Ryan reintroducing GOP health-care reform bill today

posted at 10:12 am on January 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats have called a halt to health-care reform, mainly out of concern for their own electoral health.  The big question will be whether Republicans take advantage of the opening.  While the public is entirely disgusted with this attempt at health-care reform, Democrats have been right to point out that people want some reforms of the system, and usually rank it rather high on their list of priorities.  When the GOP held the power in Washington, they mostly ignored it and left the field to Democrats, who shaped it as a populist issue against the big, bad, “villainous” insurers, as Pelosi put it last year.  Republicans have an opportunity to make the free-market case of dismantling barriers to interstate competition, reducing the role of third-payers in the system, and creating real pricing pressures that drive drown actual costs rather than reimbursements.

With the Medicare entitlement disaster looming, Republicans can’t afford to ignore the opportunity again.  Rep. Paul Ryan apparently agrees.  He will reintroduce the GOP version of health-care reform ignored by Democrats last year in favor of their stampede towards government control:

Rep. Paul Ryan is re-introducing legislation in Congress today — amid criticism that his is ‘a party of no’ —  to offer Republican alternatives to health care and spending the same day President Barack Obama will deliver his State of the Union address to Congress.

Ryan, the House Budget Committee Ranking Republican and chief sponsor of the bill, said the legislation will “restore our long-held legacy of leaving the next generation of Americans better off.”

The legislation, “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” was initially introduced in 2008, yet the version introduced today “will reflect the dramatic decline in our nation’s economic and fiscal condition” since then, according to a release from Ryan’s office.

“Simply saying ‘no’ to the further government expansions – simply maintaining today’s ‘status quo’ – is no longer an option: our health care sector must be reformed; our economy needs sustained job creation and real growth; and we must tackle the greatest threat to our economic and fiscal future – the crushing debt burden driven by the unsustainable growth in entitlement spending,” Ryan said in a statement.

The bill has its own website, and it should, because it rolls up several GOP initiatives into a massive omnibus reform.  It attempts to delink employment and health insurance with a refundable tax credit that allows people to purchase their own plans, which makes a lot of sense, although it doesn’t address whether employer-based plans will get taxed as income. It also eliminates the barriers to interstate competition for health insurance, which will increase competition and lower costs.

But Ryan goes from there to Social Security reform through privatization, a plan that ran aground in 2005 when the stock market was seemingly healthy, income-tax reform using an optional simplification process, while only mildly addressing Medicare through medical savings accounts for low-income recipients. That’s three major reform projects in one bill, and Democrats ran aground on just two over the last seven months with a supermajority in the Senate.  It’s ambitious as a policy statement for the GOP rolling into the midterm elections, but practically speaking, this bill won’t move with all of these components in it, not with Democrats in charge of Congress and Obama in the White House.

It’s a good start, though, and as Ryan says, the American people need to understand that there are alternatives to government control:

In tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama will declare a new found commitment to “fiscal responsibility” to cover the huge spending and debt he and congressional Democrats have run up in his first year in office. But next Monday, when he submits his actual budget, I fear it will rely on gimmickry, commissions, luke-warm spending “freezes,” and paper-tiger controls to create the illusion of budget discipline. Meanwhile, he and the Democratic congressional leadership will continue pursuing a relentless expansion of government and a new culture of dependency.

America needs an alternative. For that reason, I have reintroduced my plan to tackle our nation’s most pressing domestic challenges—updated to reflect the dramatic decline in our economic and fiscal condition. The plan, called A Road Map for America’s Future and first introduced in 2008, is a comprehensive proposal to ensure health and retirement security for all Americans, to lift the debt burdens that are mounting every day because of Washington’s reckless spending, and to promote jobs and competitiveness in the 21st century global economy.

The difference between the Road Map and the Democrats’ approach could not be more clear. From the enactment of a $1 trillion “stimulus” last February to the current pass-at-all costs government takeover of health care, the Democratic leadership has followed a “progressive” strategy that will take us closer to a tipping point past which most Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes—a European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life.

Republicans cannot afford to cede this ground to Democrats again, now or in the future.  By ignoring it for so long, they almost allowed a Trojan horse for a single-payer system to succeed.  Political parties have to offer real solutions in order to remain relevant, a lesson Ryan has learned — and hopefully can teach the rest of the GOP.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Why? Why do we NEED a Healthcare bill at ALL? This is BS. Ed, why is it you seem to be okay with this?

Think about your diabetes…. think REAL hard.

Any Republican who brings this UP should be stripped of their seat and put out to pasture. No matter their age or how conservative.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM
—————–
Don’t be kneejerk. Read his plan. It calls for tort reform and selling plans across state lines. Both are needed.

fossten on January 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM

2. and if you have a pre-exsisting condition.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM

You can’t have this, without also mandating that everybody must have insurance.
Once you do that, then you get into the argument of what constitutes qualifying insurance, which permits the feds to start setting minimum standards.
Once you’ve gotten there, it’s a short step to a govt takeover of healthcare.

Must issue is a non-starter.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM

I agree that this would help reduce costs, but what does it do to the long held conservative belief in states rights?

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM

The states still have the right to regulate the insurance companies in their state. They just don’t have the right to wall in their citizens from seeking it elsewhere.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Let me put that another way.

The people’s rights to buy from whomever they choose, over rides states rights on this issue.

The hierarchy is thus:

People’s rights trump state’s rights.
States’s rights trump federal rights.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM

I think you will find that the US Constitution says that whatever rights are not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people (in that order.) The objective was that the federal government had to recognize the state constitutions unless they infringed on federally guaranteed rights (like the Bill of Rights — including by the way the 2nd amendment)

johnsteele on January 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

2. and if you have a pre-exsisting condition.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM
_____________________

If you have a pre-existing condition, then you don’t need health insurance, you need health care.

