From The Dailybeast.com :
"Republicans haven’t offered a response to this because, as of this moment, the party doesn’t have a response. Yes, there are conservative intellectuals with ideas for reform, but as an institution, the GOP has little to say about the constellation of problems in American health care. Even in their drive for repeal, Republicans failed to offer an alternative. At most, lawmakers like Bob Corker of Tennessee have tentatively called for “market-driven” reforms, like changes to the tax code, and allowing insurers to sell across state lines. Ironically, the Affordable Care Act allows for these changes, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the GOP."
From your host Edward L. Nice :
I would like to posit some here on a couple of simple issues I have with the big thrust of the Republicans whenever they claim to have an alternative to the ACA.
Number one:
This business of selling health insurance across state lines. That is a ridiculous idea and is easily refuted. There is a very real reason that insurance companies have different rates for not only each state but different areas of each state. The cost of healthcare in metropolitan areas is significantly lower than in remote or sparsely populated areas. The idea that a person in remote parts of Texas or Alaska can access healthcare at the lower cost of a person in Chicago or Columbus or Pittsburgh just doesn't work out. If everyone got healthcare at the same price that would be part of Socialistic policy that the Republicans decry.
Number two:
So-called TORT REFORM. While this may have merit and could be a reasonable reform that could lower physicians insurance cost there is a Republican gimmick.
I watched hours and hours of committee hearings during the run up to the Affordable Care Act.
If you drill down to the tort reform proposed by the Republicans, you will find that they propose limiting the amount that plaintiffs attorneys can charge for a malpractice suit. They did NOT, however, limit the amount that the defendants attorneys could charge. I don't need to go very far with an argument here. Any person with a brain knows the outcome of a court case when one side can spend without limit (read millions) and the plaintiff can only spend thousands. That is the gimmick.
They always have a gimmick.
I can't make it up, check the transcripts,
ED
"Republicans haven’t offered a response to this because, as of this moment, the party doesn’t have a response. Yes, there are conservative intellectuals with ideas for reform, but as an institution, the GOP has little to say about the constellation of problems in American health care. Even in their drive for repeal, Republicans failed to offer an alternative. At most, lawmakers like Bob Corker of Tennessee have tentatively called for “market-driven” reforms, like changes to the tax code, and allowing insurers to sell across state lines. Ironically, the Affordable Care Act allows for these changes, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the GOP."
From your host Edward L. Nice :
I would like to posit some here on a couple of simple issues I have with the big thrust of the Republicans whenever they claim to have an alternative to the ACA.
Number one:
This business of selling health insurance across state lines. That is a ridiculous idea and is easily refuted. There is a very real reason that insurance companies have different rates for not only each state but different areas of each state. The cost of healthcare in metropolitan areas is significantly lower than in remote or sparsely populated areas. The idea that a person in remote parts of Texas or Alaska can access healthcare at the lower cost of a person in Chicago or Columbus or Pittsburgh just doesn't work out. If everyone got healthcare at the same price that would be part of Socialistic policy that the Republicans decry.
Number two:
So-called TORT REFORM. While this may have merit and could be a reasonable reform that could lower physicians insurance cost there is a Republican gimmick.
I watched hours and hours of committee hearings during the run up to the Affordable Care Act.
If you drill down to the tort reform proposed by the Republicans, you will find that they propose limiting the amount that plaintiffs attorneys can charge for a malpractice suit. They did NOT, however, limit the amount that the defendants attorneys could charge. I don't need to go very far with an argument here. Any person with a brain knows the outcome of a court case when one side can spend without limit (read millions) and the plaintiff can only spend thousands. That is the gimmick.
They always have a gimmick.
I can't make it up, check the transcripts,
ED
