Daily Archives: September 14, 2006

Rainville’s “Health Care Plan:” Recycled (& Rejected) Bits from the Bush Agenda

I don’t know why the Rainville campaign sends me press releases, but keep ’em coming, I sez. The one I just received trumpets Rainville’s “health care plan.” It took me about 30 seconds of looking at it before I realized I’d heard it all before. Where and when, you might ask?

Why, George W. Bush’s January 31st State of the Union Speech, naturally.

The closer I looked, the clearer it became that there isn’t really an original thought in the document. Bush and the National GOP – as they have with Social Security Privatization – continue, year after year, to push the same, oft-rejected and discredited health care policies figuring they’re bound to get through eventually. The health care policy proposals in the 2006 SOTU were just that – all a rehashed mishmash of previously defeated Republican initiatives.

The fact that our supposed “independent thinking” Republican candidate for the US House just obediently took her party-line dictates from the GOP leadership in Washington doesn’t surprise me one whit. What surprises me is that her campaign seemed to make no effort whatsoever to hide this dutiful obedience. Follow me on the flipside to see just what I mean…

Now you gotta love the internet. It makes research really fast because there’s often someone who’s already done it for you. In this case Medical News Today, which compiled reports and analysis of the health care elements in Bush’s 2006 SOTU from USA Today, NPR’s Marketplace, the Washington Post and other sources. Beyond that, all I had to do was some poking around a few other news sites and Senatorial web pages.

Don’t they know we’re gonna check this stuff??

So anyway, let’s compare the rhetoric and proposals from the Rainville press release (I can’t provide a link, because it’s not on her website yet) with the rhetoric and proposals from the State of the Union speech:

Rainville:

Encourage and Expand Health Savings Accounts. The American consumer should be a significant part of health care reform. The economic incentive of Health Savings Accounts means that Americans will seek out the highest quality, lowest cost providers.

Rainville’s targeted tax incentives would help ensure that the smallest businesses could offer health insurance – in the same way that larger businesses currently do.

Her proposal calls for a maximum tax credit of $1,500 for single coverage and $3,000 for family coverage.

Bush, via Medical News Today:

“We will strengthen health savings accounts by making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get” (Appleby, USA Today, 2/1).

In addition, the proposal would allow employers to contribute greater amounts to HSAs for individuals with chronic illnesses and would provide refundable tax credits of $3,000 for families of four with annual incomes of $25,000 or less to help purchase coverage and make contributions to accounts (AP/Long Island Newsday, 2/1).

Same numbers, even. Not even tweaked for Vermont.

And it continues. Rainville:

Promote Small Business Health Plans, also known as Association Health Plans. Rainville’s proposal supports Association Health Plans (AHPs). AHPs allow small businesses to pool their resources by joining together to purchase health insurance for their employees.

Bush (via MNT again):

Bush also proposed several plans that have previously failed in Congress, such as a proposal that would allow small businesses to form association health plans.

And why did it fail? Because it was a dangerous idea:

The National Governors Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the BlueCross BlueShield Association oppose AHPs because they are exempt from many state laws that regulate health plans and require them to provide certain benefits (New York Times, 2/1).

And don’t be too quick to assume it’s a great idea because some insurers don’t like it. They don’t like the uncertainty, to be sure, but the fact is that these AHP’s present unique challenges to state plans, where real progress is being made. Remember: this is Bush we’re talking about…

But wait, there’s more… Rainville:

Free doctors from frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. Rainville’s proposal supports capping non-economic damages at $250,000.

Bush (via MNT):

Bush also proposed a plan to cap damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and limit the number of lawsuits filed (Baker/Fletcher, Washington Post, 2/1).()

Hm… but where does that $250,000 number come from? Oh yeah…

July 9, 2003 — Senate Democrats won their fight Wednesday to bottle up legislation that would put a $250,000 cap on damage awards in medical malpractice cases, all but dooming a measure that President Bush had made a priority.

Democrats countered that rising premiums were not to blame and said the bill would punish individuals already grievously impaired by medical errors while protecting groups such as the American Medical Association, HMOs, drug companies and the manufacturers of medical devices.

“Time and time again this Senate races to protect special interest groups and forgets the families and children and elderly people across America who are the victims of this wrongdoing,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Rainville:

Bring Modern Technology to health care administration.  America is a world leader in medical technology. But when it comes to our medical records, billing and prescriptions, which is most cases still rely on paper, our health care industry is stuck in the past.

Bush:

Bush in his speech proposed to increase use of electronic health records and “other health information technology to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors.”

Rainville:

Make health insurance portable so when people change jobs they can take their insurance with them.

Bush:

In his speech, Bush also proposed to allow individuals to take HSA coverage with them when they change jobs (USA Today, 2/1).

MNT’s proffered analysis?

According to the Post, the proposals are “modest” at a time when 45 million U.S. residents lack health insurance (Balz/VandeHei, Washington Post, 2/1).

She tried to spice it up a little (like a plagiarist sprinkling in a few new phrases) by:

1. Rainville: “Encourage healthy decisions and personal responsibility.”

Okay. Sounds good. What else you got…?

2. Saying she’ll “fix Medicare Part D” (Bush in the SOTU “avoided any reference” to the problem-ridden, Bush behemoth that is Medicare Part D)

3. “Provide Vermonters the option of buying health insurance from out of state companies where there may be more choices and cheaper health insurance options”- not explained in the press release, but it sounds an awful lot like “kill community rating” from the federal level, which would, of course, get us farther from true health care equity by again leaving high-risk patients to fend for their own.

Big improvements. I feel healthier already.

