Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[Trajan]

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.

so how do we fault for that? If true?

It's hard to say because you don't know what individual Congressmen have done in regards to informing their constituents. Plus some people just don't pay attention.

so all those commercials I see , oh wait, ads I see on TV ....?

 

[taichiliberal]

For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.

The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.

So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.

Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM. The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.

Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies that caused our current problems.

I think you missed the GOP stuffed the ballot box. Other than that you puked out the lefty line pretty well. Now all you have to do is add truth and it will evaporate.

Translation of SaveLiberty's response: I cannot logically or factuall disprove or refute anything that Taichiliberal said, but I resent his tagging my beliefs which are in step with teabaggers, oathers, neocons, birthers, Libertarians and the like. So I'll try to mock Taichiliberal....initially by throwing in an absurd accusation that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Most of the healthcare dollars are spent on the elderly. 30% is spent on end of life care. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think it was 70% of the healthcare cost is for people over 60. It's not the cost of removing a hangnail, treating the flu, or the common cold that is driving up healthcare cost. It's treating cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer, etc. The people who are the least qualified to manage healthcare cost are the people who are responsible for most of the cost. If you want to lower the cost of healthcare, you cannot put the responsibility on the patient. That will never work.

Maybe we should just shoot everyone over 60.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Canadian Pharmacy Online | Canada Online Pharmacy | Canada Pharmacy | Canadian Drugs | Prescription Drugs Online

Sure. When you are in the hospital half sedated and the doctor orders another MRI, respiratory therapy, and a changes in your medication, you ask him for a complete cost breakdown of all the costs so you can compare it with other alternatives. Get serious. The system is not setup so patients can make intelligent cost effective choices. The choices are made by the people who's income depends on their ability to their selling services. The more they sell, the more they make.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Most of the healthcare dollars are spent on the elderly. 30% is spent on end of life care. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think it was 70% of the healthcare cost is for people over 60. It's not the cost of removing a hangnail, treating the flu, or the common cold that is driving up healthcare cost. It's treating cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer, etc. The people who are the least qualified to manage healthcare cost are the people who are responsible for most of the cost. If you want to lower the cost of healthcare, you cannot put the responsibility on the patient. That will never work.

Maybe we should just shoot everyone over 60.

Of course you jest or offer a cynical question expecting most of these ghouls to snap out of their fear mongering media generated coma and all of a sudden become the human beings depicted in little house on the prarie or in gunsmoke or bonanza.

There are many millions of Americans that are no less brainwashed than the good Germans living under Hitler. I see no difference at all. The Germans that allowed Hitler to conduct his wars and atrocities were no worse a human being than your average American that has a good secure job and pays his taxes and sees his country crumbling around him and sees how hopeless it has become to do anything but look out for his and his immediate families survival. Is it a crime to be afraid? Is it a crime to turn your back on your fellow citizens? Didn't you play by all the rules and end up with something worth protecting? And the ones that were not lucky....Isn't that really just God just telling you that you are somehow more deserving anyway?...And if God rejects the welfare of these people who are you to defy Gods will?

People! That is EXACTLY what the good Germans were thinking and believing. They were not FOR war and a HOLOCAUST. They were afraid of losing what they had worked hard to obtain in the midst of chaos. Sure they made a few choices that were selfish..ya they might have turned in a Jewish family or two but so what? What could have been done to save them anyway? Was it really any good Germans obligation to do anything but keep their family fed and look the other way when told to?

Were the good Germans really THAT bad? Isn't it getting easier to see why they had to allow what they had to allow?

 

[Ras Al Ghul]

Everyone here knows that Obamacare won't really be repeal, don't you?

 

[HUGGY]

Everyone here knows that Obamacare won't really be repeal, don't you?

If that question is directed at me...I am not concerned with health regulation as it is worded in the bill that passed last year. Most of the people that oppose it have not read it or digested its effects or intent without the filter of their chosen pundit. It is a very weak remedy for the true problems with our health care system. What the opposition shows is not the flaws in the bill which are all to do with what the bill did not address but the strength and irrational loudness the money given by the HMOs has purchased in the media and in the most cynical hypocritical corners of congress.

