GOP Reform Proposal Borrows Heavily From AHIP's Approach

House Republicans introduced their outlines for health care reform this past week to much anticipation. The minority leadership had pledged to produce a bill roughly 140 days earlier and finally, health care watchers would get to see an alternative product.

Turns out, the GOP's bill could have been read earlier. At least three key reform proposals put forth by Republicans in the House of Representatives mirror the suggestions put forth by the lobbying entity of the private insurance industry way back in December 2008.

Under the America's Health Insurance Plans "Vision for Reform," for instance, a $50 billion federal performance grant program would be established to "assist states in expanding access to coverage." Under the GOP proposal, the same pool of cash -- $50 billion -- would be established to provide "incentives to states who adopt reforms that reduce the cost of health insurance and expand coverage."

Under AHIP's proposal, states would be required to create "Guarantee Access Plans" that would be available to enrollees "with the highest expected medical costs." These plans - loosely modeled on state high-risk pools (where individuals would be eligible if there claims were expected to be more than twice the statewide average) found their way into the GOP proposal. The Republican plan would require states to establish "Universal Access Programs" that would be supplemented by $25 billion in federal funds.

"States will have to eliminate high risk pool waiting lines and premiums for enrollees in high risk pools would be limited to 150% of the average premium charged in a state (currently capped at 200%)," according to the GOP proposal.

Under the AHIP proposal, universal health accounts would be provided to help low-income Americans purchase coverage through the creation of a "Health Saver's Credit." Meanwhile, according to the GOP proposal, coverage for low and moderate-income individuals would be expanded by the creation of a "'saver's credit' to cover contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), making HSAs more attractive to families earning under $50,000 annually."

Democrats have, of course, adopted AHIP's positions on reform as well, including an expansion of SCHIP and the general notion that pre-existing conditions should no longer be a point for denying coverage (a pill that the insurance industry has been willing to swallow in exchange for the government mandating coverage). But, considering how long it took for Republicans to put out a proposal - and the limited amount of time it's been debated - it's worth noting just where the intellectual foundation of their effort came from.

Comments

[amt77]

Interesting. It makes some sense especially since I received 2 emails, one Fri afternoon and one Sat. morning from a friend who is a Director for a large Health Insurer. Not someone I get email from very often. The gist was to please call Rep and ask them to vote NO on HR 3962. So I guess that would say that they (Health Insurers/AHIP) were backing the Republican plan.
Whatever it meant I may never know. this was the first time in all these months that I got those emails... but I had been expecting them... As watered down as HR3962 had become I guess I didn't expect them now...

[studmoose]

Suck on it, Boehner!

I guess somebody will be asking for a few million back!

[Tom Payned]

Isn't it always easier to borrow from your boss than anyone else?

[Mister Wu]

Tort reform=Doctor removes wrong leg, you get tossed a bone.

[Tom Payned]

I am with you Dr. Wu (I know, it's "Mister" and the lyric is "Are you with me Dr. Wu") but I wanted to fan you because you are so true.

[tripper69z]

I'll give you that one, but there has to be some tort change when someone gets millions of dollars for spilling her own hot coffee on herself. It goes both ways. We need some sanity in the court system.

[Tom Payned]

Part 1:

McFacts:

That was not a medical practice case.

And if you knew anything about the case, you'd understand the jury award was rather reasonable.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

[Tom Payned]

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

[Tom Payned]

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

[Tom Payned]

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.[4] Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.

[robeson]

Since AHIP wrote the GOP package it wouldn't be borrowing, but more like copying.

[Tom Payned]

Plagiarizing would be correct in most instances.

But when you've been paid up front for the promoting, it's called advertising.

[cbwHouston]

OK! Damn, I don't think I've felt so pleased with politics since the chilly autumn night of November 4th, 2008. Keep up the good work Democrats...and the lone Republican, who truly has earned the salaries paid by the Taxpayer. Now, the U.S. Senate must act. It would be nice if a few brave patriots..­.Republica­ns, would join Harry Reid in moving the process ahead on the Senate side. The day of "deadbeat" politicians is looming on the horizon...as well the timely death of lobbyist and elected-officials profiteering on the taxpayers dole. Question for my fellow Republicans expressing angst over the very $12-Trillion dollar deficits they themselves created: How does...fiscally, a nation commence a $1.6-trillion dollar Iraqi War disaster for which America gained absolutely nothing in exchange for all this taxpayer funding, 4,000-plus soldiers lives, 36,000 injuries, 89,000 Iraqi lives, and approve nearly $500-Billion dollars in tax-cuts for the top 5% of America' already super-rich? Seriously, purely utilizing your standard accounting-101 principles, from a cost-benefits analysis what did America gain exchange for 8-years of Republican demagoguery?

