What a Republican Health-Care Reform Bill Would Look Like
Advertisement
My college sociology professor always gave his classes term papers that we knew would take half a semester of solitary confinement in the graduate library.
But, like most workers, the professor was not fond of uncompensated overtime just to grade the ridiculous ramblings of a sophomore suffering from a weekend hangover. So he limited the length of our papers and reminded us to get to work promptly.
"If I have more time, I can write a shorter paper," he reminded us.
It was the only good advice I ever heard from a socialist. And, I hope that the Congress will take that advice, too.
With the election of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, health-care reform has stalled. It was 2,000 pages of leftist legal regurgitation from 60 years of dreams originated by politicians who advocated the policies of Lenin and Trotsky as the solution for the problems of the Great Depression.
So it is now my dream that the current socialists who still maintain a commanding legislative majority will take the advice of their "fellow traveler" from Carolina and take more time. Write a shorter law.
It can be done. I spent 30 years practicing law in California, where Governor Pat Brown Jr. told us that "less is more." I have a few minutes, so I can give them a little less. I can write SB 2010 as follows:
- Interstate Sale of Insurance: In order to aid in the expansion of interstate commerce in intangible goods, it shall be permissible for persons licensed to sell health insurance in any state to sell health insurance through a licensed insurance broker in the state in which the policy is purchased.
The state from which the product originates must allow the policy to be sold to its citizens and must guarantee the solvency of the issuing company through an insurance guarantee fund utilized by all that state's admitted carriers.
Tort Reform: In order for any state to receive existing funding for schools of medicine, it must limit the liability of health-care providers to no more than $250,000 for noneconomic damages such as "pain and suffering." This amount shall be adjusted upward or downward each Jan. 2 based upon the rise or fall of the Consumer Price Index
More Tort Reform: In order for states to receive existing federal funding for schools of medicine: (1) No attorney in the state may collect as his fee more than 25 percent of a medical malpractice settlement award; (2) No amount of damages may be collected from any negligent health-care provider except in the proportion to the actor's percentage of negligence; and (3) If a plaintiff commences an action for medical malpractice, the parties that prevail shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney fees from the non-prevailing party.
Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions/No Cancellation: Any medical insurance policy written by a company involved in commerce shall not exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions as long as the insured has been continually insured for the previous year. If not insured for the previous year, the insured shall have coverage for pre-existing illnesses not more than one year after insurance commences. And no insurance policy in force for one year or more may be canceled or contested for any reason except nonpayment of premium.
Now, I do not believe that Harry Reid will be receptive to this bill, chiefly because it will not cost the government any money. Put another way, there is no tax money in the bill to pay off the unions in his Nevada casinos.
Yet I believe that if the public wants health reform at all, given the time we now have to exhale the smog-filled air of Pelosi's San Francisco, we can write a much shorter bill that breaks a new ground of fairness for patients whose appendix need an extraction as opposed to the cash in their wallets.
Both Congress and the president were reprimanded by the voters of Massachusetts. I hope they now know that part of the art of politics is the same as the art of a KISS: "Keep it -simple, stupid."
Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@Prodigy.net.
Advertisement
Comments
350jb says...
Saying that Democrats are all Trotskyists is like saying all southerners are stupid. It may be true in a roundabout way, but it has nothing to do with the healthcare debate. Read between the lines and the real effort in this article is directed towards making it impossible to sue a doctor when the doctor screws up. Give more power to the powerful, and they promise they will take care of you. How's that working out so far?
January 31, 2010 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seemstome says...
If it were so simple, why didn't republicans pass these measures during the numerous times they were in the majority? What held them back? Could it have been their interests in the insurance industry and pharmaceuticals?
The reality is that republicans have no interest in reducing costs for the American people and are only concerned with Wall street.
January 31, 2010 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JerseyMcJones says...
I'm sorry, but this is just so disingenuous, let alone hypocritical, that it's really getting hard to believe that Republicans are even intellligent human adults anymore.
So, your "reform" would be to take away the people's right to redress in the courts and to impose federal rules on the states? Really? Wow! You Republicans really do stand for individual liberty and states rights! What a joke. And for what? I've never seen a single study that showed that tort "reform" (which is just sleazy code-speak for taking away the people's right to redress in the courts) would cut any more than a few percentage points off the ridiculous healthcare overhead, and the fix on healthcare inflation would only be temporary. As for selling insurance accross state lines - what's the plan? Are you going to politely ask the states to get together on that? Are you going to impose federal regulations (Heaven forbid!)? So what's the point? All you'd accomplish is another rush to the bottom, as selective private insurers cull the customers they don't want from those they do until we have millions and millions more people uninsured. Great plan.
No, the GOP has NO plan to address the healthcare crisis. You do, however, have a plan to make more money on your insurnce investments. Like Galbraith said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
JMJ
January 31, 2010 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LA503 says...
I'm missing something, how does that expand coverage for the uninsured? Or more accurately- under insured- as anyone can get emergency room treatment by walking through the door. Treatment that those with health care insurance are subsidizing.
