# Squashing The Ignorance.  Republican Health Care Plans Exposed



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 28, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRJJRTT4HUA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - A health care plan for America[/ame]

here is a list of the bills the republicans introduced that the dems have shut down

Republican Health Care Plans shot down by the Democrat congress


H.R. 198                       Health Care Tax Deduction Act
H.R. 502                       Health Care Freedom of Choice Act
H.R. 544                       Flexible Health Savings Act
H.R. 879                       Affordable Health Care Expansion Act
H.R. 1891                      Sunset of Life Protection Act
H.R. 2607                      The Small Business Health Fairness Act
H.R. 3217                      Health Care Choice Act
H.R. 3218                      Improving Health Care for All Americans Act
H.R. 3508                      Healthy Savings Act
H.R. 3821                      Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act
H.R. 3822                      Improved Access to Employer Financed Health Insurance Act
H.R. 3823                      Medicaid and SCHIP Beneficiary Choice Improvement Act
H.R. 3824                      Expanded Health Insurance Options Act





Rooting Out Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Enhancing Transparency

H.R. 27                         Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act
R. 203                       Medicare Fraud Prevention Act
H.R. 2249                      Health Care Price Transparency Promotion Act
H.R. 2785                      Health Care Paperwork Reduction and Fraud Prevention Act



Medical Liability Reform

H.R. 1086                      Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act
H.R. 1468                      Medical Justice Act 
H.R. 2787                      Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act
H.R. 2975                      Medical Practice Protection Act
H.R. 3372                      Health Care Over Use Reform Today Act 



Prevention/Wellness

H.R. 3468                      Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act



Preserving Doctor/Patient Relationship

H.R. 2516                      Medical Rights Act
H.R. 3002                      Patients Act


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 28, 2009)

Notice instead of making one giant clusterfuck of a bill the republicans are trying to take each change to the insurance coverage and health care industry one at a time.

Why would you try to hide everything in a 1500+ page bill Pelosi/Obama/Reid?  Why can't you debate each change on its individual merits too?


----------



## Zander (Oct 28, 2009)

How dare you put that crap up!! The Republican plan is for sick people to DIE, and DIE QUICKLY!! Everyone knows that!! (rolleyes)


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 29, 2009)

Zander said:


> How dare you put that crap up!! The Republican plan is for sick people to DIE, and DIE QUICKLY!! Everyone knows that!! (rolleyes)



i'm sorry Zander, I forgot to take the blue pill yesterday


----------



## Maple (Oct 29, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Notice instead of making one giant clusterfuck of a bill the republicans are trying to take each change to the insurance coverage and health care industry one at a time.
> 
> Why would you try to hide everything in a 1500+ page bill Pelosi/Obama/Reid?  Why can't you debate each change on its individual merits too?



Actually it's 1900 pages and nothing more than another one of their Ponzi schemes. The bill took out the 250 billion dollar dr. reimbursement to write that in another bill to keep it under a trillion dollars, but don't be fooled by this. The 250 billion dollars  will show up in another bill, they are trying to sneak this one past us. Despicable. It ain't gonna work.


----------



## Maple (Oct 29, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Notice instead of making one giant clusterfuck of a bill the republicans are trying to take each change to the insurance coverage and health care industry one at a time.
> 
> Why would you try to hide everything in a 1500+ page bill Pelosi/Obama/Reid?  Why can't you debate each change on its individual merits too?




I will telll you why, this is not about health care reform which is badly needed, it's about government control over 6% of our economy and taking more and more of our hard earned dollars.

If this was really about health care reform, they would do exactly as you posted, the Republican plan.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 29, 2009)

Maple said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Notice instead of making one giant clusterfuck of a bill the republicans are trying to take each change to the insurance coverage and health care industry one at a time.
> ...



You mean Plans  .

yeah i got the PDF file for the new bill....its HUGE.   I can only post for about 20 more min because i want to take an hour or so to start reading it.   I got a new notebook to keep track of things in


----------



## driveby (Oct 29, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> YouTube - A health care plan for America
> 
> here is a list of the bills the republicans introduced that the dems have shut down
> 
> ...




All lies, Grayson said so ...........


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 30, 2009)

Next week the republicans are going to unveil another healthcare plan as an alternative to the 1900 page one they weren't allowed to participate in creating.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?

Seriously you people need to be mugged by the truth.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 3, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?
> 
> Seriously you people need to be mugged by the truth.



Curious question, have you bothered to read all of those bills or are you just saying "Republicans have a plan! I win!"?

Because they have shit like this:

http://talkradionews.com/2009/11/go...crimination-based-on-pre-existing-conditions/


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?
> ...



Yes they are all very small in scope and attempt to tackle singular issues based on their merit.   The opposition's bill is overreaching and all encompassing giving the government way too much power all at once.   

I think this approach, one bad aspect tackled at a time, is much better than trying to lump it all into one big new government run program.

The republicans, and some democrats, have a lot of these smaller plans that make a lot of sense.

EDIT:  The current Pelosi/Obama bill still leaves millions of americans uninsured


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?
> ...



Hey you edited.

The plan described in that article sounds almost as bad as pelosi's 1900+ page plan.  I dont like it either.

They really need to start with clamping down on INS companies contractual obligations to their customers (this means they need to make it illegal for the companies, once they agree to extend you coverage, to deny you coverage if you get sick)

I mean how hard would it be to pass a bill which only deals with this one aspect.  I guarantee 90% of americans would support a bill that did this and only this.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 3, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Yes they are all very small in scope and attempt to tackle singular issues based on their merit.   The opposition's bill is overreaching and all encompassing giving the government way too much power all at once.
> 
> I think this approach, one bad aspect tackled at a time, is much better than trying to lump it all into one big new government run program.
> 
> ...



This thread is not about Pelosi/Obama, stop ducking. Look at the link I put up:

GOP Alternative Will Not Bar Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions &#8211; Talk Radio News Service

You call this progress? These are the sort of bills that Republicans are coming out with. I have asked you if you read them all, mind answering that.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 3, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoRKG8iR19g&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Boehner's empty talk on health reform[/ame]

QUESTION: Will the Republicans put their alternative online for 72 hours as well?

BOEHNER: Uh, well uh, well have our ideas ready. Dont worry.

QUESTION: Is it your plan to have one Republican alternative that you all would get behind and endorse?

BOEHNER: We have a number of ideas that we would like to proffer in this process, and were not quite sure how the majority intends to proceed. And so until we understand how they intend to proceed, its pretty difficult for us to have a solid plan.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swu-soPICmI&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Boehner on transparency policies as Majority Leader: "it was a different time."[/ame]

BOEHNER: *Well, it was a different time*. I can tell you when I was Majority Leader, at the time, in almost all cases, I insisted that members have at least 24 hours to read a bill before it came to the floor. *But that was  its a different time.* Ive made a commitment, and as have my Republican members, that if we take the majority back, we will have a requirement that no bill will come to the floor that hasnt been out and available to the public and to the members for at least three days.

A different time alright, because Republicans were in charge. Two different standards.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 3, 2009)

Now, I'm just asking, and I admit to not looking up any of those bills, but given:
The Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 until 2007.  And, the Republican's held the White House from 2001 until 2009.
How many bills, and how many of the listed bills, to reform health care in America were introduced when the Republicans were in power?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 3, 2009)

Oh, and how many members of the Republican Party in Congress  opposed health care refrom during the first term of the Clinton Administration?

It seems that Michelle Bachman is not as crazy as she seems, and that her effort to "kill" health care reform today is not the act of a crazy women** at all.  The evidence (what the R's do and have done, not what they say) suggests, strongly, that stopping health care reform is their policy.

**  Please don't assume by this post Rep. Bachman is not crazy, all indications (whenever she speaks) suggests her synapses are not firing in an orderly fashion.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I'm not I responded here, you missed it because I missed your link as the response you quoted was made while you were editing the post.


WryCatcher your argument has a hole in it, how many democrat plans were put forth by the dem minority during that same time period in relation to health care?  See what I mean neither side did squat after hillary got blocked by the republicans who were in control back then.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 3, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



My question is very specific, your resonse is a red herring, and appears to be an effort to censor the queston too.
It appears the Republican Party is a shill for the health insurance industry and big pharma, they hope to kill reform, an action against the will of the majority of the American people.   Sadly, this is also true for too many Democrats.

PS, the allegation that my argument "has a hole in it" has been exposed for what it is - partisan bull shit.  Otherwise proof would have been offered.  It was another example of the passive agressive style of a member of the conservative chic, hit and run.


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 3, 2009)

Since many of you didn't actually read those.. I would like someone preferably Pilfgram to explain how any of that is going to help real america and uninsured america?? 

Most of them are tax deductibles, discounts, and various other ways at making the rich and insurance companies richer.. They don't actually help the uninsured american.. 

So Pilgram? What is the rebuttlican plan?? Besided having their lips permanently glued to the ass of insurance.. Let's see some real answers.. 

How are you going to make healthcare available to those that can't afford it or are currently unemployed due to lay off's thanks to the Bush economy??

How are you going to persuade insurance companies to lower their costs and provide better care??

What regulations are you going to impose on insurance companies to prevent them from dropping coverage when someone gets sick?? 

What regulations are you going to impose on the insurance to prevent them from denying covarege due to a pre-existing condition?? 

So let's see it?? What are the answers from the rebuttlicans?? No more tax cuts and deductables.. We all know you morons hate to fund the government and don't want to pay taxes... 

Personally, I think you all should just move to a deserted island.. You would all be dead in less then a year.. You would have no government cause you don't want to pay taxes.. You would all have guns cause you don't want gun control.. Which means than when someone is killed, enforciung the law, if you have any would be up to you.. Please send me what you would like your obiturary to say.. Nevermind, you all wouldn't have a news paper either.. You wouldn't want to pay the subsidies to them..


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Your initial question was the red herring which is why your argument had a huge hole in it.   Your question is a red herring for the EXACT reason you called my response to it a red herring.  I intentionally took the red herring you threw out there and threw it right back at you.  




MajikMist I'm not ignoring you, I need a few minutes to go through your post and give you a decent response....and man i know my typing isn't perfect by try and edit some of those typos out of there, it makes it harder to read your post if you don't.  Give me an hour and i'll respond.  Is it ok with you if I edit in numbers to your post so i can respond to each question more accurately?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 3, 2009)

I thought the Idea was originally to make Health insurance more affordable, with the end result being that everyone or most people would have health insurance.

Unless i am totally on some other planet, the Health Care bills I've seen do not do anything towards that end result.

I see added taxes and penalties. I see more government offices and more Government control.

I see cuts in Medicare and maybe medicaid.

