Republican’s VS. Democrat’s Health Care Plan

[KittenKoder]

This Democrats vs Republicans flap is the most divisive and stupid argument going on today. If anyone votes for a candidate solely based on party loyalty and doesn't consider what that candidate stands for they're idiots. As far as both parties are concerned, the only ones within both of these parties that have any sense and give America the best hope for progressing are those who are closer to the center and more moderate members, who not surprisingly are scorned by the more radical elements within the party. Accordingly, it would better to listen to and evaluate the views of the center-left and center-right on health care issues from both parties.

When you branch out on topics, you can really make good points.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Arizona Republican, who is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, notes that a CNN poll released in March found that nearly 3 out of 4 Americans are satisfied with their healthcare coverage.

For those Americans who are uninsured, Shadegg has introduced a bill that would allow those without health coverage to obtain it more cheaply, using tax credits. Individuals with existing health problems would obtain insurance through high-risk state plans



Ultimately, that so-called public plan, or government plan, will run the private sector out of business, because the guys that are operating the public plan are setting the rules for the guys running the private plan,” Shadegg says

As evidence that the Democrats want to drive health insurance companies out of business, Shadegg cites a comment by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., chief deputy whip for the Democrats. In a talk to Democrats on YouTube, she said insurance companies are right when they say a public plan would put the health insurance industry out of business.

“I know many of you here today are single-payer advocates, and so am I,” Schakowsky told her audience. Those of us “who are pushing for a public health insurance option don’t disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will.”
Newsmax.com - Rep. Shadegg: Obama Wants Public Healthcare System

There are some concerns that won't be answered until it's too late. There are alternatives to where there is more than just the governments fingerprint on the healthcare. I repeat, and always will, our government cannot run the healthcare system with success.

I believe that's because the respondents reflected the way people are insured: A certain percentage are covered by employer-based or personal health insurance, a certain percentage are income-eligible to receive Medicaid, a certain percentage are eligible to receive Medicare, and then there is the group who falls through the cracks who are not eligible (or can't afford) any of the above. The CNN poll data is here (scroll down beyond the swine flu questions to March). There are also a couple of other key questions that should be noted in that specific poll as well:

Health Policy

As far as health insurance companies going out of business, imo that will only happen because, as with the large financial institutions, their greed will eventually come back to bite them in their ASSets.

 

[MaggieMae]

You can finance a house because it is an asset that will keep its value. Now tell me what bank would be willing to finance your heart transplant. What a stupid analogy.

Common misconception....A debt is not an asset. As long as there is a mortgage on your house, it's a liability not an asset.

Also, the inflated numbers you've been using for the costs of these procedures is under the current 3rd payer model, not one involving a truly free market and the competitive forces that come with it.

Then you know nothing of basic bookkeeping: Accounts recievable are always treated as assets on a balance sheet. For the status of those, you would need to read the P&L statement, but uncollected anticipated profits are assets when auditing the financial health of a company.

 

[MaggieMae]

You have that backwards. SS is not 67, although you can take reduced benefits as early as age 62. Medicare kicks in at 65.

At 62 or 65, Medicare does not kick in until two years thereafter. There's a waiting period, which a lot of people are unaware of, although Medicaid would probably be an interim option if someone is relying only on the SS benefits which in most cases would meet the income eligibility formula.

Could you please provide a link. The only information I have found on a waiting period is a two year waiting period for those who seek Medicare early due to disability.

You know what? I think you're right. In fact, I was thinking about my older brother who did have to seek SSD before he turned 65 and I'm recalling how pissed off he was at the Catch-22 effect of not being able to qualify for Medicare for 2 more years. (Like what was the point of the "DISABILITY" part of SSD?!)

I apologize.

 

[WillowTree]

Wow I never thought of looking for a job with benefits. If only someone was hiring..... Oh wait we're in the middle of the biggest recession since the great depression.

As far as priorities, yea lets see - stop paying my student loans so that I can pay for insurance. hmmm bankruptcy now (which doesn't elminate SL debt) or possible bankruptcy later (which WOULD eliminate medical debt.)