It seems like you are just cherry picking a few issues- to show that something can be accomplished- without really accomplishing anything.
January 31, 2010 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JoeWisenbaker says...
I do agree with 350jb about attaching offensive labels to people. I've been a 'democrat' my whole life but never cease to be willing to listen to other points of view. And, there are several of your health care reform features that ought to be part of that discussion -> real limits on law suits (but with real reform on the medical profession's self-policing that gets incompetents out of the surgical rooms), and pulling the plugs on insurance companies wanting to cite pre-existing conditions to deny coverage. Likewise, there were many things that got dumped into the current health care bill to bring on board as many Democrats as possible - we need to get those strange things off the table. And, we can if we ALL work together!
January 31, 2010 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
maake says...
Here is how this simple proposal is simply wrong:
Interstate insurance - now we have Republicans pushing to gut the 10th Amendment. Insurance regulation is the purview of the states. What works in New Mexico may not work in Florida. Predictable response: "But the commerce clause permits this type of national reform". Fact: the Commerce Clause has been the vehicle to push aside states rights for far too long. It's how we got to this point. Madison would roll over in his grave.
Banning Pre-existing Conditions - simple-minded fantasy, a non-starter. This would drive premiums through the roof as Americans just wait until they get sick to buy insurance. To keep premiums within eyesight would require mandated coverage, anethema to freedom loving Americans.
Tort Reform - fundamentally anti-American. Why should laws restrict the freedom of Americans to pursue justice for medical malfeasance? In the quest to punish a group that supports the Democratic party Republicans trample on freedom.
Your proposals sound slick but they are un-American, anti-liberty and not much better than Obama-care, perhaps more dangerous because they sound more reasonable but conceal the real effect.
January 31, 2010 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AUG says...
Ah - The great American dream - to sue someone and live happily ever after.
January 31, 2010 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NonIdeologicalThinker says...
While the authors proposal would cost the government little, it would also accomplish little. It does not significantly address the 30 million uninsured, or the systemic cost drivers of health care, nor the underfunding of health entitlement programs, such as the prescription drug benefit.
January 31, 2010 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sara says...
THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. What the other Marxist commenters don't realize, is that the reason insurance is so high is because the insurance companies have to pay out enormous settlements for pain and suffering for not necessarily valid claims. Just by requiring the losing party to pay the winning parties attorney's fees would cut down on the frivolous lawsuits that cost the PUBLIC so much money. Any comment that suggests that we should regulate or penalize free market is a comment from someone who does not understand how the economy works. How would you like the government to regulate how much money YOU can make? Then don't ask the government to do it to someone else.
January 31, 2010 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mike says...
Dear Mr. Levy,
I am an "independent", former Republican voter. One of the reasons I made the move was because I am increasingly uncomfortable associating with extremists of ALL stripes, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, you name it.
I think you are doing yourself a disservice by engaging in sophmoric name calling. "Socialist", "Trotskyite", "fellow traveler",...what next? Communists?
Our country needs men and women of vision and reason who can recognize that the country is made of people with legitimately differing opinions. What I expect, what I demand, from my elected representatives is that they work out a solution that incorporates the best ideas, no matter who authors them. What is not acceptable is that they engage in high-school cliquishness and name calling. It's hard to see past this kind of childish behavior to the legitimate points you ae trying to make.
Please read the article "Civility Crisis" by Joyce Reehling in this same issue.
January 31, 2010 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
robW says...
Branding everyone who is a democrat as a "current socialist" is incendiary. Suggesting that Roosevelt democrats were Leninists and Trotskyites is mean and uncalled-for. Slamming San Francisco as having smog-filled air displays ignorance of basic weather conditions and that Levy isn't beyond just making things up to fit a pugnacious, bully-boy polemic. Mr. Levy's little essay is chock-full of inflammatory, malicious word-craft.
This pick-a-fight mentality--on both sides of the political fence--isn't productive. In fact, I would say it's pretty much Anti-American, because it is America, our nation, that is more the worse for it.
Let me repeat that: The pick-a-fight mentality--on both sides of the political fence--is Un-American and Anti-American. There is no place in public office or politics for people who show such little regard for their fellow citizens and so little respect for the American process. The Moore County Republican Party can surely do better?
January 31, 2010 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
David44 says...
Mr. Levy -
I find little to quibble about with you health insurance outline, but it is not necessary to malign the air of San Francisco in order to malign its politicians. Having practiced law in California for 30 years as you say, surely you would not confuse San Francisco with Los Angeles, so why confuse their atmospheres? With the exception of a few weeks in the autumn and sometimes in the spring when there is a temperature inversion and no wind, the air of San Francisco and much of the Bay Area is relatively pristine thanks to the constant westerlies off the Pacific which push the pollution across the Coast Range and into the Central Valley adding to the already poor air quality there. I might add that the smog in Southern California has improved dramatically thanks mainly to automobile exhaust measures enacted in the 1970's and 80's courtesy of the USEPA and the California Air Resources Board of which I'm sure you are aware.
