TPMDC

Republican Health Insurance Reform Bill Insures Almost Nobody

Brian Beutler | November 5, 2009, 9:05AM

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Read More

Democrats, Health Care, House of Representatives, John Boehner, Republicans

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

Earlier this week, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner made a prediction. The Republican health care plan, he said, "will cover millions more Americans" than the Democrats' plan. Bold. But here's what the experts say:

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share.

Oops. You can read the entire analysis here (PDF).

To Boehner's dismay, the GOP bill was leaked to the media earlier this week, and quickly became a focus of derision for experts and activists who noted that, among other failings, the bill didn't include some of the most popular insurance regulations in the Democrats' bill, including a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination.

What else does CBO find?

Though some consumers would find their premiums reduced modestly, "in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO's estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example."

The GOP bill does require less new government spending, but that's what you get when you don't insure anybody. And though it does reduce the deficit, it does so by billions less than the Democrats' bill does.

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

Senate Debates Historic Health Care Bill

Tomorrow's Health Care Vote: A Cheat Sheet

Rubio Has No Plans To Meet With Palin Next Week, Camp Says

Is Chuck Schumer Taking Temperature On Carper's Public Option Compromise?

Join the Conversation!

76 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

November 5, 2009 9:13 AM

I don't want to get too technical here, but I believe this is called a "Fail."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to Jaybird

This is what happens when you ask insurance lobbyists to provide you with an "alternative" bill, but don't bother to question it or even read it before it gets sent out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 11:36 AM in reply to nitpicker

Is the GOP's Health Care proposal a genuin alternative?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6440

.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

November 5, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to Jaybird

You are assuming that they WANT to insure people. From a Republican perspective this is a win.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 9:20 AM

Just stop it. If you don't have constructive idea don't bring bad idea to the table for the sake of appearing to have an idea. It is a waste of time to everyone. Besides, you are too late; the train has left the station.

On a side note: CBO's finds "...80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law..." 0-3? what? Since when 0% became the lower threshold of achievements (the key word here being achievement).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 9:26 AM

I just wish there was a "opt-in" provision for all t5he teabaggers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

VivaAmerica!

November 5, 2009 9:31 AM

Pathetic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 9:34 AM

Heh. Having premiums rise 0% would be a minor miracle. Only Democrats could love being taxed ten years for 6 years of benefits and call it a good deal.

By the way have you folks heard that Wall St. was literally given as many swine flu inoculations as all the NY hospitals? (via Morning Joe) Goldman Sachs loves Obamacare. How about all you people out there trying to get yours?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fsudirectory

November 5, 2009 9:49 AM in reply to shooter242

Maybe because they purchased it like everyone else?

While its not great optics, the companies have a right to protect their employees, and if they paid for it, well, I guess its theirs.

Wasn't too much hoopla going around last time when the FBI and CIA, etc were ahead of hospitals for tamiflu.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to fsudirectory

Gad. That's not the point. Have you seen the lines of people out in the hinterlands trying to get vaccinated being turned away because there isn't a supply?
Giving bankers something ahead of the most needy is just another device of corruption, where resources are distributed by political connections rather than merit. It used to be women and children first, not multimillion dollar bonus babies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fsudirectory

November 5, 2009 10:10 AM in reply to shooter242

I mean, 1000 or so doses vs the 20-30 million that are out, it isnt comparable in scope.

I agree the optics are bad but in the scheme of things its about .05-.03% of the total available to people.

PS: Private companies purchasing from other Private companies is still allowed and if orders were placed early on in the process, you are guaranteed your shipment. Its how the world works.

If the vaccine was produced by the government, then yes, its wrong. But they dont control the distribution, a private company does.

Why is one person's life worth more than anothers? Just because they are a banker (and paid for their dose) doesnt mean they shouldnt get theirs (as much as people hate them). The market crash didnt cause swine flu.