Yea... I'll continue doing what I'm doing, but thanks for the worthless advice.

Well, no, not since the Great Depression, actually it was under Jimmie Carter. I was referring to not buying a house in the economic downturn, and getting some insurance for you and your family....to where I don't have to pay for it. You know...the way most Americans do it, if thay can't find a job with any benefits. I have a feeling there are 2 cars in the family. Probably at least 2-3 TV's, and XBox or something like that. A couple of cell phones, and probably an IPOD or two. I have a feeling I'm not far off on this.

More great financial advice. I should pass up buying a house when there was a $7500 tax credit (now 8000) and <5% interest rates? Again, primary house is generally exempt from bankruptcy... where as any potential medical debt I could accrue in the future would be wiped out.

You're pretty far out there, don't kid yourself. I'm the kind of guy that does math before making a decision. You seem to be basing yours on emotion.

so you intend to buy a house, using 8000 dollars of taxpayer money, knowing you probably cannot pay for it,, and i say this because you've already figured out that bankruptcy will allow you to keep said home at someone else's expense????? and you don't want to pass up that chance to suck off the public welfare to pay for your own health care???? dayuuuum you sound just like a democwat. it's people like yourself that makes the economy suck.

 

[Red Dawn]

( In Two Parts )

First what the Democrats are considering – It's still a work in progress; here’s what I know about it

Democrats want to expand the role of the Federal Government in the health insurance industry, and as a start they will probably tax small employers who don’t provide health insurance to their employees. Then they would use those revenues to subsidize the un-insured.

Like the Republicans they will also have to go after the $300 billion employer tax subsidy, meaning the 'equivalence-to-wages' of the presently non-taxed employer provided health insurance benefit. Max Baucus, Senate Finance Chairman himself has acknowledged the need to do that, saying, it makes him feel like Willy Sutton because he recognizes “that is where the money is.” Using some part of that recaptured tax expenditure, they would create a government subsidized health insurance plan.

Once there’s government (subsidized) insurance, the private insurance companies will disappear from the scene and we will be left with a “single payer” system, which probably everyone would agree is their real goal. Therefore they seem to be planning on doing that by vastly expanding federal regulations of health insurance and, for now, staying with the present job-related system, partly concentrating on employers to get this done.

Because many employers are too small, employing too few people, using employer provided insurance will never accomplish what needs to be done.

The Democrats are estimating costs for their plan at $1.5 trillion OR MORE over 10-years. Since their plan, unlike the Republican plan does nothing to encourage competition, that estimate will no doubt be on the low side.

Can I ask you a very simple question?


Republicans had control of the federal government for years, and never introduced or promoted any kind of healthcare bill that increased access to healthcare for americans.

I recall that when the republicans wanted to spend money, it was on war, halliburton, the pentagon, and missle defense.

So why, all of a "sudden", is the GOP trying to create policy on this?


thanks.

 

[WillowTree]

Here's another question,, both for dems and republicans.. how many people think that if we were not forced to pay for medical care and education and other entitlement for 30 million illegal aliens, then health care for all American citizens might be an obtainable goal??? anybody???

 

[Seraega]

Well, no, not since the Great Depression, actually it was under Jimmie Carter. I was referring to not buying a house in the economic downturn, and getting some insurance for you and your family....to where I don't have to pay for it. You know...the way most Americans do it, if thay can't find a job with any benefits. I have a feeling there are 2 cars in the family. Probably at least 2-3 TV's, and XBox or something like that. A couple of cell phones, and probably an IPOD or two. I have a feeling I'm not far off on this.

More great financial advice. I should pass up buying a house when there was a $7500 tax credit (now 8000) and <5% interest rates? Again, primary house is generally exempt from bankruptcy... where as any potential medical debt I could accrue in the future would be wiped out.

You're pretty far out there, don't kid yourself. I'm the kind of guy that does math before making a decision. You seem to be basing yours on emotion.

so you intend to buy a house, using 8000 dollars of taxpayer money, knowing you probably cannot pay for it,, and i say this because you've already figured out that bankruptcy will allow you to keep said home at someone else's expense????? and you don't want to pass up that chance to suck off the public welfare to pay for your own health care???? dayuuuum you sound just like a democwat. it's people like yourself that makes the economy suck.