January 31, 2010 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
350jb says...
It's easy to imagine that the cost of health care is due to lawsuits. It seems so facile an argument that it goes over well with people who don't care to learn any real facts. Just take the easy way out and call someone who disagrees with you a Marxist. So far, we've got Lenin, Trotsky and Marx. We are probably lucky that this is the extent of sara's knowledge. Proving again the second part of my first sentence.
January 31, 2010 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sadie94 says...
If this is what the Republican plan "would look like," then why isn't it? No one has stopped the Republicans from detailing their own plan; how absurd and disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That's the Republican strategy right now: don't do anything and blame it on Pelosi and Reid that nothing gets done.
January 31, 2010 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mark says...
Just having a health bill doesn't mean that bill would help the growing problems of cost and more people losing insurance.
The plan you posit would lower costs to insurers but those savings wouldn't, by law, be passed on to the insured. It wouldn't lower cost of the people actually delivering care. The additional people that will be excluded by the insurers going to the states with the weakest laws to maximize profits will still show up at emergency rooms when their conditions grow too acute for remedial help.
In other words this would make a bad situation worse.
The Government provides fully half of all medical care presently. And, it's costs have risen less than the private sector which is more inefficient due to their need to make the largest possible profit from sickness and the fear of sickness. Also their costs of advertising and lobbying. A government option would obviously provide competition to an industry that has been exempted from that by law. Competition is what makes capitalism work for the benefit of society. Without competition you end up with the predatory practices to which we are currently subjected.
January 31, 2010 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rsniranjan says...
While I agree that a shorter bill can be drafted, I would like to challenge the writer why does he refer to the democrats as socialists. The republicans have been in charge of congress for the past 12 years (1994-2006) yet during that same time they never enacted the "common sense" reform that they are touting. They enacted the Medicare prescription drug benefit (an unfunded mandate) yet they complain when democrats try to do something that is supposedly funded. During the 12 years of republican rule, they did not do anything of what they prescribe right now and the ranks of the uninsured grew during that period. Why not allow the democrats the chance to do what they believe is right. If the experiment fails, then republicans will be reelected with a majority and then they cna undo what the democrats have done and reenact their version of health reform.
January 31, 2010 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Crit says...
Poorly written insults of a large part of the United States will never win people's hearts or minds. It does succeed in keeping the status quo of partisan politics going though.
January 31, 2010 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
roxiesmom says...
It's an excellent proposal. No where did it say you couldn't sue for Med Mal. It said - No amount of damages may be collected from any negligent health-care provider except in the proportion to the actor's percentage of negligence. Of course, if people took a little more responsibility for their health - ate right, exercised, followed the health care providers instructions - they wouldn't need as much medical care to begin with. Stay out of the ER's for anything other than an emergency - that's why they are called "Emergency Rooms". Duh. What the socialistic Dems don't like about the proposal is that it doesn't take money from those who have and give to those who don't. (of course, if the don'ts would work, maybe they would have). Besides, why not try it, it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. If it doesn't work, then back to the drawing board. The majority of people who don't have it are those who don't think they need it or aren't citizens of the US. People run to the ER for sniffles these days. Geez, get a grip.
January 31, 2010 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tkdsurfer says...
Poor Mr. Levy So out of touch with the rest of the United States. You miss the entire point of Health Care Reform. This is great for all of you who can afford the exuberent prices of health care insurance but there are many in your own family who cannot if you care to trace your roots back a little beyond your own bank account. This is not even for the people who are here illegally but for many Americans, many who called themselves republicans prior to your last admins fiasco, who now are like nomads who have to travel for the next part of eternity into the night blind. More then likely you have relatives who don't have money and you probably don't even bother to associate whit this part of your own clan. They are out there. You just have to soul search and look a little. As always with your crew you think nothing of the rest of us (U.S.). You are like England before we abandoned them except this time we will not be the ones leaving. If you continue on your path in life you will end up alone with all the healthcare you can handle in the little part of the US you will be alotted to play your little imperial capitalist game. Try thinking of the rest of the world and how we can help them at the same time as helping ourselves but do it without your wallet in your mind.
January 31, 2010 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
ahuman says...
Does anyone do actual research or just put what they think in articles? All current data shows that lawsuits are a minor cost and do not amount to any real savings.
So the person who wrote this article has obviously never had a bad experience with an incompetent doctor or hospital staff. I have. Guess what happened to the person who they treated incorrectly... they died at the ripe age of 30 because the doctor was blatantly incompetent during childbirth. Which caused them to have kidney failure at 24. Guess who paid the medical bills until the lawsuit was finally won and paid most of them off..... It wasn't blue cross, they dropped her coverage once she reached the cap of her coverage. (because thats all your worth as a person. Then you should just die, go pay for your dialysis and hospital visits yourself.)
I hope no one really ever gets a lifetime illness in your life because you will be paying the bills while bankrupting your family and destroying your life. So keep saying we have a great system and keep buying into the insurance lobby. But the truth is you are a selfish ass and have been lucky so far. I just hope your karma doesn't catch up with you...
