Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) appeared on MSNBC this afternoon to argue that “the party in power has to be willing to legitimately collaborate with the minority party.” In other words, Democrats should “scrap” the existing “fiscal train wreck” of a bill and accept the GOP’s incoherent incremental approach to reform:

RYAN: And we really do have a huge problem with this health care bill they’re trying to jam through. The architecture of this health care bill, which we believe, represents a government take over of the health care system—we ought to scrap that, start over, and let’s go down the list of fixing the problems that need fixing—uninsurables, people who have preexisting conditions, making health care more affordable.

Watch it:

But just because Republicans “believe” something, doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, Ryan’s entire rant is fairly inaccurate. The House health care bill would actually reduce the deficit by $138 over 10 years and allow private insurers to compete in a new regulated environment. The government would referee a broken market place that allows insurers to use the patchwork of state regulations to game the system to their advantage; it wouldn’t take anything over or “run” insurers. The government lays some ground rules for minimum creditable coverage and standard benefit packages and evens the playing field, forcing insurers to compete on quality of care rather than risk selection.

It’s a moderate approach that actually incorporates many Republican ideas. But if Ryan believes that these provisions don’t do enough to control health care spending or that Congress will never follow through on its promises to cut the identified waste, then he should fight to strengthen the language. Or, he can try and explain how his own rather radical health care reform proposal could compliment the existing bill.

There is no doubt that the two parties present two different ideologies to reform and the House and Senate health care bills already reflect this. If Republicans are hoping to tilt the final legislation in their favor, then they need to develop a more constructive way for presenting their ideas as improvements to the existing legislation, not as replacements for an entire years’ worth of hard work and compromise. Of course, that’s assuming that Democrats are still willing to pass comprehensive reform.

Newt Gingrich and John Goodman — the father of health savings accounts — have offered 10 ideas for President Obama to consider at the February 25th bipartisan health care summit. At least half are already part of the House or Senate health care bills (in one form or another) and the rest are of varying quality.

As a whole, Gingrich’s overarching vision would continue to shift the cost and risk of health insurance from the employer or the government to the individual. From large risk pools — in which the costs of coverage are spread across a large number of healthy and sick people — to a party of one.

The full run-down is below, but Gingrich’s prposal to “save” the Medicare program is worthy of extra attention:

Don’t cut Medicare: “The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.”

GINGRICH Of 2010, MEET GINGRICH OF 1995: The health care proposals eliminate a lot of the waste and fraud in the Medicare system and get rid of the overpayments to private insurers participating in Medicare Advantage. Traditional Medicare is not “cut”, in fact reform would extend the life of the Medicare trust fund. But the irony here is stark. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich sought to cut 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years and force millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. “We don’t want to get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart,” he said. “But we believe that it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.”

Read the rest: Read more