What I don't see is any insurance plans that will cost less. 

Therefore, We all lose. 

Take it all and burn it and start all over again; this time maybe keeping the goal in mind.

Unless of course the true goal was to take over control of the countries health care system. Then they have got that going along pretty good. USSA here we go.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 3, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



"Your initial question was the red herring which is why your argument had a huge hole in it.   Your question is a red herring for the EXACT reason you called my response to it a red herring.  I intentionally took the red herring you threw out there and threw it right back at you. "

Sure you did.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

Below is the timeline of my exhange with you Wry Catcher



Wry Catcher said:


> Now, I'm just asking, and I admit to not looking up any of those bills, but given:
> The Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 until 2007.  And, the Republican's held the White House from 2001 until 2009.
> How many bills, and how many of the listed bills, to reform health care in America were introduced when the Republicans were in power?





			
				PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
			
		

> WryCatcher your argument has a hole in it, how many democrat plans were put forth by the dem minority during that same time period in relation to health care?  See what I mean neither side did squat after hillary got blocked by the republicans who were in control back then.





Wry Catcher said:


> My question is very specific, your resonse is a red herring, and appears to be an effort to censor the queston too.
> It appears the Republican Party is a shill for the health insurance industry and big pharma, they hope to kill reform, an action against the will of the majority of the American people.   Sadly, this is also true for too many Democrats.
> 
> PS, the allegation that my argument "has a hole in it" has been exposed for what it is - partisan bull shit.  Otherwise proof would have been offered.  It was another example of the passive agressive style of a member of the conservative chic, hit and run.





			
				Plymco_Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Your initial question was the red herring which is why your argument had a huge hole in it.   Your question is a red herring for the EXACT reason you called my response to it a red herring.  I intentionally took the red herring you threw out there and threw it right back at you.





			
				Wry Catcher said:
			
		

> Sure you did.  Thanks for sharing.



There it is so people reading can understand the full context of our little internet argument.   

BTW  Thank you for the -1 rep point, it was worth losing the 1 point to find out what kind of internet person you are.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> 1) Since many of you didn't actually read those.. I would like someone preferably Pilfgram to explain how any of that is going to help real america and uninsured america??
> 
> 2) Most of them are tax deductibles, discounts, and various other ways at making the rich and insurance companies richer.. They don't actually help the uninsured american..
> 
> ...



1) there are several specific republican bills adress the affordability of health care, here are my 3 favorites:  HR198, HR544/3508, HR502  (you can just type HR and the Bill number into google followed by the word TEXT if you want to read what is in the bill)

As far as uninsured america gaining more access these are my 3 favorite proposed republican bills  HR879, hr3218, hr3823

These bills seek to reduce the expense of health care to those who have it through tax deductions and tax exempt health savings account.  The 2nd set of 3 bills would help the uninsured by extending financial help to those who make under 2x the poverty line

2)  The tax deductions are for individuals and it is a deduction for their direct health care expenses.  These deductions will not help poor people which is what  HR879 was written to do, provide financial help to poorer families.

3)  Read this post and the actual bills listed in the OP for your answer

4) see #2

5) HR502.  It allows the purchase of insurance across state lines to increase competition to drive down prices.   It does so in the same way that Obama and Pelosi have told us the public option would without creating a new beurocracy.

6)  This one the Republicans do NOT have a good plan for.   I personally think we should have a single bill that creates regulations requiring the insurance companies, once they agree to extend you coverage, to live up to their end of the contract and provide you the coverage no matter how sick you get.   Even if you had a pre-existing condition.  This can be done in one simple piece of legislation and if this is the ONLY thing in the legislation I can guarantee you 90% of americans would back the legislation.  Like I said the republicans have no decent plan in this area.

7)  see #6

This type of posting/behavior does not help create any kind of consensus.  Speaking to me, or anyone else online, in this way typically will only push someone away from your statements.  Many times this type of behavior can even discredit any valid points you may make within your post.   I will continue to debate with you but leave the schoolyard insults at the door please.


----------



## Maple (Nov 3, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?
> ...




Have you read the 1990 pages of the dems version of health care reform????????????? I win now.


----------



## Maple (Nov 3, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> I thought the Idea was originally to make Health insurance more affordable, with the end result being that everyone or most people would have health insurance.
> 
> Unless i am totally on some other planet, the Health Care bills I've seen do not do anything towards that end result.
> 
> ...



I could not agree more, The CBO came out and stated that this bill will be well over the 1 trillion dollar mark and it still does not include the doctor legislation which is another 250 billion. It still won't cover EVERYONE, it's going to cause the cost of our health care to go through the roof, it will not reduce costs.

Burn the damn thing, it will make a nice warm fire for someone and start over with step by step details to control costs, make insurance more affordable so more people can purchase it, maintain quality etc. All of this can be done through legislation.


----------



## Maple (Nov 3, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Now, I'm just asking, and I admit to not looking up any of those bills, but given:
> The Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 until 2007.  And, the Republican's held the White House from 2001 until 2009.
> How many bills, and how many of the listed bills, to reform health care in America were introduced when the Republicans were in power?



HSA's ( Health savings accounts) these are pre-tax dollars, they are totally portable plans, you own it, and if you do not use it you can roll it into a 401k. These are great high deductible plans that covers catastrophic loses. They were introduced in 2005 and many small business's enjoy the benefits of these plans today. Bush did this.

Bush also worked hard to get tort reform but at the time he had to deal with a democratic controlled congress who wants nothing to do with tort reform, because the TRAIL LAWYER LOBBYISTS are huge contributors to democratic campaigns.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 3, 2009)

Maple said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I'm just asking, and I admit to not looking up any of those bills, but given:
> ...



I was going to use that if this line of debate kept up in the same tone it has for the last few posts


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 3, 2009)

So??? Other than? HR198, HR544/3508, HR502 and other such meaningless answers.. You have none.. 

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.. Please explain in plain and simple english, not code and not anything that requires translations.. 

What is the republican answer for insuring the 45 million or so unisnured?? In simple english.. 

Many of the uninsured can't afforf premiums but have a job.. Take someone that works at target or any other job that is barely above minimum wage? Some making that much can't really afford about $100 dollars a month for insurance which ultimately is going to suck and require them to pay a deductable of say $500 dollars before the insurance even pays a penny.. 

So here you have a worker that doesn't make enough to live on thier own, can't afford the deductable let alone the premiums.. Such is the reality if every entry level worker in America.. Which is about 70% of the work force.. 

How are republicans going to help those people?? 

Tell me how you are going to lower premiums and deductables at the same time increase coverage and quality of care?? 

Tell us what the republican plan is? 

How are you going to get insurance companies to not deny someone insurance because they have a sun tan calling it a pre-existing condition? 

You don't need numbers here.. Tell us what the plan is to provide america with healthcare?

Becasue if you can't then the other answer is the truth.. Republicans want you die quickly or not get sick.. 

This issue doesn't get any simplier than this..


----------



## Zander (Nov 3, 2009)

Get your own insurance.  That is the Republican plan. Gotta problem with that? Too bad!  It is not the governments job to take care of your every need.   Want free health care? Go on welfare, get a government job, or move to another country.   Take personal responsibility for your own lives.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 4, 2009)

Jesus. Doesn't anyone in Congress have any common sense? Fix the problem, Cost, not remake the whole system with the Govt controlling 6% of our economy. Does anyone here really want the Govt controlling healthcare in this country? The Govt that can't do anything right. The Govt that turns everything into a giant expensive  cluster****.  

If they pass healthcare what next?? We already have Govt run auto companies. Govt run banks and Tzars all over the place. They will tell us what we can eat. What kind of car we need to drive and if that cap and trade bs passes just watch your energy bill go sky high along with the cost of everything else. 

Seriously. The American people better wake up and smell the coffee or we will have no freedoms left in this country at all. You will have the Govt in every aspect of your life not just healthcare.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 4, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> So??? Other than? HR198, HR544/3508, HR502 and other such meaningless answers.. You have none..
> 
> But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.. Please explain in plain and simple english, not code and not anything that requires translations..
> 
> ...



I just answered your questions in this post http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-health-care-plans-exposed-3.html#post1677931 but i understand that the language in the bills can be difficult to read.   Here are 2 videos that may be easier to understand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRJJRTT4HUA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - A health care plan for America[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7JECnTm9P4&feature=channel[/ame]


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 4, 2009)

Zander said:


> Get your own insurance.  That is the Republican plan. Gotta problem with that? Too bad!  It is not the governments job to take care of your every need.   Want free health care? Go on welfare, get a government job, or move to another country.   Take personal responsibility for your own lives.



So.. Die quickly is the answer.. 

And as a tax payer.. The governments job is whatever I tell it to do.. 

But hey.. By your position, we don't need a military eithe.. No police, no fire department, no highway system.. 

Your answer is DIE QUICKLY! 

Nobody as asking for free healthcare.. But thanks for the ignorance on your part..


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 4, 2009)

Pilgrim? Do you know how to type?? 

Write it your freaken self!! Asnwer the damn questions!! Support your position with your own words!! Don't give someone some obscure link to a bunch of gargbage.. 

Answer the damn questions!! 

If you can't then just admit it!! 

What ideas do republicans have that will ACTUALLY cut costs and make healthcare more affordable for everyone?? 

I don't want to see tax breaks and deductables.. And if that is your answer then you have none!!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 4, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> Pilgrim? Do you know how to type??
> 
> Write it your freaken self!! Asnwer the damn questions!! Support your position with your own words!! Don't give someone some obscure link to a bunch of gargbage..
> 
> ...



From your previous response I thought you had trouble understanding what I was saying to you.   Here let me try another way


H.R. 2607: Small Business Healthcare Fairness Act  would expand access to health coverage by creating Small Business Health Plans.  These would allow small businesses to band together through associations to pool their risk.

H.R. 3218 Improving Health Care for All Americans Act  would provide tax equity to individuals buying health insurance.  It would also create expanded options for the purchase of low-cost health care from new pooling mechanisms.

H.R. 3821 Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act would prohibit states from enacting laws which keep employers from auto-enrolling employees in currently offered health benefit plans, provided the employee has the option to opt out with no penalty.  Research suggests that auto-enrollment mechanisms, by overcoming inertia and complexity, could increase coverage levels dramatically.   In contrast to a federal mandate that all Americans must purchase insurance or face fines, the approach taken in this bill would protect individuals ability to make their own health care decisions.  

H.R. 3822: Improved Access to Employer Financed Health Insurance Act  would allow employers who do not offer insurance to provide tax-free defined contributions to workers individually purchased insurance policies.  Further, it would reform existing rules governing insurance markets that make it difficult for employers to help their workers buy health insurance on the individual market.

