House GOP is planning on releasing a health care bill tomorrow

The House GOP is planning on introducing a health care bill, but in the article summary, I don't see a mention of how to pay for the proposed provisions, other than general reform and cost cutting will pay for it?. I also don't see mention of it being submitted to CBO for a score.

I hope CBO will be scoring it, and to hear details about costs and paying for the bill.

July 29, 2009 12:54 PM
New GOP Health Bill Promotes on Tax Incentives
Posted by Stephanie Condon


Members of the Republican Study Committee are putting forward their own piece of legislation for health care reform, a summary of which was provided exclusively to CBSNews.com's Washington Unplugged.

While Democrats are focusing on creating something like a government-sponsored health insurance plan and regulating the health insurance market, the Republican "Empowering Patients First Act," which Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) will introduce tomorrow, instead promotes the individual insurance market as well as employer-based markets. Instead of focusing on regulating private insurers, the plan would in fact give them more freedom to work across state lines. Republicans say the plan will be paid for by reforms of defensive medicine, creating a more efficient health care system, and overall reductions in non-defense government spending.


more ...

Click to expand...

jackalope said:

The House GOP is planning on introducing a health care bill, but in the article summary, I don't see a mention of how to pay for the proposed provisions, other than general reform and cost cutting will pay for it?. I also don't see mention of it being submitted to CBO for a score.

I hope CBO will be scoring it, and to hear details about costs and paying for the bill.

Click to expand...

I doubt it will be scored because it will prove them wrong.

formerroadie said:

I doubt it will be scored because it will prove them wrong.

Click to expand...

I also think they will not request a CBO score. Requesting a score would signal seriousness and purpose. So far, I haven't seen that exhibited by House Republicans.

jackalope said:

I also think they will not request a CBO score. Requesting a score would signal seriousness and purpose. So far, I haven't seen that exhibited by House Republicans.

Click to expand...

They will champion the numbers put out by the CBO for the dem plan but won't submit for fear of what the CBO may say about them. Never mind that the CBO has screwed up numbers in the first place.

formerroadie said:

They will champion the numbers put out by the CBO for the dem plan but won't submit for fear of what the CBO may say about them. Never mind that the CBO has screwed up numbers in the first place.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm taking a wait and see approach. They haven't introduced it yet, so maybe they will request a score. It's past time Republicans offered some serious, substantive alternatives. I can't take seriously NO NO NO without serious alternatives to consider, and by serious, I mean backed up with numbers so one can judge the merits and weaknesses of the proposals.

Any GOP proposal will be DOA.

Leftists will see to that.

I hope it's a serious proposal, though. The GOP's behavior during the healthcare debate has put me off a bit. I'm glad that they're opposing the horrendous bills that are floating around (although the often hyperbolic opposition weakens their criticisms IMO), but the lack of a serious alternative made it clear to me that the GOP doesn't want reform, and that if they were in power they would not be attempting to change anything about the system. If the GOP can craft a plan that's in any way better than the left's plan there's plenty of people who desparately want reform who are looking for a decent plan to back. Public support is out there for the taking, and even if the bill itself fails it would be helpful to float some new ideas that can be incorporated into whatever bill eventually gets passed

DamnYankee said:

Any GOP proposal will be DOA.

Leftists will see to that.

Click to expand...

If it is supported by merits and numbers, that would be impossible to do.

jackalope said:

If it is supported by merits and numbers, that would be impossible to do.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm just not holding my breath.

Stop skirting the issue.

You don't need Republicans to pass your disaster of a bill. You just need more than 30 percent of Americans to support it.

Democrats won't pass it because they know it's political suicide.

Erod said:

Stop skirting the issue.

You don't need Republicans to pass your disaster of a bill. You just need more than 30 percent of Americans to support it.

Democrats won't pass it because they know it's political suicide.

Click to expand...

Sorry, the GOP position on health care reform is the issue in this thread.

Erod said:

Stop skirting the issue.

You don't need Republicans to pass your disaster of a bill. You just need more than 30 percent of Americans to support it.

Democrats won't pass it because they know it's political suicide.

Click to expand...

How is it political suicide when most of the country wants a strong public option?

jackalope said:

Sorry, the GOP position on health care reform is the issue in this thread.

Click to expand...

The GOP issue is they don't want a piece of non-reforming tax-increasing cost-increasing care-decreasing lunatic liberal loser legislation being foisted on the American taxpayer under the rubric of "health care reform."

The American public's issue is they don't want a piece of non-reforming tax-increasing cost-increasing care-decreasing lunatic liberal loser legislation being foisted on them.