But please don’t make us bust out the “You can’t buy homeowner’s insurance after your house burns down” line again. It’s getting old.

There is only 1 way to deal with pre-existing conditions, and that is for that person to pay inflated premiums because of their condition. That’s it. That’s the risk you run for not buying health insurance when you didn’t have it. It’s a decision you make yourself not to have insurance, so you must PAY the consequences of that decision.

uknowmorethanme on January 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

I agree with what’s being said here for the GOP to move in and stake some claims. Yes, we need health care reform of some kind that does NOT include governmental control nor a government public option. That’s nothing but death. And taxes.

In the very least there should be tort reform and open markets for interstate competition. Reform should come in the RELEASE of current government strangleholds that prevent us form currently affording health care. Anyone like myself who has to pay for their own health care knows the system is broken. It shouldn’t cost $800 for someone to flip a freakin’ switch on a machine when my wife goes to get a mammogram. FIX THAT.

I think the big problem here is that the Dems stunk the place up with the phrase “health care reform.” While that is technically what we need, the term is a pejorative. We need a new phrase.

somewhatconcerned on January 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

At a minimum, it puts Democrats in position where they have to say “no”. Then Republicans get to say, “You don’t want to do nothing, do you?”

forest on January 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM

And then the Democrats come back with “Republicans have been lying all along, they agree this is a federal problem, they agree government has to get involved, all that argument and stonewalling was just trying to prevent the Obama solution; now they think they can blackmail us into a Republican plan”.

Chris_Balsz on January 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM

It’s times like this I’m glad that Ryan is my Congresscritter.

steveegg on January 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM

The point is that we continue to erode the rights of the several states.

johnsteele on January 27, 2010 at 10:38 AM

States do not have the right to prevent their citizens from buying legal products from other states. That’s an infringement upons the people’s rights.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

But if your employer cancelled the company plan you’d still pocket $5600 from Uncle Sucker. That’s why we say tax credits = welfare.

Chris_Balsz on January 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM

You don’t pocket anything. The credit can only be used to purchase health insurance. The main for detaching health insurance from your employer is to drive down costs. Right now the average health care consumer has no idea what their care costs, and so has no incentive to look for or demand lower costs.

The single quickest way to drive down costs is to put the purchasing power directly into the hands of the consumer.

No I understand what you are talking about. But to me it doesn’t matter. Government, no matter how good it sounds, never turns out the way it is suppose to be…. does it?

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Hmmm, I think we’re on different wave lengths today. I don’t want government involvement increasing in any aspect of my life, especially not health care.

You can buy all of those from out of state companies if you want.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Yep. People seem to be mixing up the concept of a state regulating what products are sold inside of it with an individuals ability to purchase a product from outside the state, as long as it meets the requirements set up by the state.

My life and auto insurance both come from an out of state provider. They just meet the regulatory requirements my individual state has established. I don’t see why health care has to be different, or why changing it would be an insult to the concept of federalism.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Don’t be kneejerk. Read his plan. It calls for tort reform and selling plans across state lines. Both are needed.fossten on January 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Dam# right. Ryan is one of the best reps we have–too bad I\’m stuck with the watermelon Obey.

PimFortuynsGhost on January 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

There is only 1 way to deal with pre-existing conditions, and that is for that person to pay inflated premiums because of their condition. That’s it. That’s the risk you run for not buying health insurance when you didn’t have it. It’s a decision you make yourself not to have insurance, so you must PAY the consequences of that decision.

uknowmorethanme on January 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

The issue isn’t just people who didn’t buy insurance because of irresponsibility or lack of money. You could have insurance, then lose your job or want to move out of state or something like that. COBRA sort of deals with this, but doesn’t solve the problem.

tneloms on January 27, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Oh, great! More paper work, more of the government sticking their noses into my business.

Blake on January 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Of course any tort reform coming from Washington will only cover federal courts. The individual states will have to reform their own states.

One of the problems now is that lawyers get to shop jurisdictions. If state laws are too restrictive, they file in federal courts. It’s difficult for states to reform if they don’t fix the federal system at the same time.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Markthegreat: You open the door for federal regulation of interstate commerce, thus we will have Washington and not states passing rules on health isnurance companies. Hey, wait a minute… paging the nearest Democrat?

But perhaps it makes sense, like allowing gasoline producers to produce fewer blends.

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM

It’s times like this I’m glad that Ryan is my Congresscritter.

steveegg on January 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Lucky bugger.

PimFortuynsGhost on January 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

I’ll trade you my Baldwin for your Obey.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM

I don’t want government in my healthcare. There is already enough government in it. Social Security, Medicare (when or if I turn 65), and so on.

Why do we need more? I don’t want it… they already tax me enough on what I own. I don’t want to be taxed to live as well.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM

You need to calm down my friend. The American people are sick and tired of this entire healthcare debate and I doubt this Republican plan is going anywhere.

People are way too concerned about jobs and the economy right now. This is just a Republican strategy and will more than likely be a blip on the radar in a couple weeks. Especially when we start seeing all of these new lay-offs coming ie. Verizon, Home Depot, WalMart, etc.

