Most sensible Republican health care amendment yet

[Vekseid]

Senator Coburn proposed amendment 2789, which currently reads:

SA 2789. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Hatch) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2786 proposed by Mr. Reid  (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Harkin) to the bill H.R. 3590, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    On page 156, line 4, strike all through page 157, line 7, and insert the following:

    (D) REQUIREMENT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ENROLL IN THE PUBLIC OPTION.--

    (i) REQUIREMENT.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all Members of Congress shall be enrolled in the community health insurance option when established by the Secretary.

    (ii) INELIGIBLE FOR FEHBP.--Effective on the date on which the community health insurance option is established by the Secretary, no Member of Congress shall be eligible to participate in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.

    (iii) EXCEPTION.--Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), if a Member of Congress resides in a State which opts out of providing a community health insurance option, that Member may be enrolled in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, during any period which that State has opted out.

    (iv) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION.--

    (I) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives shall pay the amount determined under subclause (II) to the appropriate community health insurance option.

    (II) AMOUNT OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION.--The Director of the Office Of Personnel Management shall determine the amount of the employer contribution for each Member of Congress enrolled in a community health insurance option. The amount shall be equal to the employer contribution for the health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, with the greatest number of enrollees, except that the contribution shall be actuarially adjusted for age.

    (v) DEFINITIONS.--In this subparagraph:

    (I) COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.--The term ``community health insurance option'' means the health insurance established by the Secretary under section 1323.

    (II) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.--The term ``Member of Congress'' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Should health care legislation pass and a community health option provided, Congress will be forced to use that care.

Nifty.

Naturally, some Democrats are already on board:

Sen. Franken Becomes A Cosponsor Of Vitter/Coburn Amendment

[Celestial Goblin]

Genius. This idea deserves spreading.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

They probably made that ammendment in an attempt to get Congress to vote against the Bill.  Vote for this and you'll have to take the public option scare.

[Talia]

I am impressed!

It's wonderful to see more of a positive effort in getting the ball rolling, at least in the right direction as well as keeping the necessary hands off it when in play.
I only hope its keeps the proper momentum and more of the key figures publicly jump on board to ensure it builds stronger.

[Beguile's Mistress]

It's the right thing to do.  Congress should not be above the law and Congressmen and Congresswomen should be treated the same as their constituents.

[RubySlippers]

With no public option the insurance companies can charge ANY premiums they want and get away with it and with the expected regulations they will do so. Just look at what the Credit Card companies did.

And no one should be above the law Congressman should either buy their own insurance or take the Public Option, and it will ensure this option is a good one won't it.

I like this.

[Trieste]

It certainly ensures that the public option won't suck, doesn't it?

[consortium11]

Without having done any real background reading it looks like this was a "call our bluff" move where the GOP could point out any senator/congressman who opposed this while supporting universal type healthcare was being pretty hypocritical...

... Not sure it really worked...

[Vekseid]

It certainly ensures that the public option won't suck, doesn't it?

...only once, and where, it goes into effect.

[Talia]

Quotes by Barack Obama

"If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.

"People are very hungry for something new. I think they are interested in being called to be a part of something larger than the sort of small, petty, slash-and-burn politics that we have been seeing over the last several years."

"When people are judged by merit, not connections, then the best and brightest can lead the country, people will work hard, and the entire economy will grow - everyone will benefit and more resources will be available for all, not just select groups."

"What Washington needs is adult supervision."

"Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives – professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems."


I'm just glad he is taking some steps toward well needed changes. Showing an effort and action behind his words.
At the very least, getting things started in a more positive direction. Getting more people on board in those steps and taking out those not needed. Evoking some kind of positive change to the systems that will in the long run be fair for all and not just a few.

[Zakharra]

Quotes by Barack Obama
"What Washington needs is adult supervision."

This one made me laugh. It's so true.

[Oniya]

Having lived in that area for longer than I'd care to admit (before coming out to B.F. Ohio), he's absolutely right about that one.