-----------------------Here is some real info for you to chew on------------
And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.
CBO: When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.
Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
http://www.factcheck.org/president_us...
-----------------
January 31, 2010 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nana says...
"Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions/No Cancellation: Any medical insurance policy written by a company involved in commerce shall not exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions as long as the insured has been continually insured for the previous year. If not insured for the previous year, the insured shall have coverage for pre-existing illnesses not more than one year after insurance commences. And no insurance policy in force for one year or more may be canceled or contested for any reason except nonpayment of premium."
I'm only going to comment on one portion of this one...
What Mr. Levy is saying--perhaps without any forethought?--is that all babies born with a serious disability or illness would not be covered for the condition once their first birthday has arrived, no matter how long it would take doctors to correct or repair the condition. And there are many conditions that can be corrected with surgery, but preferably not until after an infant is a year old since it's often too dangerous to operate prior to that.
NOTE: The embryo/fetus period generally lasts up to 9-months, so the new born will not have been covered for a full year. Preemies stand less of a chance for health insurance coverage after that one year period because of their earlier entrance into the world.
Hardly seems humane. So I suggest that Mr. Levy not attempt writing health care laws without consulting a lot of physicians first.
Last but not least--if caring about others and what happens to them (even though they're not related to me by blood) makes me a socialist, then I'll proudly wear that label.
January 31, 2010 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
roxiesmom says...
wow tkdsurfer - what a bunch of socialistic bs. I laughed so much when I read that. Thanks! If people would learn to take care of themselves instead of waiting for their handout... This will NEVER be a Socialist nation. Those who want one - there are many to choose from - feel free to leave. Conservatives help those in need. We decide who our money goes to, not the government. As it should be. Since we work for our pay, we SHOULD get to decide where it goes. My daughter doesn't have health insurance. She's 24 and doesn't think she needs it. She works for little to no pay, but she does work. And she pays the Dr. when she needs to see them. But she tries to take care of herself so she doesn't get sick. Preventative care. I realize that there are those that have catastrophic illnesses to contend with. And the medical bills can be horrendous. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, but not at the expense of freedom and liberty.
January 31, 2010 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tex805 says...
Mr. Levy: You raise some excellent points. I, too, will be brief.
1. Interstate sales of insurance will indeed help. Let's do it!
2. Tort reform for "pain and suffering" helps the doctors, not the patients, as the savings do not get passed on. See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/h....
3. Your "more tort reform" ideas will also help. The lawyers lobby will vigorously oppose the limitations, and it will be very difficult to pass.
4. Pre-existing conditions/no cancellation. Excellent idea, and very much needed. However, it will raise the cost of insurance, not lower it.
What's missing?
1. Universal coverage - that's critical. (not even counting the issue of illega;s).
2. Means to reduce the cost of insurance - and medical care.
3. Solving the underfunding of Medicare.
When you address these critical issues, you will have a solution.
Incidentally, I am a Republican living in California. Your indiscriminate use of labels is indeed inappropriate.
January 31, 2010 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LA503 says...
Re: the comment from Roxie's Mom "Stay out of the ER's for anything other than an emergency - that's why they are called "Emergency Rooms".
A hospital must provide "stabilizing care" for a patient with an emergency medical condition. The hospital must screen for the emergency and provide the care without inquiring about your ability to pay.
January 31, 2010 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pnc74w says...
Mr. Robert M. Levy, the article reports, is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. He reports his e-mail as LAW52@prodigy.com. My mind leaps to the question, "Is Mr. Levy an attorney whose practice defends physicians and insurance companies in malpractice cases?"
If the answer is affirmative, it seems to explain the reason his axe and language is honed to attack plaintiffs in malpractice cases. As others have pointed out Mr. Levy's proposal does nothing to address the needs of the uninsured.
Massachusetts elected a temporary senator who is young, and worked hard to express the frustration with the extreme politics of both sides of the aisle in Washington. There is a self-serving view by the right that Massachusetts was presented with candidates who were equals except for the issue of healthcare. If Mr Brown is a man of his word and an independent thinker, he will try to work with the President on real reform and avoid the name calling that Mr. Levy seems to enjoy participating in in this article.
Remember Mr. Brown ran his campaign as an independent, avoiding the Republican label. His actions in Washington will be watched by the electorate in Massachusetts and if he does not participate in change, you can bet he will be removed after only a short stay in the office of senator. He was not sent to bolster the numbers of those who hold extreme political views. He was sent to be pragmatic and govern.
January 31, 2010 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Klotho says...
The health care bill we'd get from your party, if you controlled Congress and the White House, would be...NOTHING. Nothing at all. And that's exactly what the American people got for eight years. Instead, we got 1) a war started on a lie, 2) no help for two weeks for a city sunk in water, 3) a journey from a budget surplus to 1.3 trillion in national debt, 3) the greatest economic boom in American history turned into the brink of the second Great Depression, and lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. That's what we got. Instead, that is. And we don't want any more of it, and that's why Obama was elected.