Knucklehead on January 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM

My life and auto insurance both come from an out of state provider. They just meet the regulatory requirements my individual state has established. I don’t see why health care has to be different, or why changing it would be an insult to the concept of federalism.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

So do mine, but that doesn’t mean that my state (Florida) does not regulate the terms under which those companies offer insurance in the state, or in extremis, what companies can offer insurance in the state. It seems to me that I read somewhere that at least one state (Maine??) only allows two companies to write health insurance in the state. That’s their right, if you don’t like it take the complaint to the state capitol, elect better leaders, etc., don’t have DC cram it down their throats.

johnsteele on January 27, 2010 at 11:18 AM

My mom has mechanical mitro vales in the heart due to rhumatic fever as a child. She can no switch insurance. she can not recieve new isnsurance. She can (because of where we live) go to a different state ONLY if the insurance comp see fit, to get another surgury on her heart. She will need the valves replaced in the next cople years. I canno put her on my insurance.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 10:49 AM

She can’t go to another state because that would require her to get a new policy from a company that operates in the new state. Policies are not portable across state lines because the states don’t permit out of state companies.

My wife has diabetes, and she’s been permitted to buy new coverage with a new employer, so long as she can show that she has had uninterrupted coverage for the last couple of years.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:19 AM

The problem with these proposals is that it overrides the states’ authority to regulate these companies and their products as they see fit.

johnsteele on January 27, 2010 at 10:51 AM

I disagree with the notion that states have the right to regulate anything “as they see fit”.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:21 AM

You can’t let this issue die. You need to fill the gap that the Democrats have left so that they cannot fill it up again. If we can get our common sense reforms in so that even more people are happy with the health care landscape then the Progressives will never be able to do what they just did.

Otherwise, in another 30 or 50 years, they’ll do it again and maybe even get it passed.

We cannot rest on our laurels. Push the advantage! Keeping quiet now is exactly what the Progressives want. Get out our message of alternatives which will help tip the balance away from entitlements and towards the free market. Never waste a good crisis opportunity. This is one.

ConDem on January 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM

She can’t go to another state because that would require her to get a new policy from a company that operates in the new state. Policies are not portable across state lines because the states don’t permit out of state companies.

My wife has diabetes, and she’s been permitted to buy new coverage with a new employer, so long as she can show that she has had uninterrupted coverage for the last couple of years.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:19 AM

–So what happens when she can’t find a new employer? Employer health insurance plans aren’t allowed to impose a pre-existing coverage exclusion on new employees if they’ve been continuously insured (except for, I think, a 63 day period in total) for the last several years.

–And if you disagree with the notion that states have the right to regulate anything “as they see fit”, I suggest you take it up with your state and the federal government. States clearly have the right to regulate insurance because the US Congress gave them that right back in the 30s or 40s.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM

But if your employer cancelled the company plan you’d still pocket $5600 from Uncle Sucker. That’s why we say tax credits = welfare.

Chris_Balsz on January 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM

The bill states that the subsidy can only be used to purchase health care. If you decide not to buy health insurance, then no $5600.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Markthegreat: You open the door for federal regulation of interstate commerce, thus we will have Washington and not states passing rules on health isnurance companies. Hey, wait a minute… paging the nearest Democrat?

But perhaps it makes sense, like allowing gasoline producers to produce fewer blends.

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM

–The US Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce already. That’s in the US Constitution. The only reason it’s not doing so now is because it passed a bill giving states that authority.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Ryan’s proposal is absolutely disastrous. It buys into the Dems narrative that government has to provide healthcare. It tries to do that with quasi-free market solutions, but still has the government actively involved with tax credits and plans and other BS.

The Republican party should be the party of NO. Get government out of our lives and business. Restore personal responsibility. Ryan is a Washington policy wonk. His proposal is designed to hit certain political buttons inside Congress and policy making circles. It’s part of the culture we need to get rid of entirely.

modifiedcontent on January 27, 2010 at 11:26 AM

I take back my previous comment. I should have read the ‘roadmap’ before commenting.

I like it! Good stuff!

bridgetown on January 27, 2010 at 11:26 AM

some states have shose to limit the number of companies allowed to write insurance in their state — states’ rights.

johnsteele on January 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM

States do not have the authority to decide who can operate in their state.

Do states have the right to declare that you can only buy food that was grown in state?
Do states have the right to declare that you can only buy insurance from the company owned by the governor’s brother?

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I don’t understand why we can’t buy health insurance from some company out of state? My auto insurance home office is not in MN, but I bought their insurance through an agent of theirs. Same with my life insurance and home insurance. They are all out of state.

When I was self-employed, I bought my health insurance from Blue Cross – Blue Shield of Minnesota. Not of WI, IA, SD, or ND.

And, as far as I know, every state has a “State Insurance Adminstrator/Regulator”.

Mirimichi on January 27, 2010 at 11:28 AM

You open the door for federal regulation of interstate commerce, thus we will have Washington and not states passing rules on health isnurance companies. Hey, wait a minute… paging the nearest Democrat?

But perhaps it makes sense, like allowing gasoline producers to produce fewer blends.

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM

By merely existing, those states are already engaging in interstate commerce. At least as the SC defines interstate commerce. If a single one of their customers or employees buys anything, even on their free time, that has ever crossed a state line, then the company can be regulated by the feds.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:31 AM

You can’t let this issue die. You need to fill the gap that the Democrats have left so that they cannot fill it up again. If we can get our common sense reforms …

Once you buy into the narrative that the government has to provide, there is no way back. Don’t fill the gap, cut it out, decrease the size of government. Commons sense reform would be to get the government out and bring more market mechanisms in – like the Netherlands have been doing for decades! Allow competition across state lines. Create more transparancy in pricing. Cut out bureaucracy between healthcare consumer and healthcare provider, so the consumer can make their own informed decisions about treatments etc. Tort reform. Etc.

modifiedcontent on January 27, 2010 at 11:32 AM

–So what happens when she can’t find a new employer? Employer health insurance plans aren’t allowed to impose a pre-existing coverage exclusion on new employees if they’ve been continuously insured (except for, I think, a 63 day period in total) for the last several years.

