« Karen Hughes Against Torture? Left in July, They Tortured in August 2002. | coonsey's Blog | Question for Former VP Cheney »

Republican's Patients' Choice Act - Another Benefit for Employers


The Republican Party has released their health care plan - see the whole thing here:


My thoughts on specific parts of the Patients' Choice Act:


"Prioritizing the needs of patients and doctors must be fundamental."

 

Isn't that everybody's goal; Democrats and Republicans?  What's new here?

.

   

"Creating a market that plays by the rules is the most powerful force to increase quality and make health care more affordable."

 

A market that plays by the RULES; I thought the Republican Party was against REGULATIONS and that's one big reason we are currently in this economic mess.

. 

   

"And increasing the association between patient responsibility for payment and quality of outcomes would vastly improve accountability."

 

No mention of how those patients that can't afford it will accomplish paying for any insurance.  Exactly what is meant by, "increasing the association" between payments and quality of care?  Are they saying that if you don't pay you can't have input on the quality of the care you receive?

 

"Universal access to affordable health care for all Americans should be guaranteed.   Congress should enact a comprehensive solution that will make our healthcare system work for every American every time."

 

How many patients do you know that don't already have universal access to health care? 

 

"The Patients' Choice Act would give every American the opportunity to choose the health care plan that best meets their individual needs"

 

How many patients do you know that don't already have a choice of which health care plan they need?

 

"It will utilize state - driven exchanges to facilitate real competition between private plans and give Americans--for the first time--a choice of health care plans."

 

"In solving our health care crisis, Americans already know that government will not work."

 

How is allowing the STATE government the ability to make exchanges with insurance companies different then giving the FEDERAL government that ability?  Exactly what kind of "exchanges" could they possibly have to create competition?

.

.

.

So folks - where is the BEEF?  What will Republicans do to lower costs and get every American access to health insurance?


The Patients' Choice Act of 2009 effectively ends to tax breaks for employers who provide health coverage to their workers, choosing instead to give a $5,710 tax cut to families and a $2,290 cut to individuals to help them pay for health insurance coverage. Critics insist that this system would end up costing both business and consumers more over the long term. And some objective analysts have agreed. After all, families are currently paying approximately $12,300 a year for health care today.

This ACT appears to be more of the same --- Help businesses and employers save money.  By removing the tax incentive, employers will end up dropping health insurance benefits for their employees claiming they are losing money thereby forcing workers to find a new policy out in the market.





7 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

In other words, they are basically giving us what we already have. How very magnanimous of them.

Same old, same old, same old, same old.

Sigh.

Once more into the breach we go...stopping their lies and aiming sunlight at their dark souls.

user-pic

coonsey, good breakdown and analysis of a complicated subject.

The Republican plan is, of course, to object and demonize the whole thing in the hope it will go away.

Must reading is Frank Luntz's "The Language of Healthcare 2009"

You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.

THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE “WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE

(1) Humanize your approach.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences.

(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer.

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.

(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them.

(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.”

7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare.

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for.

This game plan shall and must be used against them...

user-pic

Hey thanks for the quote and link!

One thing I've learned from following Maddow and Olbermann is that the Repos really do use common talking point memes. They provide quikclips (my neologism) of various Repos using exactly the same phrase.

Just catching a news show which quotes/shows one Repo voicing an objection or claiming a point can make it look like just one person stating a principled position. Removing the cloak to show the manipulation behind the scenes is an important and valuable service.

user-pic

Yup, that's what they did - followed his advise. Put a good SPIN to your idea. Talk about Obama being a good actor!!!

user-pic

I'm sorry Coonsey, I know this sounds like a stupid question, but i'm confused: what are you getting at by that comment. If you could clear this up for me that be great.

user-pic

I was referring to Frank Luntz's suggestion on how to talk about health care.

user-pic

Prodiving a tax credit for less than median costs would of course be a joke, esp. if the effect is to get rid of extant coverages from employer-funded plans which coverages exceed the credit.

"Prioritizing the needs of patients and doctors must be fundamental."

That's an odd cite. It says that tradeoffs must be made between patient and doctor values/needs. Which will the Repos make the higher priorty, patient or health care provider?

Now they probably want that to be read not as a "versus" but in the sense that OTHER needs must be marginal (not fundamental). But what other needs are there?

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address