Will Republicans Vote Against Their Own Healthcare Proposals

[Bruce Gourley]

Obama unveiled , and it includes many Republican proposals, such as:

Personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs

Medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums.

Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options.

Automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out.

Mechanisms to improve quality of health care.

Comprehensive Sanctions Database.

Registration and Background Checks of Billing Agencies and Individuals.

Expanded Access to the Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank.

Liability of Medicare Administrative Contractors for Claims Submitted by Excluded Providers.

Community Mental Health Centers.

Limiting Debt Discharge in Bankruptcies of Fraudulent Health Care Providers or Suppliers.

Use of Technology for Real-Time Data Review.

Illegal Distribution of a Medicare or Medicaid Beneficiary Identification or Billing Privileges.

Study of Universal Product Numbers Claims Forms for Selected Items and Services Under the Medicare Program.

For more details on the inclusion of Republican proposals in Obama's health care plan, . For more information on the plan as a whole, .

The question is, will Republicans vote against their own proposals because of their hatred of Obama?

[Jonathan]

Typical bait and switch (with the standard side of accusations of hatred) stuff from Bruce.

The issue is still not Republican votes. The issue remains the fear that so many Democrat Senators and Representatives have about how they will fare in November after supporting yet another near $trillion bill that will obviously be stuffed with hundreds of pages of provisions that simply could not be approved if voted on individually.

The solution here is clear: instead of a single massive bill, introduce each provision as an individual bill so that all members of Congress, and the President, can go on record as being in support or opposition. You want to raise taxes on current insurance plans that cost a certain amount? Introduce that bill. You want to change regulations so that individuals can shop plans across state lines? Introduce a bill. You want to expand Medicare so that the states, not having the ability to print money, have to make budgetary choices in order to cover the additional folks? Introduce the bill. Want to collect taxes for 3-4 years before benefits start in order to close a 10 year business case (to heck with the 10 years after that?)? Introduce the bill.

The problem with all of the healthcare bills so far is a simply lack of leadership, Dem leadership. They still have the votes (59 in still among the largest majorities in the history of the chamber) to do what they want. But do they have the courage to risk their own jobs this Fall?

I would like to see the Republicans come to the summit/Obama photo op with some concrete options to argue for and the will to keep this thing meaningful. But they do not need to provide cover for scared Dems by swallowing a massive bill that is, overall, horrendous just because it contains some provisions that they favor.

If you can't see the reason in that, you probably would be unconcerned about a few ounces of raw sewage in your soup of the day at lunch.

[Bruce Gourley]

[Jonathan]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Jonathan]

You miss my point. Does the FDA ever overreach? Is it ever corrupted? The history on this is spotty. It is very difficult to show a direct correlation between health/wellness/mortality rate/etc.. and the creation of the FDA. I'm in favor of regulating the food/drug supply. I'm not in favor of having an agency so powerful that is without direct public accountability. Consider how successful drug companies have been in keep "non-traditional" and other nutrient based remedies from being covered by health insurers. Consider the inconsistency of the FDA in protecting the public from harmful items (best example of this is tobacco...any number of items, less harmful than cigarettes, are denied access to US markets...cigarettes remain on the market, in large part, because government enjoys the tax revenue).

[William Thornton]

Hey, price controls. How retro.