ObamaDemCare tactics irrelevant to GOP’s essential strategy. Republicans must reject any bill that does not end state health insurance monopolies
It appears that the light of day that coincided with the Congressional end of summer recess killed the public option. But other nocturnal liberal dangers live on in the darkness of the post-Autumnal equinox with Congress re-adjourned.
In recent days we hear that Harry Reid use parliamentary tactics to attach liberal health care provisions to the old House AIG-confiscatory taxes bill to avoid the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House; we see some polls showing a 50/50 split on ObamaCare after weeks of plurality or majority negatives; and we hear moderate republican voices urging compromise in the area of increased regulation of private insurance companies.
The Democratic Party majorities will do what they will do. If they want to ram a bill through on their own, they can. If they do, they will pay the price, unless they are given cover by cowards in the GOP.
That a bill does not have a public option is not nearly enough to justify supporting ANY bill that includes ANY of the following provisions:
1. Mandate that individuals buy health insurance;
2. Mandate that insurance companies accept all applicants for policies no matter if they have pre-existing conditions;
3. Mandate that private insurance companies ensure portability of policies.
The first mandate violates the basic liberty our founders fought and died for and which forms the basis of our historic prosperity. The second and third mandates destroy the very basis upon which the whole insurance business is based.
Most of the problems of pre-existing conditions and portability would be solved with the end of state monopolies. The interstate commerce clause was included in the Constitution specifically to address this precise circumstance.
Republicans and conservative democrats must not vote for ANY health care bill that does not insist upon free markets across state lines in the health insurance industry, and should also insist upon federal tort reform as well, without which, we will suffer a huge loss in the supply of doctors and thus, suffer monumental increases in the cost of health care.
The GOP must resist the temptation to appease the misinformed public support for regulations concerning pre-existing conditions. If they don’t, they will lose the issue and this country will be exponentially closer to the Gomorrah we have been slouching towards for decades of increasingly powerful government.
The fact of the matter is that it is certain that no bill coming out of this Congress could possibly be worth voting for. ZERO!
It is a lie that the “status quo” is unacceptable. The town hall era showed that a large majority of Americans are content with their Medicare and/or private insurance. We need reforms but we can get none as long as Dems rule Congress and Obama is president. Period.
The status quo is wonderful compared to anything the ObamaDems could possibly propose. These are the times that try men’s souls and GOP spines.
For the sake of We the People, please hold firm.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Reminds me of my favorite line from Jurassic Park:
Xasteius (Diary) Thursday, October 8th at 3:11PM EST (link)I don’t need new healthcare, new energy regulations, or a five-day pass to Disney World. Frankly, if Congress decided to recess for the remainder of the year, that won’t break my heart any.
Don’t leave the party, hijack it back!
The only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.
I don’t want to be Reagan. I want to be a Chance/Soros hybrid.
It never ceases to amaze me,
Steph C (Diary) Thursday, October 8th at 4:48PM EST (link)how much of the jobs of the states, the Feds are trying to usurp. What’s even more amazing is there are a certain number of states all too willing to cede that power to the Feds.
I’m heartily sick of the word ‘mandate’ as being bandied about in the halls of Washington.
What of their mandates as set forth in the Constitution and their oath to protect it?
And will we survive until 2010 when we can replace the feckless idiots who believe they have a right to mandate any such thing?
“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics
I would add a 4th obnoxious mandate to oppose
pilgrim (Diary) Thursday, October 8th at 5:02PM EST (link)The mandate of exactly what a policy will provide per a Federal panel. It is bad enough that some state governments do this now in order to give their favorite campaign contributor…er health insurance company a monopoly without the Feds getting into this business too.
The Dismal Parade
izoneguy (Diary) Thursday, October 8th at 5:21PM EST (link)http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/10/07/the-dismal-parade/
The thing is, you really don’t have a choice any more. If you remain silent, and stay disengaged, a large chunk of your freedom will be taken away from you in the coming weeks.
The architects of the total State have arranged a game you will lose, if you refuse to play.
