Comments on: YES, THERE IS A REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE

By: reddenbacher

reddenbacher — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:33:01 +0000

This is clearly a non-plan as the Engineer has stated. It is a bunch of high minded phrases with no detail

Read the Rolling Stone’s latest issue for the way the Rovian’s have been relentlessly fighting any reform.

Read the Atlantic’s latest issue for some truly revolutionary “free market” based propositions that I only hope we can get to eventually.

By: Catherine Wright

Catherine Wright — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:10:09 +0000

If they are sure of their plan, why do they not speak of it, explain it, fill in the blanks, prove that it helps lower-income workers, jobless, and non-insured? Why just wave it in the air?
Why not openly present it, debate it?
Could it be that there is really no ”there” there?
Wouldn’t that be more adult and “commonsense” than shouting “you lie” and sneer, smear and fear?

By: omw

omw — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:43:36 +0000

Yeah, it is certainly easier and quicker to read than the 1,000+ pages of the House bill, but this “serious” alternative contains very few explanations as to how any of these policy goals are to be implemented. Well-intentioned and I *want* to believe, but you have to provide some reality, otherwise this is one big wish-sandwich.

By: Richb-hanover

Richb-hanover — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:37:20 +0000

My question about this plan: How is it different from letting me buy into Medicare?

By: Rob in Denver

Rob in Denver — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:40:18 +0000

That isn’t a plan. Those are broad policy goals. No where in that linked document is there are few specifics — in terms of policy and administration — on how those goals would be achieved, let alone what the potential long and short term impact to the budget would be.

Call me crazy, but I’d expect a group that’s “been working for months on a plan” might have something more to show for its effort than a broad outline.

By: Catron

Catron — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:30:43 +0000

The irony, Engineer, is that this broad outline is far more coherent (and certainly more honest) than the 1,000 plus pages of the House bill.

And, since you object to the absence of details, I’m sure you were disappointed in the health care IT provision of the porkulus bill. The Beltway apparatchiks have still not defined “meaningful use,” the alleged criterion by which hospitals and physicians will be “reimbursed” HIT upgrade mandated by that travesty.

By: The Engineer

The Engineer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:26:17 +0000

The document is pretty and I sympathize with it, but note that it contains NO DETAILED INFORMATION ON ANYTHING. Rendering it void of meaning. Example:

• Gives patients access to health care information so that they can identify and select
health care providers who deliver high-quality care at a lower cost.

how exactly?

• Makes health care more convenient by eliminating bureaucratic red tape to expand
access to Community Health Centers that are so critical to underserved areas, both in
large cities and in rural America.

‘Make it more convenient by eliminating bureaucratic red tape’, that sounds swell, but HOW? You could just eliminate most of the document and write ‘we will make it better and cheaper’ and that would sum it up… No substance whatsoever.

• Encourages home care and independence for patients rather than forcing individuals
into institutionalized settings.

With what incentives? once again, the devil is in the details. Are we talking Rationing the hospital beds or simply giving money for people to die at home?

• Promotes seniors’ access to the doctors they need by modernizing Medicare
reimbursements.

By ‘modernizing medicare reimbursements’ Good golly, why haven’t anyone thought of modernizing before? I am SHOCKED.

• Provides incentives to physicians who enter the field of primary care, helping to
ensure all Americans have access to the doctors they need.

Uh-huh. by starting a recruitment arms-race, which will increase costs? or how? even MORE tv-series about doctors?