January 31, 2010 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grasspress says...
hey, robert, this kind of nonsense is exactly why no one takes the republicans seriously on the health care issue. i mean, george bush could have come up with this.
what you're really saying is that i and my friends already have health ins and we don't want you to have it. so there!
did any of you ever have mothers?
January 31, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
magnumman says...
I just happened across this because it was on Google News. Thanks for reminding us of how bankrupt Republican arguments have become. There used to be a time when a Republican could make a respectable, educated, and rational argument, but those times now seem to be past. At the least, don't toss around words like "socialist" and names like Lenin and Trotsky without reading a couple of real books about them.
January 31, 2010 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Scottskog says...
When I read the title of what a GOP healthcare bill would look like on the Google News page right up near the top, I was excited to see what it would include.
But in the next few lines after I saw "Socialist" "Lenin" and "Trotsky", I exited out knowing what was going to come next.
But I came back just for curiosity sakes and to give the guy a chance. Maybe it would contain something I didn't already know.
It didn't.
What an uninformed little piece of work this writer is trying to foist down our throats.
News to everyone who reads this.
Buying across state lines, tort reform, AND an end to pre-existing conditions ARE already in the Senate version of the Bill.
So much for the false claim the GOP was kept out of the loop.
Second of all, there is NOT a single bit of the lie being spoon fed the masses from the GOP. WHERE exactly IS the Government take over?
The Senate Bill doesn't have even one drop of the watered down public option the House version passed. It actually gives the Insurance industry 30 million more paying customers
Maybe the GOP ought to listen to folks like Former GOP Gov Tommy Thompson and Former Senator Bill Frist (you know the last GOP majority leader of the Senate, AND a MD)
They think the Senate version ought to be passed. But since they no longer have to raise money from those who pull the strings in BOTH party's they are free to speak their mind.
A quote from Frist...
“But fundamentally the insurance reform in there is fantastic, I think, in terms of pre-existing illness, not refusing health care, the individual mandate of bringing people to the insurance market, absolutely critical today, the subsidies haven’t been worked out. So I think the best place for me to be is to call it like it is, to push reform..."
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.co...
January 31, 2010 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NetOwl says...
Robert
Good article on what is obviously a pivotal topic for all of us. I agree that keeping things short is better and that important legislation should be written (or version made) that communicates what will occur and how, in a manner that can be clearly understood. That said, for Tort reform (1 above) why not consider a no-fault provision that would go before an appointed board (preferably state) to be ruled on. There are models for this in other countries. All such cases would be decisioned in lets say 90 or 120 days. As there would be a public record of non-fault descions, a consumer can get some idea of the performance of providers. As for $250,000 for pain and suffering that seems to low. $500,000 to a million word be better served particularly for egregious pain and suffering cases. Additionally, why not mandate as part of tort reform that a portion (percentage) of all monies collected by such decisions be applied to support the pool of those that have preexisting conditions.
Steve, an Independent in Portland Oregon
January 31, 2010 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EyesEarsVoice says...
Do you understand the foundational arguments suggested by both parties?
Reps believe their solution will lower the cost to business and lower the cost to the consumer as a result. P&S litigation is currently only kept in check by judicial restraint, but not by legislation. Tort reform and caps, because law firms are blamed for driving massive class action lawsuits with exorbitant settlements because they stand to profit more if the settlement is made larger. Minimized risk to companies, as coverage for pre-existing conditions is time limited.
The Dem’s approach is to be more collective about the strategy. If you insert more legislative control, you can actually help to affect change using the checks and balances we prize in our government. The linear mind might view this as anti-business, but if you lower the uninsured write-offs, the out of pocket expenses, and increase preventative healthcare, then that increases productivity and puts more money back into business. Larger volume, more players equals lower cost.
Free up the Insurance market to allow interstate commerce. Bigger badder insurance companies will always squash the local providers. I might not be best represented by fewer choices.
Tort Reform: Cap P&S rewards. Exorbitant P&S lawsuits are frequently thrown out or reduced by judicial order. Jane and Joe America need the tools to take on goliath sized companies who need to change poor practices. If it's capped it'll just be another CODB expenditure.
Tort Reform: Limit Payment to Attorney: Large business would always command the best attorneys, whilst Jane and Joe have to settle for firms "willing to take the case". I don’t buy it from a “market” savvy Rep, that limiting profit helps anyone.
Coverage for pre-existing conditions: Do we provide healthcare for everyone regardless of the condition, or do we let them rot in the street and die? Do we bankrupt families as they try to save the life of a dear loved one, or just let the hospitals go broke providing unpaid healthcare? What does business or the market have to do with this?
Reducing taxes in order to "reduce the size of government" does not necessarily raise my standard of living. I don’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare be it mental or physical in the form of taxes. But rest assured I’m paying for it now in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher out of pocket expenses as insurance companies reduce my benefits. I’m also paying for it in the form of taxes to support increased crime prevention and prison construction as people become more and more desperate. There are more forces at work here than just Tort reform. Who benefits from Tort reform the most?
