(09-25-2015 03:07 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sure they could have, with some leadership. French Bismarck is basically free market health care. That's what republicans are supposed to be FOR. Bowles-Simpson is lowering tax rates and balancing the budget. That's what republicans are supposed to be FOR.

Present them as the way to put democrats on the defensive, and I think you'd have a deal. I am pretty sure that Reid and Obama would not have liked to see them coming their way, and that should have been enough to motivate republicans to go along.

Well, they took Bowles-Simpson, pushed it to the right in the form of Cooper-LaTourette, and it still failed miserably, with Rs even more opposed than Ds and Heritage Action gleefully taking credit for its defeat.

AFAIK no Congressman (on either side of the aisle) has even proposed any Bismarck-style system. Your proposal above strikes me as a pretty good start, probably a bit optimistic in some of the numbers barring some other reforms, but would just never fly among the R caucus since it combines a tax increase with a spending increase.

With all due respect, this seems to have the intention of trying to blame 'all things 'R'' and flying in the face of the fact that what the D's proposed and passed was nothing like those either.

Why would we be upset that Bowles-Simpson was 'pushed to the right' and defeated, even by a right organization? I'm glee-ful that it didn't pass as well.

Bowles Simpson by definition was a bi-partisan solution. The ACA wasn't, and neither was Cooper-Latourette.

IMO, the biggest reason nobody has proposed Bismarck is because it actually reduces the power of government to a purely regulatory role and eliminates them from influence over the finances. Not many are really interested in that, and those that might be wouldn't get elected on it... because everyone else would attack them for it and mischaracterize it as either socialized medicine or giving all the power to insurers.

If you think about it, how is medicaid and medicare really any different, other than the government deciding that not everyone gets it, even though everyone pays for it?