So gven that Rainville’s plan is simply the Bush plan, let’s take a listen to what Democratic leaders have to say about Rainville’s bold policy proposals (MNT, emphasis added):

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) delivered the Democratic response to the State of the Union address and said that “there’s a better way” to address the issue of health care than Bush proposed.  For example, Kaine said that many states “have set up simple ways to help our seniors purchase safe, American-made prescription drugs from other countries at a fraction of the price they would pay here” through reimportation programs, adding, “The administration actually fought against that Democratic effort!”  (Hardy, Knight Ridder/Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2/1). 

Other Democrats questioned the likely effectiveness of the health care plans that Bush proposed.  Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) said, “He’s had five years to get it done.  Where are the big ideas?  We’ve heard the rhetoric before.” 

Many Democrats criticized his proposal to expand HSAs.  Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the proposal will not reduce health care costs or expand access to health insurance and might increase the budget deficit

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, “The cure (Bush) prescribed tonight will only make a bad situation worse” (Klein, Boston Globe, 2/1). 

Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said, “American families are already struggling to pay for health care costs, and this proposal is a step backward because it will increase their costs, not lower them” (USA Today, 2/1). 

Kennedy added, “Like the fiasco of his plan to privatize Social Security, his health savings accounts are a windfall for Wall Street and other special interests and a nightmare for the vast majority of families.  The obvious answer is to make Medicare available to all” (Koffler et al., CongressDaily, 2/1). 

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said, “The president’s proposals for health savings accounts are tilted toward the rich.  They give disproportionate benefits to wealthy people and do almost nothing for low-income people” (New York Times, 2/1).

Next press release, please…

Gentleman Jim Going Negative?

[Crossposted at What’s the Point?]

"Name calling" is an overused phrase in the world of politics. Right up there with "finger pointing."

Both these phrases tend to be used when a candidate is trying to avoid a legitimate criticism. And it always makes the person who says them seem childish, whiny and evasive. As in ~Boo hoo, I don’t think the voters like this kind of name calling and finger pointing… Sniff sniff.~

But, what happens when a campaign actually does engage in literal "name calling?" In that case, then, it’s really the name caller who’s being childish. And maybe just a wee bit nervous, perhaps?

Like Jim Douglas’ new ad, for instance.

The ad, which is conveniently not mentioned on Douglas’ site, begins…

Some people make a name for themselves, and they call  Scudder Parker Mr. Property Tax.  Why?  Because  Scudder Parker has  backed higher property taxes – even taxes like Act 60, the property tax  that  turned Vermont families against  each other, and drove families and jobs out of state.  Now  Vermont  taxpayers have something else to worry about – now Mr. Property Tax  wants to be  governor.

Mr. Property Tax… Ha ha, that’s funny.  Except that, according the VT GOP’s own web site, this oh so clever nickname comes from a single article in the Rutland Herald from… 18 years ago!

Now, I never claim to have a great grasp of Vermont’s political history and I have never been privy (until recently) to even the slightest bit of "insider" gossip. But, all I can glean from this is that the "they" who call Parker "Mr. Property Tax" are  today’s Vermont Republican Party and a headline writer in the late 80s. Pretty hokey name calling, eh?

The ad doesn’t get better. It continues…

And he’s working on making a few new names for himself – how  about Mr. Income Tax?  Mr. Payroll  Tax?  He just told Vermont Public Radio  he wants just that – higher payroll and income taxes.  He  said under his plan "everybody pays."  And even with  prices at the pump over three  dollars, he’s ready to raise gas taxes.  Mr. Property  Tax. Mr. Income Tax. Mr. Payroll Tax. Mr. Gas Tax.  There’s  just one name Vermonter’s shouldn’t  call Scudder Parker – and that is governor.

The source for most of the claims here seems to come from Parker’s March 28th appearance [mp3] on Switchboard (referred to on the VTGOP site here), where he said the following…

Kinzel: And the way that  you  see that people will pay for their coverage is through tax revenues?

Parker: It’s  a mix of using Medicare, Medicaid, other revenue sources that we have  now, co-pays, and a fair tax structure, which really the Senate plan  last year tried to do.  I actually believe that the theme of the Senate  bill – the House and Senate bill – which is everybody pays what they can  and gets and has access to service – is the right theme for Vermont.  I  think this would be a more efficient way of doing that.

So, it’s not  that Parker’s going to make "everybody pay" like some kind of dark villain. He was simply saying  that "everybody pays what they can."

And Parker  continues on to criticize Douglas’ health care plan which would have placed extra burden on business owners (my emphasis)…

Kinzel: So perhaps people  would have a payroll tax the way that Medicare is run?

Parker: That’s  right.  Payroll – income; you could find a balance of those taxes.  But  really it’s not new money, it’s talking about fairly allocating the  contributions.  What we have now is a system – and governor Douglas  actually proposed to aggravate that system – in which the employers who  cover their employees would actually get an increased cost or an  increased burden imposed on them and the folks who don’t don’t have to  pay.  That is nonsensical, that does not make sense – it makes for  competitive disadvantage.  It’s anti-business.

Who’s really supporting policies that will drive "jobs out of state?"

Of course this is the old Good Cop/Bad Cop routine that Douglas/Barnett have profited from through the previous election cycles. And it’s high time they get called on it, too.

See, there’s lots of evidence to suggest that Tarrant’s poor showing compared to Rainville in Tuesday’s primary was directly related to Tarrant’s dishonest ad campaigns which turned off lots of voters.

So the Douglas campaign better be careful.

People might start to catch on that like in the old routine, this Good Cop is not really above the fray. He’s just playing a role.