H.R. 3823: Medicaid and SCHIP Beneficiary Choice Improvement Act would provide all Americans on Medicaid and SCHIP the ability to use premium assistance to purchase private insurance instead of participating in the government-run option.  

H.R. 3824: Expanded Health Insurance Options Act would authorize states to form regional compacts that will govern the sale of health insurance, which will increase the size of insurance pool and reduce premiums by spreading risk among a larger number of participants.

H.R. 3887:  Health Insurance Access for Young Workers and College Students Act would require that insurance companies continue to cover dependents up to age 25.  In the age group 19-24, 30 percent are uninsured (about 7.3 million) and this bill will target that key population.

H.R. 1086: HEALTH Act  this medical liability reform bill utilizes caps to help bring down costs.  This bill will prevent double recoveries and limits the number of years plaintiffs can file suit.

H.R. 3002: Patients Act would protect patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of items or services under Federal Health Care programs.  This basically prevents the rationing of care.


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 4, 2009)

Pilgram, listen to your own videos!! He he is spouting garbage.. No real ideas!! 

He never says HOW he is going to do anything he says or WHY is right about anything.. 

Every nation that has a government controled health plan is kicking our ass on almost every statistic that you can measure quality healthcare by.. 

How are you going to lower cost?? How are you going to promote competition? How are you going to prevent denials of coverage for such things as pre-existing conditions or simply getting sick... 

Show me some real answers.. You think about this!! You write it!!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 4, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> Pilgram, listen to your own videos!! He he is spouting garbage.. No real ideas!!
> 
> He never .. says HOW he is going to do anything he says or WHY is right about anything
> 
> ...



To me those are real answers to you they are "garbage"

For me the Obama/Pelosi bill that just passed is "garbage" and has no real answers.  It leaves millions uninsured, raises the cost of insurance coverage on all americans, and takes away our rights to choose what kind of coverage we want to buy.

We see the situation very differently.   I already answered those questions more than one time.  I will answer one last time

Tort Reform to lower operating costs for the care end

Ability to purchase across state lines to lower cost through competition(promotes competition in the EXACT same way that the public option is said too without creating a new beurocracy), 

Create new legislation about pre-existing conditions on its own, not wrapped up with a bunch of other items

Create new legislation to prevent denial of coverage under the contract insurance companies agree to when they extend you competition, on its own also.


EDIT:  In the future if you are going to question my ability to type you really should learn how to type my name properly, it leaves you wide open for childish attacks.


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim? Do you know how to type??
> ...



So a whole lot of nothing if you ask me.. 

Again still no answer on how to cover the 45 million uninsured..


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 4, 2009)

There you go.. No real answers.. 

Still haven't addressed the 45 million uninsured.. Still haven't addressed pre-existing conditions.. Stil haven't addressed over all cost to consumers.. Still haven't addressed competition to drive cost down.. 

Public option takes care of all of the above.. Slicker than snot!! 

So what is you answer?? 

Another tax cut??


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 4, 2009)

The informed, literate, and objective voter (such as myself) knows the GOP stuff is the same old rehash since 1994 running through 2006.  It was not acceptable, is not acceptable now, will not be acceptable in the future.  Let's move on.


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> There you go.. No real answers..
> 
> Still haven't addressed the 45 million uninsured.. Still haven't addressed pre-existing conditions.. Stil haven't addressed over all cost to consumers.. Still haven't addressed competition to drive cost down..
> 
> ...



Message to the "uninsured" - Buy your own insurance. It is not the govt's job to take care of your every need. The uninsured need to take responsibility for their own lives.


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Get your own insurance.  That is the Republican plan. Gotta problem with that? Too bad!  It is not the governments job to take care of your every need.   Want free health care? Go on welfare, get a government job, or move to another country.   Take personal responsibility for your own lives.
> ...



The Federal government needs to stick to the constitution. If you get sick and die because you didn't have insurance, too fucking bad.


----------



## Zander (Nov 4, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > MajikMyst said:
> ...



None of the bills in Congress insure 45 million uninsured.  At least get your facts straight!


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 4, 2009)

Zander said:


> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> > There you go.. No real answers..
> ...



And that's what it boils down to ... "fuck em" and nevermind the fact that these people will show up in our ERs anyway, can't be turned away, and end up costing the taxpayer even MORE money.

Sheesh


----------



## MajikMyst (Nov 7, 2009)

Perhaps you were looking for an intelligent answer?? Not from a rebuttlican.. 

A public option would cover the 45 million uninsured.. But I guess you are to stupid to know that as well..


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> Perhaps you were looking for an intelligent answer?? Not from a rebuttlican..
> 
> A public option would cover the 45 million uninsured.. But I guess you are to stupid to know that as well..



Actually the current health care bill still leaves 30 million without insurance, and its the DEMOCRAT plan.   The Republican plan is just as bad but dont believe the lie that the public option plan is going to cover everyone because as hr 3962 is currently written it wont.


----------



## Dante (Nov 19, 2009)

ahh, not another youtube post.   never mind.


_sigh_


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

DevNell said:


> ahh, not another youtube post.   never mind.
> 
> 
> _sigh_



Those only get posted when people try and pass on the lie that the public option is not intended to lead to single payer universal health care .


----------



## Dante (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > ahh, not another youtube post.   never mind.
> ...



Oh my! That would be soooooooooooooooo terrible compared to what we currently have.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

DevNell said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Yeah your right, i guess it would be better to deny coverage and care to everyone instead of just some people


----------



## Dante (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



What an alarmist twit you are. Deny coverage for what? Have you even been paying attention to the health care shit worl wide reality bites... documentary on 5 capitalist democracies ? or are you just stuck on stupid?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> YouTube - A health care plan for America
> 
> here is a list of the bills the republicans introduced that the dems have shut down
> 
> ...



2001 to 2007, the Republicans could have put into effect any health care plan that they wished to. They did nothing. They are for dothing nothing right now. All the lies in the world will not make up for that fact.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - A health care plan for America
> ...



You are right that the reps did squat when they had the presidency and the congress.   During that time, as the republicans are now, the democrats could have proposed some health care bills but they didn't either.    It seems neither side even cared to try after 1994 till this year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > ahh, not another youtube post.   never mind.
> ...



That is exactly what we are working for.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet. 

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



I know it is and I understand thats what YOU want.   I dont want the government to be in charge of my coverage and care.   I like my $40/week health insurance premium and the coverage levels it gives me for my pre-existing heart condition.

I think we talked about this before where you see it as the only solution and I see it as the worst thing we could do to our care.

Whats wrong with a small bill guaranteeing people dont get denied for coverage once it is extended to them or if it is found out they have a condition that was present before coverage was extended?

Then another small bill helping poor people either pay for or receive coverage?

Why not go one aspect at a time, debate each aspect on its merits, and do it right?  A ~2000 page bill instills no confidence in me that the government will be able to manage it.   I mean hell they cant even agree on the meaning a simple 27 word sentance "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 19, 2009)

Here's a new idea, lets get congress to pass a bill that would regulate the health insurance companies where they could not turn down anyone for a preexisting condition. We can add in some tarp reform, and some grouping of small businesses, maybe even some additional competition by allowing the sale of insurance across state lines.

Then Congress can get to work on the real problem facing America, Unemployment!

If people went back to work they would mostly have health insurance.

Or am I being too real or simplistic here?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



You know full well that anything that the Dems would have proposed concerning health care from 2001 untill 2007 would have been DOA.

The truth is, the Republicans simply do not want to change the system. They prefer that the Rick Scotts get very rich and fund their campaigns out of the money they make on health care fraud.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Here's a new idea, lets get congress to pass a bill that would regulate the health insurance companies where they could not turn down anyone for a preexisting condition. We can add in some tarp reform, and some grouping of small businesses, maybe even some additional competition by allowing the sale of insurance across state lines.
> 
> Then Congress can get to work on the real problem facing America, Unemployment!
> 
> ...



yes


----------



## Dante (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - A health care plan for America
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Yet the USA has the best survival rate for most cancers and heart patients......Go figure.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



You picked a bad example.  Costa Rica's debt, from their health care system, is 42.5% of their GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Try using france instead, they do better.  Don't point me to england or cuba though as those countries will also hurt your argument, and to a lesser extent canada.


----------



## Dante (Nov 19, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Here's a new idea, lets get congress to pass a bill that would regulate the health insurance companies where they could not turn down anyone for a preexisting condition. We can add in some tarp reform, and some grouping of small businesses, maybe even some additional competition by allowing the sale of insurance across state lines.
> 
> Then Congress can get to work on the real problem facing America, Unemployment!
> 
> ...



too simplistic. Jobs with a reasonable pay scale will take away money to pay the premiums. The system has been broken for far too long.

take the profit out of health insurance. shit, let docs and hospitals make more with part of teh savings


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



*Nice talking point. It is even partly true. But only partly;*

U.S. ranks high on cancer care, lowest on diabetes treatment - Health Matters - MarketWatch

youre going to get breast cancer, your chances of being alive five years later are best in the United States, where 90.5% of patients make it to that benchmark. Canada, Japan and France are the next best places, statistically speaking, to fight the disease. The OECD average for breast cancer survival at the five-year mark was 81%. For colorectal cancer five-year survival rates, the U.S. comes in third behind Japan and Iceland and just ahead of Canada.

But the U.S. drops to the bottom when looking at benchmarks for two common chronic conditions, diabetes and asthma. In 2006, the U.S. had 36 diabetes-related lower-limb amputations per 100,000 people compared with an OECD average of 15. In the U.K., a country with what Pearson calls a very strong primary-care system, incidence of lower-limb amputations was four times lower than the U.S. at 9 per 100,000 people. Austria does best in avoiding amputations, with just 7 per 100,000 people, and South Korea performs nearly as well in this category with 8 amputations per 100,000.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Notice instead of making one giant clusterfuck of a bill the republicans are trying to take each change to the insurance coverage and health care industry one at a time.
> 
> Why would you try to hide everything in a 1500+ page bill Pelosi/Obama/Reid?  Why can't you debate each change on its individual merits too?



How much is hidden in those acts?

Like the pill bill which guarantes no price bargaining with drug companies?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I see. They spend 42.5% of their GDP, if we are to beleive that statement, on their health care system. 

So they are to be damned for spending 42.5% of their GDP to insure that their people live long and healthy lives. Much better to spend that amount on bombing people in other nations.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



no no maybe i worded that badly.

Their national debt/year is 42.5% of their GDP and a large portion of that defecit spending is due to their health care expendatures.  This level of debt is not sustainable and will cause inflation and recessions in any economy.


