House GOP pens 230-page health bill draft
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer
Comments 
42
Published: November 3, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — After months spent criticizing Democrats' health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It's much shorter and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans.
A 230-page draft was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said changes were still being made before the bill would be finalized in time to offer as an alternative when Democrats begin floor debate on their bill, possibly at the end of this week.
The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.
Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines.
"As Leader Boehner has made clear, our proposal will focus on the No. 1 concern of the American people — reducing health care costs, and we do it at a price tag our nation can afford," said spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier, though Republicans have not said how much their bill would cost.
"Our proposal will help struggling middle-class families and small businesses by increasing access to affordable, high-quality health care," Ferrier said.
Democrats immediately dismissed the Republican plan as insubstantial.
The GOP alternative "does little to provide security and stability to all Americans, doesn't provide insurance availability for all Americans, does little to expand access to coverage," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters.
"Ours is vastly superior and we think the American public will think that," Hoyer said.
The GOP draft bill obtained by The AP was dated Monday.
House Democrats, meanwhile, were working overtime to put the finishing touches on their 10-year, $1.2 trillion bill, which they released last week. Leaders were trying to resolve lingering concerns over language to bar federal funding of abortions and ensure that illegal immigrants don't receive government health benefits.
The Republican bill includes a permanent ban on any federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother, stronger language than the Democratic bill,
Hoyer predicted Tuesday that Democrats would vote within the week to pass President Barack Obama's historic health care remake.
"I'm confident of prevailing and I'm confident of prevailing before Veterans Day" — next Wednesday, Nov. 11, Hoyer told reporters. "I am confident that we are going to pass this bill."
Across the Capitol, senators are waiting to see the final language and price tag on a health bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid and a few other top officials wrote in secret. It's not clear when those details will be available and Reid, D-Nev., may not be able to begin debate on the issue until the week before Thanksgiving.
———
Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
C, our next trip will be SE Oklahoma, and we may just have to bump it up to this weekend rather than next.
head down to Broken Bow or the Ozarks, any of the lakes, Robber's cave.
This is a half ass measure and most Americans will see it for the fraudulent side show that it is. I'm surprise the republicans were smart enough not to print it on CIGNIA letterhead because everyone know that it was written by the insurance companies.
Why is 80% of the health insurance in Oklahoma controlled by 2 companies? Why are most state controlled by 1 or 2 insurance companies? Because that is the way they like it. Drown out competition and price gouge, drop coverages, slap on pre-existing conditions and make as much money possible with little to no regard to human life.
Republicans' tax-cut everything policies landed our government in this deficit and recession and now they want us to trust them with, as they say, 18% of our economy? What, do they think Americans are stupid?
This bill does nothing to prevent the pre-existing condition disqualification. Not a darn thing. Therefore we are left with one of the biggest price problems: sick, uninsured folks clogging the ERs and skipping the bill.
This bill gives "tax credits" to people to buy insurance, which essentially is government money handed over to the insurance companies and expanding their client base.
This bill does not prevent insurance companies from dropping people's coverage when they get sick.
This bill has not be scored by the CBO unlike the democrats bills which already projects to save the tax payers close to 3 trillion dollars over the next decade.
In a nut shell, its government money given to the insurance companies to continue screwing their costumers.
I am not against corporations making money unless their practice causes death. Why can the insurance companies get away with it if crack dealers can't? Their both making profits from people dying.
Don't forget, the senate bill added 153 republican amendments, so the BS line about "they don't allow us at the table" is a bunch of crap. Remember when the republicans put forth their budget proposal in January and it didn't contain a single number in it? It was all for show and that is all this bill is too.
This makes no sense at all. Supply and demand is the short answer but ask yourself why do we have any Dr.'s working in OKC right now? There are Dr.'s here who make well over $200K a year, why? Why aren't they living in LA, SF, or NY? Because there are plenty of Dr.'s there who make more.
Now, take that thought back to the medical field. If we pay doctors the lowest possible rate, what would we get? Dan, edmond - Nov 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I don't think that the Health Care reform bill's limit Dr. pay in any way, shape, or form. Don't worry about the Dr's Dan, they'll still be buying houses in Gallardia and golfing at Oak Tree. Your argument is invalid.
Medical malpractice reform is essential, but it's not going to single-handedly bring down health care costs. The goal should be what I phrase "all-in-all":
1. For those who are happy with their current plans, let them keep them, no change, status quo ante.
2. For those unhappy with what the private sector, i.e., their employers, are providing them, create the precious "single-payer" public option liberals/"progressives" are so fond of. And tax benefits at an equivalent equal to the total amount saved by the corporation, minus the employee's (former) contribution. Win-win! The company/employer saves some money to help shore up their current plans, and the newly-minted ward of Uncle Sammy gets to contribute something to their own care!
3. For those without any kind of current care/health plan, split the difference: #1's & #2's pay a surcharge - say three dollars a month - whether they use their plans or not, and a slight premium on top of a co-pay for Doctor's visits other than wellness checks, annual physicals, checkups, etc. Done nationwide, this would fund a baseline of minimum care, and help keep these people out of expensive emergency rooms. Adjustments would be necessary over time, and changes made, but it's a good start.
A bold plan, better than anything either side is currently offering. Being a genius is sometimes its own reward....
Now, take that thought back to the medical field. If we pay doctors the lowest possible rate, what would we get?
I'll bite on this one. How about we rephrase the question you posed. If you make public school teachers salaries $200K a year, do you think that it would attract people who may do a better job teaching students and getting them motivated about learning? I say yes.
http://factcheck.org/2009/11/boehner-misrepresents-factcheckorgs-findings/
Obviously you haven't read the democrat proposals; instead you believe Fux News' false interpretations.