For too long, Americans have indulged the fantasy that government could grow without changing our culture. We thought we could pack on a few billion dollars in taxes and spending, here and there, but everything else would remain the same. Somehow, this delusion persists in the face of titanic health and energy bills. Anyone who finds politicians detestable, and politics unbearable, should refuse to drop another huge bag of money and chains into their hands. If you don’t speak out against it now, you’d better learn to enjoy politics.
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.
It isn't that simple
Menlo (Diary) Thursday, October 8th at 8:24PM EST (link)First, if you want health insurance across state lines, take it to the state legislature and the insurance companies. No act of Congress prohibits a state from allowing its insurance companies to sell to residents of other states. I have yet to hear of a single state even consider it.
Second, am I the only one who thinks it is just as wrong to allow unfettered determination of preexisting conditions as it is to prohibit their use entirely? Of course it makes sense in many cases, but insurance companies do not need a whopping five-year lookback period, and they need limits on the nature, severity, and scope of conditions that can be considered preexisting. Their decisions need to be sensible. Moreover, those seeking insurance should not be expected to supply their own medical history.
Third, there already is an option in most states for people who have been denied coverage. It is called the risk pool, and it works as well as any such policy possibly could. It is costly but actually still cheaper than Cobra premiums with comparable benefits. Congress has found it unworkable at the federal level. Democrats are merely using this issue as a phony excuse to further socialize the system.
The individual mandate is draconian. I might be able to back a system that fined people who did not get insurance only if they actually sought treatment and could not pay their medical expenses in full at the time of service. Otherwise, it’s at best a sham. I’d be more supportive if they could at least be honest and raise taxes for their stated (though not actual) purpose of helping those who can’t afford care. Instead, they hide behind the cloak of moderation and fake poll-tested phrases.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
State laws prohibit interstate sales and establish state monopolies - just the exact circumstance the interstate commerce clause was designed to address - Daniel Webster
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 9:27AM EST (link)was the lawyer that won the seminal cases on this matter before CJ Marshall.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Yet no effort is underway
Menlo (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 12:12PM EST (link)Even the reddest of states has failed to consider the idea of repealing its laws.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Yes, states enjoy the power, kind of like The Erie Canal ferry did - Congress would have to act - see this link
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 12:58PM EST (link)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Contradiction
Menlo (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 2:23PM EST (link)If you cannot get a single state to act, what makes you think Congress would? And certainly it is not correct to say that Congress “would have to act.” The states could do it if they wanted to. As is quite clear, they don’t. Yet the state officials most admired by conservatives (not just the corporate and special interests) have not even considered the idea. Whether it’s Sarah Palin or Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal or anyone else, I haven’t heard of anyone who has not gotten a pass on that. Maybe it’s time for a new state-level lobbyist group to call the public’s attention to the issue?
My point still remains though that if not one state can be persuaded to act, then Congress certainly cannot, regardless of the Constitutionality. They both have an equal obligation to the Constitution. It’s no greater at the federal level.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
States don't act on things like this. That's why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation and
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 4:36PM EST (link)formed a federal government that could regulate interstate commerce. Obviously, one or more states won’t act and lose advantages to other states that retain monopolies. This is the precise circumstance that the interstate commerce clause was made for.
There are republican bills in the house and senate to do this. Noy sure where Jindal and palin stand. Do you have a link on their opposition to federal action to end state monopolies in this area?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Lose advantage?
Menlo (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 7:52PM EST (link)I can’t see how that would happen if a state let its insurance company or companies sell to customers in other states. It could only gain. In the case of a monopoly, the federal government would be forced to take over. That is the only way you could ever realistically see federal action on that.
It’s really irrelevant though once Congress passes anything along the lines of their current proposals. All new “insurance” will be the same. If that fails, it will only be a question of which European nation’s model Congress decides to implement.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
When the federal government ended state restrictions on ferry boats they didn't take over the ferry boat industry. States lost in-state advantages
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 10:45AM EST (link)that is revenue, when they could no longer ban or heavily tax out of state ferries.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
So?
Menlo (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 11:55AM EST (link)The result is the same whether the initiative is taken by Congress or by a state.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Menlo, not sure you are getting my points. Let me try again.
