truth to such an extreme angle that is indistinguishable from a lie) that I have problems.

[Kilmer17]

Or you can just constantly ignore the other sides solutions and alternatives and claim they dont have any.

[mistertim]

Or you can just constantly ignore the other sides solutions and alternatives and claim they dont have any.

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly are the other side's solutions that are not pretty much a continuation of what we've had for all this time?

[Kilmer17]

Here's one-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

here's another-

http://www.wipp.org/resource/resmgr/Healthcare/House_and_Senate_Republicans.pdf

and another-

http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/06-17-09_House__GOP_Solutions__Group__Outline.pdf

But instead of acknowledging that, it's much easier to claim they offer nothing but the party of "NO" and then call anyone who disagrees a mob and claims they're paid to protest.

[mardi gras skin]

Here's one-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

This is the same proposal John McCain was criticized for during the 2008 presidential campaign. Television ads by the Obama campaign pounded him for "taxing your health insurance."


Ouch. So, this plan sounds pretty simple and I like that I have control over where I put the money. What's wrong with it?

[jpyaks3]

Ouch. So, this plan sounds pretty simple and I like that I have control over where I put the money. What's wrong with it?

The problem is that this plan does nothing to address the ever increasing costs of health insurance, "In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)." The extra money is nice but it wouldnt cover the health care for most people so they would be struggling to get any insurance.
NCHC (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

It also says there is a safety net for pre existing conditions but doesn't explain how its going to force the insurance companies to cover them and what cost that is going to be to everyone else.

This plan just doesn't seem to be able to work in the long term because it puts no controls whatsoever on the health care industry, it would allow them to continue to raise their prices at a rate that is well over the rate of inflation so this plan would have to keep raising benefits to try and keep people insured. The long term longevity isn't there, with a nationalized health care system (not necessarily the one proposed now) it puts controls on the health care industry and helps limit the profitability and while more costly now will be a better long term solution. I believe our system is seriously broken and needs an overhaul this Republican plan is just a band aid on a gunshot wound it may slow the bleeding but it wont come close to solving the problem. It is leaving the problem while throwing money at it to slow down the inevitable.

[mistertim]

The problem is that this plan does nothing to address the ever increasing costs of health insurance, "In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)." The extra money is nice but it wouldnt cover the health care for most people so they would be struggling to get any insurance.
NCHC (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

It also says there is a safety net for pre existing conditions but doesn't explain how its going to force the insurance companies to cover them and what cost that is going to be to everyone else.

This plan just doesn't seem to be able to work in the long term because it puts no controls whatsoever on the health care industry, it would allow them to continue to raise their prices at a rate that is well over the rate of inflation so this plan would have to keep raising benefits to try and keep people insured. The long term longevity isn't there, with a nationalized health care system (not necessarily the one proposed now) it puts controls on the health care industry and helps limit the profitability and while more costly now will be a better long term solution. I believe our system is seriously broken and needs an overhaul this Republican plan is just a band aid on a gunshot wound it may slow the bleeding but it wont come close to solving the problem. It is leaving the problem while throwing money at it to slow down the inevitable.

That is a good post. I found an interesting article that highlighted a couple of the main deficiencies in the bill (which go, at least partially, back to your points).

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/new-health-dialogue/2009/health-reform-assessing-patients-choice-act-12122

[Burgold]

"The nexus of their plan is redirecting the $300 billion annual tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance to individuals in the form of refundable, advanceable tax credits. Families would get $5,700 a year and individuals $2,300 to buy insurance and invest in Health Savings Accounts."

I suspect the problem is here although I'm not sure. The reason people like employment based insurance and don't actually mind employers taking some money out of their paycheck for it or accepting a lower wage that includes the benes is that you get a lot more bang for the buck if you are a large group negotiating heath costs via an insurer than an individual.

On the other hand, it sounds like a fine place to have a conversation and is much better than talking about death panels, rationing, and evil. Lord knows that there is a lot wrong with the current Dem plans. Having a real discussion where everything is on the table is the way to go.

Mostly, from what I've heard, the biggest problem with the Republican suggestions is that they have been ideas and not plans. Now, there's nothing horrible about that as long as you can find a way to turn the idea into a plan that will benefit most of us.

[mistertim]

"The nexus of their plan is redirecting the $300 billion annual tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance to individuals in the form of refundable, advanceable tax credits. Families would get $5,700 a year and individuals $2,300 to buy insurance and invest in Health Savings Accounts".

I think one issue with the Republican plan (that was actually talked about in the link I posted) is that it doesn't do anything to end a "health status rating", meaning that, while insurance companies would be required to sell to all customers, they will still be able to use that health status rating to jack prices up for those with pre-existing conditions or past health problems. So everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, would be offered insurance by private insurers, however there is nothing that would stop them from deciding to charge more for certain people.

[mardi gras skin]

That is a good post. I found an interesting article that highlighted a couple of the main deficiencies in the bill (which go, at least partially, back to your points).

