Republican health-care proposal just a smokescreen

In general this is a huge improvement over anything the Republicans have put on the table before, even if it does not go far enough. This includes payments to individuals to pay for health care coverage (i.e. a new entitlement program) and insurance marketplaces which are regulated by the states (i.e. government take over of health care). In other words, the plan would be attacked viciously if it came from a Democrat.

I initially found out about the plan from an editorial in The Wall Street Journal and was interested in the actual proposal as opposed to all the nutty right wing rhetoric in the editorial. Unfortunately nutty right wing rhetoric is included in the actual act. Ezra Klein (See Part 1, Part 2 of the Republican plan evaluation by Klein) says it reads like  “a health care policy paper for the Sean Hannity Variety Hour.” This is not surprising from the misleading name of the plan, the Patient’s Choice Act.

Even if it doesn’t go far enough and the authors repeat many of the right wing distortions on health care I am happy that some Republicans are at least willing to put something on the table. If Republicans are willing to discuss health care seriously as opposed to saying no to everything, I would like to have them be part of the process. It isn’t that all Republican objections to health care reform aren’t valid. While many of their claims are total nonsense, there are also valid concerns. These concerns should not dissuade democrats from fixing a system which is seriously broken, but republican concerns should be taken into consideration.

Ezra Klein also has a piece up where he asks “the expert” his view on the Republican-sponsored Patient Choice Act. This is written by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution. I agree with many of his points but strongly disagree with one of his criticisms of the bill, and back the Republicans on this:

The idea of turning Medicaid patients over to the private market is wacky. Medicaid managed care can be a good idea. Medicaid recipients include lots of people who are poorly educated, mentally handicapped, and have other problems. That is not where one wants the private market to control.

A proposal which gives lower-income Americans a way out of the Medicaid ghetto so they can have the dignity of private insurance is a plus over many Democratic plans. Medicaid differs tremendously from Medicare in being seriously underfunded, provided second-rate health care to the poor. With limited reimbursement, it is necessary for doctors to severely restrict seeing Medicaid patients. Quite often Medicaid patients have limited choices, often winding up in Medicaid mills which provide limited care in order to still make money off the limited payments received.

The fact that many are poorly educated or mentally handicapped does not make Medicaid managed care plans a good idea. Even the poorly educated and mentally handicapped have a better chance of receiving quality care if they are in the same types of plans as the general population as opposed to Medicaid. A goal of  health care reform which aspires to universal care should be to make care beyond the “Medicaid ghetto” accessible.

The article I posted was not full of detail, and was intended more as a note that there is an alternative Republican plan out there.  Yet you make a good point in that there is not much public information available.  Sen. Coburn's site has some info, but not much more than Rep. Ryan's...

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HealthCareReform.Home&ContentRecord_id=5e3b30a4-802a-23ad-4b44-14f0219114c6