I saw the same segment on Morning Joe this morning, and when listening to Trish Regan explain her troubles in getting the vaccination for her and her babies on the way, I had to wonder if GE is the one who provided it to her (since hospitals and clinics were short)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:02 PM in reply to fsudirectory

This isn't a market distribution, it's Government distribution courtesy of the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

This is Government Healthcare in action. Which everyone will have to buy. And then you'd better be on the right list to get it. Real good work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:16 AM in reply to shooter242

Your attempt to distract from the epic joke that is the GOP "plan" ain't workin'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:17 AM in reply to shooter242

MSM 101: Cherry pick the facts to make the story look as extreme, simple and binary as possible. Pick big bailout giant like Goldman-Sachs from the story to make it a no-brainier conspiracy theory.

It is a legitimate to question the distribution of the vaccine, but despite what your good friend Scar-dickhead-bro suggests, I don't think there is no major conspiracy hear.

Department of Health & Hygiene had approved the vaccine distribution for 29 big employers in New York- including Time Warner, JPMorgan Chase, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, New York Presbyterian Healthcare System, and New York University.

Golmann Sachs had requested for over 5000 doses and they have been approved for 200 units as of now.

But please don't let the facts get in the way

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to kash79

Don't you mean the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene? Freudian slip or conscious omission?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to shooter242

Communist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:58 AM in reply to shooter242

Have you seen the lines of people out in the hinterlands trying to get vaccinated being turned away because there isn't a supply?

oh, now you want the evil gubmint to save you.

then you should have told your fellow moronic Repub teabaggers in congress not to vote against a bill which funded vaccines.

at least now there's two additional Democrats in the House to vote for common sense and save you idiots from yourselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 11:06 AM in reply to obamaman

p.s.--why couldn't your beloved profit-motivated free market handle all the vaccines without gubmint assistance? Just treat it like you idiots do with the rest of healthcare and insurance--can't afford the vaccine? Oh well, don't ask the rest of us to pay for it.
Your beliefs, not mine. Also don't know why you're whining about the successful(i.e. wealthy) employees on Wall Street getting special treatment. You gladly support additional tax cuts for them(while they laugh at rubes like you), why shouldn't they get special treatment? They are the captains of our glorious free market, show some respect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to shooter242

Why Shooter, I'd imagine that you'd be pleased by this. The vaccine goes to those who can pay for it, none of this socialist stuff like allocating on the basis of need. Just good old traditional rationing by wallet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 5, 2009 11:53 AM in reply to cwnidog

Besides, I thought vaccines were all a dangerous secret gubmint plot to pollute your precious bodily fluids.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

truthspeaker

November 6, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to shooter242

I don't know what you're getting at. The scandal here in Toronto, Canada is that the Raptors and the Maple leafs got their shots while there is a line up for everyone else. Maybe we have Obamacare, as you call it, here in Canada too. By the way, the same thing has happened in Calgary, Canada and the powers that be are launching an 'investigation' there as well. Point being, same your criticism for a something real.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 5, 2009 9:54 AM in reply to shooter242

Sorry, Bobo, but no. Surprising though it may be, you're completely wrong.

They're not saying the bill would hold premiums constant at, or decrease them from, 2009 levels. Rather, they would reduce the anticipated increase over ten yers by 0 to 3 percent. Since premiums are projected to double over that time period, the CBO is basically saying this bill does nada, zero, zip, bupkis, or the next thing to it, to reduce the anticipated increase in premiums.

Spend money. Accomplish nothing except a small reduction in future government outlays that's much smaller than the reduction from either the House or the Senate Democrats' bill. Heckuva job, Brownie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:01 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

You have to say one thing for shooter: he forces people to actually read documents to clarify what is going on. True, it's only because he won't bother to read anything himself and would rather just bloviate. But I guess you could call it a valuable byproduct of his ignorance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

November 5, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to Xantar

In the sense that having a conversation with a monkey who only throws shit around forces you to pay attention to hygiene.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 5, 2009 11:13 AM in reply to mans_best_friend

Now, now. Be nice to him. He has to come here from Freeper and Red State because it's the only place he can get an intelligent conversation. And, if not for him, I'd probably have failed to take note of something Yglesias points out. The GOP proposal achieves these massive premium reductions by mandating reductions in converage:

The second source of change in average insurance premiums is changes in the average extent of coverage purchased. Those changes can reflect both changes in the scope of insurance coverage—the benefits or services that are included—and changes in the share of costs for covered services paid by the insurer—known as the “actuarial value.” With other factors held equal, insurance policies that cover more benefits or services or have smaller copayments or deductibles have higher premiums, while policies that cover fewer benefits or services or have larger copayments or deductibles have lower premiums. Provisions in the amendment that would reduce insurance premiums by affecting the amount of coverage purchased include the State Innovations program, which would encourage states to reduce the number and extent of benefit mandates that they impose, and provisions that would allow individuals or affiliated groups to purchase insurance policies in other states that have less stringent mandates.

