What Is The Republican Alternative To ObamaCare

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Those are bold words.

Not only that, but true. The total bill for my spouse's 3.5 year cancer battle was $1,300,000.00. That included all billing from one internist, one oncologist, the hospital here in town and Sloan Kettering in NYC.

Three major surgeries, and two years of chemotherapy. Endless doctor's visits, MRIs, PET scans, CAT scans, lab, lab, lab.

Oncologists/cancer centers take a $31.00/dose 40-year-old chemo drug like Taxol (Paclitaxel) and charge $3000 to stick it in your arm. That's just ONE drug used.

But fuck Obamacare or anybody else who tries to correct that little problem.

Know what, bitch? FUCK YOU

Is your 'spouse' alive? I assume so.

What do you think would happen under obamacare? You ARE aware of the so-called "death panels' aren't you?

Know how those work? They attach a price, a cost-based derivative to a person's usefulness in an algorithm with an age component that only they know how it works and they apply it to a person's health care costs.

If it don't fir.... You die.

Did your 'spouse' die?

1.3 Million Dollars? Those E-VUL Insurance Companies spent $1,300,000 dollars to save your 'spouse' and you're bitching?

FUCK YOU!!

What a fucking douche.

And Bristol Myers didn't bring Taxol to market until 1993.

What a fucking douchebag you are. Honest to God

Excuse me?

"Paclitaxel is a mitotic inhibitor used in cancer chemotherapy. It was discovered in a US National Cancer Institute program at the Research Triangle Institute in 1967 ....."
http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/timeline/flash/success_stories/S2_taxol.htm

Taxol has been used for cancer treatments since at least 1976 because my mother was on it for ovarian cancer at MD Anderson in Houston.

BMS adopted it for other types of cancers years later. Any time a specific drug company wants to take an existing drug and license it for a new, specific diagnosis, they have to get approval through the FDA.

No, my spouse died in 2009 when the cancer recurred.

Feel better now?

Frankly, of all the scared white people on here, you're the most frightened I've ever seen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure. Does your insurance policy cover eye exams?

It covers what he wants it to cover, if it didn't he would get something else.

You can only get what you can afford. Sort of like your nitwit peers on here think, like shopping for a car.

oh, so the rising cost of insurance due to obamacare is affordable?

 

[Edgetho]

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

I hope not, but they'll probably push the same crap the Democrats did.

Your Honor...

Exhibit D: Avoidance. NOT addressing the question, aka NO solution.

We offered to work with you people but you refused.

Afterall, you're all just so fucking smart. Who needs Republicans?

We had all kinds of ideas. We introduced five Health Care (it's Health Insurance) bills in the 2000's alone. I've posted the links often enough; but you don't care.

You aren't listening. Because, you know, you're just so smart n' all.

Check it yourself, you'll find thousands of articles on Republican alternatives.

If you're not too smart to read them

 

[Redfish]

This thread is based on a false premise----------that there was a healthcare crisis in the USA that mandated revising the entire medical system.

before ACA, no one in the USA was being denied medical care---NO ONE!

Not having insurance did not keep anyone from being treated. Yes, free treatment was more of a hassle than if you paid for it----BFD, you were getting it FREE.

the two good provisions in ACA could have been passed in two paragraph bill
1. insurance companies must take people with pre-existing conditions
2. no lifetime maximum payments

The ACA law was not about fixing healthcare, it was a socialist move to nationalize medicine and allow the govt to take over 1/6 of the economy. Do you dem/libs really want a marginally intelligent GS9 making your medical decisions for you?

Do you really want your doctors office to look like the DMV?

Wake up america, this is a terrible piece of legislation.

I don't think it's a good idea to FORCE an insurance company to add people with pre-existing conditions to the same health plan as people without pre-existing conditions. It's a matter of risk pools and unfair pricing. That's like letting people with totaled cars buy car insurance and forcing the insurance company to buy the guy a new car. It's nutz.

But hey if an insurance company wants to create a plan for people with already huge medical costs, so those people can share their costs, whatever, it's a free country isn't it?

Would you put people with pre-existing conditions on medicaid? Or just let them die? I think putting them in the insurance risk pool is a better solution.

 

[MarcATL]

Your Honor, I present to you Exhibit D.1:

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

Well considering Obamacare is going to cost Americans more money as just admitted by the Administration, I'm not seeing where the Affordable Care Act is affordable.

Not a lot on the plus side for what you consider "good health care" .

Revealed: Obamacare plans will cost MORE 'in many cases' even with government subsidies, officials admit for the first time



Obamacare plans cost more 'in many cases' even WITH government subsidies, Obama administration admits for the first time | Mail Online

The subject doesn't answer the question, instead you see the subject engaging in hypothesis by speculating what and what not the ACA will and won't do.

Your Honor, at this time I would like to direct your attention to Exhibit D.2...

Here you find the subject scrambling up some nonsensical PDF from the RW website that amounts to a list of Rightwing talking points.

And Republican alternatives are out there. I found this in two seconds.

http://camp.house.gov/uploadedfiles/summary_of_republican_alternative_health_care_plan.pdf

Your Honor, the subject has NOT provided a solution for affordable healthcare to the American citizens in dire need of it.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

obamacare would be great with exception to the mandate and government control

moron the government doesn't control the policy ...the government makes laws that the that the insurance companies have to follow ...the government is only the way to sign up for a policy... nothing more ...what the government did was make laws so that the insures are required to have to make the health car work ... everybody has to be in it, not like free loaders like you who file bankruptcy every time at the blink of a ey ewhen they rack up ah huge debt ...

wow, new level of entitlement induced idiocy

 

[Bern80]

To answer your question Merc I have to ask a clarification of yours; What was the Republicans alternative to what? That we're trying to reform or fix something implies there was a problem. What was/is the problem?

