Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[bigrebnc1775]

I loved this letter, it said it so well and so honestly.

Politics, anyone? - Bakersfield.com -

"I resent politicians making claims about what "the American people" want. I do not want anything that McCarthy is suggesting I want. Unless he's implying that I'm no longer an American. It would make me happy if instead, he said something like, "the conservatives who agree with me believe..." That would help me out. Oh, and he's wrong on top of that.

The stated goal of the Republicans is to defeat Obama--I doubt many Democrats share that goal with you.

You're not reforming the health care system, you're reforming the health insurance system. Big difference there, as your sponsors I'm sure have told you. And while our health care system may be tops, our insurance policies are not.

"A health care system devised by the patient and doctor." Then what are you doing in the middle of them? Shoo.

"our families deserve better." Whose families? Yours? Don't like your health insurance, sir? Because I'd love to share it with you. That being said, I'm glad you said "deserve" because last time, all we heard from the right was how nobody "deserved" anything--go get your own job, your own health insurance and pay for it like everyone else. I appreciate the change in tone. That's a good start. I'd further appreciate it if you'd also not pretend to be speaking for "the American people" as if we all agree with you."

Spam full of bullshit.

 

[saveliberty]

I loved this letter, it said it so well and so honestly.

Politics, anyone? - Bakersfield.com -

"I resent politicians making claims about what "the American people" want. I do not want anything that McCarthy is suggesting I want. Unless he's implying that I'm no longer an American. It would make me happy if instead, he said something like, "the conservatives who agree with me believe..." That would help me out. Oh, and he's wrong on top of that.

The stated goal of the Republicans is to defeat Obama--I doubt many Democrats share that goal with you.

You're not reforming the health care system, you're reforming the health insurance system. Big difference there, as your sponsors I'm sure have told you. And while our health care system may be tops, our insurance policies are not.

"A health care system devised by the patient and doctor." Then what are you doing in the middle of them? Shoo.

"our families deserve better." Whose families? Yours? Don't like your health insurance, sir? Because I'd love to share it with you. That being said, I'm glad you said "deserve" because last time, all we heard from the right was how nobody "deserved" anything--go get your own job, your own health insurance and pay for it like everyone else. I appreciate the change in tone. That's a good start. I'd further appreciate it if you'd also not pretend to be speaking for "the American people" as if we all agree with you."

Dear Mr. Bakersfield,

You don't speak for the nation either. So what special license did you pay for and receive? Feel free to switch insurance carriers if you have issues with the one you have. Your Democratic friends jumped in the middle of the health care system/insurance. It is partisanship whether we do it or you do.

 

[Liability]

In order to effectively cure our ailing healthcare system, it is critical that its specific ailment is accurately diagnosed. In reality, the American health insurance is not sold on a free market, and the places it deviates from a free market are the sources of the problems it sees today. Examples of this deviation abound. One is the third-party-payer system used by 85% of insured Americans. Ones employer providing ones health insurance makes no more sense than providing ones house, car, or any other expensive and individualized purchase. Another hindrance to the free market in healthcare is government intervention. Government actions like Medicare, Medicaid, a ban on out-of-state insurance purchases, HIPPA, SCHIP, COBRA, and supply-restrictive licensure laws are largely responsible for rising health insurance costs. These are the real problems in the health insurance industry, yet those pushing through the healthcare bills give the industry give a false diagnosis; they instead blame the industries ills on corporate greed and “profiteering”. Not only does their legislation ignore the true causes of soaring insurance prices, it exacerbates them. Instead of removing middle-man interference with market dynamics, the plans expand this senseless system by forcing employers to provide insurance for their employees under penalty of fine or tax. And instead of removing government meddling with the industry, the legislation creates over 1900 pages of new mandates, regulations, fees, and bureaucracy. Any prescription written to cure a system ailing from government intervention with more government intervention is surely doomed to failure.


Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this bill is its blatant encroachments on individual liberties. The bill forces insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions at no extra charge, the equivalent of selling life insurance to a dead man, insuring a car that has already crashed, or insuring a home that has already burned down. Why should any company in any field be forced by the government to do something sure to lose it money? In order to pay for this costly policy, the legislation forces nearly all Americans to buy/obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, a law called the “individual mandate.” Fees or even jail time await those who fail to comply. Obama’s argued in September that those who fail to obtain insurance practice “irresponsible behavior” which “costs all the rest of us money” because “it means we pay for these people’s expensive emergency room visits.” What the president calls “irresponsible behavior” might also be called “choice”, and when he says such emergency room visits are “expensive”, he means is that they account for less than 3% of our healthcare budget. The true motivation behind the individual mandate is making the young and healthy subsidize the old and sick. The bills also dictate that all insurance plans meet the government’s specific qualifications. Consumers may not pay for merely what they want insured, they must instead fill whatever insurance parameters the government deems appropriate. This removes the incentive to check ones healthcare consumption, as it’s already paid for. If people are covered for more products and services than they are now, they will naturally use more products and services than they do now, and this increased usage will force up the costs of care. All of these measures have been tried before in several states, where they have repeatedly increased costs. The present legislation will merely repeat this failure on a grander scale.