----------



## Dante (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



try using 5 capitalist democracies...flaws and all?

why do you keep a closed mind to reality and truth?  

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS


> *United Kingdom*
> An interview with an expert on the UK's system +Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3
> 
> Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

*Plymco, you are being decietful again. Look at the figures from your site. They are 50th in the world in ratio of public debt to GDP. And moved from 58% of GDP to 42.2% of GDP in 4 years. And in the last four years, in what direction has our percentage of public debt to GDP gone*? 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Public debt:    
42.2% of GDP (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 50 
58% of GDP (2004 est.)


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Yes, you certainly worded that badly. 

Notice the direction of the Public Debt and GDP ratio. Improving while ours is going badly in the opposite direction.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> *Plymco, you are being decietful again. Look at the figures from your site. They are 50th in the world in ratio of public debt to GDP. And moved from 58% of GDP to 42.2% of GDP in 4 years. And in the last four years, in what direction has our percentage of public debt to GDP gone*?
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html
> 
> ...



Yes they have done better, look at their tax rates on their citizens over the same time period.

Even if it was down to 30% it would still be too high to sustain.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Plymco, you are being decietful again. Look at the figures from your site. They are 50th in the world in ratio of public debt to GDP. And moved from 58% of GDP to 42.2% of GDP in 4 years. And in the last four years, in what direction has our percentage of public debt to GDP gone*?
> ...



But they are not sustaining it, they are reducing it. And look at where our ratio is at right now and in which way it is going. 

You are not making a good arguement for the stating that a well ran health care system is the primary cause of deficits.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Or make legally by charging us 10X the price they charge other countries for the same prescription medicine made in the same factory.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That wasn't my argument. I was saying the level of debt isn't sustainable which is why the taxes on their citizens grew by 50% (not to 50% they are 50% greater than they were 20 years ago).  Even with the additional taxes the ratio of debt to GDP is still to high to sustain.

As far as ours it has gotten worse in the last 10 months, actually in the last 2 years and 8 months.   In the last 10 months it has gotten progressively worse than it was for the 2 years prior.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




With 2 diabetics in the household, one who just lost their insurance because of being laid off, I can tell you that most people in the USA with Diabetes do not listen to what they are told about the disease. It is perfectly controllable, sometimes without any drugs. Other times unfortunately there seems to be nothing anyone can do. I'd bet we have more diabetes over all, because of our lifestyle choices, which may also account for your numbers, choices. So many refuse to give up little things.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?
> ...



Ohmigod, Plymco!  How could you DARE to think your list made your point that there are, in fact, Republican plans concerning health care when none of them meet with Dogbert's approval of what's good and right?!  What the hell were you thinking?!  Dogbert doesn't like what they say, so OBVIOUSLY they not only suck, they DON'T EXIST! . . . In fact, they suck AND don't exist at the very same time.

Curious question, Dogbert.  Did you just assume no one had read those bills because you were certain that everyone would define "shit" the same way you would, or did you just not want to deal with the fact that, indeed, Plymco wins because you and your cohorts have been wrong all this time you've been trumpeting that Republicans don't have a plan?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2009)

Republican plans do not increase coverage significantly to include almost all Americans.  Show us where.

The question is access, not quality or cost.  Until you can guarantee access, the health insurance industry is going to continue to take us all for a ride.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 19, 2009)

If they would get people back to work then maybe we could worry about health care and fixing those problems, but healthcare reform doesn't feed the hungry or house the homeless, Jobs do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Oh, and how many members of the Republican Party in Congress  opposed health care refrom during the first term of the Clinton Administration?
> 
> It seems that Michelle Bachman is not as crazy as she seems, and that her effort to "kill" health care reform today is not the act of a crazy women** at all.  The evidence (what the R's do and have done, not what they say) suggests, strongly, that stopping health care reform is their policy.
> 
> **  Please don't assume by this post Rep. Bachman is not crazy, all indications (whenever she speaks) suggests her synapses are not firing in an orderly fashion.



It must be nice to live in such a simple world, where all "health care reform" is the same, and one is either for reform or against it.  Here in the real world, where the rest of us live, one can be for health care reform and still oppose utterly noxious, idiotic ideas masquerading as health care reform.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Republican plans do not increase coverage significantly to include almost all Americans.  Show us where.
> 
> The question is access, not quality or cost.  Until you can guarantee access, the health insurance industry is going to continue to take us all for a ride.



show me where the democrat plan covers all americans too.   You can't because both plans leave 10's of millions uninsured.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2009)

The claim is that GOP health plans are defective.  That's what you have to defend against, plymco, and you haven't.  Show the access that the GOP guarantees, please.

And do believe the GOP's last-ditch stand is going to result in a two-tier system, which three months I did not think was possible.  It seems probable now.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The claim is that GOP health plans are defective.  That's what you have to defend against, plymco, and you haven't.  Show the access that the GOP guarantees, please.



No the claim was the GOP had no plan, which I debunked.

Show me the access that HR3962 guarantees (the democrat plan).  Just direct me to the section of the bill that guarantees access and coverage and i'll read it for myself http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

These bills below would have made insurance more accessable, if you would like the full language of each bill just use this site THOMAS (Library of Congress) :


H.R. 198 Health Care Tax Deduction Act
H.R. 502 Health Care Freedom of Choice Act
H.R. 544 Flexible Health Savings Act
H.R. 879 Affordable Health Care Expansion Act
H.R. 1086 Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act
H.R. 2607 The Small Business Health Fairness Act
H.R. 3217 Health Care Choice Act
H.R. 3508 Healthy Savings Act
H.R. 3824 Expanded Health Insurance Options Act


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 19, 2009)

See, plymco, you are trying to deflect, and it does not work.

Heath care reform is going to pass, and it is going to be far more extensive than what I originally thought.

The GOP response is going to infuriate the majority of the electorate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> If they would get people back to work then maybe we could worry about health care and fixing those problems, but healthcare reform doesn't feed the hungry or house the homeless, Jobs do.



Very good. Now a round of applause for the situation that the Bush administration left. And why should we listen even for a minute to those that supported the people of the last administration, whose people were proclaiming the fundemental strength of the economy on the Sunday before Meltdown Monday?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 19, 2009)

> 2001 to 2007, the Republicans could have put into effect any health care plan that they wished to. They did nothing. They are for dothing nothing right now. All the lies in the world will not make up for that fact.



Very true.  In 06 and 07 no Republicans cared enough.



> No the claim was the GOP had no plan, which I debunked.



Yes they have put plans down on paper.  The timing is obviously a reaction to the fear the Democrats might get their plan though.

Kindest thing I have to say for the GOP on this one is they're trying to offer the lesser of two ideas they don't like (evidenced by their lack of support for reform during the "W" years).


----------



## Chris (Nov 20, 2009)

The Republican plan is to let the insurance and pharma industry lobbyists write the bill.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 20, 2009)

Did not the Bush administration give us Medicare Part D? Though not perfect it is a great program for some.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 20, 2009)

That's too little too late for the Bush administration.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 1, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> See, plymco, you are trying to deflect, and it does not work.
> 
> Heath care reform is going to pass, and it is going to be far more extensive than what I originally thought.
> 
> The GOP response is going to infuriate the majority of the electorate.



Really you call this deflection?



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The claim is that GOP health plans are defective.  That's what you have to defend against, plymco, and you haven't.  Show the access that the GOP guarantees, please.
> ...




I call your response to my challenge an AVOIDANCE of facts.  You know that you won't be able to do so as the democrat bill does not do what you claimed, if it did you would have shown me and rubbed it in my face.

Typical.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 1, 2009)

Do you know what the irony in all this is,  on the one side you have a party that has a long history of  support for  pro-choice  and  even has it in their  party's platform.  Then at the same time  many would look the other way when that freedom to choose is denied to those that have every right to make the decisions  on what is best for their lives.  I find it very troubling that some would advocate for legislation that would create  an entire new entity within the Federal Govt. to perform the same task that one  performs now and do so at the expense of the one that is close to insolvent.  Further, advocate taking money from that entity to act as seed money to get the other one started.  All in the name of  covering as many Americans as you can.  I can go down to the local Kinkos and  print a million cards that say you have healthcare converage, but using it is a totally different thing, especially if you don't have the money and no one is willing to accept it.  While  access to low cost , high quaility healthcare is  what most everyone wants, THIS BILL IS NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.  

Having said all that,  the other side is not much different, for years, the other side has advocated  one thing and spent as wildly as the other. All the issues  now, such as  interstate  sale of insurance  much like  the sale of any other item online could have been addressed at anytime.

If you or anyone else wants true healthcare reform a massive, bill that spends money this nation does not have, and you can spare me the deficit neutral talk because  everyone knows  thats  not going to happen, and helps lead to this nations bankruptcy, lower quality healthcare, and contributes to even more  unemployment is NOT HEALTHCARE REFORM.  This is only a bill for a BIG W for the TEAM. So can we set aside  out  jerseys for a moment and talk about real healthcare reform that addresses the needs of people rather than a massive spending bill that has little to do with reform.  Want to know why this bill is going to fail, it's simple, first, this bill as well as the others basic premise is to bring young healthy people into the system through mandates as an offset  for those with pre-existing condition. However, the cost of the penalty is  less than 10% of the actual cost of  getting  healthcare coverage. so what do you think these young people are going to do? That leaves  just those with pre-existing conditions  and those that are seeking to use the system. The bill also mandates  literlally billions in unfunded mandates to states in medicade costs, so what do you think these states are going to do when faced with the real possibilityin some cases of  unfunded mandates to their state budgets  in the  billions, thats right they will opt out of the program because they cannot afford it.  Then what will happen is  lawsuits will be filed based on equal protection issues  and the SCOTUS will be forced to choose between bankrupting a state  or ignoring the constitution.  With billions of cuts  in rates of repayments, how many doctors do you think are going to rush to accept this methof of payment?  Here is perhaps the  most Ironic thing about this bill, those mean nasty insurance companies that everyone seems to think are so bad, well just who do you think is going to manage all this? Surely you don't think the Govt. actually  runs Medicare?

Here is the bottom line, if those that wanted reform really wanted it this would be a very simple issue, eliminate the age  restriction in Medicare completely.  Then find a method by which you can sustain those new people who wish to purchase it, such as a VAT on fuel in combination with a basic policy structure. For example, if your a young person, allow for the purchase of a Medicare catastrophic  insurance policy at 25.00 a month and thats a random number but if someone can afford a cell phone then they can afford this. Additional things that can be done is allow for the purcahse of  Insurance policies across state lines,  it would seem to me that if someone in Arizona can sit  in their home and buy a TV from China then they should be able to buy insurance from Alabama.  The bottom line though is this, if people really wanted reform then they would work for it rather than simply  place a blinder on and advocate for something that abandons  principles held by their very own party for decades.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 1, 2009)

My Body, My Choice.....except for health insurance and care    oh the irony.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 1, 2009)

Yep, give credit for lack of consistency to the right wing as well as the left wing.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 2, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, give credit for lack of consistency to the right wing as well as the left wing.



indeed....see my avatar


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 2, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, give credit for lack of consistency to the right wing as well as the left wing.
> ...