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 12:13PM EST (link)The “results” I and most conservatives favor are lower health insurance premiums and more choices for consumers. The insurance business model is for a large number of non-claimant premium payers to subsidize the claimants. The larger the pool, the lower the costs.
Under the present circumstance, unlike most all other commerce in the US (even including non-interstate varieties due to sup ct precedents), states limit pools to those within their respective states. This is quite odd esp since most all other similar circumstances were remedied long ago (Webster cases in the 19th Century). The interstate commerce clause has been abused by the sup ct, but in this insurance circumstance, this is precisely the kind of thing that that was a main reason the states got rid of the articles of confederation to remedy.
Yes, it would not matter whether “the states” or the federal government ended the circumstance. It also wouldn’t matter if the state militias organized an army and defeated the Nazis, but the federal government is what the states formed to fight wars and insist on regular commerce among the states.
Now, is it likely that this circumstance will be remedied as long as democrats have 41 votes in the senate, much less the white house and large majorities in Congress? no
But this is the one thing that would have a dramatic effect on premiums. So much so that the lower costs would solve most of the pre-existing condition and portability problems, and anything done to try and remedy those problems absent free interstate markets will only further weaken health ins companies because mandates without increasing the pools goes against the very basis of insurance as a product.
Have I made myself more clear?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
No
Menlo (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 3:57PM EST (link)Members of Congress are going to be influenced by the same groups, lobbyists, and financial interests as state-level representatives. Why wouldn’t they be?
If it were just a partisan issue, then it would be a piece of cake to open up the market in at least one state. The repeal of a state law need not be a federal function, nor (as in foreign policy) is it more sensible as a federal function. And outside of Texas, it’s a lot easier to get something done at the state level.
Even in the unrealistic scenario it were available across state lines, you would not see costs drop unless the proportion of those using it to those not using it changed. That is something none of us can know. However, I think it would make the system a lot more reliable and easier for people to understand.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Pieces of cake became easier under the Constitution than under the Articles of Confederation
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 4:19PM EST (link)and economies of scale are more easily achieved the more options one has. The latter is fundamental to the virtues of free markets. Congress meets in a one building in DC. State reps meet in 50 different buildings. State reps’ districts are not the same as a member of Congress. Federal laws on interstate commerce are akin to foreign policy given state sovereignty, which is one of the main reasons why we ditched the AOC for the US constitution. But obviously I am failing to communicate well and/or you are addressing a wholly different and tangential issue and are talking past me. I tried.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Equal obligations
Menlo (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 5:31PM EST (link)If the Constitution mandates something, then state officials must comply. If they believe it requires the sale of insurance across state lines, and if they care to adhere to their oaths, they will work to repeal or not enforce their laws. Though they are not the ones charged to regulate the resulting commerce, the lack of any regulation whatsoever will force the courts and/or Congress to act.
A single state legislature also meets in one building, and that is all it would take. State officials either do not want Congress to act or do not care if it does not. That would put them at odds with the same constituents who voted for representatives of Congress, regardless of their districts. Yet even a governor will not call for such action.
As for cost, unless you change either the cost of treatment or the ratio of insured people needing treatment to those not needing treatment, you cannot change the cost per person. You could have 10 people put their money in a pot, and three of those people use all of it. If you have 10,000 people put their money in and 3,000 use all of it, the cost per person is the same.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Art I does not mandate that Congress regulate any interstate commerce
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 8:01PM EST (link)But Congress is the only entity that can. To suggest that 50 states could just as easily accomplish a free market in health care as the federal government defies history, logic and common sense, and so I assume I am misunderstanding your position. I get the feeling that you are addressing wholly different issues than those I am addressing, but I may just be dense.
A single state legislature can’t force its will on the other 49, so I don’t understand your point.
The ins premium cost per person is based on more factors than just treatment costs. It is also based on the limited number of people in their respective pools.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
GC, if States don't allow the sale of insurance outside their borders...
nessa (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 8:22PM EST (link)…do they also block the purchase of insurance by their citizens from outside their borders? Having had free, albeit socialist, medical care for the last 20+ years I’m still playing catch up.