In other words, the bill implements a fix for what the Republicans have more or less openly been identifying as the "real" problem: Americans just have too gosh darned much insurance coverage. All that excessive coverage insulates us from the true cost of health care, causing to not question whether we really need all these tests and treatments and such that heedless doctors keep ordering. And that's totally true. It's like back about ten years when my G.P. referred me to a neurologist to determine whether some symptoms I was having were caused by a brain tumor, I totally didn't give a second's thought to whether I really needed that expensive CT scan they ordered. And, wouldn'tja know it, it turned out to be totally unnecessary because it came up negative. Man, what a total waste of resources that turned out to be, all because I had insurance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

agio

November 5, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Waste indeed. I mean if you DID have the tumors you would have just up and died one day. No need for a CAT scan all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Schmed- ley

November 5, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to Xantar

You guys should know better than to try to rationally discuss anything with someone who continually licks his butt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:14 AM in reply to shooter242

I'll try to be nice:

It doesn't mean premiums would not rise from now (which would be a miracle), it just means they'd be slightly lower (5-8% for individuals, 3% for large groups) than what they would be in 2016 if there were no reforms to health care policy. These premiums would also be for the sort individual plans we see available today.

Now, the CBO's report on the House bill said the price of an average individual plan would be about about 12% lower than it would be under the cost estimate for a 2016 "status quo" plan... all while providing more benefits, a higher actuarial value, and protections for rescission and no discrimination on the basis of preexisting condition.

So, in the other words, the House Dem bill will result in less costly plans with more benefits and consumer protections than the House GOP bill. In other other words, it was a pretty awful miscalculation by Boehner to open the two plans to objective comparison.

Also, in addition to providing immediate interim benefits prior to both the institution of major reforms in 2013 and the introduction of the tax on high income individuals in 2011 (i.e., your 10 years/6 years number is wrong), CBO says the House plan will continue to cut the deficit while improving coverage over the second decade, so your other talking point is kind of silly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 1:00 PM in reply to Stroszek

Stroszek,

It's good to blog with you. Please come back to the Daily Kos for the health care reform debate.

It can be very lonely at times with the number of uninformed bloggers who know so little about health care. Having a blogger as informed and articulate as you are is what keeps me on the Daily Kos -- the vicious hits I've taken from self-righteous Kossacks notwithstanding.

All in all, I want to thank you for all the times you've defended me against slanders from Daily Kos celebrity bloggers. You lay down some great smackdowns. I am very much sorry I did not return the favor when inclusiveheart called you a paid operative for the insurance industry.

Don't let slinkerwink get the best of you. She is an inherently and needlessly divisive figure. We all know her central role is to put money in Jane Hamsher's pockets, and slander and malign people the same way Jane does. Jane certainly didn't choose slink for her knowledge of health care, because slink's knowledge of health care is grotesquely shallow.

Anyhow, I hope you'll reconsider, and return to the Daily Kos before the health care reform debate ends. It's always great to have an ally as informed and as articulate as you are about health care.

That said, I understand if you don't want to go back. I've certainly thought about doing my own GBCW diary, but it's bloggers like you who keep me posting.

Anyhow, congratulations on your new baby!

jim bow

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to shooter242

Something about saying "Heh."at the beginning of some cranky screed, just reaks of rightwingnutism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 5, 2009 9:35 AM

Frustrated self-described progressives ask why it's so much harder for Obama to get anything done with majorities in Congress than Bush did when Republican majorities were often smaller or did not exist.