–And if you disagree with the notion that states have the right to regulate anything “as they see fit”, I suggest you take it up with your state and the federal government. States clearly have the right to regulate insurance because the US Congress gave them that right back in the 30s or 40s.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM

1) Now you are in the realm of welfare, not health insurance.
2) You mistake power for right.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM

States do not have the authority to decide who can operate in their state.

Do states have the right to declare that you can only buy food that was grown in state?
Do states have the right to declare that you can only buy insurance from the company owned by the governor’s brother?

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

You keep saying that states don’t have these rights; I suggest you read up on your state government to find out what they do and do not regulate. The ‘examples’ you cite are, no offense, ridiculous. They are nothing like insurance regulation — which is a fact no matter what state you live in; some are restrictive, some are liberal, but they all do it to one degree or another.

johnsteele on January 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM

–And if you disagree with the notion that states have the right to regulate anything “as they see fit”, I suggest you take it up with your state and the federal government. States clearly have the right to regulate insurance because the US Congress gave them that right back in the 30s or 40s.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM

You and Mark are going to have the exact opposite view on this.

Though you’re the guy who said the federal government can force me to buy a specific brand of toothpaste if they felt like it, so you’re not in any position to quibble over a narrow reading of federal vs. state’s rights. ; )

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I’ll trade you my Baldwin for your Obey.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM

I guess it could be worse–we could have Gwen Moore…but trust me, there is NO redeeming quality about Dave Obey. None.

PimFortuynsGhost on January 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Those of you who want the Repubs to let the issue die, we need to take baby steps to back away from entitlements. We can’t do it all with one bill or by ignoring the issue all together.

In essence, we have to take a play from the Progressive play book and creep our way back to our ideal which is no government on any level in our health care. It has to be done incrementally, because no one will swallow a huge reform that’s going to shock the system.

It’s a fight that will not end. We seem to have won the current battle, but we need to move the front or we’ll always be fighting the same battle.

ConDem on January 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM

By merely existing, those states are already engaging in interstate commerce. At least as the SC defines interstate commerce. If a single one of their customers or employees buys anything, even on their free time, that has ever crossed a state line, then the company can be regulated by the feds.

Agreed. Was this the intent of the founders when they wrote the following: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 11:35 AM

The ‘examples’ you cite are, no offense, ridiculous. They are nothing like insurance regulation —

johnsteele on January 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM

The words you use, do not mean what you think they mean.

Please tell me just how the state has the right to tell you that you may not buy insurance from an out of state company, but it doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t buy food from an out of state company.

Just declaring that they are different is not an argument, it is a dodge. Declare specifically, how and why the situations are different, otherwise you are admitting that they aren’t.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:36 AM

The problem is within an employer based system when you lose your job you lose your insurance. There has to be a better solution for keeping or getting insurance that won’t break the bank.

tomas on January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

You and Mark are going to have the exact opposite view on this.

Though you’re the guy who said the federal government can force me to buy a specific brand of toothpaste if they felt like it, so you’re not in any position to quibble over a narrow reading of federal vs. state’s rights. ; )

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM

–I think the federal government can under the Commerce Clause as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. I think Mark thinks that both state and federal government can’t regulate some things, but I’m not sure since he seems stuck on complaining about state rights.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Agreed. Was this the intent of the founders when they wrote the following: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 11:35 AM

No it was not. Several pundits have referred to the commerce clause as the clause that ate the constitution. As interpretted by the SC, this clause gives the feds the authority to regulate anything and everything. Power without limit.

As to interstate insurance, that at least is directly covered by the clause “and among the several states”.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Once you buy into the narrative that the government has to provide, there is no way back. Don’t fill the gap, cut it out, decrease the size of government. Commons sense reform would be to get the government out and bring more market mechanisms in – like the Netherlands have been doing for decades! Allow competition across state lines. Create more transparancy in pricing. Cut out bureaucracy between healthcare consumer and healthcare provider, so the consumer can make their own informed decisions about treatments etc. Tort reform. Etc.

modifiedcontent on January 27, 2010 at 11:32 AM

I agree completely. This is essentially what I want to fill the gap. You have to address the issue and get people educated on this so they’ll want it. It is an alternative to government intrusion. Perhaps I didn’t say it well enough, but yeah, what you and MarktheGreat is what we need to do. I just don’t think it can be done all at once. Small battles and a slow move away from entitlements and government intrusion is the only way we’ll get to what we want.

ConDem on January 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM

–I think the federal government can under the Commerce Clause as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. I think Mark thinks that both state and federal government can’t regulate some things, but I’m not sure since he seems stuck on complaining about state rights.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Your powers of reading comprehension, are as usual, massively underwhelming.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Please tell me just how the state has the right to tell you that you may not buy insurance from an out of state company, but it doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t buy food from an out of state company.

Just declaring that they are different is not an argument, it is a dodge. Declare specifically, how and why the situations are different, otherwise you are admitting that they aren’t.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:36 AM

–The states have the right to regulate insurance because the US Congress passed a law saying this. If the US Congress passed a law letting states regulate the sale of food, they’d have that right as well.