It seems to me there is an opportunity here for some daring State and some daring Insurance Company. Offer a good product nationwide, use the greatly increased numbers of customers to under cut the competition. Once the other Insurance companies see them raking in money hand over fist its only a matter of time before the other states make the same changes or all the insurance companies move to the one state that is supporting the free market in medical insurance.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Contributor to Unified Patriots
teh twitter
It would take two states to tango - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, October 11th at 1:29AM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
My mistake
Menlo (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 10:11PM EST (link)I misread the summary of McCarran-Ferguson and case that led to it to think that a state’s selling across state lines would subject it to antitrust laws. Regardless, I believe the resulting mess would prompt action by Congress and/or other states. I think things could get messy enough to force it. While McCarran-Ferguson should be repealed, I still believe that states should take the initiative to act.
Again, it does not matter how many people are covered by an insurer if the RATIO of people making claims does not change. The cost to the insurance company for claims divided among all people in the pool will be the same.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
we disagree - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, October 11th at 1:29AM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
So you really think that the price remains the same with 50 state monopolies as with one free market? - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, October 12th at 1:28PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Mostly
Menlo (Diary) Monday, October 12th at 9:20PM EST (link)There are not fifty monopolies. The same six major insurance companies compete in nearly every state, though some do have a monopoly in some states. States with better competition don’t have lower rates. The way I see it, insurance companies can and do sell across state lines.
With that in mind, it looks like there is not any explicit prohibition on interstate commerce so long as policies sold meet the regulations of the state in which the buyer resides. The policy choices sold in most states are mostly the same. The exceptions are results of state regulations that insurance companies would not otherwise find profitable.
Moreover, it seems that insurance companies use not one’s state but one’s area in the state to determine what it charges. In Texas, individual rates vary by zip code. If insurance companies were allowed to continue that practice, I don’t see how rates could change at all.
In any event, people added to any pool would, on average, cost the insurance company as much as the additional people put in. There are only two ways to change things. One, the people paying the most would pay the same or more while those paying the least would pay the same or less. Two, costs become equal for everyone without regard to risk factors or health. I suspect the insurance companies would choose the former. It’s a no-win situation.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
I'm going to take your "mostly" response (rather than a flat yes) as a sign that there is hope for you in one day
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, October 12th at 10:25PM EST (link)understandimg basic economics! It is obvious that the vastly increased competition would drive down premium prices. It is fundamental.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
You won't have it
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, October 13th at 1:01AM EST (link)The competition won’t vastly increase because it is already there. There are six big insurance companies (and a few smaller ones) who apparently can and DO sell across state lines who would continue to control the market just as they do now.
Since insurance companies seem to base rates on zip codes rather than states, I have to wonder what would change. I live in Texas, and there is one small insurance company that will not sell outside a limited region of the state. I cannot find any Texas statute that requires such a provision, so I have to assume it is the decision of the insurance company not to sell policies to certain areas.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
You have to wonder what would change. I don't. - no
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Tuesday, October 13th at 10:01AM EST (link)more later
smile
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I mean which law(s)
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, October 13th at 4:35PM EST (link)Since insurance companies technically can sell across state lines, are you proposing a federal law that would prohibit states from regulating insurance at all and repeal each of their insurance codes in full?
You must be aware that such an act would be accompanied by a set of federal regulations similar to what was seen on the state level or worse. I may be wrong, but I have a hard time imagining how there would not be legal and judicial chaos – and lots of big new federal government agencies that make getting an insurance sales license or establishing any insurance company much more difficult.
Would it not be better to simply lift the exemption for insurance companies on antitrust laws?
