The Alternative Plan That Obama Claims Doesn't Exist

[Dragonlady]

Canadians have a higher average lifespan because they don't have all the gang activity and other sick behavior libs participate in, here in America. Infant mortality rates are recorded differently in different countries, so can't be compared. America counts them all, some nations don't. Look it up.

Yeah, we have gangs, drugs and gay marriage which is sanctioned by the state in every province.

Our longer life expectancy is entirely due to our state funded, single payer health care system, which costs half of what Americans pay per capita. When people in Canada get sick, they go to the doctor and have no co-pays. They get annual physicals with no co-pays for either the doctor's visit or the tests. When women get pregnant, they get proper pre-natal care with no co-pays. Your high infant mortality rates are directly tied to the high numbers of uninsured people who don't receive prenatal care due to the costs and lack of insurance. Don't try to pretend it's because some countries don't count the premies.

 

[Seawytch]

got any proof of your 70% claim? of course not, because its a lie

Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option - CBS News

A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds.​

7 out of 10 Doctors recommend a Public Option too Fishy...

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option

come on now, wytchey, that poll is from 2009 before anyone knew what a disaster this was going to be.

either post something current or admit that you were spinning once again.

Piss poor deflection again, Fishy. The poll is about the Public Option, not the ACA so it really doesn't matter when the poll was taken. Much of what the RW paints as a "disaster" can be "fixed" with the Public Option so many wanted.

 

[Redfish]

Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option - CBS News

A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds.​

7 out of 10 Doctors recommend a Public Option too Fishy...

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option

come on now, wytchey, that poll is from 2009 before anyone knew what a disaster this was going to be.

either post something current or admit that you were spinning once again.

Piss poor deflection again, Fishy. The poll is about the Public Option, not the ACA so it really doesn't matter when the poll was taken. Much of what the RW paints as a "disaster" can be "fixed" with the Public Option so many wanted.

are you really that naive? to many the "public option" means it will be "free for me". the problem is someone has to pay.

like all liberal pipe dreams, it falls apart when the bills start coming in.

 

[tap4154]

Canadians have a higher average lifespan because they don't have all the gang activity and other sick behavior libs participate in, here in America. Infant mortality rates are recorded differently in different countries, so can't be compared. America counts them all, some nations don't. Look it up.

Yeah, we have gangs, drugs and gay marriage which is sanctioned by the state in every province.

Our longer life expectancy is entirely due to our state funded, single payer health care system, which costs half of what Americans pay per capita. When people in Canada get sick, they go to the doctor and have no co-pays. They get annual physicals with no co-pays for either the doctor's visit or the tests. When women get pregnant, they get proper pre-natal care with no co-pays. Your high infant mortality rates are directly tied to the high numbers of uninsured people who don't receive prenatal care due to the costs and lack of insurance. Don't try to pretend it's because some countries don't count the premies.

It's not pretending, it's FACT!

Blog: Infant mortality figures for US are misleading


Low birth weight infants are not counted against the "live birth" statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.

According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.

But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies - considered "unsalvageable" outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive - is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.

[...]

Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as "stillborn" if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.

Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a "miscarriage" and does not affect the country's reported infant mortality rates.

[...]

Too short to count?

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.

Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

 

[g5000]

There were several other plans offered up for health care reform, but I am guessing none were oppressive enough to suit Obama's tyrannical tastes.

Most libs will look the other way at yet another lie from Bam's mouth. Maybe they are so used to it that it doesn't phase them any more.

Politics: VIDEO: Tom Price explains the ObamaCare alternative Obama claims doesn't exist | Best of Cain

Can you show us Boehner's and McConnell's stamp of approval on this no-name Congressman's plan?

You want evidence the GOP had no plan? Just look at the period where they controlled Congress for 12 years, and the White House for 8.

They did NOTHING about health care costs outpacing inflation for decades.

 

[tap4154]

Would love to hear one of these mouth-breathing lib morons explain to me how doubling my premium and adding a 40% copay, when there's been NO change in my health to cause it, is a good thing.