I don't intend. I bought in December, got my $7500 in february when I did my taxes. I have no plans to go bankrupt. You're taking my post out of context. What I said is that should something catastrophic happen I've made the right financial decisions. Don't hate the playa' right? I didn't make the rules. If I could buy reasonably priced insurance I would. I'm not paying $510 a month when I go to the doc every other year for a checkup. I pay for my visit in cash, and instead of spending $12k for that visit (500x24 months) I pay $150. I'd sure like some policy that would cover in the event of some major medical problem, but with the current laws it's not in any way feasible.

 

[American Horse]

Can I ask you a very simple question?


Republicans had control of the federal government for years, and never introduced or promoted any kind of healthcare bill that increased access to healthcare for americans.

I recall that when the republicans wanted to spend money, it was on war, halliburton, the pentagon, and missle defense.

So why, all of a "sudden", is the GOP trying to create policy on this?

thanks.

This is simply not true. It's too bad that we don't know the content of bills which are offered up by both parties, and that's because the MSM won't report any content at all. The D's, when they pass their bill (which they will) will probably have 900 pages and you won't have a clue about what's in it.

The evidence that what I've just said is true lies in the history of the MSAs and HSAs and the resistance of the Ds to let them come into existence. The Medical Savings account, by agreement with the Ds was limited to just 700,000 (I believe, but it could've been far less), and because of that limitation the Ds let them be created as a part of HIPAA in 1996. The first MSA's were passed in Missouri in 1993. By 1998, 25 states had some form of MSA legislation offering a state tax break to those who open MSAs, and the Republicans seeing the efficacy of those to bring competition to health care promoted the passage of the MSA accounts.

Why the 700,00 limit? The Rs had to agree to go along with that limit in hopes that they would grow in popularity and more would be allowed when the initial limit was reached. Did you know any of that? If not, I don't blame you; we simply cannot get the information we need to evaluate the policiy initiatives and differences of these two parties.

I blame the MSM becuase the limitations of our knowledge springs from there.

Why would the Rs allow their initiatives be limited as they do, even when they are in the majority? Because there are always RINO in the R caucus to split their vote, while on the other hand the Ds almost vote entirely along the dictates of their party.

The fact that we have such a huge information media and people remain so poorly informed about the very legislation that means life or death or affects their quality of life ought to concern everyone.

You can't get enough info on C-SPAN either, from the sessions of congress and the senate because they can't read those bills, they just call them "read" and vote on them. The only way to get informed watching C-SPAN is to pay attention to the policy discussions presented by the two sides, but the value can be sucked out of those by the innane phone caller system that allows Ds to call in as if they were Rs and degrade the conversation to the lowest common denominator for their fallback belief system which is hatred of Bush and things Republican.

 

[007]

Here's another question,, both for dems and republicans.. how many people think that if we were not forced to pay for medical care and education and other entitlement for 30 million illegal aliens, then health care for all American citizens might be an obtainable goal??? anybody???

Somebody from kullyfornia should be able to answer that... with 51% of the population espanic, and 45% of that being illegal aliens... how's that working out for them? Oh yeah... kullyfornia is DEAD ASS BROKE!

Gee WT... I think I just may have inadvertently answered your question...

 

[Oddball]

Then you know nothing of basic bookkeeping: Accounts recievable are always treated as assets on a balance sheet. For the status of those, you would need to read the P&L statement, but uncollected anticipated profits are assets when auditing the financial health of a company.

If you have a mortgage, are those payments on the "accounts payable" side of the ledger, or "accounts receivable"??

 

[American Horse]

Can I ask you a very simple question?

Republicans had control of the federal government for years, and never introduced or promoted any kind of healthcare bill that increased access to healthcare for americans.

I recall that when the republicans wanted to spend money, it was on war, halliburton, the pentagon, and missle defense.

So why, all of a "sudden", is the GOP trying to create policy on this?

thanks.