Such mandates eradicate any semblance of free market principles the current system has left. The sale of any product is based on the premise that both consumer and producer agree to the transaction. If the producer is forced to sell, and the consumer is forced to buy, the principles of choice and market freedom through which so many industries have flourished cannot exist. Under no circumstances should the government have any power to force any citizen to purchase any product at any time. As Forbes columnist Shikha Dalmia writes, the proposed legislation “will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell.” If that isn’t a government takeover of healthcare, what is? And it’s a costly takeover at that. The most uncertain issue of the healthcare debate has been the budget hit of the proposed changes. Estimates of total cost run anywhere from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. For a nation already $12 trillion debt, with a soaring national deficit, such a price tag is an irresponsible expenditure even if the bills were effective. The bill is partially funded through diverting $475 billion of so-called “inefficiencies” from Medicare; a half trillion dollars of inefficiencies in a prior government healthcare reform hardly argues for further government intervention! Current projections are vastly underestimated; the healthcare plans are tremendously costly endeavors America simply cannot afford.

The legislation aims to a) open access to health insurance to the 45 million uninsured Americans, and b) lower soaring healthcare costs. But it is economically impossible that both of these things take place without rationing. Healthcare products and services do not grow on trees; they are of a set, limited quantity and require much human research and funds to create. Only entrepreneur initiative can increase the set supply of healthcare in the country, not a government bill. In fact, government liscensure laws and the AMA keep this supply low. But by bringing in 31 million more insured Americans elligible to receive these things, the demand for this set supply skyrockets! Simple economics tells us that when there is greater demand for the same set supply of products, the price of those products inevitably increases.

The proposed healthcare legislation fails to reform the health insurance industry by misdiagnosing the causes of the healthcare crisis, finalizing an illogical third party system, further infringing on individual liberties, and unfairly expanding government powers at an unacceptable cost. For these reasons Congress must vote against the proposed healthcare bills and instead pass a reform bill that will more fairly, cheaply, and effectively fix the industry. Ronald Reagan once accurately stated that “the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it.” Here’s hoping the American congressmen will do the same.

The Case Against Obamacare | Newsflavor

Normally, this ^ lengthy piece would be subject to some editing for length and due to the rule requiring that whole articles not be quoted. But the piece quoted here IS already and excerpted version.

It's pretty good, too.

I'm with you. Fuck the old and the sick. Let the fuckers die. We need to stop feeding them. Put them in front of DEATH PANELS. Better yet, give them to the NRA for "shooting practice".

Man, you are a TRUE and REAL American. Just what this country needs. MORE LIKE YOU!

Except of course, as you always manage to do, shit-face, you find it expedient to lie to make your petty partisan little pointless.

False dichotomy.

The "choice" is not now (and never was) between the Obamacare crap legislation and "fuck[ing] the old and the sick."

You are so totally dishonest, rdunce.

Seriously, without relying on lies and dishonest hyperbole, you couldn't "make" any arguments at all. As it stands, you lack the ability to construct any logical or persuasive arguments.

 

[Foxfyre]

“A bill without the mandate is no longer real health reform,” said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a key architect of both the Massachusetts law and the federal law.

In a paper prepared for the Obama administration, Gruber estimated premiums would rise 27 percent without the mandate because of these “free riders,” as opposed to the 10 percent expected increase in the non-group market expected under reform."

So without the mandate premiums would rise 27%. There would be several options besides just repealing it.
1. Pass legislation to discourage the free riders, (those that wait till they are seriously ill to sign up). Insurance companies could be allowed to consider preexisting conditions for free riders.
2. Pass legislation to adopt a single payer system. That would probably be the cheapest alternative but it would be a huge fight since it would be the end of private healthcare insurance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...de-house-repeals-obamacare-3.html#post3227865

well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.

how about bending the cost curve?

To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered. Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.

Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services. The more they sell, the more they make. So what's wrong with that? Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product. With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.

You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure. Where is the incentive?

Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.

Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax. The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.

