Republicans on YA, would you go for this health care reform plan?

[pascoe69]

1. Tax credits for small business that provide health insurance to employees. This is in the Democrat plans.

2. Expanding Medicaid to cover an additional 10 million uninsured who can't afford insurance. This to be fully funded by the federal government, not an unfunded mandate on the states. I figure these folks are burdening the emergency rooms and stiffing them for the costs anyway.

3. Tort reform to reduce some medical costs associated with defensive medicine and high malpractice insurance costs.

That's it. It will cost the government more money. My guess is it would cost maybe $40 to $50 Billion a year and it would insure an additional 12 million citizens and legal residents. However, no new gov't programs are created and the medical system we have today is essentially left alone.

[jan46]

You asked nicely, and for that you have my thanks. I am SO sick of the combative tone of this site.

1) It's already tax free. You want to subsidize them too? I suppose that's a step forward from the mandate. How about going the OPPOSITE direction. Give the tax deduction to the INDIVIDUAL, and let them buy (or not buy) the plan of their choice? Realize that businesses already spend that money on you, so if they weren't, the money would likely become salary that you could devote to that cause. Because YOU own the plan instead of your employer it would be portable with you.

I would also be willing to compromise my federalist leanings to have the federal govt level the playing field between the different state rules on health plans. Right now states have put a ton of expensive rules in place that raises costs significantly in those states, and then pass rules prohibiting people from getting their plans out of state. Rules preventing out of state plans reduces competition which raises prices. The congress could outlaw such rules.

2) The problem is that Medicare/Medicaid is already over-spending. The program needs to REDUCE the rate at which it's costs are rising. I would rather see the program reformed so that it's expenditures are pinned to the rate of medical price inflation. Then hand that money with no strings attached to the states (aside from mandating that every penny spent be disclosed so state voters can decide if you are spending it well). They can each use the money as they see fit.

3) I like Tort Reform, but it is a contributing factor, not the main cause of our problem. GOP leadership likes to focus on it because Tort Reform in general would really benefit the economic climate of the country...and it would weaken the trial attorneys who are a MAJOR Democratic contributing group. The real problem is simple supply & demand. Our population is aging fast with the boomer generation retiring. As the population ages they are seeking more care for chronic conditions (which happens as you age). But the supply of Doctors is VERY inelastic.

In a normal industry as demand rises, so do prices which presents the capital to invest in increased supply. In the medical industry demand is skyrocketing and supply is virtually unchanged. We need policies to encourage more doctors. Faster better licensing, immigration encouragement to get foreign doctors in country, education subsidies (doctors graduate with a MOUNTAIN of debt), etc. Even all that may not be fast-acting enough because the problem was allowed to go so far before being addressed. Nothing in ObamaCare or HillaryCare ever sought to address this core issue, which is why those policies would have done nothing but moved the cost burden around like a shell game.

Overall I like that your thought process is a bit more incentive-oriented as opposed to the rigid mandates, and you are trying to target the specific coverage gap rather than trying to rewrite the rules for those who are already covered. You even threw in the tort thing as a compromise. If you and I were lawmakers I think we could work together. It'd take some lengthy conversation to find something we could both live with, but we might get somewhere.

[winwood]

This sounds like a nice start. There are things I would like to see added, such as interstate competition for health plans, an option for people to buy 'catrastopic care coverage' in lieu of standard health insurance.

In addition I would want some sort of mechanism to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing medicaid and other healthcare programs. I would have the federal government pay for any emergency care provided to an illegal immigrant as long as the person is turned over for deportation as soon as the person is well enough to travel.

[muata2]

Awesomesauce.

I still prefer a "single payer" plan, since all countries with it pay less and live longer than we do, but this is a great start.

Also, what about people who can;t GET health insurance? Imagine a guy who has a disease, and gets fired and can;t afford health insurance any more. He can never purchase health insurance again, even if he has the money to, since he has a pre-existing condition. . How to help that guy?

[collyer]

i like all of them if the health care reoform plan had this on it i will appovel it. but it doesn't so i need to vote NAY for health care reform

40-50 BILLLION IS WAY TOO MUCH ! THAT COST is a big issues why I disappovel of it

[abisha]

It's a band aid, but much better than what's being proposed. The key of any true reform is to make people act like consumers, and that means facing costs. The good news is it will force costs down for everyone if given enough time.

[chika]

$40-$50 billion a year is $40-$50 billion too much. We need to REDUCE government spending, not increase it.

[eorl]

add to that removal of barriers against insurance companies competing across state lines and you've got a deal.

[torran]

I like your Idea

[colum]

Yes, you get my vote. Why can't the ninny Dems in congress see something simple?