Once again Red, I use your most useful question as a foil to attempt to make this thread a useful one for its readers:

This is interesting - If you went to the British Publication, The Lancet a 1996 article, you might have been able to find out the following:
(HEADLINE) - Compromise found on US medical savings accounts

&#8220;Prospects for final Congressional action on health-insurance reform legislation brightened on July 25, when Democrats and Republicans agreed on a compromise 4-year test of controversial Medical Savings Accounts. Disputes over the MSA issue&#8212;included in the version that passed the US House in March but rejected by the Senate in the bill it passed 100-0 in April&#8212;have kept the otherwise popular bill in legislative limbo for more than 3 months&#8230;."
(and then we come to this notification - &#8220;To read this article in full you will need to login or make a payment&#8221; hmmmm&#8230;..and the bill was kept in limbo until an agreement could be reached between the whole of the R side with only one on the D (one being Senator Kennedy) side to allow this important bill to become law - notice the bill finally passed in the Senate 100 to 0)

(See Lancet , 347 : 1179 3 August 1996). (also this legislative action was being reported in the WSJ at the same time)

Link to the Lancet article HERE


Another Editorial: &#8220;Enhancing Medical Care in the U.S. via Health Savings Accounts&#8221;(HSAs)
By Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.
Here&#8217;s some legislative history in an editorial in Surgical Neurology September 2005 Vol. 64 No. 3; this article shows the number of participants was limited to 750,000 by a bill agreed to by Sen. Nancy Kassebaum and Sen Kennedy:

&#8221;..., the Kassebaum-Kennedy law set up a pilot project for MSAs which, unfortunately, had a slow start because many of the provisions were preordained to failure by a number of restrictions. For example, there was a cap of 750,000 MSA openings; there were unwieldy, required deductibles; there were sun setting provisions (i.e., the program closed after a four-year period); and availability was limited to the self-employed and to small businesses with less than fifty employees. All of these requirements predictably made MSAs unattractive to insurers.&#8221;

So I ask anyone following this: Were you aware of the difficulties in getting a bill passed that would allow companies (including sole-proprietors and independent contractors) to create a health care program that encouraged competition into the system by creating tax free high deductible policies which the owner could save and accrue annually giving them an interest in making the selection of providers competitive? And did you notice how Kennedy and the democrats tried to cripple the efficacy of the MSA section of the bill in the last paragraph of the last quote?

 

[MaggieMae]

See: Freudian projection. Basic Human Psychology 1: Neurosis, Projection and Freudian Projection

All of which oh-so conveniently, and not very cleverly, avoids Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, and the writings of the framers of that document, both Federalist and Anti-federalist.

We DO NOT live in a DEMOCRACY!

Ahem, James Madison, one of the "framers" of the Constitution, defined in Federalist 39 that a "republic" is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people.

Every few years, the great body of the people get to nominate representatives for themselves at ELECTIONS. Duh...

yes, thus we are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC

moron

So how come the neocon ideal for world peace wasn't called "spreading representative republicanism around the world"??

Just because the word "Republic" is included in the GOP's official party name, doesn't mean the word "democratic" doesn't also apply to our form of government. It ain't rocket science, genius.

But why am I arguing with you who "labels" anyone who disagrees with your absurdities as a "moron." Your vocabulary is obviously pretty limited anyway.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ahh....Nations with socialized medical services, creating their own criteria, to get the result they wanted to get.

There's something you don't see every day!!

Your hatred of empirical evidence has been well-documented. That said, are you at least able to pretend that you have specific objections to this study?

Empirical evidence of what? Waiting lists for elective surgery and cutting old people off and telling them to accept their "hopeless diagnoses?"

Just like anything else in the "news," we only hear the horror stories. If people in those countries were not happy in general with their government sponsored health care, they would CHANGE IT. They are, after all, democracies who use the voting booth to express displeasure over national issues just like we do here.

 

[Oddball]

So how come the neocon ideal for world peace wasn't called "spreading representative republicanism around the world"??

Just because the word "Republic" is included in the GOP's official party name, doesn't mean the word "democratic" doesn't also apply to our form of government. It ain't rocket science, genius.

But why am I arguing with you who "labels" anyone who disagrees with your absurdities as a "moron." Your vocabulary is obviously pretty limited anyway.