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/new-health-dialogue/2009/health-reform-assessing-patients-choice-act-12122

Great article, thank you. So the gist of the critique comes down to two issues. First issue:


Guaranteed issue will not work well without an individual mandate. I was very pleased to see the bill require all insurers to sell to all customers. This reform is absolutely necessary to make individual insurance markets work better for more Americans. However, instituting guaranteed issue without also requiring all Americans to purchase coverage is problematic.
Without a purchase requirement, insurers will legitimately fear that mostly the sick will buy health insurance (adverse selection). That fear will produce higher premium bids, which will cost people and governments more money. Furthermore, this scenario will make subsidies (offered in the form of a fixed tax credit) less effective in making coverage truly affordable.

I'm only required to get car insurance if I want to own a car. But I can live without car insurance if I choose. Being REQUIRED to buy health insurance for being alive isn't a purchase, it's a new tax. I understand the economic realties, but philosophically, it feels controlling.

Nevertheless, it doesn't kill this proposal. If the mandate to make health insurance mandatory is there, then a requirement to purchase health insurance could just be written into the bill Republicans propose, doing away with the problem.

Second issue:


One of the major goals of health reform is move insurers away from business models that rely on avoiding the sick and toward strategies that help people find high-value care that delivers on the promises of wellness and prevention. This bill would not accomplish this essential goal. Therefore, it should not be considered a credible alternative to proposals that would make insurance markets work for all.

The Republican plan SAYS it is flexible in allowing the states to meet this goal as they see fit:


While our plan allows states to utilize high risk pools or a reinsurance tool, we believe the more innovative concept in our bill is a risk readjustment mechanism for insurers and states to develop creative solutions for patients and consumers in their states. In general, rather than design a single federal solution, our bill looks to states as the laboratories of policy and promotes state-based health exchanges, where consumers can navigate a real health care market, with added protections for lower-income Americans and those with preexisting conditions. We empower states to expand risk pools and increase coverage to consumers through an auto-enrollment mechanism at state and medical points of service.

So the New America critique is looking for the federal government to ensure that the sick are included in the pool of insured and the Republican plan is give the states flexibility in how this happens rather than mandating it on the federal level. The expectation is that some states will come up with innovate ideas that could then be copied by other states. What's wrong with that?

Obviously, I'm biased toward WANTING the Republican plan to work because it claims to cost less. If that's untrue, I could care less about seeing it work.

[Vicious]

Ha! Notice how NONE of the Senators, Congressmen, NANCY PELOSI, or ERKEL himself are signing up for this "National Health Care." Oh no.....they have their own health care plan. Hmmmmm......how can the plan they want to IMPOSE on the nation be any good if they themselves won't use it? Oh, and notice how NOT A SINGLE LIBERAL has stepped forward to show you how much money you'll save each month with the "National Health Care" plan...........that's because it won't end up saving you a dime!!!!!!! Worse care coverage, yet JUST AS COSTLY.......brilliant. Yeah....sign me up....sure.


They use government health care. Yes, that is exactly what they are trying to give to everyone else.

[mistertim]

They use government health care. Yes, that is exactly what they are trying to give to everyone else.

As has John McCain his entire life...yet what is good for some isn't good for others, I guess. I remember an interview before the election where a reporter asked McCain about that fact, since he was so against "gov't health care" and he just got angry and dismissed the question.

[deejaydana]

Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table because the only thing Chuck Norris believes in is the element of surprise...

[jpyaks3]

Obviously, I'm biased toward WANTING the Republican plan to work because it claims to cost less. If that's untrue, I could care less about seeing it work.

The Republican plan may cost less in start up costs but what happens when healthcare costs continue to more then double inflation rates? The plan doesn't address healthcare costs that are outpacing inflation by more then double. That is going to have to be fixed and the Republican plan places no controls or ways to control these costs, so while its cheaper and saves money in the start in the long run it is going to continue to get more expensive until some controls are placed on the insurance companies. In order for the Republican plan to work they have to keep shoveling more and more money into their plan to keep up with healthcare costs otherwise people wont be able to afford them and the bill won't really accomplish anything. It just isn't feasible in the long term. It seems like a purely short term "solution" that really doesn't address the root of the problem.

[PeterMP]

The Republican plan may cost less in start up costs but what happens when healthcare costs continue to more then double inflation rates? The plan doesn't address healthcare costs that are outpacing inflation by more then double. That is going to have to be fixed and the Republican plan places no controls or ways to control these costs, so while its cheaper and saves money in the start in the long run it is going to continue to get more expensive until some controls are placed on the insurance companies. In order for the Republican plan to work they have to keep shoveling more and more money into their plan to keep up with healthcare costs otherwise people wont be able to afford them and the bill won't really accomplish anything. It just isn't feasible in the long term. It seems like a purely short term "solution" that really doesn't address the root of the problem.
You are correct, but I just want to point out neither does the Dem plan. Neither party really wants to address the issue.

[mardi gras skin]

It seems like a purely short term "solution" that really doesn't address the root of the problem.

How does the Democrat's plan reduce long term costs? If it doesn't, as Peter says, what needs to be changed in either plan that would reduce long term costs?