The market does not care about the individual, it is not the great universal constant that will provide unyielding and sage advice, it does not act judiciously, it does not act fairly, it goes where the dollar goes and that's it.
January 31, 2010 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
idcsys says...
I want to address section #3:
“Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions/No Cancellation: Any medical insurance policy written by a company involved in commerce shall not exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions as long as the insured has been continually insured for the previous year. If not insured for the previous year, the insured shall have coverage for pre-existing illnesses not more than one year after insurance commences. And no insurance policy in force for one year or more may be canceled or contested for any reason except nonpayment of premium.”
If the insured has not been covered during the previous year, the insured shall have coverage for pre-existing illnesses not more than one year after insurance commences. So, you lose coverage after one year? But wait…after one year, you will have had coverage for the “previous year”. Doesn’t this mean you can now get covered by the initial provision?
January 31, 2010 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tluan says...
If I were a Republican and I'm not (which must make me a socialist in the article's author's world) I'd run as far as possible from your re-working of their plan. Section 1 (interstate sale) isn't going to appreciably lower rates and bring the non-insured in. All it will do is increase business and $$$'s for the insurance industry.
Section I and 2 (tort reform) don't address the issue. The real expense is not the lawsuit settlements which, in fact, amount to much less than 1% of total monies spent on insurance but the exorbitant fees insurance companies continue to assess medical practitioners even though their outlays don't justify those fees. Why not limit or scaffold insurance company fees to mirror their true payouts?
Section 3: I guess the person who loses his/her insurance coverage in that year is just out of luck if s(he) requires more than one year of coverage - better get well quick.
January 31, 2010 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thomass says...
The State of Texas has limits on pain and suffering. It has not helped one bit. They have the highest uninsured rate of any state in the nation. Their medical costs are rising faster than the national average.
January 31, 2010 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jprjr3 says...
The writer is lost in la-la land.
Allowing interstate insurance policies is a good idea.
Limiting pain and suffering to $250,00?
Pry your head out.
Did you hear about the recent radiation poisoning revelations?
One woman had a hole burned in her chest. She died. $250,000?
One man had his brain stem zapped instead of being treated for throat cancer. He died. $250,000?
Now that we have mass unemployment, there are quite a few people (millions?) who have not had health insurance for a year. I am sure the insurance (financial) companies would love to go on playing that little game.
In the first paragraph, the writer (purposefully?) established that he went to college. That has nothing to do with intelligent discourse.
January 31, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Patriotson says...
A health care bill that would provide services and opportunities and not cost anything. How simple and great. Unfortunitely, a crooked congress who is pandering to unions; vote buying; tax raising; closed deals will never accept the obvious of simplicity.
Tis better to just clean this puss out of congress and lance the heads from the boil that it has created upon the butts of all Americans.
January 31, 2010 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jm says...
Here is an even better scheme, according to your professor's advice:
1. Medicare for all.
kisS
January 31, 2010 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spengle says...
So....we know that tort reform is unlikely to save enough to make a significant difference in the cost of health care. We also know that in states where tort reform has been passed, patients have more difficulty accessing health care. In addition, where in your proposal is there ANY statement about providing reasonable cost health insurance to the more than 40 million citizens without health insurance OR a recommendation focused on decreasing the cost of health care. Your proposal is simple, yes, but incomplete and does not address most of the major problems related to cost and access to health care. As a health care provider for the past 45 years, I have yet to see anything resembling a desire to forge a bipartisan approach to the health care problems. We are the only major country in the western world that does not provide basic health care to all of its citizens. How embarrassing for us and how sad for our citizens
January 31, 2010 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ahuman says...
That was the initial idea for medicare... It was supposed to be for all, but Johnson had to settle for 6x and up to appease the other side. So we have not improved this area fro 50 years.
What makes you think people have a conscience now? I haven't seen any proof that people have changed. This article just proves that people are selfish, greedy, hypocritical morons. Some of the posts in this article just prove my point.
Like i said previously i will be laughing when some of them have serious medical problems and are waiting for that "charity" that was mentioned before as they lose their life savings and property.
Or maybe we can just put people down like cats and dogs, i mean why not who cares about anything anyway.
roxiesmom is a perfect example of why i question humanity.... Where the hell do you live? in a bubble or something?
I actually have gained some hope seeing how many people say good things to bad in a few articles lately. Maybe the rest of us just aren't being noisy enough and letting the nut job idiots make policy.
January 31, 2010 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sgmartin says...
The statements and accusations in this article are beneath even the Republican party and certainly don't attest to the supposed intelligence of someone who practiced law for so many years. Do you have anything constructive to say? As an Independent, I'd like to think that you really don't respresent the the majority of Republicans in Moore County - because then I would have to assume that they were equally uninformed. If so my opinion of the Republican party has sunk even lower.
January 31, 2010 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Of_this_I_know says...