What the PEOPLE of this country need is a single payer system. What the people need is reasonable cost and access. What the current SYSTEM of HMO providers wants is access to all of the people with no regulation on what they charge. They have absolutely no intentions of lowering the costs of health care. They want to be able to charge as much as they possibly can.

The current bill does not address cost. If the bill gets repealed the cost of health care will not be lowered a dime.

In Venezuela the price of gasoline is about 50 cents a gallon. Here it is about 3 dollars a gallon. The gas in Venezuela is just as good as the gas in the USA. We have it in our minds that everything in this country is better than it is anywhere else. That is just plain ignorant. What is true is that we have more money to spend on anything than any other country. But to hear some people in America tell it health care in every other civilized country totally sucks and people are just dropping like flies. Of course that is ridiculous. There may be some anomalies that we could improve on but the negatives are highly exaggerated. With what we are capable and willing to spend we could truly have the worlds best health care system available for all Americans. If the British or Germans can take care of all of their people then we can do it better for less than we spend right now taking care of only about two thirds of our population. If we cannot then we are lying to ourselves about being the best country.

 

[KissMy]

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.

So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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.

So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.

Ignorance is bliss for some, I see and DNC talking points run amok.

Due to spin from PapaObamacare advocates, many on the Left would not know that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed in 1996, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew.

Of course, if we had true competition in the health care market in the first place, things like the HIPAAC would never have required.

We see that Obamabots are fighting hard to keep to keep this monstrosity going but...


HHS Wildly Overstates the Problem of Pre-Existing Conditions — and Ignores Its Cause

Michael Cannon points out, a 2001 HHS survey found that only one percent of Americans had ever been denied health insurance for any reason.

​

200 Economists Ask Lawmakers to Repeal Obamacare


A majority of states have now joined a federal lawsuit challenging the democrat’s unpopular Obamacare bil


The major problem with PapaObama Care is a marked shift of authority and control of health-care decisions to the government which will create many inefficiencies.

You may believe it will be "more equal" but do you really believe you will have the same doctors and coverage as the President or any other politicians. We only need to see how the last congress excluded themselves from PapaObama care to see this is not true.

If you believe this then I have some "Hope and Change" to sell you

 

[editec]

Everyone here knows that Obamacare won't really be repeal, don't you?

Not unless the GOP also takes control over the Senate and White House, Ras.

Then, I'd suggest with some certainty, that the recent HC reforms will be abrogated

 

[editec]

NeoTrot,

We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.

If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do? Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?

I think not.

Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.

Your notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.

 

[KissMy]

NeoTrot,

We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.

If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do? Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?

I think not.

Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.

Your notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.

You or your insurance company negociate those prices before there is an accident. If you fail to plan then plan to fail.

 

[Neotrotsky]

NeoTrot,

We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.

If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do? Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?

I think not.

Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.

Your notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.

Considering that most of PapaObama care has not kicked in...
Oddly enough, most was delayed until after the 2nd presidential election
Funny how that works

How did we survive without PapaObama care?


I notice the MSM and the Left does not talk about all those peoples supposedly dying without health insurance.

Funny how that works too.....



If PapaObama care is "so great"

Why do over 200 companies need waivers?

You will be happy to know. the above question might get
answered now it seems:

Get Out of Gulag Free Card or ObamaCare Waivers for SEIU Threatened

 

[Greenbeard]

Considering that most of PapaObama care has not kicked in...

But your thesis is that "Due to spin from PapaObamacare advocates, many on the Left would not know that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed in 1996, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew." HIPAA already implemented ACA, right?

If PapaObama care is "so great"

Why do over 200 companies need waivers?

If you're actually curious (and I know that you're not), there's no mystery here.

 

[Mini 14]

Interesting that the GOP is starting to give hints that they think they can push this through the Senate as well. I don't see it, but it may get more interesting than any of us think.