The Anti-Republican's issue is they are salivating at the chance to foist a piece of non-reforming tax-increasing cost-increasing care-decreasing lunatic liberal loser legislation on the taxpayers whom they despise.

formerroadie said:

How is it political suicide when most of the country wants a strong public option?

Click to expand...

Gallup says that's not the case. A majority of Americans are not in favor of the health care legislation pending before Congress.

celticlord said:

The GOP issue is they don't want a piece of non-reforming tax-increasing cost-increasing care-decreasing lunatic liberal loser legislation being foisted on the American taxpayer under the rubric of "health care reform."

Click to expand...

Yes, but we do not need a health care "reform" bill that amounts to little more than giving even more power and freedom to the health insurance industry-- which is one of the root causes of our healthcare problem-- any more than we need the abovementioned "lunatic liberal loser legislation".

What we need is a far simpler, easier to comprehend version of the Democrats' bill in which major Republican suggestions, such as tort reform and malpractice insurance reform, are included. We need to understand that we cannot all have all of the medical services we want, that a medical error does not justify a life of luxury, that spending 85% of our total lifetime medical expenses in the last eighteen months of our lives is wasteful and ludicrous, and that even though a morally just and upright society values its elderly, healthcare for people who are paying taxes and raising children is more important than healthcare for retirees on government pension plans.

This, of course, will never happen.

jackalope said:

Instead of focusing on regulating private insurers, the plan would in fact give them more freedom to work across state lines.

Click to expand...

This would actually go a long way to making health insurance considerably cheaper. I work in North Carolina and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NC basically has a monopoly on health insurance across the state because the state legislature outlaws people from buying insurance from other states and more or less installed BCBSNC as the primary insurance provider. The state also requires that all health insurance in the state covers over 40 different tests and other procedures that most people don't even need, thus adding to the cost. For instance, women are required to be covered for prostate screenings. I'm not making that up.

A report was done a few months ago that showed people in North Carolina could purchase the exact same insurance coverages from states like Iowa and South Dakota at a cost of 60% less than what they are paying in North Carolina.

Competition works, but the government outlawed it and then has the nerve to paint the insurance companies as the bad guys.

Korimyr the Rat said:

that spending 85% of our total lifetime medical expenses in the last eighteen months of our lives is wasteful and ludicrous, and that even though a morally just and upright society values its elderly, healthcare for people who are paying taxes and raising children is more important than healthcare for retirees on government pension plans.

This, of course, will never happen.

Click to expand...

Something tells me that when you're 89 and need a hip replacement because you're in constant pain but the government says that in all likelihood you won't live more than a couple of more years and deny you the operation you'll have a much different opinion.

Don't Tase Me Bro said:

Something tells me that when you're 89 and need a hip replacement because you're in constant pain but the government says that in all likelihood you won't live more than a couple of more years and deny you the operation you'll have a much different opinion.

Click to expand...

Is the notion that those in need will always demand things to help them part of why the founders originally did not set up a direct voting process where every person of any race and sex could vote and their vote was directly relevant?

Just playing devil's advocate here but...

When you're poor, homeless, and can't get a job I'm sure you'll have a much different opinion about welfare and programs giving money and aid to these kind of people. Does that mean that's the best choice?

When you're at war and severly undermanned you may feel like you would support a draft because its needed. Does that mean that's the best choice?

If the country is at work and is losing because its severely undermanned you may not want to support a draft. Does that mean that's the best choice?

When you're only making $40,000 dollars it seems perfectly acceptable for your opinion to be that those makintg $200k should be taxed 50%. Does that mean its right?

Just because those in a position to benefit the most from a piece of law support it does not necessarily mean its correct, nor does it mean their opinion when not directly affected by the situation is invalid.

jackalope said:

If it is supported by merits and numbers, that would be impossible to do.

Click to expand...

Guess that is why Obama's tanked?:mrgreen:

Korimyr the Rat said:

Yes, but we do not need a health care "reform" bill that amounts to little more than giving even more power and freedom to the health insurance industry-- which is one of the root causes of our healthcare problem-- any more than we need the abovementioned "lunatic liberal loser legislation".

What we need is a far simpler, easier to comprehend version of the Democrats' bill in which major Republican suggestions, such as tort reform and malpractice insurance reform, are included. We need to understand that we cannot all have all of the medical services we want, that a medical error does not justify a life of luxury, that spending 85% of our total lifetime medical expenses in the last eighteen months of our lives is wasteful and ludicrous, and that even though a morally just and upright society values its elderly, healthcare for people who are paying taxes and raising children is more important than healthcare for retirees on government pension plans.

This, of course, will never happen.

Click to expand...

What we need is to not shift our health from insurance companies wants to the government's wants.

Government needs to get out of the medical industry.