Robert,
Your professor was trying to teach you to think before you speak, lest you prove yourself the fool. May take more time, but you might sound intelligent.
"tort reform" has near zero effect on health premiums. Fact. They are two different systems. If I raise your med malp premium cause of claims, you can only pass that along to the *uninsured*. Medicare will not pay you more cause your premiums are up. Aetna will not either. You simply make less profit.
"interstate insurance" is a myth. McCarren-Furgeson applies to rate making by settling the boundary between federal corruption laws and state's rights to regulate their industries. UHC has a subsidiary in every state where they wish to do business. Fact. In most states, they enjoy a monopoly.
"pre-existing conditions exclusions" are practiced no where else in the insurance industry. When you purchase life insurance, you are already dieing and your rates reflect that. When you purchase auto insurance, you are already a bad driver and your rates reflect that. When you purchase liability insurance, you already are being sued by someone and your rates reflect that. The only abomination that came close was the so-called "claims-made" policy for contractors, a now all-but-dead "option". Insured people know what they need coverage for.
"Insurance is a private industry vested in the public interest". This is what I learned at The College of Insurance in New York, once the Insurance Society of New York, now a part of Saint John's University. It means we are allowed to make a profit taxing everyone to pay for the catastrophes of the few. If we fail to efficiently pass through the costs, collection and dispersal, the IRS is more than willing to step in.
Because of the unique nature of Health Insurance wherein you can be better off after a claim than before (no other insurance does this. It is, therefore, the most like gambling), coupled to the amazing things medicine can do with money, you end up with a very costly system, especially if you add in the need for several layers of "profit" for the purveyors.
The only solution is Direct-to-Consumer Not for Profit legal status for all health companies, or mutualization. Directors and employees can compensate themselves handsomely, but the lack of acquisition cost and equity expense allows for 30-45% rate reductions from present. This is enough to fund universal standard care for all citizens. The only social disruption is to the unemployment of middle-men.
Intelligence trumps emotion in the human condition. It must, if we are to prosper.
Lest you think me the fool, I come to you from Republican DuPage County, Illinois. We gave you Abe Lincoln, Billy Graham and Ronald Reagan.
January 31, 2010 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
350jb says...
So many intelligent comments have been posted today since my first post, it makes me wonder why the idiot writing the initial article was given the space to write his childish rantings in the first place. Is it the policy of this newspaper to provide a pulpit to morons? At least your readers have more sense than the editors.
January 31, 2010 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Of_this_I_know says...
to 350jb,
Informed consent of the voters is required for a peaceful democracy to thrive. Ignorance breeds contempt. Contempt breeds division.
North Carolinians are all Americans first and party second, as it should be. But like many citizens around the country, they are confused by insurance. It is a complicated business. Your leaders owe you the honest information you need to make informed decisions. You owe yourselves a discriminating eye for BS peddlers. They will sell your children's future after making you pay for it today. Panic, oversimplification and something-for-nothing are the stock-in-trade of the manipulators. Knowledge and self confidence are your best defenses.
Perhaps Mr. Levy is the provocateur?
February 1, 2010 at 1:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Toda says...
Obviously Mr. Levy has an association with members of the house and senate who receive millions from the pharmaceutical and insurance industry lobbyists. It appears from his profession as a lawyer, he has an interest in working both sides of the health care proposal. For more insight into tainted money for "your" elected officials, browse to this link:
http://www.opensecrets.org
You will be amazed at the amount of money lobbyists spend every year to buy our representatives.
Mr. Levy's association with the M/C republican party should have been disclosed at the outset of his diatribe. Readers wouldn't have to wade through his lesson on business law.
February 1, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Of_this_I_know says...
Your county voted 50%/50% in the last presidential election. A political solution to the nation's health care "problem" could come from such a well balanced electorate, if your political leaders can muster the courage to lead together.
I offer an elegant, viable, 3 part solution that should please most parties except those who make money off of health care insurance companies.
No new taxes or fees,
Massive economic stimulus for small businesses,
No Federal take-over,
no need for "Public Option",
states right's rule under current law with one new set of guidelines,
universal affordable coverage for citizens,
significantly reduce the average person's annual premium while improving care received, very little contraction in health care insurance employment.
All this for nothing? Nay, but first the "new statutes":
February 2, 2010 at 6:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Of_this_I_know says...
Federal Law of Important Name:
"No domestic or foreign entity may conduct the business of 'Heathcare Insurance' with a citizen of the U.S.A. unless such entity is legally admitted under MHA2010 to do business in one of the fifty states". "Tax effect = negligible beyond implementation, Equalization and monitoring expenses".
Concurrently, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) meets to pass the Model Health care Act(MHA2010), to be adopted by deemer in each of the 50 states. It is akin to the Standard Fire Policy Law in that minimum fire coverage is required in all Fire Insurance policies sold in the U.S. of A. The Act(MHA2010) provides statutory minimum coverage and actuarially sound rate requirements for any entity wishing to transact the business of Healthcare Insurance, similar to Worker's Compensation before open rating. U.S.A. citizenship is the only eligibility requirement, but coverage is administered within the state of domicile and regulated by the respective DOI. Rural communities and low income citizens receive cost sharing through Federal Equalization. Subrogation must be an important element of cost control.