I like it.  I am going to give it a rep.


----------



## Zona (Dec 2, 2009)

How much did they talk about health care in the last eight years?
This much:

























None.  Srew the republicans.  They helped the insurance companies screw us over.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 2, 2009)

Zona said:


> How much did they talk about health care in the last eight years?
> This much:
> 
> 
> ...




You mean Bush didn't sign Medicare part D into law? You idiots dismiss everything because of your hatred.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 2, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> YouTube - A health care plan for America
> 
> here is a list of the bills the republicans introduced that the dems have shut down
> 
> ...



The GOP should have proposed these bills when they were in charge.

And, every one of these bills has flaws/loopholes in them that mean these bills suck balls.  If you haven't read each and every one of these bills as I have, you are naive and wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

The GOP, however, was not about health care reform, but rather about health care profit.

The GOP hatred for the common man has to be put to a stop, permanently.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 3, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > How much did they talk about health care in the last eight years?
> ...



Ouch the truths gotta hurt Zona.....OOPS   

The bills are all from january 2009 or later though.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 3, 2009)

The 21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act is a bill to re-engage the war on cancer. The bill was introduced by Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Kay Bailey Hutchison on March 26, 2009. The bill has not yet been enacted into law.
 Both Republican and Democrat

On September 27, 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 into law. This new law is an important step for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It reviewed, expanded, and reaffirmed several existing pieces of legislation regulating the FDA. These changes will allow the FDA access to much-needed resources that will enable the agency to better protect American consumers by allowing more comprehensive reviews of potential new drugs and devices.[1]

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act was first enacted in 1992 to allow the FDA to collect &#8220;user fees&#8221; from biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Since then, it has been reauthorized three times; first in 1997, then 2002, and most recently with the passage of the FDAAA in 2007. The purpose of these fees is to provide resources to the FDA that help them more effectively review potential new drugs.[2] The most recent reauthorization will further expand on the previous policy. It aims to broaden and upgrade the drug safety program, allocate more resources for television advertising, and theoretically allow the FDA to more efficiently review and approve safe and effective new drugs for consumers.[3] Since the original inception of the act, skeptics have raised concerns that this act means that the FDA is partially funded by the industry it regulates

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE SIGNING OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The South Lawn

2:50 P.M. EDT



THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for that wonderful introduction, Merit, and thank you for the courage of your example.

I want to begin by recognizing the members of Congress who are here who worked on this so hard. In addition to Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy, we have Senator John Breaux, Senator Bill Cohen, Senator Byron Dorgan, Senator Carl Levin, Congressman Mike Bilirakis, Congressman John Conyers, Congressman Harris Fawell and Congressman Dennis Hastert, Congressman David Hobson and Congressman Bill Thomas. I thank all of them for their work on this. (Applause.)
Bill Clinton portability.html

If one bothers to look at legislative  history over the years  they will find that both parties have  had their fair share of  impact on legislation in matters of  healthcare  in this nation. To make a the claim that the GOP has  done nothing while the Democrats have  done all the work is  complete nonsense and nothing but  a line to whip up the party base.  If anyone cared to watch them the committee hearings that went on and on had several GOP members  in them and in fact the  bill that is being debated contains many GOP Amendments, so the claim the GOP has done nothing is  completely false.  Where the  seperation occurs is when the bills from the various committees were merged it was done so without GOP participation and behind closed doors and the product that emerged was not what the GOP could support, so therefor you have  the seperation.  So this claim of having some sort of moral high ground on healthcare matters  is total nonsense  by one party or the other.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP, however, was not about health care reform, but rather about health care profit.
> 
> The GOP hatred for the common man has to be put to a stop, permanently.




Please show me the profit made for the GOP in Medicare part D......


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 3, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP, however, was not about health care reform, but rather about health care profit.
> ...



Actually Ollie the GOP and the Dems that voted for Part D actually lost the taxpayers money and added to the overall national defecit of the USA.      So Jake can't answer your challenge without admitting his claim has a flaw.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

Plymco, do you find it interesting that the GOP, which has fought against Medicare from the very beginning, is yelling about "cuts in Medicare" today?

The perversion of Regan's goals of "privatization" by the GOP and the corporatists over the last 30 years has led to class warfare.  The Dems have the votes on this one.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



All Government programs seem to run in the red. Thats why i don't want them screwing with healthcare.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Plymco, do you find it interesting that the GOP, which has fought against Medicare from the very beginning, is yelling about "cuts in Medicare" today?
> 
> The perversion of Regan's goals of "privatization" by the GOP and the corporatists over the last 30 years has led to class warfare.  The Dems have the votes on this one.




Yes the Democrats have a super majority, So why haven't they passed their Socialist Utopia bills yet? Whats holding them up besides the people?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

Because, Ollie, there are no socialist bills, silly boy.  By the by, did you see the Reuter's poll: 60% of Americans support the public option.  The bill will pass in time for the Democrats to campaign _ad infinitum ad nauseum_ next year on it.  The GOP is so toasted.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because, Ollie, there are no socialist bills, silly boy.  By the by, did you see the Reuter's poll: 60% of Americans support the public option.  The bill will pass in time for the Democrats to campaign _ad infinitum ad nauseum_ next year on it.  The GOP is so toasted.



The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed. 

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports

You think these Senators only look at one poll? They know who is the most accurate. And they like their jobs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

Rasmussen's polling data is skewed, and Reuters is more respected.  Secondly, Reuters noted that it was about the "public option", not health care reform.

The very small GOP minority's opinion on this one is dead on arrival.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rasmussen's polling data is skewed, and Reuters is more respected.  Secondly, Reuters noted that it was about the "public option", not health care reform.
> 
> The very small GOP minority's opinion on this one is dead on arrival.



We'll see. It's all on the Democrats. Makes me wonder why they keep wanting Republicans to vote for it. Not really we know why. They don't really want to claim it.


----------



## Polk (Dec 3, 2009)

Maple said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Notice instead of making one giant clusterfuck of a bill the republicans are trying to take each change to the insurance coverage and health care industry one at a time.
> ...



The Democrats should have just followed the lead of the Republicans, who tried to pretend like they were going to cut payments to doctors each year then have a "surprise patch" at the 11th hour.


----------



## Polk (Dec 3, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?
> 
> Seriously you people need to be mugged by the truth.



When it's said the Republicans don't have a plan, what is meant that they don't have a real plan. Saying "we can make insurance cheaper by forcing everyone to buy policies according to the standards set by the Northern Mariana Islands" is an idea, but it's one without any real substance.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Um Polk, that is already written into the Dems bill, And the payments to the Doctors they put in a separate Bill so the healthcare bill would appear to be deficit neutral.


----------



## Polk (Dec 3, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



The payments to doctors are going to pass anyway. It's not a matter of appearances. The "doctor fix" would be passed no matter which party controlled Congress, and for the Republicans to claim that the "doctor fix" is part of the health care reform effort is pure political theater. The only difference between what is being proposed right now and what has been done for the past decade is they're saying pay for it all at once instead of pretending like they're not going to pay for it, then pay it at the last second.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




It is deception no matter how you look at it. the democrats are claiming that they have a deficit neutral bill yet part of that bill is cuts in medicare payments to Doctors, which will simply get paid out of a different pocket and go straight to the debt. THEY LIE!


----------



## Polk (Dec 3, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



See, you have no idea what you're talking about.  The bill is not paid for by cutting payments to doctors. The "doctors fix" has nothing to do with what's in the health care bill. Under current federal law (passed when the Republicans first took control of Congress), increases in Medicare payments to doctors are pegged to general inflation instead of health care cost inflation (which were moving in tandem at the time). Since then,  health care cost have increased faster that overall prices, resulting in a declining amount being paid to doctors in real terms. Instead of just admitting this is the case and changing the law, the Republicans instead passed annual "fixes" to pay the doctors the difference in the two amounts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

Ollie, the insurance reform bill is going to pass.  Get over it, get used to it, and get ready to pay your share.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ollie, the insurance reform bill is going to pass.  Get over it, get used to it, and get ready to pay your share.




The reality is that I will not be paying any more. I am retired Military and on Disability, So I have Medicare and Tricare as my medical coverage. It sucks but that seems to be what you want for everyone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

Actually it does not suck.  I have seen the level of service at the primary care clinic in the town where I live, and the staff treats the vets very, very well.  So what's your concern?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Actually it does not suck.  I have seen the level of service at the primary care clinic in the town where I live, and the staff treats the vets very, very well.  So what's your concern?



You have seen, I have lived. Notice the difference? Anyone who believes that Medicare is great has got a problem. Besides that I'm sure in some places medicare and or Veterans get superb care. But I know 3 Doctors against this healthcare reform, one of whom flat out told me he would retire if it passes. 

This reform will hurt much more than help. But I suppose the Democrats will have to learn that for themselves, except they already know it. This bill was supposed to make healthcare more affordable. They forgot that along the way.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2009)

And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.


----------



## Polk (Dec 3, 2009)

Polk said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


----------



## Polk (Dec 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.



My uncle works in the health care industry and is one of the most hardcore conservatives you'll meet on most issues and he supports universal health care. His argument is that we already make the social choice that we're not going to let people die for lack of ability to pay. Therefore, anyone who lacks insurance will eventually end up in the ER, raising the cost of treatment for everyone. If we're going to pay to treat everyone anyway, we should treat as many as we can in the offices of GPs, which won't cost as much.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Because, Ollie, there are no socialist bills, silly boy.  By the by, did you see the Reuter's poll: 60% of Americans support the public option.  The bill will pass in time for the Democrats to campaign _ad infinitum ad nauseum_ next year on it.  The GOP is so toasted.
> ...



There are MANY polls that show less than 40% of people now favor the government option.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

Polk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.
> ...




Regardless of your arguments the original idea was to cover more Americans with health insurance, and to do that by making it less expensive. The congress has failed in this. The cost for many will go up, Taxes will go up. The cost to many businesses will go up. There will not be more Doctors to treat more people, Fact is there may be less. And the cost will be at least Double what we are being told, look at most Government programs. They always seem to cost so much more. 

Smaller government is what we need, not bigger.


