Price R-GA Healthcare for people with preconditions "bad idea"

[CaseAgainstFaith]

One of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act prevents insurers from denying coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions. But Republicans seek to repeal the law in its entirety and have gone to great lengths to oppose the new consumer protection. Just ask Georgia Rep. Tom Price, a medical doctor, who has introduced a replacement bill which would not require insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions. When asked why he omitted that provision, Price was blunt in his assessment:

    They are even divided over whether some of the popular pieces of Obama’s health law are a good idea. For example, most Republicans support the health law’s requirement that insurance companies accept all applicants — but the replacement plan put forward by the most prominent Republican ignores that idea.

    “It’s a terrible idea,” Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the sponsor of the plan, told POLITICO. He said Democrats only enacted the provision in order to require exactly what kinds of insurance Americans must have. He would rather expand coverage voluntarily.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/01/474234/price-pre-ex/?mobile=nc

*Emphasis mine

What a idiot.  I bet if he didn't have his special healthcare plan that congress offers he would be singing a different tune.  I just hope the republicans get their asses handed to them in the elections this year.

[speshuled67]

He would rather expand coverage voluntarily.

i agree, lets let the insurance companies volunteer people to die without treatment to save profit margins...


'murica!

[shykid]

Yes. Let's allow insurance companies to continue denying coverage to the people who actually fucking need it in the first place. And let's expect a market with a long history of profiting off of denying its customers what they paid for to suddenly police itself and actually stop doing that voluntarily, despite their showing no sign of doing so and having every economic incentive to do exactly the opposite. Excellent idea!

Mr. Tom Price, either you're a profoundly naïve and incompetent fool who should have no say in any economic issues whatsoever, or you're a bought-and-paid-for political prostitute for the health-insurance industry (with the latter being what my cynicism leads me to expect). Both options equally render you utterly unsuitable to hold public office. Furthermore, your receiving socialized medicine off of the taxpayer's dime as a politician makes you unable to deny the same privilege to others without being a massive hypocrite, which is something else that renders you unsuitable for office.

[Fpqxz]

Mr. Tom Price, either you're a profoundly naïve and incompetent fool who should have no say in any economic issues whatsoever, or you're a bought-and-paid-for political prostitute for the health-insurance industry (with the latter being what my cynicism leads me to expect). Both options equally render you utterly unsuitable to hold public office. Furthermore, your receiving socialized medicine off of the taxpayer's dime as a politician makes you unable to deny the same privilege to others without being a massive hypocrite, which is something else that renders you unsuitable for office.

Well put.

Furthermore, Price is ignoring one of the more fundamental problems:  Obama's plan doesn't contain any cost control measures.  High damage awards in malpractice and product liability cases drive up the cost of medical care.  Many of these product liability/drug & device lawsuits could be avoided with better regulation from a non-industry captured FDA (which is another problem we need to fix).

Scientists and specialists should be regulating drugs and medical devices, not lawyers and judges.  Better regulation and testing of pharmaceutical products and new medications, coupled with caps on punitive damages in malpractice cases, could go a long way in making single-payer universal health coverage a reality in the USA.  But we all know that won't happen--too many people (the insurance lobby, the trial lawyers' lobby, Big Pharma, et al) would stand to lose.

[QueenofHearts]

Furthermore, Price is ignoring one of the more fundamental problems:  Obama's plan doesn't contain any cost control measures.  High damage awards in malpractice and product liability cases drive up the cost of medical care.  Many of these product liability/drug & device lawsuits could be avoided with better regulation from a non-industry captured FDA (which is another problem we need to fix).

Scientists and specialists should be regulating drugs and medical devices, not lawyers and judges.  Better regulation and testing of pharmaceutical products and new medications, coupled with caps on punitive damages in malpractice cases, could go a long way in making single-payer universal health coverage a reality in the USA.  But we all know that won't happen--too many people (the insurance lobby, the trial lawyers' lobby, Big Pharma, et al) would stand to lose.

I take a certain umbrage with the above mainly because it is repeated so ad nauseaum that it is taken as fact. Conservatives often claim that such tort reform will bring down medical costs, but that is not the case and such laws are usually tailored to limit an individual's right to sue a wealthy person/company. I would also like to point out that the legislative branch limiting judicial procedure seems horribly absurd, if not outright unconstitutional (in any other era than our citizen's united era). It is also worth mentioning that monetary amounts are often decided by a jury, so what we may think is excessive with our limited knowledge, a panel of people who've heard the full story came to a different conclusion. Finally, Texas enacted some of the harshest medical tort reform laws in 2003, and compared to the national average medical costs went up. This is because most of the expensive lawsuits are serious class action lawsuits seeking fair compensation for flawed medical practices or egregious negligence on a doctor's part. Frivolous lawsuits are just that, frivolous. They rarely go to court, are hardly taken seriously, and compensation is minimal if any.

[Fpqxz]

Interesting study, there.  However, I stand by my statement on pharmaceutical and medical device lawsuits (I've worked on these types of cases before, so I know a few things about them).

As far as limitations on damages, there is nothing unconstitutional about the legislature apportioning damages, so long as it does not effect a denial of due process.

[SpaceProg]

Let the poor die, just so long as fetuseses aren't killed!

Strawman, I know.

[shykid]

Not quite a strawman, unfortunately. At the GOP debates, the audience actually, literally cheered the idea of letting the poor die and the idea of stripping Planned Parenthood of public funding.

[booley]

so is there any republican plan for health care that doesn't boil down to "Let People Die"?

I mean besides Obama care...

[MadCatTLX]

Not quite a strawman, unfortunately. At the GOP debates, the audience actually, literally cheered the idea of letting the poor die and the idea of stripping Planned Parenthood of public funding.

And the GOP has passed cartoon villain...



... and are moving full speed ahead to complete monster.

[Witchyjoshy]

It's not a Godwin if it's appropriate...

[SpaceProg]

Wow... so much for my wishful "It's-a-strawman" thinking.  :-/

[Fpqxz]

Not quite a strawman, unfortunately. At the GOP debates, the audience actually, literally cheered the idea of letting the poor die and the idea of stripping Planned Parenthood of public funding.

Trufax...I remember that debate.  That was the point at which I dropped any pretense of sympathy for the Republican Party.

[tempus]

Not quite a strawman, unfortunately. At the GOP debates, the audience actually, literally cheered the idea of letting the poor die and the idea of stripping Planned Parenthood of public funding.

Trufax...I remember that debate.  That was the point at which I dropped any pretense of sympathy for the Republican Party.

[SpaceProg]

Nyah ha ha!