[RubySlippers]

I suggested to my local Congresspeople that why not just have State insurance oversight councils and agencies review the prices to assure increases are warranted. They do this for house, auto, boat and other insurance. And it would give states final oversight that should make the Republicans happy.

[RubySlippers]

My concern is the working poor I will earn this year $11,800 since I can only work part-time being disabled. I frankly NEED the Medicaid expansion based solely on income to pass or will be in bad shape in the future.

So having flat prices won't help me since I have ,at most, $50 a month for health care an for me that means scrimping and living very frugally.

But what about the States they have a duty to take part its that level that must innovate, license medical providers and naturally handle tort reforms. One idea I offered to my state house representative is to have a carrot and stick. Give doctors soveriegn immunity and pass that savings by law onto their malpractice since suing would be far harder if the take Medicaid patiants but mandate if they take this they must take a certain percentage of Medicaid patiants say 5-10%. Another related ideas is to have a bachelors program for nuseses to be primary care providers if they work with a licensed doctor and let doctors trained at good medical programs overseas to enter primary care automatically if they have say 10 years of experience - Cuba for example. Just think outside the box but much of this is really a states obligation.

[Vekseid]

Personally I am against the public option, as Democratic leadership has already said several times that the "public option" will put private insurers out of business, and thus lead to a single-payer system.  I agree that fair and open competition in the market place is a good idea.  However, having the government able to set the rules, and absorb as much money as they need in the form of debt to 'out-compete' the competition, driving them into the ground is hardly fair and open competition.

One of the roles of government is to ensure that private businesses can't simply cheat their customers (or at least make it difficult for them to do so), or each-other.  But when the government is one of those businesses... you no longer have a referee in the 'game' you have a player who gets to tell the other players they loose.

This nation spends more money denying care, than it would to provide care to every person without care in the nation.

This nation spends more money due to the lack of preventative care, than it would to provide care to every person without care.

This nation loses more money due to the lack of care, than it would cost to provide every person in the nation without care.

Health care, like education, is an investment. The average healthy, educated laborer produces an order of magnitude more than they need. There is no logical reason to avoid single payer. We set up single payer in Germany, on our bill. We set up single payer in Japan, on our bill. We set up single payer in Iraq, on our bill, because it is not a debate that single payer is cheaper.

It is a fact.

Anything less is either an outright lie or willful ignorance.

The emergency care we force the uninsured into only makes it even more retarded. There is a member here who you are spending half a million dollars for her chemo treatment.

It should have been five thousand. She should have not had to suffer for two years, she could have been productive for two years - paid it back in taxes eighteen months ago.

Yet she suffers in agony because people like you insist on her living in constant pain, and gladly pay for it. It's not just sadistic, it's seven years of general labor denied to the economy.

By all means, get rid of welfare in all forms, but at least have the sense to recognize a quality investment when you see one.

[Vekseid]

Since by your own account you are neither lieing, nor willfully ignorant
Edit: I'm not saying you are lying or willfully ignorant, but you did not claim not to be in your above post.  I committed a logical fallacy to extract that statement, and am attempting a correction.  My apologies for any confusion or ill feelings due to this part of the post.

Would you mind posting the supporting information to show that:
I've been doing research as time permits, and I have yet to find any cut and dry statistics, studies, or anything of the kind that show this.  Perhaps I am simply not doing my searches right.  If you have information on how this change will impact the nation as a whole that you feel will change my mind, then please, by all means, provide it.  I will read it as time permits, and hopefully further educate myself on the subject.

This has been known for years. Undiagnosed diabetes alone costs $18 billion a year in healthcare costs. The CBO's estimate of $25 billion in savings from a piss-poor public option should already be familiar to you.

The thing about it is, you don't even need numbers like that. A single rescission worker uses their own labor to take up the labor of a doctor and delay care to a patient - who is frequently incapacitated due to said lack of care. When people are being paid to interfere with labor, as insurance companies are doing, we typically consider that a form of warfare. You streamline economies by removing roadblocks like that, not letting them fester.

I don't really particularly care whether or not you believe. Unsustainable processes, by definition, eventually stop. The United States will get a single payer system, or the United States will be outcompeted by superior nations.