Don't Tase Me Bro said:

This would actually go a long way to making health insurance considerably cheaper. I work in North Carolina and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NC basically has a monopoly on health insurance across the state because the state legislature outlaws people from buying insurance from other states and more or less installed BCBSNC as the primary insurance provider. The state also requires that all health insurance in the state covers over 40 different tests and other procedures that most people don't even need, thus adding to the cost. For instance, women are required to be covered for prostate screenings. I'm not making that up.

A report was done a few months ago that showed people in North Carolina could purchase the exact same insurance coverages from states like Iowa and South Dakota at a cost of 60% less than what they are paying in North Carolina.

Competition works, but the government outlawed it and then has the nerve to paint the insurance companies as the bad guys.

Click to expand...

BINGO! Couldnt have said it better.

Kernel Sanders said:

I hope it's a serious proposal, though. The GOP's behavior during the healthcare debate has put me off a bit. I'm glad that they're opposing the horrendous bills that are floating around (although the often hyperbolic opposition weakens their criticisms IMO), but the lack of a serious alternative made it clear to me that the GOP doesn't want reform, and that if they were in power they would not be attempting to change anything about the system. If the GOP can craft a plan that's in any way better than the left's plan there's plenty of people who desparately want reform who are looking for a decent plan to back. Public support is out there for the taking, and even if the bill itself fails it would be helpful to float some new ideas that can be incorporated into whatever bill eventually gets passed

Click to expand...

In all honesty, this is the GOP's big chance to seize back support, approval, and ultimately power.
Instead they're running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

1069 said:

In all honesty, this is the GOP's big chance to seize back support, approval, and ultimately power.
Instead they're running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Click to expand...

It's what they do best. They're a bunch of gutless wonders.

Zyphlin said:

Is the notion that those in need will always demand things to help them part of why the founders originally did not set up a direct voting process where every person of any race and sex could vote and their vote was directly relevant?

Just playing devil's advocate here but...

When you're poor, homeless, and can't get a job I'm sure you'll have a much different opinion about welfare and programs giving money and aid to these kind of people. Does that mean that's the best choice?

When you're at war and severly undermanned you may feel like you would support a draft because its needed. Does that mean that's the best choice?

If the country is at work and is losing because its severely undermanned you may not want to support a draft. Does that mean that's the best choice?

When you're only making $40,000 dollars it seems perfectly acceptable for your opinion to be that those makintg $200k should be taxed 50%. Does that mean its right?

Just because those in a position to benefit the most from a piece of law support it does not necessarily mean its correct, nor does it mean their opinion when not directly affected by the situation is invalid.

Click to expand...

I think this went straight over my head. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Yes, but we do not need a health care "reform" bill that amounts to little more than giving even more power and freedom to the health insurance industry-- which is one of the root causes of our healthcare problem-- any more than we need the abovementioned "lunatic liberal loser legislation".

What we need is a far simpler, easier to comprehend version of the Democrats' bill in which major Republican suggestions, such as tort reform and malpractice insurance reform, are included. We need to understand that we cannot all have all of the medical services we want, that a medical error does not justify a life of luxury, that spending 85% of our total lifetime medical expenses in the last eighteen months of our lives is wasteful and ludicrous, and that even though a morally just and upright society values its elderly, healthcare for people who are paying taxes and raising children is more important than healthcare for retirees on government pension plans.

This, of course, will never happen.

Click to expand...

Reasonably, the GOP or Democrats shouldn't even be discussing healthcare reform, at all. Insurance laws are the province of the states, and are written by state legislatures and overseen by commissioners appointed by the governor(I don't know how many times I have said this now). Issues like malpractice laws, tort reform, subsidized programs for the poor, basic preventative care, regulation of the insurance industry, etc..... can ALL be handled by states.

But since the issue has now been presented as a national one, the GOP cannot politically afford to neglect it as they should. Even though doing nothing is exactly what they should be doing, it will be seen as maintaining the status quo, which is actually the fault of states for being negligent in their duties to their citizens.

So stuck between a rock and a hard place, they have to offer up something palatable to the American public at large, if they want to gain politically.

I think if they can give a plan, that actually will still allow people to keep their private plans, allow people to opt out of the public plan(that will have to be offered) at any time of their choosing after entering it, covers tort reform, regulates malpractice suits, and still allows for states to regulate the industries within their borders, they could make for a compelling case for an alternative healthcare provider that is not a gross overreaching of federal power over industry. One that is not concerned with getting everybody on the public plan, as the Democrats seem to be intent on, through the bankrupting of the insurance industry by removing its ability to cap policy limits, or charge higher rates for sicker patients. But rather one, that offers some base coverage for those that are unable or refuse to buy private plans. It doesn't have to be complex in size and scope.