In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription. So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it. He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before. "P" was okay with the $5.

He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.

"P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds. He talked with Walgreens, his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government. Nobody could tell him why.

As yet it remains a mystery.

 

[shintao]

WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.

'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com

As long as we are clear. Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.

That's no longer acceptable to me. If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.

Maddy, you have to think Mexico, and let it go at that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.

how about bending the cost curve?

To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered. Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.

Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services. The more they sell, the more they make. So what's wrong with that? Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product. With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.

You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure. Where is the incentive?

Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.

Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax. The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.

In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription. So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it. He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before. "P" was okay with the $5.

He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.

"P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds. He talked with Walgreens, his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government. Nobody could tell him why.

As yet it remains a mystery.

The problem is two fold: understandable greed of private vendors and sloppy work at medicare.

Group or cooperative or singledouble/ payer will drive down the price.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as we are clear. Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems...

Thus presumes you accept as sound the idea that there are "problems" regarding healt care that the government needs to address.
I do not, and so I reject your premise.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered. Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.

Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services. The more they sell, the more they make. So what's wrong with that? Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product. With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.

You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure. Where is the incentive?

Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.

Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax. The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.

In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription. So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it. He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before. "P" was okay with the $5.

He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.

"P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds. He talked with Walgreens, his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government. Nobody could tell him why.

As yet it remains a mystery.

The problem is two fold: understandable greed of private vendors and sloppy work at medicare.

Group or cooperative or singledouble/ payer will drive down the price.

This is the talking point of a liberal^^^^^^^^^^

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore. It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically. That is for another day.

If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period. So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.

 

[shintao]

well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.

how about bending the cost curve?

To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered. Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.

Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services. The more they sell, the more they make. So what's wrong with that? Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product. With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.

You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure. Where is the incentive?

Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.

Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax. The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.

In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription. So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it. He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before. "P" was okay with the $5.

He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.

"P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds. He talked with Walgreens, his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government. Nobody could tell him why.

As yet it remains a mystery.

Why have prescriptions? Or that extra doctor bill to get one? Or that insurance to pay for it?

Seems we can eliminate all that. If all you have is a hang nail anyway, buy some clippers.

 

[shintao]

M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore. It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically. That is for another day.

If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period. So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.

I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.

http://www.qualityprescriptiondrugs.com/Index.aspx

 

[bigrebnc1775]

M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore. It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically. That is for another day.

If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period. So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.

As I said he's a liberal and nothing but a liberal

So the insuernce companies will break the economy? The democrats have already taken care of that. It's already broken.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore. It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically. That is for another day.

If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period. So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.

I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.

Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.

 

[shintao]

M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore. It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically. That is for another day.

If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period. So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.

I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.

Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.

Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself? When you cut those people loose, and let the market dictate prices, they will come down. We don't need government protecting these middlemen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.

Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.

Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself?

Why have something the American people do not want to pay for? That is the question fuck the rest. The American people said in a vote in 2010 WE DO NOT WANT OBAMACARE. now all that has to be done is wait until the next election and repeal it. but for now just no money for the funding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.

Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.

Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself? When you cut those people loose, and let the market dictate prices, they will come down. We don't need government protecting these middlemen.

The program will not be repealed en toto. won't happen. Now Pubs and Dems will have to keep the public off their backs next year. The libs and the cons to the far extremes no longer factor in to this debate.

 

[Provocateur]

I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill. It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.

It seems to me that the correct terminology should be adult offspring. Not "kids" (do it for the kids!), not "children".

Why aren't twenty somethings able to purchase their own HC? If they are so needy and dependent at that age, why not have their parents pick up the tab since they raised up people to be leaches on others?

I don't appreciate paying for someone else's adult offspring. Should not be my responsibility.

 

[Provocateur]

*Yawn*

Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.

What are you proposing to replace it?

I AM ALL FOR repealing the bill, however, I think we (conservatives) MUST counter at least part of this with a counter offer, like eliminating restrictions that prevent plans competing cross borders for one......

And medical malpractice reform.

 

[Trajan]

you do realize that even if it were to win in the senate... which it won't...

that you didn't even get 2/3...

not quite a 'landslide'... except to nutters, maybe.

and... who cares?

Your the one in a sweat, so I'm going with YOU.

i marvel at the ability of the right to engage in self-delusion.

pointing out that this is a pointless exercise is merely stating the obvious.

you're the ones all in a tizzy over something that a) is pathetic; and b) will fail.

and so was the dream act, no?

 

[saveliberty]

The choke point is funding. We can still use choke right?