[Prosperity]

mardi gras skin, you don't seem to be a hack. You should post more often

[PeterMP]

How does the Democrat's plan reduce long term costs? If it doesn't, as Peter says, what needs to be changed in either plan that would reduce long term costs?
Use less healthcare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/business/21generic.html

"Annual inflation in drug costs is at the lowest rate in the three decades since the Labor Department began using its current method of tracking prescription prices. The rate over the last 12 months is 1 percent, according to the government’s latest data, released Wednesday."

"Despite the slowed inflation recorded by the index, overall spending for pharmaceuticals is still on the rise, up 8.3 percent in 2006, according to IMS. And that is unlikely to diminish anytime soon, as an aging population faces increasing health problems. According to Medicare, there have been great increases in the use of drugs for the cardiovascular and central nervous systems and for Type 2 diabetes."

Drug prices individually are rising slower than inflation, but total drug costs aren't because more people are using more drugs.

Other things can be done. I think JMS has a good point, in that in some states and instances the health insurance market is likely to be a monopoly (or essentially behaves like one). Eliminating that would help (which the government plan would do at least temporarily as the government would presumably be immune to different federal and state legislation w/ respect to approval of plans) (though it isn't clear to me why that is an advantage w/ respect to removing legislation preventing competition and enforcing existing anti-trust laws and/or writing new ones to address the issue (plus the added bonus that it is likely if the health insurance industry has figured out this is a good business model so have other ones and this gives you a model to deal with them too w/o having to create a government program to compete w/ them)), but in reality our health care costs are out of control becaue we use a lot of healthcare (keep in mind more healthcare doesn't necessarily mean more healthy) and in many cases are ineffecient in our use of healthcare (just because we use more doesn't mean we are more healthy).

(I will also point out (since I'll pretty much guarantee that somebody will bring it up) that preventative healthcare doesn't mean lower costs. The CBO actually has a good study on this linked to their page. Preventative care does NOT appear to lower costs.)

I will also point out healthcare isn't the only thing we use ineffeciently. We use a lot of stuff in an ineffecient manner.

Short term things (attacking markets related to health care that behave like monopolies) can be done that won't really affect the larger issues (costs increasing faster than the rate of inflation), but will slow it (I will point out that the rate at which healthcare is growing is slowing now.). Short/middle term, we can start evaluating whether people need the healthcare they are recieving (e.g. how many people are taking medicines that they don't need, but for issues, for example, that could be addressed through life style changes? how many people are getting unnecessary procedures?).

Longer term (in reality), we need to address how we treat diseases/unhealthy behavior. We need to shift our funding of research to finding effecient manners to treat diseases (I don't believe that generally the Pharma industry goes out of its way to treat diseases and not cure them, but it happens a lot because it is easier (and therefore more cost effective w/ respect doing the research and getting something that will be FDA approved on the market)) and treating diseases that will have realistically positive outcomes on the productivity of people w/ respect to society vs. the most sympathetic cases and/or most desirable ones. This means re-evaluating the processes by which the NIH and Pharma spend their money (government doesn't directly control how Pharma spends its R&D money, but certainly they can influence via things like the FDA approval process) (though, I'm not going to hold my breath for this to happen, which means long term I don't think we will really address the problem.).

[mardi gras skin]

mardi gras skin, you don't seem to be a hack. You should post more often

The more I post, the more I hack. You're all better off when I post less. ;)

[mardi gras skin]

Use less healthcare:

Drug prices individually are rising slower than inflation, but total drug costs aren't because more people are using more drugs.

Well this makes sense, right? We're at a point where we're getting older so we're using more health care. How much of the increased heath care costs can be directly attributed to changing demographics?

I think we should just eat those costs and say thank you.

[PeterMP]

Well this makes sense, right? We're at a point where we're getting older so we're using more health care. How much of the increased heath care costs can be directly attributed to changing demographics?

I think we should just eat those costs and say thank you.
Well, if we were actually eating them, I wouldn't have that much of an issue, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't and haven't been. We are deferring them (until most of the people responsbile for them will be dead or unable to pay) by borrowing money.

[Baculus]

Here's one-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

here's another-

http://www.wipp.org/resource/resmgr/Healthcare/House_and_Senate_Republicans.pdf

and another-

http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/06-17-09_House__GOP_Solutions__Group__Outline.pdf

But instead of acknowledging that, it's much easier to claim they offer nothing but the party of "NO" and then call anyone who disagrees a mob and claims they're paid to protest.

Because the main figures in the party have NOT been pushing any of these programs. How many Republicans do you think know about these GOP alternatives?

I think it is interesting that the Patients’ Choice Act also focused on state health exchanges, which is similiar to the Democratic plan.

I wouldn't oppose an alternative based upon tax credits and increased access. And I have heard several Republicans (usually House members) state that they support a privatized universal health care system. The problem is, I just don't think it necessarily solves the problem of rising costs prevalent in the industry.

[mardi gras skin]

Well, if we were actually eating them, I wouldn't have that much of an issue, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't and haven't been. We are deferring them (until most of the people responsbile for them will be dead or unable to pay) by borrowing money.

Wait, I thought the issue was that healthcare costs were going up, not that we were deferring costs. What health care costs are being deferred?