----------



## Polk (Dec 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Both the CBO and outside analysis say that the Senate bill would reduce premiums and reduce the deficit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Ollie you are giving a mere assertion that no one has been able to give even adequate, much less convincing, evidence in support.  Reform is going to happen.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

Polk said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



And this is where I stop believing the CBO, since when do you start up a whole new Governmental Department and save money? Especially when there is already a Department that does the same thing. All I can say is that those taxes are going to have to be even higher and more widespread than we can even dream of. Yet today I hear thet Mr Obama may be considering some tax cuts. How conservative of him. I wonder if that will be before or after the Bush tax cuts are ended and everyones taxes go back up? And the reducing Premiums, that will be for some people, not all. For many the premiums will go up.

Interesting, I found this little tidbit:



> The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.
> 
> The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.
> 
> "Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care, including for those with pre-existing conditions, at a price our country can afford," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...lth-plan-would-reduce-premiums--69270747.html

And from another site:


> However, Republicans saw a different message from the CBO. CBO has indicated that the bill "will actively increase premiums for Americans and their families," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on the floor of the Senate Monday shortly after debate on the reform bill began. "So a bill that is being sold as reducing costs is actually driving them up."
> 
> Industry groups also saw a different message as well. "This is the latest report to confirm that the current healthcare reform proposal fails to bend the healthcare cost curve and will result in double digit premium increases for millions of Americans," said Robert Zirkelbach, America's Health Insurance Plan press representative, in a statement.
> 
> AHIP added that subsidies will not lower premiums. "Subsidies are essential to helping low and moderate income families afford healthcare coverage ... but in the same way that Pell Grants do not lower the cost of college tuition, subsidies do not reduce underlying medical costs."



The Great CBO Debate: Does Reform Bill Cut or Create Costs?


I'm not buying it. They need to start from scratch and remember the simple steps to solving a problem. (If they can just keep politics out of it).

1.Identify the problem

2.Investigate ways to fix the problem

3.Fix the problem.

You do not tear down the house to fix a leaking faucet.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You do if you don't like the house or the people in it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2009)

saveliberty, you are right.  Your folks got thrown out of office because the American public did not like them or the house they were building.  In other words, slick, a new crew is in fixing the errors in construction of the old crew.  Get to used to it.  Your opinion is irrelevant.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> saveliberty, you are right.  Your folks got thrown out of office because the American public did not like them or the house they were building.  In other words, slick, a new crew is in fixing the errors in construction of the old crew.  Get to used to it.  Your opinion is irrelevant.



We'll see in 12 months.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty, you are right.  Your folks got thrown out of office because the American public did not like them or the house they were building.  In other words, slick, a new crew is in fixing the errors in construction of the old crew.  Get to used to it.  Your opinion is irrelevant.
> ...



10 months and 29 days  till november 2nd 2010

always vote, never re-elect.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Other than a few local people I haven't voted for an incumbent in nearly 10 years.


----------



## Meister (Dec 4, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.



I've talked to several Dr.'s on this and everyone of them are for healthcare reform, but not what the democrats are offering.  All  of them said that tort reform is a must, and no public option.  They stated that health insurance companies should be able to sell their wares in all 50 states.  That is how your drive prices down, without a government option.  Hell, what do they know?  They're only some stupid ass Doctors who really don't know more than a politician in DC


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty, you are right.  Your folks got thrown out of office because the American public did not like them or the house they were building.  In other words, slick, a new crew is in fixing the errors in construction of the old crew.  Get to used to it.  Your opinion is irrelevant.
> ...



You will see Dem majorities in the House and the Senate, you will see health insurance reform passed, you will see an American public that still despises the GOP, rightfully so.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Oh you may be right about the Dems still having a majority, but I can promise that the super majority will be gone. and the Dems will also lose quite a few seats in the House. As for their screwed up health care bill, they better jump quick, because their window is closing fast.

As far as despising...that's sort of like hatred, a strong word that most people do not mean. I know a lot of Democrats that I do not hate or despise. Good friends of mine too. And not one of them has ever called me a moron or stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2009)

Not talking about hatred at all, Ollie, so don't put words or definitions in my mouth.  I am absolutely correct in stating that many, many good social values conservative folks here in my part of the South despise the GOP they thought was going to uphold their values but betrayed them.  Nothing that has happened in the last year has changed that feeling of betrayal.  Friends from all over the country tell me it is the same way there.  These folks feel as if they were used and thrown away until the next election.  They simply will not give this GOP another chance anytime soon.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

Real shame when people vote for a party. I can't remember an election where I voted a straight ticket.The GOP Had a bad candidate last election. But if you think that conservatives will flock en mass to the liberal candidate, well I don't know what to tell you. But regardless despise is still hate. At least in my language.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2009)

Your language lacks texture and nuance, then.  I am not suggesting these people will vote _en masse _for the liberal candidates.  The Democratic Party, particularly in the Border and Deep South, will run more conservative and moderate candidates than last year.  And many, I think, will, instead of voting Democratic, will do what they did in 2008: stay home.  That hurts the GOP.  The Dems will pass their reform bills, hammer the GOP about them, and return solid majorities.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your language lacks texture and nuance, then.  I am not suggesting these people will vote _en masse _for the liberal candidates.  The Democratic Party, particularly in the Border and Deep South, will run more conservative and moderate candidates than last year.  And many, I think, will, instead of voting Democratic, will do what they did in 2008: stay home.  That hurts the GOP.  The Dems will pass their reform bills, hammer the GOP about them, and return solid majorities.




Well then I guess the US needs a conservative version of ACORN. Someone to get out the conservative voters.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2009)

Oh, it has its groups putting out manufactured doubt.  However, they don't do it well.  Watch foxfyre and willow try to do it, and fall flat on their faces.


----------



## Polk (Dec 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.
> ...



Yeah, allowing sales across state lines does reduce cost... by lowering the actuarial value of the policies to almost zero.


----------



## Polk (Dec 5, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your language lacks texture and nuance, then.  I am not suggesting these people will vote _en masse _for the liberal candidates.  The Democratic Party, particularly in the Border and Deep South, will run more conservative and moderate candidates than last year.  And many, I think, will, instead of voting Democratic, will do what they did in 2008: stay home.  That hurts the GOP.  The Dems will pass their reform bills, hammer the GOP about them, and return solid majorities.
> ...



Why would you want a conservative version of ACORN? As someone who has worked on campaigns, ACORN takes a lot of credit, but they don't really do anything. And trust me, your side has a highly organized GOTV infrastructure.


----------



## Polk (Dec 5, 2009)

I would like to point out re: CBO numbers. It's funny how when it supports their position, the right eats them up, but then acts like they don't exist when it doesn't.


----------



## Meister (Dec 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> I would like to point out re: CBO numbers. It's funny how when it supports their position, the right eats them up, but then acts like they don't exist when it doesn't.



Doesn't take in account for the waste and fraud, along with inflation, and APR's that will rise, Polk.  Conservatives aren't naive when it comes to how the government actually works.


----------



## Meister (Dec 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


riiiight


----------



## Polk (Dec 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The entire purpose of the "sell across state lines" provisions the GOP is proposing is to gut coverage by allowing insurance companies to choose the most laxly-regulated state as their "primary state", which would then control the coverage offered everywhere.

And it's not even a lowest state standard. Look at how "state" is defined in the bill.

"(8) STATE.The term State means the 50 States and includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands."

That's from page 122 of the alternative House Republicans offered.

So what would end up happening is all insurance sold in the US would be offered by companies based in the Northern Mariana Islands, which is legally part of the United States, but has special exemptions for almost every class of federal legislation.

Just consider this.



> Moved by the sworn testimony of U.S. officials and human-rights advocates that the 91 percent of the workforce who were immigrants -- from China, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh -- were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, without any of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed, Murkowski wrote a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas.
> 
> CNN.com - The real scandal of Tom DeLay - May 9, 2005



Those are the people the GOP wants controlling what your health insurance covers.


----------



## Meister (Dec 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Polk, who in the hell mentioned the GOP version?  You do realize that with government mandates AND allowing companies to cross state lines, that it could very well lower the cost with good coverage, without the liberals government option.  I'm talking about serious healthcare reform, not a bandaid


----------



## Polk (Dec 5, 2009)

It's in the title of the thread...

"Squashing The Ignorance. _Republican Health Care Plans_ Exposed"


----------



## Meister (Dec 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.
> ...



This is what you were commenting on, Polk, not the op.


----------



## Polk (Dec 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Since the topic of the thread is "Republican Health Care Plans", it makes sense to take about how the Republicans want to achieve each of the goals you listed. Speaking of, let's talk tort reform. Does the amendment the GOP is pushing in the Senate limit fees of the attorneys for those filing suit, but doesn't limit the fees of the hospital's attorneys?


----------



## Meister (Dec 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


I guess when you want to refute my post you do so, and when it doesn't fit your agenda then you talk about the op.  That's OK I get it....I guess.  Carry on.


----------



## Polk (Dec 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Your post was just parroting the Republican talking points. No difference between addressing it and addressing the OP.


----------



## Meister (Dec 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Try reading where I got my points from....it was a room full of Doctors.....not a room full of republican politicians.  Your buddy Jake was saying that doctors wanted national healthcare.  I was refuting that, with a group at a party that I attended.  Now, get off your projecting, or maybe go drink some more of your Kool-Aid. sheesh.....


----------



## Christopher (Dec 5, 2009)

Polk said:


> I would like to point out re: CBO numbers. It's funny how when it supports their position, the right eats them up, but then acts like they don't exist when it doesn't.



Is this the CBO analysis you are talking about?  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf
Quote from the analysis (bold emphasis added)


> Estimated Budgetary Impact
> According to CBO and JCTs assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable
> Care Act would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $130 billion over the
> 20102019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its
> ...



That last sentence gives a much better context to the "numbers" you are talking about. Do you really think we should go off of an estimate that was described by the CBO as being "subject to substantial uncertainty"?  Sorry, but this analysis does not seem to support your position, unless you think "substantial uncertainty" regarding the overhaul of health care is a good thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

As opposed to substantial increases if not?


----------



## Christopher (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> As opposed to substantial increases if not?



Substantial uncertainty could easily mean substantial increases.  Knowing government's history and track record, it is even more likely.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

Knowing unregulated big business's greed and rapacious capacity for taking us all to the cleaners, substantial increases would be a certainity.  Health insurance reform is going to happen, and you are going to pay your fair share for it.  Get over it.


----------



## Christopher (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Knowing unregulated big business's greed and rapacious capacity for taking us all to the cleaners, substantial increases would be a certainity.  Health insurance reform is going to happen, and you are going to pay your fair share for it.  Get over it.



