Republican Health Care Plan: Die Quickly

[Anonymous]

It's being covered by all the news outlets. The Republican health plan wants the sick to die quickly. It's all over the papers. Did you see it, too? Those bastards, they just don't care about the elderly.

I thought I would repeat this here. If a bunch of others do the same on message boards, blogs, etc. it will take on a life of its own, like the Death Panels thing. Don't try to track down the source or fact check it. Just ask your friends if they heard it, too.

[Anonymous]

Slow day, huh?

[jsteele]

You have massively over-simplified the Republican plan. The plan is not "Die quickly". This misrepresentation is unfair and does an injustice to the hard-working right-wingers who are earning their campaign contributions the old fashioned way -- carrying the health insurance industry's water.

The Republican plan is actually, "Don't get sick, but if you do, die quickly". See, you left out over half the plan!

Also, despite your admonition on tracking down the source, I am able to attribute this to Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). The Republicans have acknowledged Grayson for this by announcing that they intend to introduce legislation condemning him for it. These are the same Republicans who recently voted not to criticize Joe Willson for shouting "you lie" at President Obama. Nothing if not consistent those Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for busting out with the source, Jeff. I was hoping that I could pass it off as a Fox Newsy thing where no one notices who really said what, like the crowd estimate for the tea baggers...

Speaking of which, "carrying the health industry's water"? Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

[Anonymous]

I thought it was a pretty funny and apt quote. I also liked the recommended response I heard on the radio this morning. In resposne to Republicans demanding an apology, the Congressman should say he clearly must have misunderstood the R's plan, so he's happy to apologize...just as soon as the republicans actually outline what their plan IS! And no, saying "we will not cut 1 dime from Medicare and all we need is tort reform" is not a plan.

[Anonymous]

See, this is a case of two sides talking and neither are listening to each other. The Dems say "where is your comprehensive plan? and the GOP says "We don't feel a comprehensive overhaul is needed. Rather we would like to address specific problems (tort reform, portability, denial of coverage, competition)." Because this doesn't fit into the Dem world view that an overhaul IS needed, they interpret this in their own prism of reality - gee - they don't have a plan.

Rudeness is inexcusable on both sides. It is amazing how quick we are to accept it on "our side" and not on the "other side." So long as we tacitly accept it as ok sometimes (when OUR side does it) the political discourse will never get any better.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:See, this is a case of two sides talking and neither are listening to each other. The Dems say "where is your comprehensive plan? and the GOP says "We don't feel a comprehensive overhaul is needed. Rather we would like to address specific problems (tort reform, portability, denial of coverage, competition)." Because this doesn't fit into the Dem world view that an overhaul IS needed, they interpret this in their own prism of reality - gee - they don't have a plan.

Rudeness is inexcusable on both sides. It is amazing how quick we are to accept it on "our side" and not on the "other side." So long as we tacitly accept it as ok sometimes (when OUR side does it) the political discourse will never get any better.

You are missing a very important distinction. Nobody really believes that the Republican plan is "die quickly". Grayson is simply acting provocatively to draw attention Republican obstructionism. On the other hand, when Sarah Palin talks about "death panels" or Joe Wilson shouts "you lie", they are being serious. Lot's of big time Republicans have come to Palin's and Wilson's defense and supported what they've said. I doubt you will find one Democrat who will go on record agreeing that the Republican plan "die quickly". Everyone knows it's a joke (except certain Republicans, anyway).

As for the so-called "Republican Plan", only a few Republicans -- none of them from the leadership -- have even bothered to cosponsor the Republican bill. Yesterday, Mitch McConnell said that even if the Democrats caved on every Republican objection, Republicans would still oppose the bill. As you say, the Republicans simply oppose comprehensive reform. So, saying they have no plan for comprehensive reform is entirely accurate. The laundry list of industry-supported initiatives they claim to support will never pass in today's Congress, so it is not a realistic proposal. That's why most Republicans haven't bothered to sign-on to it. There is really little practical difference between a plan that is unrealistic and lacks support and, hence, will go nowhere and no plan at all.

[Anonymous]

of course the Republicans have no plan, it if isnt broke then you don't need to fix it. most americans are satisfied with their health care plan, and I still have not seen a legit analysis of who is not insured and why. Clearly there are many who want to be insured who are not presently, and that is a problem, but many are not for other reasons (i.e., young and healthy). Tort reform is a huge first step to control costs, not sure how that is debatable. And the "death panel" is silly hyperbole, but obviously when you cut costs you have to ration the care. That is how it works.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:of course the Republicans have no plan, it if isnt broke then you don't need to fix it. most americans are satisfied with their health care plan, and I still have not seen a legit analysis of who is not insured and why. Clearly there are many who want to be insured who are not presently, and that is a problem, but many are not for other reasons (i.e., young and healthy). Tort reform is a huge first step to control costs, not sure how that is debatable. And the "death panel" is silly hyperbole, but obviously when you cut costs you have to ration the care. That is how it works.

If this is a farcical representation of the Republican viewpoint, it is wonderfully done. Go read this Harvard study that says 45,000 deaths a year in the US are attributable to lack of health insurance (warning, it's a PDF):

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

I assume those people are no longer counted among the group that is not satisfied with their health care?

You say that when you cut costs you have to ration the care, but when you maximize profits you also have to ration care. That reality doesn't change. What changes is whether those incentivized to refuse claims will make the rationing decisions, or those not similarly incentivized will make them. I prefer my to put my fate into the hands of the second group.

[Anonymous]

curious if you can ever have a political debate without the snide comments and insults? hurts your message IMO.

Of course people die without access to the best healthcare. Not sure how that is a surprise. Question is whether or not people/citizens have a right to healthcare regardless of a means to pay for it. Certainly you can think that in a rich country that could/should be the case, but we have never done that in the past 230 years and such a right hasnt been found in the Constitution. We have essentially provided that right for seniors though Medicare, and my personal view is that we should extend Medicare so that it also covers uninsured children at some basic level of care. That is about as far as I would go.

other than children, we should start with tort reform, and see how much that saves before any other drastic changes. my doctor and lawyer friends tell me that sooooo many needless procedures are done with the sole purpose of protecting the doctors in case of litigation.

[Anonymous]

How about putting prices back into healthcare decisions. When we had 80/20 plans and actually had to evaluate whether we wanted to pay 20% of an xray or 20% of a CAT scan, and it was our money on the line, we participated in the spending decisions. Now that there is only a $20 copay, the actual cost is irrelevant to us. Perhaps this is part of the escalating costs of health care?

There are so many places we can insert efficiencies, I don't understand the compulsion to throw the current system out and start all over?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many places we can insert efficiencies, I don't understand the compulsion to throw the current system out and start all over?

Just who are these mythical people that want to throw the current system out and start over? It's called health care "reform". Reform means to change things in order to improve them. It doesn't mean starting over. As Obama has repeatedly said, if you are happy with your current insurance, you will keep it. If you are happy with your current doctors, you will continue to go to them.

As for the copayment issue, currently health insurance is provided by private companies. Aren't those companies making their own decisions about the plans they offer? I know that states regulate the health insurance industry, but I'd be surprised if they are getting down to the level of specifying copays. I suspect this is just a case of the market talking. I'd have no problem with a plan such as you suggest being offered as a choice among other plans.