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
You make the mistake of thinking a static cost of medical services equates
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, October 12th at 10:27PM EST (link)to a static cost of insurace premiums. Of course there is some correlation, but there are so many other factots in the various premium prices, that you miss the boat by such a focus.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Lots of money changes hands over insurance regulation
Achance (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 1:27PM EST (link)and insurance commissioner is a powerful post in many states. Back in the early ’90s we were seeking serious concessions from our unions for health insurance cost containment. There were some items of “boutique” care that had been lobbied into our plan that we wanted out. At that time our single greatest expense line was psychiatric residential care for dependents of employees because we had a bunch of well connected providers who were advertising that if you wanted your stupid, underachieving, disrespectful kid fixed, you could send him/her to them for a few weeks or months at alarming cost. We wanted it gone. We also wanted for the first time real honest to God co-pays and deductibles, PPOs, and a bunch of stuff out that very pampered public employees had come to expect as entitlements. The union we trotted most of it out on was our biggest, the AFSCME local, and they had about a forty member bargaining team, some of which could actually remain sober all day during long bargaining sessions. We were meeting in a hotel in Downtown Anchorage and there were more provider and insurance company lobbiests than there were union representatives. Nobody on the union side could buy a meal or a drink. Some of the lobbyists were obviously assigned to work us on the management side. We were all careful to stay within the bounds of the ethics law in letting them pick up tabs and such since you knew somebody was just itching to drop a dime on you. The lobbyists were like vultures, but we did get some serious cost containment that has actually served the State well for almost twenty years now. Having lost that battle, the lobbyists descended on the Legislature both seeking to have the stuff we’d bargained out legislated in and going so far as to even work against Legislative approval of the agreements because of the concessions. One of the better ass-chewings I ever got was from a powerful senators whose Optician friend and contributor got kicked to the curb when we went to a PPO for vision.
Anyway, it is a dirty and expensive game that will become dirtier and more expensive when it is run by bureaucrats who are controlled by politicians.
In Vino Veritas
great post Ac - thanks for that - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 9:06PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I must say I did enjoy the company
Achance (Diary) Friday, October 9th at 9:27PM EST (link)of a lady lobbyist for one of the insurance companies. Some things make public service worth it!
In Vino Veritas
Art, I thought the state gave the Union
AKSteveB (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 4:54PM EST (link)a flat dollar amount based on what the contribution is for BCBS plan that the execs get, and they administer/decide on benefits ..copays etc. It has always looked to me like the Union folks actually get better coverage than the execs.
Hell is other people – Sartre
It's not just the appointees. Only AFSCME and PSEA
Achance (Diary) Saturday, October 10th at 5:18PM EST (link)have trusts and they get the same contribution that the State makes for the basic plan for all other employees. Both of them got them under Democrats; nobody in their right mind would have given the unions that kind of money to play with without all those stinking Constitutional restrictions that are on dues money. These aren’t even the evil enough Taft-Hartley joint union-employer trusts; the union just gets the money and does as it pleases. Rest assured any bank that expresses any opposition to something the unions want doesn’t get those monthly deposits and any provider that doesn’t see it their way is out of the network.
All employees can have a no money out of pocket plan, I think, but there are several levels that require an additional employee contribution. Before we retired, I think my wife and I were each paying a couple hundred a month. The State plan has some pretty significant deductibles and co-pays, though if you have double coverage, you evade most of the copay. The unions do what they want with theirs but I know they too have various levels of optional coverage that requires more employee contribution.
In Vino Veritas
Be armed with info..
Sunnie57 Sunday, October 11th at 1:20AM EST (link)Don’t let the left tell you the Republicans have no plans. Here they are:
“Health Care Choice Act
Introduced: July 14 by Arizona Rep. John Shadegg.
Summary: This plan allows consumers to purchase health insurance in other states.
Empowering Patients First Act
Introduced: July 30 by Georgia Rep. Tom Price.
Summary: This plan would extend tax deductions on health care premiums to the individual market and offer a low-income tax credit of $2,000 to individuals, $4,000 for couples and $5,000 for families. The plan would also allow employer to offer discounts for healthy habits.
Access to Insurance for All Americans Act
Introduced: July 31 by California Rep. Darrell Issa.
Summary: This plan would allow consumers to enroll in the same health care plan for lawmakers and federal employees. It also allows employees to transfer their coverage when they change jobs.
Patient-Controlled Healthcare Protection Act of 2009
Introduced: July 31 by Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert
Summary: This plan provides incentives for consumers to purchase private insurance with a high deductible while paying into an unlimited Health Savings Account.”
excerpt
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/10/republicans-obama-heres-health-plans/
It's about control
redpens (Diary) Sunday, October 11th at 3:40AM EST (link)Complete government control. That’s why the Demo-commies rejected
them