First of all, neither DivCon or I are neocons.....And I'm not even a republican.

Secondly, the neocon claim of "spreading 'mockracy around the world" is more a comment on their ignorance that anything else.....Which also begs the question; why would you believe them in any case?

 

[MaggieMae]

Most of the "empirical evidence" you've posted around here has criteria that defies objective and specific quantification.....Just a bunch of do-gooder buzzwords like "access" and "equity", for instance.

But far be it from anyone to call into question the omniscient college boy, who has produced about zilch of value added to the legitimate economy, with his charts, graphs, and academic jargon.

Is that right?

I understand the source of this bleating; you lack the capacity to analyze empirical evidence. But really, why expose yourself so blatantly?

I lack nothing, junior.

Some of the areas in which I'm highly trained are in the fields of linguistics, semantics, NLP and hypnosis....I can smell bullshit artists from three states away.

And trust me, you're not but a apprentice bullshitter.

Indeed, there are bullshit artists coming from all sides. Yours included. Just because you articulate B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T better than some doesn't make it smell any better.

 

[Oddball]

Indeed, there are bullshit artists coming from all sides. Yours included. Just because you articulate B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T better than some doesn't make it smell any better.

Do you have anything of relevance to add, or are you just having a Tourette's attack in your hands??

 

[MaggieMae]

many of those 78 Million(a number that is hard to substantiate in the first place) CHOOSE not to get it, mostly because they are young and healthy and think they will live forever

Bullshit. I'm one of those 78 million and I don't get it because it would cost me over $1000 a month. You find a 20 something that just has an extra $12k a year laying around when we're trying to pay off our student loans and buy our first home.

Look for a job that has benefits....but I sure in the hell don't want to pay for your sorry ass to get insurance.
I do notice that you have prioritized what's important...and insurance just isn't that important to you. Try renting....I did until I could afford a home, and health insurance....see you do have choices

It's so incredible to see on a daily basis how many of you continue to actually BELIEVE that most middle-class Americans can afford to do EVERYTHING you do.

Newsflash! Even renting costs a shitload these days, including first/last/security up front which amount to as much as closing costs on a home. A decent all-inclusive personal health insurance policy costs anywhere from $2,000 to $6,000 per year for a single person and $12,000 or more for a family of 4, upward. Doctor visits alone (excluding any simple tests like BP, X-rays, blood profile) are on average $100 PER VISIT. And contrary to what someone else stupidly noted elsewhere herein, I know of no doctor or any other medical facility willing to set up its own installment plan. If you are uninsured and can find one of these compassionate places, more power to you. But they simply do not exist the way they did in the 1950's and beyond.

 

[MaggieMae]

Look for a job that has benefits....but I sure in the hell don't want to pay for your sorry ass to get insurance.
I do notice that you have prioritized what's important...and insurance just isn't that important to you. Try renting....I did until I could afford a home, and health insurance....see you do have choices

Wow I never thought of looking for a job with benefits. If only someone was hiring..... Oh wait we're in the middle of the biggest recession since the great depression.

As far as priorities, yea lets see - stop paying my student loans so that I can pay for insurance. hmmm bankruptcy now (which doesn't elminate SL debt) or possible bankruptcy later (which WOULD eliminate medical debt.)

Yea... I'll continue doing what I'm doing, but thanks for the worthless advice.

Well, no, not since the Great Depression, actually it was under Jimmie Carter. I was referring to not buying a house in the economic downturn, and getting some insurance for you and your family....to where I don't have to pay for it. You know...the way most Americans do it, if thay can't find a job with any benefits. I have a feeling there are 2 cars in the family. Probably at least 2-3 TV's, and XBox or something like that. A couple of cell phones, and probably an IPOD or two. I have a feeling I'm not far off on this.

And I think you're assuming that "most Americans" are under 40. "Most Americans" are the demographic over 40, with the largest being over 50, and I can assure you they don't have rooms full of toys like XBoxes and extra TVs. They also don't text each other when they're sitting right next to the person, thus their monthly cellphone charges aren't out of sight.

 

[Oddball]