“Up until 1944, insurance was not considered “commerce” and not subject to federal regulation. But in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate insurance transactions that were truly interstate. Congress then enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 U.S.C. § 1011) which provided that the laws of the several states should control the insurance business, but that the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act were applicable to the insurance business to the extent that it was unregulated by state law.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act, broadly speaking, gives states the power to regulate the insurance industry. While state insurance statutes override most federal laws, some portions of federal law (like federal tax laws) are always commanding. Therefore, when researching whether a particular law governs, a good rule of thumb is to ask whether the inquiry is related to the “business of insurance” (where state law governs), or whether it is related to peripherals of the industry (labor, tax law, securities – where federal law governs).”

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Your powers of reading comprehension, are as usual, massively underwhelming.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:40 AM

–Ok. Then what is your argument? States have no right to regulate insurance? The federal government has no such right? Or what?

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM

The problem is within an employer based system when you lose your job you lose your insurance. There has to be a better solution for keeping or getting insurance that won’t break the bank.

tomas on January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Yes. Two ways.
1. Give everyone the same tax break companies get by offering health insurance.
2. Eliminate the corporate profits tax. No tax, no subsidy.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Like the man said, you are confusing ‘right’ with ‘power’.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM

–I think the federal government can under the Commerce Clause as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Yes, and I have links to the cases you cited to back up your claim. I’ve never been that interested in legal precedent (since it so often seems to fly in the face of common sense and rational thought) so I’ll grant you your opinion of those cases. Just as long as you recognize that your reading of them is by far the minority opinion. Some might even call it ‘fringe’.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM

The problem is within an employer based system when you lose your job you lose your insurance. There has to be a better solution for keeping or getting insurance that won’t break the bank.

tomas on January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Yes. Two ways.
1. Give everyone the same tax break companies get by offering health insurance.
2. Eliminate the corporate profits tax. No tax, no subsidy.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM

—Moving to individual-owned health insurance policies makes sense. You need to change the tax code to do that, so this bill is a start. But here’s what you need to also consider: (i) group health insurance is generally cheaper than individual insurance because the risks are pooled across a larger group, so you’d need to set up a very large pool and provide access; and (ii) how would you handle the transition to this sort of system?

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Like the man said, you are confusing ‘right’ with ‘power’.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM

–If I have the right, then I have the power–at least legally. It’s sorta like the law of supply and demand with regard to gasoline: “If I have all the supply of gas, then I can demand whatever the f**k I want.” That may not make it morally right, but this is the system you’re living under.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Yes, and I have links to the cases you cited to back up your claim. I’ve never been that interested in legal precedent (since it so often seems to fly in the face of common sense and rational thought) so I’ll grant you your opinion of those cases. Just as long as you recognize that your reading of them is by far the minority opinion. Some might even call it ‘fringe’.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM

–I’ll respectfully disagree on that. You might want to read more general blogs/general news articles. The very, very right wing ones are certainly saying this, but most of the others would disagree.

Anyways, I gotta get back to work.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Before I get someone saying I am being kneejerk, I am WRONG when it comes to state lines and such. Hold that dumb comment you are about to say.

I live in Alaska. I DO NOT HAVE STATE LINES! aka I am screwed as I do HAVE to at times go out of State to get appropriate healthcare. Hawaii has the same problems. Two states… show me the state lines!

I am on a international border. So my “statelines” are the same as yours and in different senerio’s.. harder to deal with.

You may not understand where I come from… but don’t accuse me of kneejerking if you haven’t been in my insurance coverage. Thank you.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 11:52 AM

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:19 AM

FYI, diabetes as well as asthma and a few other “smaller” controlled health issues are basicly the only medical switches that can be made. How about rheumatory arthritis? Congenital Heart Disease? Or the best.. Cancer of the blood, nyphnoids and other organs. Nope, you can not have a different insurance. Trust me, I have tried in vain.. and nothing can be done.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM

I DON’T want Government Health Care.
I DON’T want mandates on my citizenship.
I DON’T want controls on “costs”.

I WANT the profit incentives taken away from Lawyers to sue.
I WANT the market to regulate itself.
I WANT people who are using the health care system to contribute to our society, by working, by sharing in the financial responsibilities and by being responsible for their own actions.

Of course there are a couple of changes that need to happen that are humanitarian in nature; People should not be bankrupted because of failing health. People should not be refused treatment because of inadequate insurance coverage. There are situations that require negative profit margins, i.e. a cancer patient who will not be saved, but who’s life can be prolonged, or for a congenital defect that is treatable, but not curable.
But those are the exception, not the rule and should not be the primary cause of costs, nor the inability to craft legislation to address these issues.
We can be fiscally responsible, socially conservative AND humane at the same time – IF we take away the massive costs due to liability concerns, a la Tort Reform.
It’s really not that complicated, IF our Socialist/Communist Representatives would put aside their plans for comprimising our Constitutional Rights under the guise of “Health Care”.

KMC1 on January 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM

There’s some good stuff in Ryan’s bill, but it basically concedes the liberal point. I don’t agree that government needs to do anything to expand the availability of health care.

Ryan should limit his proposals to ways the Feds can improve the efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid, and find ways to wean people off of it without summarily cutting benefits.

hawksruleva on January 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Pools don’t make anything cheaper except by using semi-monopolistic coercion, and their primary purpose by “pooling risk” is to make it so people can get free money for conditions they already have.

