Saying that Republicans haven’t proposed health care solutions is either ignorance-driven or it’s plain dishonest. I’ve written more than a few times about Steve Gottwalt’s Healthy Minnesota Plan legislation.
The assumption that this bill is cost-neutral on an accrual (service year) basis is a default position which we take because this proposal constitutes a completely new method of purchasing, for which DHS has no relevant experience. The effects of private market rates, including private market inflation, and of underwriting, and the extent of expected MCHA losses are all areas of great uncertainty. The specification of the benefit set required by the bill is very general, which adds to the uncertainty about the expected fiscal result, because it is not possible to evaluate how attractive the new product may be to potential applicants compared to the existing product. Thus our assumption of cost-neutrality should not be interpreted as the result of analysis, but as a statement of our inability to advise the Legislature whether this bill should be expected to cost money or to save money, or to what extent. A 30% to 40% variance from cost-neutrality -- in either direction -- should be considered entirely possible. It is assumed that the systems work required for this proposal will allow implementation to begin January 1, 2011. [Emphasis Mine]
There certainly is the potential of this bill working out as a part of the solution to health care problems but it is entirely disingenuous for Mr. Gross and Mr. Gottwalt to claim that it is ready to be implemented or that it would clearly solve any issues.
TwoPuttTommy · 816 weeks ago
Gary Gross · 816 weeks ago
Political_Muse 35p · 816 weeks ago
eric zaetsch · 816 weeks ago
The deficiency Gary tries to gloss over is the national GOP has nothing in its trick bag, except tricks. No bill of its own. If Gary and Gottwalt can convince their nationwide allies to push their item, then it might become relevant.
The big question is whether Obama and many in Congress are being too lax and accomodating to the Insurance Industry - with single payer off the table with no good explanation except a collective will to benefit insurance underwriters - no CHANGE at all - at the expense of the public. "Public option" and "single payer" are entirely separate things. The first is a bandaid. The second is a long overdue answer.