Comments on: Sarah Palin: “Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform” http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/sarah-palin-instead-of-poll-driven-solutions-lets-talk-about-real-health-care-reform/ Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:43:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: pj http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/sarah-palin-instead-of-poll-driven-solutions-lets-talk-about-real-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-37 pj Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:30:34 +0000 http://politicalintegritynow.com/?p=784#comment-37 Chet: Sorry to make you defend someone else's work. I was actually writing in direct response to Ms. Palin - but obviously you have posted here from her Facebook Page. I completely agree that well regulated free markets (where goods and services can compete with each other for customers) exert downward price pressure, and markets where local monopolies exist allow the current situation where companies are free to reap large profits even while quality stagnates, at the expense of the consumer. I think it would be folly to extend insurance to all, mandate participation, and NOT do something to force insurance companies to compete for customers. Whether that competition occurs in the form of a "public option" for a small segment of the population, or state boundries are removed, or both, or some other cleaver approach - we need competition. I think reasonable people can build consensus around these issues, and then move forward with specific details. (ie - create national standards for cross state competition. Also include a government run low cost bare bones option. Subsidize this option for the poor. Add some kind of cost shifting/sharing to the market place so that companies that are underwriting to exclude "expensive" people are not rewarded. Perhaps use the tax code for the cost shifting for underwriting.) I personally would not mind creating regional or state test areas on top of the national plan. That way we can try tort reform - Ca style in one area and Fl style in another - and fine tune to see what works, and implement nationwide when we have an excellent regional feature. Chet:
Sorry to make you defend someone else’s work. I was actually writing in direct response to Ms. Palin – but obviously you have posted here from her Facebook Page.

I completely agree that well regulated free markets (where goods and services can compete with each other for customers) exert downward price pressure, and markets where local monopolies exist allow the current situation where companies are free to reap large profits even while quality stagnates, at the expense of the consumer. I think it would be folly to extend insurance to all, mandate participation, and NOT do something to force insurance companies to compete for customers. Whether that competition occurs in the form of a “public option” for a small segment of the population, or state boundries are removed, or both, or some other cleaver approach – we need competition. I think reasonable people can build consensus around these issues, and then move forward with specific details. (ie – create national standards for cross state competition. Also include a government run low cost bare bones option. Subsidize this option for the poor. Add some kind of cost shifting/sharing to the market place so that companies that are underwriting to exclude “expensive” people are not rewarded. Perhaps use the tax code for the cost shifting for underwriting.) I personally would not mind creating regional or state test areas on top of the national plan. That way we can try tort reform – Ca style in one area and Fl style in another – and fine tune to see what works, and implement nationwide when we have an excellent regional feature.

]]> By: Chet Nichols http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/sarah-palin-instead-of-poll-driven-solutions-lets-talk-about-real-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Chet Nichols Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:33:05 +0000 http://politicalintegritynow.com/?p=784#comment-26 pj ~ Thanks for your post. however, I suggest that you look at the article closely as these are Palin's words, not ours. Your statement on Reagan being against Medicare is correct, to an extent. You failed to state that Reagan was against the "earlier form", or proposal, of medicare. No different than the views of most Americans that they are not against health reform, they are just against the current proposal of health reform. But, in my opinion, the best thing that can be done is to open up competition so that businesses can go across state lines for health insurance. I ask you this, is a provider going to have lower costs if it is competing against 6 or 7 other providers or 1000? Tort reform needs work, no doubt about it. The cost of the current proposal has yet to be determined. However, if you want to see an example of how it would work, just look at the cost of the VA system. This is how the government will more than likely manage a nationalized health care system. With nearly 300,000 employees serving 26 million veterans (7.85 million receiving health care), it operates on an annual budget of $90 billion per year, of which $45.5 billion appropriated to health care. But remember, President Obama said he could cover 47 million people with a $90 billion annual budget. Do the math. http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/08/obamas-math-faulty-health-care-cost-doesnt-add-up/ Again, thanks for the post. Even though we disagree I appreciate the manner in which you choose to debate this issue! pj ~

Thanks for your post. however, I suggest that you look at the article closely as these are Palin’s words, not ours.

