Wednesday, August 19, 2015

On Walker's health 'plan,' echoes of past fluff

A reader with sharp eyes and an even sharper memory noted this paragraph in conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin's take down of Scott Walker's so-called Obamacare replacement plan rolled out earlier this week in Minnesota:
Walker’s plan is 15 pages, but five of those pages contain only logos and three more pages are devoted to tearing apart the health-care law. The other material, the “replace” part of Walker’s proposal, includes elements common to other Republican plans.
Remember Walker's economic development plan posted on his website during his 2010 run for Governor that was inflated with big type and lots of white space that created a 68-page count one higher than opponent Tom Barrett's detailed 67-page plan?

Here is one posting with actual sample pages from both plans, and, separately, a link to a Wonkette piece on the same subject:

...the actual PDF on the actual candidate’s website is named “SCOTT WALKER’S 68-PAGE JOBS PLAN!”, all caps and including the exclamation point.
Don't forget to repeat 'Lower Taxes' 30 or 40 times ....
Walker later disassociated himself from the posting.

1 comment:

lufthase said...

Walker's ACA "replacement" plan can't even agree with itself from one page to the next.

On page 10, he touts the virtues of letting each state set its own regulations/requirements for health insurance policies:

"My plan would give states increased flexibility. For example, it is likely many states would choose to extend rules allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plan. Some states, including Wisconsin, extended this option to young people before ObamaCare’s federal mandate."

But earlier on page 9, he already blasted state-level requirements to smithereens:

"Health insurance is one of the only products individuals are not allowed to shop for across state lines. My plan would allow individuals to shop in any state to find health insurance that covers the services they need at a price that fits the family budget."

So, a state like WI could choose to require insurers to allow children up to a certain age stay on their parents' plans, but there'd be no way to enforce that if everybody was buying junk plans from whatever other state had the most lax regulations and lowest premiums.