Here's Exhibit A. The Republican agenda is, and for decades has been, one of demolition. Slash taxes. Gut or destroy agencies. Block enforcement of regulations or repeal them altogether. Wreck faith in the ability of government to accomplish anything other than war, executions, and controlling the brown people. During those decades, the Democratic strategy and agenda was to stand between the wrecking ball and the all the stuff they built that the Republicans were tearing down. Obviously, there was usually a tendency to break and run at the last minute and many decided it was preferable to stand behind the maniacs at the controls.

Now, Democrats are actually trying to build stuff again--rebuild the destroyed stuff and build entirely new stuff. Their old joints are a bit stiff and creaky. Their old construction skills have atrophied a bit and things that used to come naturally to them are often a bit forced. They're having to reinvent stuff that used to be part of the institutional memory. Some of them tasked with working the high steel have lost, or never had, the necessary head for heights. And some of them are still so traumatized by that old wrecking ball that they're still cowering behind bits of old rubble. But they're building again.

Republicans, by contrast, know only demolition and destruction, violence and vandalism. The mere sight of construction equipment fills the with fear and a pile of construction materials works them into a frenzy of nihilism.

So when someone says, "okay, boys, we're don't have to actually build anything, but we're going to have to at least put together a pretend plan," they proudly present you with a blueprint for assembling a handful of Tinkertoys and Legos into a device that does nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fsudirectory

November 5, 2009 9:50 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Great comment

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 9:52 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Oh brother. Government builds unsustainable cages, they absolutely should be torn down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 5, 2009 9:58 AM in reply to shooter242

Right. Tear 'em down. Wreck and ruin. That's worked out great for us. That's why the country Bush handed Obama was so much better off than the one Clinton handed Bush. Clearly we need more of the same.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:25 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Congratulations, a total non-sequitur. Keep up the good work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 11:25 AM in reply to shooter242

"Government builds unsustainable cages"? that's comedy gold. is that from a rush song?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

truthspeaker

November 6, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to shooter242

Are u still here. If you wish to stay, please be quiet when grown ups are speaking, or you'll have to go to your room.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:23 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Yes. I agree. A congressional overhaul in 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:32 AM in reply to shooter242

Its one thing to challenge the policy nuances but to allow something as basic and significant as health of the citizenry entirely to the purely profit-motive corporate system is an insane philosophy.

It is especially ironic, considering your fake-agitation over flu vaccines to big corporations.

Who do you think will be the last ones, if at all, to receive emergency vaccines if the process were entirely left to the corporations and the "government cages were torn down"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbe1

November 5, 2009 1:44 PM in reply to shooter242

So I see you finally bought that artificial intelligence word processor. But I think you got the dumb farmer 30 day trial version. Better luck next time !

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

As anyone who has watched a child knows, it is far easier to knock down that lego masterpiece than to build.

Sort of an assymetrical warfare. Nihilists have the advantage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 9:57 AM

Both the House bill and this Republican goofiness allows for a monopoly period for Pharma on new drugs (12 years, I think 7 years was Obama's suggestion), but then also allows those periods to be extended indefinitely (evergreening).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:17 AM in reply to Indie Pro

Are you talking about the amendment regarding biologics? Read mahakali overdrive's excellent diary on Kos before you immediately regurgitate Hamsher's demagoguery.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:40 AM in reply to Stroszek

many have weighed in on the language of the ammedment (Rep Waxman, UAEM, AMSA, and the Essential Action’s Access to Medicines Project). The diary you recommend hedges as well.

That being said, the Patent length alone is troubling.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:54 AM in reply to Indie Pro

The fact that mahakali overdrive's diary refused to make a clear, definitive conclusion about a complex issue should not be seen as a strike against it. I thought it was rather nuanced and informative, myself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to Xantar

I don't have anything againt the diary.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I'm not enthralled, but as a friend pointed out in a recent discussion, we haven't done science for 8 years, and it has hurt us in the advanced biotech field.
That guarantee will bootstrap existing efforts, and stimulate more companies/labs/scientists to engage in the research.
I can see it doing a lot to drive a recovery in my area, especially via the ripple effects of increased high-tech employment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 3:07 PM in reply to Stroszek

Why is Sherrod Brown fighting against Eshoo's amendment ?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r111:S28JY9-0021:

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 5, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to Indie Pro

I was going to respond with a question, but instead I'm compelled to observe that the drastic avatar switch has been very disorienting to my visually-oriented little mind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

it's Mother Jones

"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:12 AM

Boehner makes Bush seem intelligent.