I know reform is needed.  The problem is that government becoming involved in health care over the years has been a large reason for cost increases in health care.  Why would we want a public option as part of the reform when that is the case?

Why are you willing to let a health care bill with "substantial uncertainty" regarding costs go through?  Does it really not matter to you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

"government becoming involved in health care over the years has been a large reason for cost increases in health care." _Unsupportable assertion_.  "Why would we want a public option as part of the reform when that is the case?"  _That is not the case, and a two-tier system in Australia gives better care, accessible to all, at a far less cost._


----------



## Christopher (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> "government becoming involved in health care over the years has been a large reason for cost increases in health care." _Unsupportable assertion_.  "Why would we want a public option as part of the reform when that is the case?"  _That is not the case, and a two-tier system in Australia gives better care, accessible to all, at a far less cost._



Actually, it is supported by the CBO where I got the information (bold emphasis added below). Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending



> Changes in Third-Party Payment. More generous third-party paymentfrom the creation of Medicare and Medicaid and subsequent changes to these programs, for exampleeffectively reduced the average out-of-pocket cost of health care over the past several decades, leading to higher health care expenditures. As a share of all per capita spending on personal health care, consumers out-of-pocket costs have fallen sharply, from 52 percent in 1965 to 15 percent in 2005 (see Figure 6). *Empirical analyses suggest that under an assumption of no change in medical technology, the expansion of insurance coverage can account for 10 percent to 13 percent of the long-term rise in health care spending (see Table 2).* That expansion, in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.8



Not to mention the cost shifting that has occurred and increased private health insurance because of Medicare and Medicaid.

You still did not answer my question.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

Now you are accepting the uncertainity of the CBO as certain?  And, yes, Australia's system works just as I described it.  That you disagree does not mean that you have a valid point.  You don't.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 6, 2009)

The public health system is called Medicare. It ensures free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidised out-of-hospital medical treatment. It is funded by a 1.5% tax levy on all taxpayers, an extra 1% levy on high income earners, as well as general revenue.[citation needed]

The private health system is funded by a number of private health insurance organisations. The largest of these is Medibank Private, which is government-owned, but operates as a government business enterprise under the same regulatory regime as all other registered private health funds. The Coalition Howard government had announced that Medibank would be privatised if it won the 2007 election, however they were defeated by the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd which had already pledged that it would remain in government ownership.

Health care in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me ask you something, would you advocate defunding Australian Medicare in order to provide the seed funding for another  branch of the Australian Govt. that does the exact same thing as Medicare?.  That is exactly what is being proposed in the current legislation here along with a whole host of  other nonsense that has little if anything to do with healthcare reform that an Australian would recognize or  endorse.  Let me give you another example,  the current proposed legislation expands  state Medicade  by a significant amount, there are 2 problems with that, one is it places the burden of paying for that on the states, which most here in this nation Jake are already close to bankruptcy.  The other problem is actually finding  Doctors that will take Medicade as a  means of  healthcare insurance.  So what it will do is tunnel many poor Americans into long lines and poor quality healthcare because of the significant  number of  Doctors that do not take Medicade.  It's one thing to say you have health insurance , it's a complete different thing to actually have some place to use it.  If this  legislation had any noble intentions at all it would be closer to the Australian Model and look a whole lot less like a  big Govt. expansion and  hiring vehicle.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 6, 2009)

Zander said:


> How dare you put that crap up!! The Republican plan is for sick people to DIE, and DIE QUICKLY!! Everyone knows that!! (rolleyes)



....and the Democrat plan is death panels and no doctor choice.


Well....ignorance abounds.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

Zander is ignorant about politics, but is a Los Angeles Dodgers phanatic, so there is some good in him!


----------



## Coyote (Dec 6, 2009)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.
> ...



I agree with the tort reform but not the public option part.  I'm disappointed that tort reform is not being addressed unless it's such a huge can of worms (going beyond medical) that it needs to be addressed on it's own.  But I also am skeptical - the trial lawyers and the insurance groups make up two of the biggest and most powerful special interest groups we have.  Thus there has been little headway on tort reform and constant attempts to derail or mislead the public on what the public option would mean.

I don't see how you can lower healthcare costs and increase coverage without some sort of public option for those who can't afford insurance or can't get insurance.  While insurance companies may be forced to accept pre-existing conditions - they may make the premiums so costly as to be essentially unaffordable.  I view the public option in much the way I view car insurance in my state.  Everyone is legally required to have car insurance but for some people who's driving record is risky they can't get private insurance so instead they have to get it from a state insurance fund.

But there are other parts of healthcare reform that I think need to be addressed but I don't see coming up much in discussion.  One is the horrendous cost of medical education - a cost which leaves students in debt for years and pushes them to enter specializations rather than the lower paying GP market.  We don't have enough GP's becuase when you combine the costs of malpractice insurance and student loans to be paid back -they don't earn enough.  Of course you don't have to have a GP for everything - there are a lot of things that can now be done by Nurse Practioners and Physician Assistants at a lower cost.

Anyway - just my opinion not backed by sources.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Zander is ignorant about politics, but is a Los Angeles Dodgers phanatic, so there is some good in him!



Well...if he likes dogs (or cats) and classic rock music....or other music....I might relent in my unceasing hostility towards him


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

Coyote said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Zander is ignorant about politics, but is a Los Angeles Dodgers phanatic, so there is some good in him!
> ...



I know that he marches to the far right fife and drum corps tunes, but I don't know about animals.  He probably eats them.  I do, too.


----------



## Christopher (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Now you are accepting the uncertainity of the CBO as certain?  And, yes, Australia's system works just as I described it.  That you disagree does not mean that you have a valid point.  You don't.



You are ignoring the evidence I just gave you from a credible source which discusses OUR (you know, the United States') health care system and the effects government involvement has had (not will have).  You are trying to compare apples to oranges and say they are the same.  I am going to stick to evidence about our system.

I accept the facts from history how government programs typically work and the fact that the CBO says the cost estimates for this bill have a substantial amount of uncertainty about them.

You still have not answered my question.  Let me rephrase it:  Do you think that we should agree to pass a bill where the CBO says the cost estimates have substantial uncertainty?

I think we should be more certain about the real economic effects of the bill before jumping on board with it, particularly considering our economic situation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

The CBO has advised that it can't reliably advise with "certainity".


----------



## Christopher (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The CBO has advised that it can't reliably advise with "certainity".



You really need to go back and read what the CBO said before you put words in their mouth. Here is the quote, again:



> Estimated Budgetary Impact
> According to CBO and JCTs assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $130 billion over the 20102019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be small reductions in federal budget deficits if all of the provisions continued to be fully implemented. Those estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.



They said the estimates on cost are subject to substantial uncertainty.  Now, when are you going to answer my question?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2009)

The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.


----------



## Meister (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.



The right thinking individual just doesn't want what the democrats are shoving down our throats.  Let's have healthcare reform, and not a public option.  Most Americans don't want what the dems are offering, that's why the dems are pushing this before the end of the year.   The anti dem healthcare sentiment is growing.
But, the left wing politiicans know it isn't about healthcare reform, but it's all about control.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 6, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Eating them's ok....it's Bambi season now


----------



## Christopher (Dec 7, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.



In other words, you cannot answer a simple yes or no question.


----------



## Maple (Dec 7, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> YouTube - A health care plan for America
> 
> here is a list of the bills the republicans introduced that the dems have shut down
> 
> ...





I don't think President Washington was talking about a National takeover of 6% of our economy,and I really don't think that if he were alive today would support any of these big spending projects. Good try though.

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson That's what our founders thought and they were not for big government.


----------



## Maple (Dec 7, 2009)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it.  I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance.  Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care.  If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.
> ...



I have talked to two doctors, one my own physician, who are in their mid-50's who think this whole bill is a scam and threaten to retire and close up shop should this public option be included. With the medicare cuts, one doctor in town is sending out letters to his patients stating that he may no longer be able to treat medicare patients. 

There are ways that this can be accomplished in the private sector, but when you don't see ANY TORT reform measures in this bill it should tell you that this is NOT about health care reform, it's about a national take over of our health care. Without TORT reform we can not REDUCE the costs of healthcare, it can't  be done.


----------



## Maple (Dec 7, 2009)

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now you are accepting the uncertainity of the CBO as certain?  And, yes, Australia's system works just as I described it.  That you disagree does not mean that you have a valid point.  You don't.
> ...



Medicare is at least 10 times the cost of what it was projected to cost when it was implemented and it's bankrupt.


----------



## Maple (Dec 7, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.



No kiddin, what part of SUBSTANTIAL UNCERTAINTY does anyone have a hard time understanding?


----------



## Polk (Dec 7, 2009)

Maple said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I swear, you just can't stop peddling bullshit. Malpractice makes up a whopping two percent of total health care costs. Even if you could completely eliminate malpractice payouts (which you can't), you'd have reduced health care spending by two percent at most. Furthermore, the notion that the bill is a "national takeover of our health care" is asinine. A national takeover would consist of the government seizing control of hospitals and making doctors government employees. Does the bill do that? The answer, of course, is no.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

The Public Option is little more than a stepping stone to Socialized healthcare. Why are Doctors against it? Ever seen how much a Doctor actually gets paid from Medicare? I had cataract surgery done. Cost about $1800 Medicare approved $675. How much of that do you think went into medical supplies, building costs (Electric etc.) and paying the staff? Not to mention half a dozen other things that have to be paid for. I would guess the good Doctor got to pocket next to nothing.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> The Public Option is little more than a stepping stone to Socialized healthcare. Why are Doctors against it? Ever seen how much a Doctor actually gets paid from Medicare? I had cataract surgery done. Cost about $1800 Medicare approved $675. How much of that do you think went into medical supplies, building costs (Electric etc.) and paying the staff? Not to mention half a dozen other things that have to be paid for. I would guess the good Doctor got to pocket next to nothing.



Do you think the Insurance company would pay the $1800 or a much lower negotiated price?

Do you think the private sector insurance companies WANT to insure in the private sector all of our medicare aged citizens?  

Do you think the cost of ALL OF OUR private insurance would be MUCH HIGHER than the outrageous prices now if the private sector had to insure the elderly?

They were given a GIFT HORSE by the federal government when our govt agreed to take off of their hands, the insuring of the elderly....profit city from there on out for the private insurers....imo.

oh, and where did you read doctors were aAGAINST the public option?  I thought they were for it?