Your statement on Reagan being against Medicare is correct, to an extent. You failed to state that Reagan was against the “earlier form”, or proposal, of medicare. No different than the views of most Americans that they are not against health reform, they are just against the current proposal of health reform.

But, in my opinion, the best thing that can be done is to open up competition so that businesses can go across state lines for health insurance. I ask you this, is a provider going to have lower costs if it is competing against 6 or 7 other providers or 1000?

Tort reform needs work, no doubt about it.

The cost of the current proposal has yet to be determined. However, if you want to see an example of how it would work, just look at the cost of the VA system. This is how the government will more than likely manage a nationalized health care system. With nearly 300,000 employees serving 26 million veterans (7.85 million receiving health care), it operates on an annual budget of $90 billion per year, of which $45.5 billion appropriated to health care. But remember, President Obama said he could cover 47 million people with a $90 billion annual budget. Do the math.

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/08/obamas-math-faulty-health-care-cost-doesnt-add-up/

Again, thanks for the post. Even though we disagree I appreciate the manner in which you choose to debate this issue!

]]> By: pj http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/sarah-palin-instead-of-poll-driven-solutions-lets-talk-about-real-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-21 pj Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:14:50 +0000 http://politicalintegritynow.com/?p=784#comment-21 wow - well written and articulate rhetoric. I like how right at the beginning you grab that Reagan quote out of context. You forgot to mention that at the time of that Reagan quote, he was battling AGAINST what would become Medicare. (nice idea though, looking out out for each other) I am so glad that along with the false claims that the government can't do anything right (see social security, medicare, medicaid, the US Armed Forces, WWII, the Manhattan Project, the Apollo program, just to name a few glaring successes), and the dishonest use of scare tactics (such as implying that the government will be setting up death panels), you have decided to offer a few general ideas toward addressing the issue of health care reform. This is certainly a welcome addition. Could you please add some details to these reform proposals? For instance, your proposal to provide "individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers", what effect would this proposal have on the federal budget? How much would this spending run up the deficit? What impact would it actually have on national health care? (it seems like you are just proposing giving away money - with no actual impact on health care) Why over the last 40 years has the free market been so unsuccessful at providing affordable quality health insurance? What makes you think that somehow the free market will get it right now? When states like Texas implemented Tort reform, why didn't it result in any savings in the health care industry? Are there really savings to be had here? Do you know a better way of doing Tort reform? (did Texas get it wrong?) Thanks again for realizing that you can actually add to this discussion by proposing solutions instead of just sticking to mischaracterizing other plans presently aimed at addressing these important issues. wow – well written and articulate rhetoric.
I like how right at the beginning you grab that Reagan quote out of context. You forgot to mention that at the time of that Reagan quote, he was battling AGAINST what would become Medicare. (nice idea though, looking out out for each other)
I am so glad that along with the false claims that the government can’t do anything right (see social security, medicare, medicaid, the US Armed Forces, WWII, the Manhattan Project, the Apollo program, just to name a few glaring successes), and the dishonest use of scare tactics (such as implying that the government will be setting up death panels), you have decided to offer a few general ideas toward addressing the issue of health care reform. This is certainly a welcome addition. Could you please add some details to these reform proposals? For instance, your proposal to provide “individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers”, what effect would this proposal have on the federal budget? How much would this spending run up the deficit? What impact would it actually have on national health care? (it seems like you are just proposing giving away money – with no actual impact on health care) Why over the last 40 years has the free market been so unsuccessful at providing affordable quality health insurance? What makes you think that somehow the free market will get it right now? When states like Texas implemented Tort reform, why didn’t it result in any savings in the health care industry? Are there really savings to be had here? Do you know a better way of doing Tort reform? (did Texas get it wrong?)
Thanks again for realizing that you can actually add to this discussion by proposing solutions instead of just sticking to mischaracterizing other plans presently aimed at addressing these important issues.

]]>