Bush makes a turnip seem intelligent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 5:00 PM in reply to timba

And both of them are outsmarted by cheese.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jon from Chicago

November 5, 2009 10:23 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! D-bag teabagger!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:46 AM

The REPUBLICAN BANKRUPTCY-TO-GRAVE NO HEALTH CARE PLAN.... wow, that's no surprise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 10:55 AM

Hahaha, what idiots..

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 11:03 AM

Perhaps most notable is the fact that according to the CBO, the Republican plan raises taxes:

"Over the same period, the other provisions of the amendment would reduce direct spending by $49 billion and increase tax revenues by $27 billion."

They need to be confronted with this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

November 5, 2009 11:12 AM in reply to Izzyfan

Perhaps you're under the common misconception that the Republicans are anti-tax. Not so. They're just against progressive taxes. When's the last time you heard a Republican railing against payroll taxes? Or sales taxes (they actually want to INCREASE those)? The entire thrust of their efforts is not to reduce taxes but to make the tax system more regressive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to mans_best_friend

Even if so, it's a subtlety lost on most folks when they rail against taxes, which is why they should be hit over the head with this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to Izzyfan

The revenue increases are indirect. A big chunk comes from lowering tax deductable mal-practice premiums which then translates to more taxable income for physicians. When you throw bones to the well off at the expense of the working class (say be restricing non-economic damages from botched surgeries) Uncle Sam often gets a scrap. CBO did a stand-alone scoring of a package of malpractice reforms a couple of weeks ago which showed that doctor's would save $51 billion of which about $19 billion would flow to Treasury as income tax receipts. Similar things are afoot here, don't imagine that any rich person ends up net out of pocket. That is not on the Republican agenda.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to Bruce Webb

Interesting - thanks. In any case, you can be sure the Republicans would use it against the Democrats if the Dems got the same scoring. Turn about is fair play.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

agio

November 5, 2009 11:10 AM

Why is the CBO taking so long to score the Senate bill? AFAIK Reid submitted his before Boehner.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

November 5, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to agio

200 pages vs 2000 pages?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

agio

November 5, 2009 11:25 AM in reply to Walter Mitty

Ah, good point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:18 PM

There is a primary reason we need government, not for profit healthcare and not private sector-profit healthcare. The dirty secret that has been going on for years in the malpractice industry is the same in healthcare insurance. Insurers invest in the market. Wellpoint was heavy into mortgage securities. When they make an investment that doesn't do well, the rate payers see a permium rise to offset their losses and protect their profits, salaries and bonuses. The rate payer underwrites all their risk and recklessness. The stock price and cash flow is protected no matter how poorly the business is run. This is what happens in monopolies. There is no free market for healthcare or drugs because there is no real competition. As long as this is allowed to persist, the consumer gets shafted. They have bought Congress and Congress is in on the scam. The only recourse the people have is to make it untenable for Congress to continue accepting the bribes and keep their seats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 12:25 PM

I call this Sweatshop Insurance

Under this bill insurers can pick any State they like as their 'primary State' for the purposes of insurance regulation and all other states have to honor those rules. If California wants to mandate coverage of something, or set underwriting rules, or approve rate changes, or apply Consumer Protection laws it is tough shit. And if you look at page 130 of the bill you can see mandated disclosure language explaining that both the customer and the state he is residing in have almost no recourse except to appeal to the relevant authorities of the 'primary State'. Kind of like South Dakota has a near monopoly on credit cards.

But this bill goes far beyond that in stripping states of power over insurance rates and conditions, it explicitly expands the definition of 'State' to include not just D.C. and Puerto Rico, which makes some sense in context, but adds BY NAME the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and Jack Abramoff's favorite client-the Northern Marianas home of the 'Made in the USA' Chinese-owned close to slave labor sweatshops.

