Squashing The Ignorance. Republican Health Care Plans Exposed

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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

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

 

[Polk]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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

riiiight

 

[Polk]

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

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

riiiight

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]

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

riiiight

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.

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]

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

"Squashing The Ignorance. Republican Health Care Plans Exposed"

 

[Meister]

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

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

 

[Polk]

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

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

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]

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

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

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?

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]

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

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?

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.

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

 

[Meister]

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?

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.

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

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]

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
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.

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]

As opposed to substantial increases if not?

 

[Christopher]

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]

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]

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]

"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.