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 7, 2009)

How amusing that some would believe that this current legislation has anything whatsoever to do with healthcare reform. In the first place, this legislation will not lower the cost of premiums  AT ALL , in fact  what it will do is raise them 10 to 13% over the next  10 years according to the CBO.   I fail to understand how anyone would think for one moment this legislation is healthcare reform when your actually  taking money from an insolvent  Govt. insurer to create another  Govt. insurer to do the exact same thing that the insolvent one does.  Further, this legislation piles , billions of unfunded  mandates  in state medicade on the states,  I don't know if anyone has noticed lately but almost  every state with the possible exception of perhaps Texas  is close to bankruptcy now. Can you imagine what California will do once faced with the possibility of 15 billion dollars in unfunded mandates. Oh wait, I forgot, California has  funding in the bill that most states , except La. don't have.   The bottom line here is this,  if the whole goal here is to actually reform healthcare  then do it.  This bill has little to do with that, call it what it is, a spending bill , don't disquise it  and  fool your base into thinking this is real reform when it has little to do with it.  The real sad part about this is, that for the last 2 years  democrats have done nothing but beat up on the insurance companies on how mean and how evil they are,  just who do you think stands to make the most money in this deal?  It's not the Govt. I can tell you that, I'm sure most of you are not foolish enough to think the Govt. actually runs Medicare,  and  forgive me I sure hope you don't think they have the capability to run the "public option" All of which will be  contracted out like it always has to , you got  it,  the mean evil insurance industry.  So again , I ask  why are you supporting a bill that has nothing at all to do with healthcare reform.!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

Care4all said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Public Option is little more than a stepping stone to Socialized healthcare. Why are Doctors against it? Ever seen how much a Doctor actually gets paid from Medicare? I had cataract surgery done. Cost about $1800 Medicare approved $675. How much of that do you think went into medical supplies, building costs (Electric etc.) and paying the staff? Not to mention half a dozen other things that have to be paid for. I would guess the good Doctor got to pocket next to nothing.
> ...



I believe the AMA made a statement backing Healthcare reform in General, but only about a third of our Doctors belong to the AMA. I haven't read that doctors are against it, But I can name 6 Doctors who are against it. Because they have told me so. And I only know 6 doctors. Add those to the ones others have said the same thing about. 

And I would bet that private insurance would pay more than Medicare pays. Of course since I have never had private Insurance I won't swear to that.


----------



## Polk (Dec 7, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> How amusing that some would believe that this current legislation has anything whatsoever to do with healthcare reform. In the first place, this legislation will not lower the cost of premiums  AT ALL , in fact  what it will do is raise them 10 to 13% over the next  10 years according to the CBO.



Except that the CBO has said the bill will reduce premiums on average.
The Associated Press: CBO: Health bill would reduce premiums on average



> I fail to understand how anyone would think for one moment this legislation is healthcare reform when your actually  taking money from an insolvent  Govt. insurer to create another  Govt. insurer to do the exact same thing that the insolvent one does.  Further, this legislation piles , billions of unfunded  mandates  in state medicade on the states,  I don't know if anyone has noticed lately but almost  every state with the possible exception of perhaps Texas  is close to bankruptcy now. Can you imagine what California will do once faced with the possibility of 15 billion dollars in unfunded mandates. Oh wait, I forgot, California has  funding in the bill that most states , except La. don't have.



The bill's Medicaid provisions increase the size of the block grants all states receive.


----------



## Polk (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The reason this argument is so weak is because at the beginning of the year, when the AMA was fighting tooth and nail against health care reform, Republicans were touting that as proof the reforms were a bad idea.



> And I would bet that private insurance would pay more than Medicare pays. Of course since I have never had private Insurance I won't swear to that.



They do, because they don't have as much ability to negotiate prices.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

Polk said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



So what did it cost to buy off the AMA? Because that's all this has been is a series of payouts and buy offs.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 7, 2009)

Polk said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > How amusing that some would believe that this current legislation has anything whatsoever to do with healthcare reform. In the first place, this legislation will not lower the cost of premiums  AT ALL , in fact  what it will do is raise them 10 to 13% over the next  10 years according to the CBO.
> ...



Well the AP aside  and I'm sure the  press has it's experts, however. 

Specifically, because of the greater actuarial value and broader scope of benefits that would be covered by new nongroup policies sold under the legislation, *the average premium per person for those policies would be an estimated 27 percent to 30 percent higher than the average premium for nongroup policies under current law *(with other factors held constant). The increase in actuarial value would push the average premium per person about 18 percent to 21 percent above its level under current law, before the increase in enrollees use of medical care resulting from lower cost sharing is considered; that induced increase, 

*The legislation would impose several new fees on firms in the health sector. New fees would be imposed on providers of health insurance and on manufacturers and importers of medical devices. Both of those fees would be largely passed through*

Here is the kicker...

The requirement that people have insurance would also encourage a broad range of people to take up coverage in the exchanges. CBO and JCT expect that some people would obtain coverage because of the penalties that would be levied for not complying with the mandate *(which would be $750 per adult and $375 per child in 2016) *and that others would obtain coverage simply because of the existence of a mandate; those expectations are based in part on peoples compliance with other types of mandates.28

So let me see, your 22 years old on your own, and your faced with paying 1500.00 dollars a year for health insurance or paying a penalty. How many do you think are going to rush out and get the insurance as opposed to paying the penalty, even if it passes constitutional muster and even the CBO has called this provision into question and this  basically is what they hinge all their cost savings on. 
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page

About 59 million people are on Medicaid todaywhich means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explodeby $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Officebecause they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the motherand father and crazy uncleof unfunded mandates.

Medicaid Expansion Will Break State Budgets - WSJ.com


You do realize that a Block Grant is real money that is funding that has to come from some place so what your saying is that if it is not an unfunded mandate, then the bill is a medicaid bailout by the Fed for the states.


----------



## Polk (Dec 7, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Source?



> About 59 million people are on Medicaid today&#8212;which means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explode&#8212;by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office&#8212;because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the mother&#8212;and father and crazy uncle&#8212;of unfunded mandates.
> 
> Medicaid Expansion Will Break State Budgets - WSJ.com
> 
> ...



Medicaid is already financed by the federal government. Also, the op-ed you posted contradicts itself. It talks about expensive the expansion is and how much of a chunk of the total cost it is, then turns around in the next paragraph and claims it's unfunded.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 7, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> YouTube - A health care plan for America
> 
> here is a list of the bills the republicans introduced that the dems have shut down
> 
> ...



One question I have that could have been answered already in the 4 pages of the thread is, how many Health care reform bills focused on cutting the cost of health care did the Republicans in Congress put up for a vote the 12 years they were in power in both the house and the senate and did any of them actually HELP, IF they had any....?

In other words Pilgrim, putting up these ideas when they KNOW they have no power to get them passed, as a minority is more than likely just political posturing and truly not something that is to be admired....imho.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - A health care plan for America
> ...




Maybe the Republicans weren't interested in controlling the public.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 7, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



But they are now?  Why all of these bills that Plymco is touting?  Is this just political posturing for the republican citizenry to grab on to to ACT like those republicans in Congress are actually trying to do something???

Does that bother you at all....?

As I said, that's  honestly nothing to be admired imo.... 

care


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2009)

Care4all said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Honestly I haven't read them all. However I have little doubt that they are mostly an attempt to lessen the damage being done by the left.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 8, 2009)

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - A health care plan for America
> ...



The same amount that the democrats put up during the same time period.   .

Doesn't change the fact that those who claim the republicans have no plans are bold-faced, partisan hack, liars.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 8, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 8, 2009)

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I read the bills care, they are effective.  Go through and read my posts in the thread, you have me pegged wrong.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 8, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I was being lazy  and trying to avoid reading the 4 pages of the thread PP, and if you say the bills and proposals are good ones, how many of these proposals are addressed in the Democratic Comprehensive bill on health reform as well?

See, I do not agree with doing this piece meal because we don't know what all the reforms will cost us on the whole, when all reforms are said and done....and what savings may come out of them.

And I am not saying that I support the 2 comprehensive Democratic proposals that are on the table now....because I do not support the way the bills came out from the senate and house....for several reasons now....but I still believe that it needs to be one comprehensive bill so it can be scored and we know upfront what ALL of health care reform entails and the estimated cost of such and how it will be paid for...and how it will help us.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 8, 2009)

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



They have good ideas in them, not all are feasible and acceptable to me but they all have good ideas.

Many of the same good ideas can be found in the massive bill they are debating now, along with some totally horrible ones that make it impossible for me and many other americans to support.

I was honest in this thread about ALL the bills I listed being from january 2009 and later, none were from prior to obama.  Thats all I was saying.

I'm being lazy too so no worries .


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 20, 2010)

Now that Scott Brown won in MA and the senate doesn't have a filibuster proof majority in it maybe some of these ideas will actually make it to the senate floor and enter into the debate.

That is if the Dems dont pull shenanigans and force the bill through using the nuclear option.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jan 20, 2010)

What has surprised me at least somewhat in all this healthcare debate, is that there is a CLEAR starting point in the debate on healthcare reform.   Many can agree there is a need for  low cost, quailty healthcare, that is both affordable, and available.  Where many part compnay in this debate is how to get there, and where the frustration level seems to rise is the sheer willingness to not listen to ALL ideas in this debate, especially when you consider the fact that this is something that effects everyone.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 20, 2010)

Navy1960 said:


> What has surprised me at least somewhat in all this healthcare debate, is that there is a CLEAR starting point in the debate on healthcare reform.   Many can agree there is a need for  low cost, quailty healthcare, that is both affordable, and available.  Where many part compnay in this debate is how to get there, and where the frustration level seems to rise is the sheer willingness to not listen to ALL ideas in this debate, especially when you consider the fact that this is something that effects everyone.



Me too.  Both sides know changes are needed and know what those changes are yet neither side is willing to comprimise at all on their agendas.

Its sad....I'm hoping the election of an Independant Republican like Brown in MA opens up the eyes of congress and gets them working TOGETHER on a plan that will truly be beneficial for the PEOPLE.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 21, 2010)

MA Congressman Delehunt is no longer supporting the health care bill.

One less house member for nancy pelosi on this one....it seems they are getting the message now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > What has surprised me at least somewhat in all this healthcare debate, is that there is a CLEAR starting point in the debate on healthcare reform.   Many can agree there is a need for  low cost, quailty healthcare, that is both affordable, and available.  Where many part compnay in this debate is how to get there, and where the frustration level seems to rise is the sheer willingness to not listen to ALL ideas in this debate, especially when you consider the fact that this is something that effects everyone.
> ...



Hell, it'd be nice if they'd just start LISTENING to the people, for crying out loud.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Indeed it would

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtPgr94VYA4]YouTube - All of Teal'c's Indeeds (New and Updated Version)[/ame]


----------