Regardless, it won't get funded before 2012, and likely will be repealed officially after Obama leaves office then.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting that the GOP is starting to give hints that they think they can push this through the Senate as well. I don't see it, but it may get more interesting than any of us think.

Regardless, it won't get funded before 2012, and likely will be repealed officially after Obama leaves office then.

yep

 

[Flopper]

NeoTrot,

We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.

If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do? Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?

I think not.

Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.

Your notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.

I think you nailed it. We can't reply on the patients to control healthcare costs. Insurance companies have failed miserably. The healthcare facilities have no interest in controlling cost. The more services they can sell, the more profits.

Group cooperatives where the insurance company owns the medical facilities and all medical personnel are employees seems to work quite well. Capitated health plans where the doctor is paid a fixed fee yearly rewards the doctor for keeping you healthy. There are lots of other plans that can reduce cost. However, most healthcare is fee for service, the least cost effective method of delivering healthcare.

To reduce the cost of healthcare, we have look at how healthcare is delivered. Tort and insurance reforms are not going to do it.

The healthcare law has a lot good stuff in it. Unfortunately, controlling cost is not one of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act[/URL], passed in 1996, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew.

Fright flake talking point from the wild eyed fringe. No, it doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.

That's what I have been arguing for all this time. Let the states handle it.

Imagine that you buy an expensive new SUV and sports car and that straps your cash reserves enough that you decide not to bother with insurance. And then, when you crunch your new vehicle, the insurance company is required to sell you the insurance AND fix the damage that you sustained.

That's exactly what the Obama administration wants to require health insurance companies to do. And the insurance companies don't care so long as they can jack up the rates as high as they want to go and they can do that when the government requires everybody to buy it anyway.

I say let the people in each state put together assigned risk pools for the difficult to insure just like they do for auto insurance, liability insurance, work comp etc. Yes the premiums will be significantly higher but there will be insurance for everybody who wants it.

The Federal government could also offer a catastrophic supplemental policy similar to federal flood insurance or earthquake insurance and encourage people to buy it. That would take care of the big ticket cancer treatment, heart transplants, etc.

Then require the insurance companies to offer large deductibles along with full coverage. You could elect for a $200 deductible all the way up to say $10,000. You pay out of pocket for doctor's visits, prescriptions, etc. until the deductible is reached--a cost most of us can afford--and then the insurance coverage kicks in up to a threshhold where the catastrophic policy would take over. Don't tell me people can't afford that when they can afford oil changes or new tires for their car out of pocket, they replace a washing machine when it breaks, and have the furnace fixed when its on the fritz, etc. They can also afford reasonable medical costs out of pocket.

Restore the medical savings accounts that the Obama administration deep sixed. You can set aside in a private savings account an amount up to say $2000 tax free. You pay for vaccinations, doctors visits, xrays, etc. out of that fund until your insurance deductible kicks in. Anything in your medical savings account that you don't use say within two years can be rolled over into an IRA or other savings vehicle for your retirement later.

Make everybody with income pay some federal income taxes and the above option becomes much more attractive. File that under 'promote the general welfare.'

And outlaw insurance monopolies within states just as monopolies for any other kind of businesses are illegal. That would allow all insurance companies to compete across state lines at will and would also make insurance far more portable than it is now.

Encourage--don't require but encourage--individual ownership of policies. That way if you lose your job or change jobs, you don't lose your insurance because it is your policy. Businesses could still pay for your policy if they wanted to but they wouldn't own it.

Let each state deal with its own poor and indigent.

Then let the federal government get out of the way and let the free market work.

I am confident that we would quickly be paying a whole lot less for medical insurance.

As you see other than a little tweaking of regulation and some additional protections put into place, the federal government does not have to do anything or spend a single taxpayer dollar in order for everybody to have access to healthcare. Get the federal government pretty much out of it and I guarantee that healthcare costs will come down.

 

[Flopper]

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.

So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.

No, 15 states do have high risk pools. Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states. Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more. Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it. Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.