As for transitions? People adapt. The only thing that might be necessary is a law requiring an insurance company to pay out for conditions that start while they are covering someone, but are not discovered until after the person has left the plan.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Any health care reform bill that doesn’t start with tort reform should be DOA regardless.

duff65 on January 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Rep. Ryan said

“Simply saying ‘no’ to the further government expansions – simply maintaining today’s ‘status quo’ – is no longer an option: our health care sector must be reformed; our economy needs sustained job creation and real growth; and we must tackle the greatest threat to our economic and fiscal future – the crushing debt burden driven by the unsustainable growth in entitlement spending,”

Simply saying “no” to government expansion would actually be an excellent start. And it would fix a lot of the problems he lists later. Smaller government WOULD reform health care, and WOULD improve our economic, fiscal, and debt outlooks.

hawksruleva on January 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Why can’t we get a simple bill? Cut the social security out of this. Just address healthcare.

Are Republicans as dumb as Dems?

Who are these idiots we keep electing. Simpler is better. Address the problem see if it works… go back and tweek. Small adjustments till the laws are just right!

Sweeping reform is bad reform.

petunia on January 27, 2010 at 12:08 PM

The problem is within an employer based system when you lose your job you lose your insurance. There has to be a better solution for keeping or getting insurance that won’t break the bank.

Yes, it should be an individual responsibility, like any other insurance. If people fall through the cracks, there could be other solutions aimed to help them, but it shouldn’t dictate how the healthcare sector is structured.

Employer-based is terribly old-fashioned, no longer fits in today’s economy where more and more people work for themselves, thanks to changes in technology. Again, the healthcare system should not be build on the classic job for life.

modifiedcontent on January 27, 2010 at 12:14 PM

petunia on January 27, 2010 at 12:08 PM

I commented on page 1 why I think the bill is so ambitious.

It has not chance of becoming law no matter what’s in it, so I think Ryan is just trying to use the momentum from ObamaCare’s collapse to capitalize on a couple of things.

First, it chips away at the ‘party of no’ stuff that the Dems and media have been pretty good at getting to sink in.

Secondly, it plants a seed on information in anyone who happens to read, that will hopefully lead to an increase in popular support a few years down the road when the GOP is actually in a position to push some of this stuff into law.

I don’t think the media shouting about the Republicans wanting to crash your social security in the stock market is a major concern. This story will be off the radar in 3 days.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 12:16 PM

The Fed’s already regulate these companies, through dozens of other backdoors.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Then the precedent is certainly there.

unclesmrgol on January 27, 2010 at 12:19 PM

our health care sector must be reformed;

I keep seeing this buzz phrase. I like this one better.

“Our legal system must be reformed.”

Oldnuke on January 27, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I know some life insurance will cover your health if you lose your job.

tomas on January 27, 2010 at 12:27 PM

A GOP “healthcare bill” should be kept simple….

1) Be able to buy heath insurance across state lines just like auto insurance. Increased competition = lower costs and better service.

2)Require health insurance companies to provide affordable insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. Take that argument out of the hands of the Democrats and you have pretty much destroyed their biggest wedge issue. The Rates may be allowed to be higher but not to exceed a determined percentage of the national average price. The balance is subsidized by the rest of the insured.

GT on January 27, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Why can’t we get a simple bill? Cut the social security out of this. Just address healthcare.

Are Republicans as dumb as Dems?

Who are these idiots we keep electing. Simpler is better. Address the problem see if it works… go back and tweek. Small adjustments till the laws are just right!

Sweeping reform is bad reform.

petunia on January 27, 2010 at 12:08 PM

I don’t know if you’ve been following the Morrissey/steveegg SocSecurity Crater series, but the same dynamics that are dooming the government portion of health care (Medicare/Medicaid) are dooming SocSecurity. In fact, SocSecurity is now expected to show a legitimate 12-month cash deficit by February.

steveegg on January 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM

States do not have the authority to decide who can operate in their state.

Do states have the right to declare that you can only buy food that was grown in state?
Do states have the right to declare that you can only buy insurance from the company owned by the governor’s brother?

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I am not too clear on this issue. Is part of the problem that states have required certain mandated coverages? When those mandates are considered by an insurance company in offering coverage, do the insurance companies decide that they would rather not do business in that state? IOW Is part of the problem that there are too many mandates in what states allow on offer that is driving up insurance costs?

ObaMaoScare has lots of problems, but it appears that the mandated coverages in the various plans were growing like Topsy.

Wouldn’t the problem of affordability be solved if states stripped their mandated coverages to allow consumers to purchase what suits their own needs? It appears that too many consumers want every health problem to be covered in full, thus driving up costs, making insurance unaffordable to many, hiding the real cost of care, and overloading the system.

onlineanalyst on January 27, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Require health insurance companies to provide affordable insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. Take that argument out of the hands of the Democrats and you have pretty much destroyed their biggest wedge issue.

BS! You can’t buy insurance when your house is on fire either. Don’t accept their narrative! Don’t swallow their talking points!

Healthcare insurance should be accessible and affordable enough so that people can get it before they develop pre-existing conditions and it makes sense for them to get it. A free market and short lines between consumer and provider are the proven way to achieve that.

modifiedcontent on January 27, 2010 at 12:52 PM

steveegg on January 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Yes but it would be prudent to fix one and then if the fix works, use it on the other. ObamaCare is floundering in part by overreaching, and there’s no need to risk everything all at once.

alwaysfiredup on January 27, 2010 at 12:53 PM

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Now you’re just emoting and ranting.

Ryan’s plan removes government restrictions. You need to read it before you just blindly generalize and label it as ‘more government.’

Which is exactly what you did, and that was kneejerk.

fossten on January 27, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I DON’T want controls on “costs”.

I WANT the profit incentives taken away from Lawyers to sue.

If you can’t see the contradiction in your position then I guess I believe in cognitive dissonance.

