House Republican Solutions for Health Care Reform

PostmodernProphet said:
apart from all the GOP bills that have already been posted, you mean?......
Click to expand...


You should really get in touch with the House GOP leadership. They are still under the impression that they haven't introduced a bill and they are set to do so sometime soon:

House Republicans are on the cusp of releasing their alternative healthcare bill, according to GOP leadership aides.

They are likely to release their bill when Democrats release the manager's amendment of their healthcare bill, according to aides familiar with the GOP strategy.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) said on Monday that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has had a copy of the yet-to-be-seen bill for the past few days.

[snip]

Over the weekend, Boehner said the GOP bill’s aim was to lower healthcare costs, but not to provide healthcare to all.

On Monday, he promised the bill would not raise taxes and remain deficit neutral. He also said it would not cut benefits for seniors on Medicare.

Under the GOP plan, insurance companies will not be banned from denying individuals coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions however. Instead, those with preexisting conditions would become part of a “high-risk” pool of individuals to be insured, Boehner explained.

Leaders will brief the members of their conference on the details of the proposal at the closed-door conference meeting Tuesday morning.

[snip]
Click to expand...


Note the bold: the Republican plan doesn't ban denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. I thought that was one of the very few things that everyone could agree on. Jesus. The Republican plan doesn't even meet the lowest of my low expectations.




http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66009-house-gop-close-to-release-of-healthcare-bill
 
TurdFerguson said:
Note the bold: the Republican plan doesn't ban denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. I thought that was one of the very few things that everyone could agree on. Jesus. The Republican plan doesn't even meet the lowest of my low expectations.
Click to expand...

it covers people who are denied under a universal pool similar to that used in worker's compensation insurance......the Dems use the same approach in Section 1 of their plan, but only temporarily.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it covers people who are denied under a universal pool similar to that used in worker's compensation insurance......the Dems use the same approach in Section 1 of their plan, but only temporarily.....
Click to expand...


The Democrat version is only temporary because after the temporary period insurers are prohibited from denying coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

The Republican plan is to have a high-risk pool in lieu of a ban on denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Additionally, the Republican plan reportedly does not an the pernicious practice of "rescissions."

Nice work, GOPers!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
TurdFerguson said:
The Republican plan is to have a high-risk pool in lieu of a ban on denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...
correct....and you don't believe it will work because.......?
Click to expand...


It's a shitty policy for a number of reasons and is vastly inferior to banning insurers from denying people based on pre-existing conditions. But, I'm sure that the insurance companies love it.
 
TurdFerguson said:
It's a shitty policy for a number of reasons and is vastly inferior to banning insurers from denying people based on pre-existing conditions. But, I'm sure that the insurance companies love it.
Click to expand...

it works quite well in the Michigan worker's compensation insurance system....think it through......a high percentage of benefits paid out are for a small number of patients....insurance companies like to get rid of those covered patients identified as destined for high benefit payouts.....that's why people get kicked out of policies....the system groups those people together and requires all insurance companies to contribute a sufficient percentage of their premiums to cover their expenses....thus, all insurance companies and pools share the risk of the worst case, equally.......no need for a company to kick anyone out, because the shared pool covers their benefits and it costs the company the same whether they are in or out of the pool.....

what do you see as a negative in that?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it works quite well in the Michigan worker's compensation insurance system....think it through......a high percentage of benefits paid out are for a small number of patients....insurance companies like to get rid of those covered patients identified as destined for high benefit payouts.....that's why people get kicked out of policies....the system groups those people together and requires all insurance companies to contribute a sufficient percentage of their premiums to cover their expenses....thus, all insurance companies and pools share the risk of the worst case, equally.......no need for a company to kick anyone out, because the shared pool covers their benefits and it costs the company the same whether they are in or out of the pool.....

what do you see as a negative in that?......
Click to expand...


Rather than comparing high risk polls for health insurance to something completely unrelated (workers comp) why not look at the 30 states that provide for high risk pools already? They all suck. It's a shitty policy.

Perhaps you could explain why high risk pools are preferable to preventing insurers from denying people based on pre-existing conditions.
 
TurdFerguson said:
Rather than comparing high risk polls for health insurance to something completely unrelated (workers comp) why not look at the 30 states that provide for high risk pools already? They all suck. It's a shitty policy.
Click to expand...

how is worker's compensation unrelated?....is medical care for injuries sustained on the job somehow different than medical care for injuries sustained away from the job?.......the theory is no different.....a man with one eye is a higher risk for worker's compensation insurance because further injury can result in higher benefits paid.....insurance companies refuse to accept the responsibility and thus he is refused employment.....the second injury fund eliminates that risk for the companies and a man can work......
 
Good Luck said:
I'd say the republicans' approach is more realistic when it comes to actually getting something passed by putting their ideas into a bunch of smaller bills. This way they are not faced with the all-or-nothing (when no one can agree to the all) approach of the democrats.


With the gigantic rift between the house and senate versions of the democrats' single all-or-nothing plan, along with the fact that neither plan has even got enough democrats on board to assure passage (out of a super majority!), the republicans, in the end, have the greater chance of actually accomplishing something to positively affect those without adequate health coverage.
Click to expand...

This is, perhaps, the most politically ignorant thing I've ever read.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how is worker's compensation unrelated?....is medical care for injuries sustained on the job somehow different than medical care for injuries sustained away from the job?.......the theory is no different.....a man with one eye is a higher risk for worker's compensation insurance because further injury can result in higher benefits paid.....insurance companies refuse to accept the responsibility and thus he is refused employment.....the second injury fund eliminates that risk for the companies and a man can work......
Click to expand...


My point is simply that if you want to see how high-risk pools work out for those put into the high risk pools you should look at the 30 states that have high risk pools instead of an entirely different policy in a single state. High-risk pools are shitty. They haven't worked.

And, again, maybe you could explain why a high risk pool is preferable to prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to persons based on pre-existing conditions. Maybe there's a good argument for high-risk pools but I haven't heard it.
 
TurdFerguson said:
My point is simply that if you want to see how high-risk pools work out for those put into the high risk pools you should look at the 30 states that have high risk pools instead of an entirely different policy in a single state. High-risk pools are shitty. They haven't worked.

And, again, maybe you could explain why a high risk pool is preferable to prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to persons based on pre-existing conditions. Maybe there's a good argument for high-risk pools but I haven't heard it.
Click to expand...

as to the latter, the simple denial ban is less efficient because it still leaves the company with an incentive to find alternative ways to eliminate high risk patients....also, instead of sharing the risk of high risk patients equally between all insurance carriers, it leaves them open to random chance as to who gets screwed by a high risk....a high risk pool is more effective at leveling the playing field....

as to the former, the proposed plan does nothing more than guarantee that 100% of high risk patients will gravitate to the government plan....that means that without any contribution from the insurance companies they get to dump the high risk patients on the government's dollar.....

finally, identify a state that uses the same type of high risk pool that you believe is a failure....I would like to review the results and your assessment of them.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top