The sad part is, we're moving towards an exponentially productive economy - where one person has a greater and greater chance of providing everyone else on the planet a net benefit. That should be patently obvious - you wouldn't have a usable Internet, much less be posting here, without such a concept.

[RubySlippers]

This nation spends more money denying care, than it would to provide care to every person without care in the nation.

This nation spends more money due to the lack of preventative care, than it would to provide care to every person without care.

This nation loses more money due to the lack of care, than it would cost to provide every person in the nation without care.

Health care, like education, is an investment. The average healthy, educated laborer produces an order of magnitude more than they need. There is no logical reason to avoid single payer. We set up single payer in Germany, on our bill. We set up single payer in Japan, on our bill. We set up single payer in Iraq, on our bill, because it is not a debate that single payer is cheaper.

It is a fact.

Anything less is either an outright lie or willful ignorance.

The emergency care we force the uninsured into only makes it even more retarded. There is a member here who you are spending half a million dollars for her chemo treatment.

It should have been five thousand. She should have not had to suffer for two years, she could have been productive for two years - paid it back in taxes eighteen months ago.

Yet she suffers in agony because people like you insist on her living in constant pain, and gladly pay for it. It's not just sadistic, it's seven years of general labor denied to the economy.

By all means, get rid of welfare in all forms, but at least have the sense to recognize a quality investment when you see one.

There is another issue the homeless and very poor like me. Lets say I go blind due to my diabetes not being treated instead of my working and covering most of my costs to live minus health care. You will pay disability, fiood stamps, housing aid, extra costs to see I can function and Medicaid.

I know a homeless woman who ends up due to epilepsy that is not treated goes to the hospital every week to the emergecy room costs a great deal, when routine care and maybe treatment would stop that condition to that point. Same for other conditions others have that are legitimate from psych problems to dangerous infections that could be treated earlier.

So I'm for the Medicaid expansion but think other areas could have been leaner and meaner in the current bills.

[Vekseid]

This appears to be causing hard feelings.  As such, I will bow out of the discussion.  Thank you for the link, and please be well.

Of course it's personal. Without care, several of my friends will die. If emergency care had not been provided, several of my friends would have died. But because emergency workers are so overworked, several others of my friends have died - despite coverage. All for absolutely no reason - not even greed.

[Queen Be Damned Sheiba]

Oh My God...Something the Republicans do I actually agree with....

[Serephino]

Would you mind posting the supporting information to show that:
I've been doing research as time permits, and I have yet to find any cut and dry statistics, studies, or anything of the kind that show this.  Perhaps I am simply not doing my searches right.  If you have information on how this change will impact the nation as a whole that you feel will change my mind, then please, by all means, provide it.  I will read it as time permits, and hopefully further educate myself on the subject.

I can do that with a real world example.  I had two ER visits last year.  One was for a bad cough and just generally feeling weird.  I didn't have $75 to go to my family doctor, so I went to the ER because they can't turn me away.

When you look at a hospital bill, there is a charge called ER pro fees.  That's just for registering at the front desk.  It's $260.  Now I know math was never my strong subject, but going to my family doctor to be told I had the flu would have been so much cheaper.

As it was, the bill ended up being a little over 2k.  So what did I do you ask?  I headed right down to the County Assistance Office.  Here in PA, there's this thing called the spend down program.  I'm not entirely sure how it works, but the PA taxpayers ended up paying that 2k bill.  They also paid for getting 4 cavities fixed.

A few months later I had bad abdominal pain.  Now I had been having twinges for a while, but again, there was the matter of that pesky $75.  So... I ended up going to the ER again when the pain was intolerable.  That bill ended up about $4.6k.  It too went to the PA taxpayers, as well as more tests and treatment for a benign tumor. 

So what does all of this mean?  Well... a government run insurance program that I probably would be paying a premium for (hopefully and affordable one) could have shelled out $75 twice, though probably less because of co pays, but instead, taxpayers shelled out for $6.6k worth of hospital bills.  Which number is bigger; $150, plus tests, or $6,600 plus tests?