Grow Fins on January 27, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Megan McCardle mentioned an interesting idea to me: what if the feds just agreed to pick up all medical expenses in excess of 20% of income? 20% is a big enough bite that most people would try hard not to reach that amount each year, but if something happened you shouldn’t have to go bankrupt. Then, if you wanted to insure against that first 20%, to give you “free” preventive visits and/or prescriptions, that would be your call. Or you could save money in an HSA to pay that first 20% yourself. This doesn’t seem to be in Ryan’s bill. Is it an idea worth pursuing?

alwaysfiredup on January 27, 2010 at 12:57 PM

I wish he would have submitted a small, simple bill with a real chance of working. It only needs to be a half dozen pages. Open up interstate commerce and portability of insurance. De-link employment from insurance with the tax credit. Institute limits on malpractice lawsuits. Done.

Nobody is in the mood for another “omnibus” bill.

joe_doufu on January 27, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Which is exactly what you did, and that was kneejerk.

fossten on January 27, 2010 at 12:53 PM

If it removes restriction… why even bother bringing it to the government aka the Senate? Hmmmmmm

Whatever!

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 1:02 PM

BadgerHawk is exactly right! There is zero chance of Ryan’s bill being enacted in this Congress. It is rather the kind of aggressive political move I have been longing for the Republicans to make, and the timing could not be better. It refutes the “party of NO” meme and lays down markers for the 2010 campaign.

We will do a lot better both locally and nationally if those of you talking down this move will get a frigging clue about politics.

JackOkie on January 27, 2010 at 1:07 PM

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Having seen you post here often, I can only guess that you’re very angry at something else today. If it makes you feel better, take it out on your fellow conservatives. That always works.

Clearly you’re not interested in reading Ryan’s plan, only in mischaracterizing it.

/s

fossten on January 27, 2010 at 1:07 PM

I’d like a health-care bill that got government out of health-care period.
I think adding Social Security is actually a good thing. We as conservatives need to start educating the people about why Social Security and other government entitlement programs are millstones around our future’s necks.
Even if it doesn’t pass now, we need to start making the case for it, so it can pass eventually. And a massive financial crisis is the perfect time to start talking about eliminating government programs. Because in this kind of environment people are keenly aware of the need to cut back on excessive and unnecessary spending.
Our goal should be for Americans to self-sufficient and self-reliant. Its the only way we can have true freedom.
The libs have been at this for over a hundred years. We have to be patient and dedicated.

Iblis on January 27, 2010 at 1:10 PM

fossten on January 27, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Actually I am fine. But look at it my way. I am in a holding pattern. I can’t do anything for my mom, even if I want too. I watch the crud going on in the Senate with these healthcare bills… and being in my situation… it annoys me to no end.

So what IF the Dems/Liberals do take the bait. What then?

I am not mad at the people on here. I am just tired of what is going on, even if it is a bait situation. This doesn’t help people like myself, who are caring for their families.

Is that a better explanation? Sorry… about my earlier comments.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM

If you can’t see the contradiction in your position then I guess I believe in cognitive dissonance.

Grow Fins on January 27, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I’m pretty sure you believe in that regardless of what anyone types in this thread.

BadgerHawk on January 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM

I’d like a health-care bill that got government out of health-care period.

Iblis on January 27, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Absolutely! Still, Congress seems obsessed with doing something, and as such I’d rather see a bill go through that sets guidelines and opens up markets for the consumer, such as interstate shopping will allow, than to see the kind of monstrosity that the Dems put forth for health care reform.

But what dismays me about the GOP bill is that there’s no tort reform in it. Without that, costs will continue to skyrocket.

KendraWilder on January 27, 2010 at 1:27 PM

If you can’t see the contradiction in your position then I guess I believe in cognitive dissonance.

Grow Fins on January 27, 2010 at 12:56 PM

How are you able to find a contradiction?
You aren’t able to see that “costs” is in quotes??
Government can’t control COSTS, they are trying to control EXPENDITURE – if you can’t figure out that costs will continue to rise – even if the Government Health Care Plan (whatever that is) decides to pay out less, I can’t help you.
COSTS come from the expense of providing the product/service – AND will also come from having to subsidize those patients who will have Government Health Care and pay out less. JUST LIKE what we have going on right now – TODAY – with Medicare.
It’s also what is going on in Japan, The U.K. and most everywhere else there is GHC. This is why so many people in those countries ALSO have their own PRIVATE insurance to get them better service (can you put yourself in that position – having a lower quality of care because you don’t have private insurance?) and to cover the gaps in the GHC coverage.

KMC1 on January 27, 2010 at 1:49 PM

I just don’t think it can be done all at once. Small battles and a slow move away from entitlements and government intrusion is the only way we’ll get to what we want.

ConDem on January 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Setting up a tax and credit scheme pretty much seals the Federal Government as responsible. Only an ‘extremist’ would destroy that system by renouncing Federal responsibility….either the credits and taxes go up and up and up, or we move to single-payer.

Chris_Balsz on January 27, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Keep it simple and short.

Our tax laws have encouraged labor to negotiate medical insurance benefits that cover the first dollar spent on health care. This is the most expensive way to do it.

1. Make insurance premiums and medical care expenses tax deductible.
2. Encourage high deductible catastrophic care policies and Medical Savings Accounts.
3. Allow people to buy across state lines.
4. Allow a cafateria style market place for insurance. An older couple beyond the child bearing years would not want maternity benefits.
5. Tort Reform: Most medical malpractic reforms include two provisions:
a. Hold the doctor harmless if he did everything right.
b. Cap non-financial damages to $250,000
There is a problem with a: Sometimes people are hurt even when everyone did everything right. Solution: Bundle disability insurance with medical insurance. Problem solved.