At the same time, the 50 states' depts of corporations adopts a model reform of their own requiring any purveyor of heathcare insurance or heathcare expense reimbursement coverage MUST BE A NOT-FOR-PROFIT direct-to-consumer corporation admitted under MHA2010 in the respective state as a head office or foreign (not alien) subsidiary.
February 2, 2010 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Of_this_I_know says...
That should do it. Private, portable, mandatory minimum coverage available to all Americans with no new taxes or hidden fees. Who pays for the seemingly miraculous change? The middle-men and the gamblers. No one needs lose their job, simply the money they presently remove from healthcare insurance will be recaptured and plowed back into the system. Its currently 1/3 of the $1.1 trillion pie, enough to fully insure 30 million new citizens at $12,000 each. Expect the greed merchants to put up a cat-fight.
When you buy health insurance today, one agent and maybe two brokers take commission before a carrier sees the application. The carrier keeps only a part of the "risk" and reinsures the rest, again involving one to several brokers who each take more commission. Eventually, your claims are paid in full by several carriers in parts. Those carriers have only 65 cents of your original dollar to pay your claim. Agents and brokers do not pay for your claim even though they take part of your premium. This must stop. In addition, the carrier has stockholders who expect a dividend. Subtract another 5-8 cents from your premium dollar. This must stop, also.
Agents and brokers can sell dozens of other insurance products for commission to maintain their livelihoods. Stock brokers and equity investors can risk their capital in other industries. Managers and employees of old carriers can remain at their desks doing the same jobs while voting themselves significant raises.
It is a workable, win-win plan. No Pork or earmarks included. I want naming rights to the eventual bill. It will take political will to remove a proverbial pig from the feeding trough. But it must be done. Its the only right thing left to do.
February 2, 2010 at 6:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Of_this_I_know says...
"Managers and employees of old carriers can remain at their desks doing the same jobs while voting themselves significant raises".
Stated poorly, I apologize. When a for-profit converts to not-for-profit, the employees remain. In fact, Directors can vote their own compensation packages, a nice perk.
Considering the state of the debate, a capitalist should use all the tools in his belt. Not-for-profit is one such tool, and not a bad option considering Big Government's present intention.
February 2, 2010 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Toda says...
Republican health care provisions? Funeral Directors smiling all the way to a place of internment or the cremitorium.
February 6, 2010 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Toda says...
800,000 California residents can expect a whooping 40% increase from Anehiem Blue Cross ~ way to go Congress!
February 9, 2010 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigD says...
Toda- You have stated in the past that you have an economics education. How do you like this comparison.
If State Farm increased your auto and home owners rates by 40% you would switch insurance carriers. If Blue Cross increases your rates you are stuck.
Congress should allow across state lines health insurance. They should also break up monoplies like BCBS.
February 9, 2010 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsense77 says...
If is so easy why did the Republicans do it when they controlled Congress from 1995-2006?
On Interstate Sales it seems the Republicans only believe in states rights when Obama proposes something. Currently Insurance sales is regulated by the States. The chairman of the Moore County Republican Party is proposing to create a FEDERAL MANDATE that would ride rough shod over the sovereign laws of NORTH CAROLINA. Also what about Automobile Insurance, Homeowners Insurance if your going to change it for health insurance shouldn't I have the right to by automobile insurance from Nevada?
On Tort Reform, the Republicans only trust the people when it meets their goal. Tort Reform besides being a general failure interferes with the power of the JURY to decide cases. ANOTHER FEDERAL MANDATE TAKING POWER FROM THE PEOPLE.
Its apparent from this post that the Moore County Republican Party is not a Conservative Party it is a party of power for special interests.
And as a previous poster said, you have confused Los Angeles with San Francisco on the air quality but facts do tend to get in the way.
Republicans not Conservative, Not ready to govern.
February 9, 2010 at 8:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Toda says...
@bigD ~ no rebuttal from me on that one...BCBS touts the fact that they are a non-profit! HeHeHeHe. Those who can afford health insurance are stuck - so to speak. The figures I quoted came from last evenings ABC news @ 6:30. An attorney was interviewed and was quoted as saying, "she could no longer afford the cost of health care." When a $200.00 an hour lawyer is "insurance poor", what hope is there for the rest of the population ~ other than our representatives who we send to the cesspool (Washington) have the best insurance our tax dollars can provide.
Insurance companies have a strangle hold on the people in this country! Promulgated by lobbyists paying for favors to "deregulate" health care and resist legislation that would level the playing field for all Americans. Regardless of how people feel about the present bill(s) HR 3200 as well as a couple more that are now tabled, if those bickering blow-hearts can't come to terms with the fact that American's are being reamed by BIG insurance, then everyone deserves what they get from Washington ~ Lobbyists!
February 10, 2010 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Comments are no longer accepted on this story.