[Tim303]

The other GOP tactics:

"You lie!"

"I object!"

[rfstevens]

I am so happy that this story is a moot point except as a historical footnote.

[jbrantow]

cheney must be so proud of his fellow rethugs letting health insurance corps write the rethug version.

[Tom Payned]

And Sarah. If anyone thinks she wrote the book herself, & doesn't have someone ghost writing her facebook, I have a full term Alaskan Hockey Mom Mavrick Governor to sell you.

[ladyearth]

Republican intellectual appears to be an oxymoron.

[winnie47]

Who cares Bo(eh)ner! Democratic Health Care Bill passed! Bipartisan! You couldn't control your members! bwahahahahahaha!

[aprilshowers]

Perhaps we're missing the Republican strategy here. They know that for re-election they have a very real image problem if they don't support health insurance reform. Opponents will bury them in most national elections as the party that would not deliver help for the average American and did not care enough to deliver affordable health care for all Americans. So, at the final hour they come up with a bill that they can tell their voters they would have supported and would only cost a fraction of the cost of the Democratic bill. For most Independents and Moderates, the Republicans will not be forgiven in the long run for not supporting health insurance reform. But, the Republicans will do every thing in their power to try to spin their political dialogue with their insidious propaganda.

[rfstevens]

I think that is much too transparent to have any affect.

[billw8017]

As I watched them pull their own health care bill out of their butt, I wondered if they would vote for it if the Democrats were to adopt it.

[donbrown]

I finally figured out why the Republicans seem so shrill and desperate when it comes to this health care issue:

1) The widespread lack of support of healthcare among Southern members, despite their states having the most uninsured in the nation, makes me realize this is botha class and race issue for them -- most of the uninsured are poor and minorities. I think n their minds this IS redistribution of wealth -- a theory reinforced by the statement of one of their ranks that this bill was "reparations for slavery". I had never thought of this line of reasoning until I heard that statement.

2) If healthcare does pass and helps a great number of people, it will give the Democrats a political advantage for a long time to come...just as the New Deal did.

The last thing Republicans want is a popular program that helps people -- especially since they've made such a show of opposing it.

I think they have painted themselves into a corner.

[brady61995]

the simply do not want obama to suceed, that means they fail. you got it

[rfstevens]

I think failure would have been disastrous to the Obama presidency. People like me would have simply given up. And, maybe, for the first time in my life, I would not have bothered to vote. There can be no denying that the far right is fired up. They are the activists now. (Community activists, if you will). There's no question they will vote in 2010. Now, with the passage of this bill in the House there is no question that I will vote in 2010.

[rfstevens]

My only questions is how soon the provisions of this bill will kick in. Obama's team was smart spreading out the effect of the Stimulus Plan over several quarters. No, we didn't get the instant-on of $700 billion injected into the ecomony, but now, when the economy really needs the momentum, there is more stimulus money to be spent and get people working again. The germane question is whether or not the new healthcare reform bill will have provisions that actually begin helping people before the 2010 elections.

[billw8017]

The health care program is scheduled to begin in 2013. I think this is part of the effort to make it bipartisan or, at least, non political. There is some talk of starting sooner because the need is so clear. This is a huge and complex undertaking so some time to put matters in order does make sense.

There are other things that could be done between times. The Veterans Administration could be more fully funded which would allow it to be more generous about qualifying aliments.

Then, there will be problems of implementation. It is possible to run the program so tightly that we have to do the whole over again. So, we wait to see what we do, in fact, have.

[Buffyboy]

On CSpan, one Democrat has voted for the Republican version. Anyone know who this Democrat is?

[Fred Hood]

the one with the target on his back

[kozy]

The AHIP program in my state (which I believe is typical) has the deception that it covers people that can't get insurance, but it is limited to ONLY a small number of applicants. Yet, most of the public beleives AHIP is a way that people without insurance can get it as a last resort, perhaps paying as much as twice the normal amount. But, all it really is, is a clever deception to remove any guilt that the public may have regarding the dumping by insurers of those that are more likely to get sick. It is like a state ordered assigned risk insurance policy that has 500,000 "pre-existing condition" applicants, but insurers will only have to cover the first 5000 of them. The rest are dumped but the public believes they all have the opportunity to be covered. While the Republicans, speaking for their insurance masters, propose covering more people under AHIP, does anyone but the teabaggers trust them?