Would love to see what other options are available to you for plans comparable to the one you had and the costs involved. My guess is that you can get a comparable plan for a lot less than the one that was cancelled.

$5,000 deductible is not great. No matter what, if you get sick, the first $5,000 is out of your pocket. a 40% co-pay would, in the long run be cheaper than a $5,000 deductible.

Can you read??? My new plan with doubled prems has a $4.500 deductible PLUS 40% a copay I didn't have. I DID check their other plans and the closest with no copay that the ACA ALLOWS is also doubled prems ($3k more per year) with no copay, but a $6,350 deductible. I've checked Covered California as well, and they have basically the same plans, all double in cost or MUCH more.

The ONLY way folks will pay less under the Unafforadle Healthcare Act is IF you get a huge subsidy, and that's only if your income is only $15-17K per year, or folks with serious pre-existing conditions may get a break.

 

[g5000]

The Democrats signaled for many years they were going to have the government take over health care if they were ever given the chance. The first significant broadside was HillaryCare. At that time, Senate Republicans countered with a plan that included a health insurance mandate. That is the reason we have the mandate today. The Democrats knew the next time they had a chance, they only way they would have a shot at succeeding would be to include an insurance mandate as a sop to the Republicans instead of going full bore for single payer or a public option.

When Romney enacted RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which included that same mandate, and then the GOP elevated him as a Presidential candidate, that again signaled the GOP's desire for an insurance mandate.

The fact the Republican Party did nothing about the discombobulated and patchwork construct of our healthcare system when they had all the power to do so gives away the game. If you pierce through all the current day bluster and smoke, it becomes obvious the GOP unconditionally capitulated the health care issue to the Democrats. The GOP sold us all down the river. The made a conscious decision to leave the outcome to the Democrats, and they fully supported an insurance mandate...until they didn't.

ObamaCare is here to stay, and the GOP knows it. That's why it thinks it can get away with pretending to oppose everything about it, including their own insurance mandate they pushed for so many years. They know nothing is going to change. This is theater for the rubes.

The GOP is prosecuting a total smokescreen to gain electoral votes.

You were sold out, folks. Totally sold out.

And their media hacks are helping to blow that smoke up your ass.

 

[Seawytch]

come on now, wytchey, that poll is from 2009 before anyone knew what a disaster this was going to be.

either post something current or admit that you were spinning once again.

Piss poor deflection again, Fishy. The poll is about the Public Option, not the ACA so it really doesn't matter when the poll was taken. Much of what the RW paints as a "disaster" can be "fixed" with the Public Option so many wanted.

are you really that naive? to many the "public option" means it will be "free for me". the problem is someone has to pay.

like all liberal pipe dreams, it falls apart when the bills start coming in.

Prove it. Prove that is what people thought the Public Option was when pollsters were asking about it and it was garnering 55-70% approval.

 

[Indeependent]

Piss poor deflection again, Fishy. The poll is about the Public Option, not the ACA so it really doesn't matter when the poll was taken. Much of what the RW paints as a "disaster" can be "fixed" with the Public Option so many wanted.

are you really that naive? to many the "public option" means it will be "free for me". the problem is someone has to pay.

like all liberal pipe dreams, it falls apart when the bills start coming in.

Prove it. Prove that is what people thought the Public Option was when pollsters were asking about it and it was garnering 55-70% approval.

The fact is that most in general do not research anything until they are called upon to part with their money.

 

[Seawytch]

Piss poor deflection again, Fishy. The poll is about the Public Option, not the ACA so it really doesn't matter when the poll was taken. Much of what the RW paints as a "disaster" can be "fixed" with the Public Option so many wanted.

are you really that naive? to many the "public option" means it will be "free for me". the problem is someone has to pay.

like all liberal pipe dreams, it falls apart when the bills start coming in.

Prove it. Prove that is what people thought the Public Option was when pollsters were asking about it and it was garnering 55-70% approval.

No proof Fishy?