Under this bill insurance companies can simply designate the Northern Marianas as the 'primary State' for their plan, or since it is closer the Virgin Islands and then have those governments be the sole regulator. And given the record of corruption in the N. Marianas and the willingness of various Caribbean and Atlantic Island nations to let themselves be used as off-shore banking and tax shelter entities you can bet Aetna and WellPoint are slavering at the prospect of 'basing' their plans out of a PO Box on some tropical nation.

Don't think Boehner would be that brazen? Think again, this guy was so deep in the Delay-Abramoff complex that it is a wonder that he too didn't get indicted for official corruption.

I was reading through the bill and the words Northern Marianas just jumped off the page. I don't know if the N. Marianas even HAS an insurance commissioner but based on past practices of the government there I bet buying one would be pretty damn cheap.

This plan isn't going anywhere and Boehner probably knew that, but why not plant the seed for interstate insurance sales in a way that will allow some future Abramoff and some future Boehner to grab the gold ring? After all there is the old expression "Thick as Thieves". The business community generally has the Bahamas, the banking and tax evaders have the Cayman Islands and the British Channel Islands, why shouldn't the insurance companies have their own island groups?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

agio

November 5, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to Bruce Webb

You know you should really consider re-posting this as a diary entry. I would love to link to it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

November 6, 2009 3:22 AM in reply to Bruce Webb

So much for states' rights, huh?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mindfulofpastdisasters

November 5, 2009 12:43 PM

Well their imagination still works, shame about their sense of social responsibility. Who drafted this? Was his/her last job editor of Mein Kampf?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

truthspeaker

November 6, 2009 2:04 PM in reply to mindfulofpastdisasters

Why are all of you so mean to the repugs. Give them a break eh. They tried. They really tried, heck they even got 200 pages done, and then they quit, ala Palin. How much do you expect of them, I think you're all being very unkind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 1:33 PM

I think this is a great informative and educating article on health care bills. Health care insurance plans are outrageous when you try to get medical insurance. Thanks for posting for us to voice our opinions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 1:36 PM

Boy do these repubs need MENTAL health care!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 2:54 PM

This is why having someone like Rep. Grayson and Keith Olberman around to keep things in perspective is so important because if you listen to these Republicans who will certainly go nuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 2:57 PM

All Republicans share one fundamental, defining personality characteristic: they cannot ABIDE the idea of anyone getting something for nothing, unless it's them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 19, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

What happened to American values. When did the country of hard work and dedication become the country of entitlement. Saving money is a right. Taking care of yourself is a right. Working hard is a right. Being a responsible human being is a right. Taking the money from one hard working American to pay for the coverage of another's poor life decisions is not right! Nobody should go bankrupt paying for health care? Bankruptcy is a way out, bankruptcy means you do not have to pay your debts. Nothing is free. People can plan, save, take care of themselves and their family. You cannot be turned away from an emergency room if you cannot pay... THAT IS FREE HEALTH CARE!!! If you want the premium preventative maintenance health care you just need to pay for insurance (Kaiser Permanente $120 a month) If you have to give up cable tv, cell phone, and a new car to pay for it that is your right! People are unwilling to give up their luxuries to pay for their responsibilities and that is the saddest part of this whole thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 5, 2009 7:13 PM

Wow that is the coolest thing I ever seen!

RT
www.private-web.se.tc

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to ubeeno

Are you kidding? That company should be outlawed!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Follow us!

PollTracker

Obama

Approve 49%, Disapprove 44%
Nov 20 Gallup
Pres '12

Obama (D) 49%, Huckabee (R) 44%
Nov 20 PPP (D)
Pres '12

Obama (D) 51%, Palin (R) 43%
Nov 20 PPP (D)
Pres '12

Obama (D) 46%, Paul (R) 38%
Nov 20 PPP (D)
Pres '12

Obama (D) 48%, Romney (R) 43%
Nov 20 PPP (D)

Most Popular

Viewed
Rec'd
Commented
On Digg

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

TPM Top News

Live Updates: Senate Now Debating Historic Health Care Bill

Fear Factor! Counting The Ways Republicans Say Obama Will Kill You

Is Schumer Taking Carper's Temp On Public Option Deal?

Busting Rhymes In The Name Of Tea Parties