There is also a problem with b: A major mistake such as removing the wrong kidney can leave a patient on dialisys for life. $250,000 is not enough for an error like that.

Solution: Remove the cap for gross neglegence.

Teach basic medicine in high school so people don’t think they have to run to the doctor for every little thing.

The Rock on January 27, 2010 at 2:30 PM

This doesn’t help people like myself, who are caring for their families.

You need to help yourself and stop expecting a handout. Sorry to sound harsh, but isn’t that the essence of the GOP “plan”? Pre-existing condition? Tough ti**ies! No money for health insurance? So sad.

Grow Fins on January 27, 2010 at 2:48 PM

You need to help yourself and stop expecting a handout. Sorry to sound harsh, but isn’t that the essence of the GOP “plan”? Pre-existing condition? Tough ti**ies! No money for health insurance? So sad.

Grow Fins on January 27, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Obviously you don’t read the other comments. She has insurance.. I just can’t put her on mine.

Eat me, ya donk. Aren’t you the one always complaining about “handouts”? I even mentioned that I don’t want this bill either. How about you learn how to keep up.

upinak on January 27, 2010 at 2:50 PM

The Rock on January 27, 2010 at 2:30 PM

That would do it.

You need to help yourself and stop expecting a handout. Sorry to sound harsh, but isn’t that the essence of the GOP “plan”? Pre-existing condition? Tough ti**ies! No money for health insurance? So sad.

Grow Fins on January 27, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Yup. Not as if we had piles of money lying around asking for a purpose…

Chris_Balsz on January 27, 2010 at 2:53 PM

upinak

I was being ironic. I’m sorry about your mother.

Grow Fins on January 27, 2010 at 2:55 PM

–The states have the right to regulate insurance because the US Congress passed a law saying this. If the US Congress passed a law letting states regulate the sale of food, they’d have that right as well.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Like most liberals, you don’t understand the difference between might and right.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 3:06 PM

–Ok. Then what is your argument? States have no right to regulate insurance? The federal government has no such right? Or what?

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I see that in your world, only govts have rights.

MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Republicans cannot afford to cede this ground to Democrats again, now or in the future. By ignoring it for so long, they almost allowed a Trojan horse for a single-payer system to succeed. Political parties have to offer real solutions in order to remain relevant, a lesson Ryan has learned — and hopefully can teach the rest of the GOP.

Agree with all of the above but I have to wonder if the wounds are too fresh for this to be an effective time to be talking about real reform initiatives. It’s been less than two weeks since the left realized that their visions of socialized medicine were not going to be delivered by tonight’s speech.

highhopes on January 27, 2010 at 3:11 PM

In this election year, we need to pressure every Governor and State Insurance Commissioner to reduce health care and health insurance costs at the STATE LEVEL before the U.S. Congress tries to screw up our health care system again!

Every State should:
1) Review their Medical Malpractice / Tort policies and reform as necessary.
2) Reduce Benefit Mandates on insurance policies in their state
3) Allow more companies to offer insurance in their state
4) Reduce regulations that increase health costs
5) Have more medical and nursing programs at State Universities
6) Allow people to purchase high deductible insurance plans
7) Enforce laws against ILLEGAL immigrants who are a drain on the State’s health care system

In the meantime, we all need to be better consumers by asking our medical professionals how much each and every medical procedure they recommend for us costs. You will be shocked to find out how often they really don’t know the cost! How can we find more efficient ways to reduce health care costs if we don’t know what the costs actually are now?

wren on January 27, 2010 at 3:51 PM

The minute the bill hits Obama and the lost left will jump all over it and cry let’s compromise -getting the GOP bogged down in what the nation doesn’t want. Let them own it – demand they do their own tort reform just to watch them squirm.

Don L on January 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Do states have the right to declare that you can only buy food that was grown in state?
MarkTheGreat on January 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

States do have the authority to restrict foodstuffs from other states. The state veterinarian and the Department of Human Health and Resources can stop shipments of food animals, animal products, and fruits/vegetables if there is cause. Psuedorabies in hogs will do it. While temporary, it does speak to the issue of authority.

a capella on January 27, 2010 at 4:59 PM

There is only 1 way to deal with pre-existing conditions, and that is for that person to pay inflated premiums because of their condition. That’s it. That’s the risk you run for not buying health insurance when you didn’t have it. It’s a decision you make yourself not to have insurance, so you must PAY the consequences of that decision.

uknowmorethanme on January 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

You are so right. I use to sell life, health and fire insurance. It brings to mind a father who was a client of mine who bought health insurance on himself only, Even though he could afford it, he said his childern did not need it. Six months later his middle daughter was diagniosed with Leukemia. If he had bought the insurance, it would have covered her. He rolled the dice and lost. He did buy the insurance for his family aftewards, but there was nothing I could do for his daughter.

Franklyn on January 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Good for Ryan to make a showing so quickly.

Comprehensive overhauls, though, should conform to an outline, and pass individual measures bill by bill, imho.

maverick muse on January 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM

I agree that this would help reduce costs, but what does it do to the long held conservative belief in states rights?

rhombus on January 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM

This really and truly fits into the commerce clause.

applebutter on January 27, 2010 at 5:29 PM


There is also a problem with b: A major mistake such as removing the wrong kidney can leave a patient on dialisys for life. $250,000 is not enough for an error like that.

Solution: Remove the cap for gross neglegence.

The Rock on January 27, 2010 at 2:30 PM

The cap is on punitive damages, not actual damages. Actual damages may include the difference in money you would have made if your kidney wasn’t removed.

applebutter on January 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3