A serious question(s): What was there to fix? Did we at some point determine that medical services are costing more than what the market should bare out? As I see it there are a couple of things that contribute to services in health care costing more than what the market would bare out; 1) government regulations and red tape and the cost of simply complying with them, and 2) lack of education on the part of consumers.

But when the left says we need to 'fix' health care I think what they're really asking is what should society do about the people that need it, but can't pay for it? Is that government's problem to fix or your own? As one poster previously implied, the Republican plan; can't pay = die. Which sounds harsh, but is that any more harsh the you, who can't pay forcing me via government, to pay for you?

democrats saw a problem because they needed more money to buy more votes from free loaders, the new batch coming caused by their own failed policy.

talk about babbling you are the champion babbler... when you got nuttin you say nuttin' just like you did here babble on babbler !!!

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

cause they needed votes... that's funny ... here a idea ...go and read the god damn bill, moron ... then try to keep up with us .. casue pal you have no idea what you're talking about ...

Yeah as if promising people things as a means of getting elected is a new thing. I suggest YOU read the bill. So you can see all the new taxes on the horizon we haven't even touched on. So you understand what the mandated communit rating formula does to premium rates.

I refer back to my original question. What problem really needs solving?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This thread is based on a false premise----------that there was a healthcare crisis in the USA that mandated revising the entire medical system.

before ACA, no one in the USA was being denied medical care---NO ONE!

Not having insurance did not keep anyone from being treated. Yes, free treatment was more of a hassle than if you paid for it----BFD, you were getting it FREE.

the two good provisions in ACA could have been passed in two paragraph bill
1. insurance companies must take people with pre-existing conditions
2. no lifetime maximum payments

The ACA law was not about fixing healthcare, it was a socialist move to nationalize medicine and allow the govt to take over 1/6 of the economy. Do you dem/libs really want a marginally intelligent GS9 making your medical decisions for you?

Do you really want your doctors office to look like the DMV?

Wake up america, this is a terrible piece of legislation.

I don't think it's a good idea to FORCE an insurance company to add people with pre-existing conditions to the same health plan as people without pre-existing conditions. It's a matter of risk pools and unfair pricing. That's like letting people with totaled cars buy car insurance and forcing the insurance company to buy the guy a new car. It's nutz.

But hey if an insurance company wants to create a plan for people with already huge medical costs, so those people can share their costs, whatever, it's a free country isn't it?

Would you put people with pre-existing conditions on medicaid? Or just let them die? I think putting them in the insurance risk pool is a better solution.

Why not allow them on medicare? if obamacare was all about helping people who had pre-existing conditions?

 

[dblack]

I don't think it's a good idea to FORCE an insurance company to add people with pre-existing conditions to the same health plan as people without pre-existing conditions. It's a matter of risk pools and unfair pricing. That's like letting people with totaled cars buy car insurance and forcing the insurance company to buy the guy a new car. It's nutz.

But hey if an insurance company wants to create a plan for people with already huge medical costs, so those people can share their costs, whatever, it's a free country isn't it?

Would you put people with pre-existing conditions on medicaid? Or just let them die? I think putting them in the insurance risk pool is a better solution.

Why not allow them on medicare? if obamacare was all about helping people who had pre-existing conditions?

Because helping people was never the point. At best it was an afterthought to the primary goal of controlling them.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

And speaking of Taxol, you whiny little bitch... Didja know that the UK's great and wonderful, single-payer NHS REFUSED to pay the price for Taxol to treat women with ovarian cancer?

Did you know that? Of course you didn't.

It took a full court press from the media and Months of pressure to get the UK's National Health Service to pay for a drug (Taxol) that would save lives -- In 2000.

Then, the NHS refused to pay for it because it was too expensive and that set them back a few more years. While women died. Horribly. Now, you can get the treatment but you have to jump through a lot of hoops in the UK.

Here? They just use it. No questions asked.

You're a fucking douche.

And you're quite upset because I've scared you. And you should be scared. Insurance companies want you to die quickly when you have a stage-4 cancer.

My spouse just didn't die quick enough and that was the total bill: $1,300,000.00

So your story of the NHS is from 13 years ago. Guess what, douchebag? Insurance companies here deny the use of many kinds of cancer drugs as "experimental" so they don't have to pay for them. Happens all the time.

 

[Redfish]

This thread is based on a false premise----------that there was a healthcare crisis in the USA that mandated revising the entire medical system.

before ACA, no one in the USA was being denied medical care---NO ONE!

Not having insurance did not keep anyone from being treated. Yes, free treatment was more of a hassle than if you paid for it----BFD, you were getting it FREE.

the two good provisions in ACA could have been passed in two paragraph bill
1. insurance companies must take people with pre-existing conditions
2. no lifetime maximum payments

The ACA law was not about fixing healthcare, it was a socialist move to nationalize medicine and allow the govt to take over 1/6 of the economy. Do you dem/libs really want a marginally intelligent GS9 making your medical decisions for you?

Do you really want your doctors office to look like the DMV?

Wake up america, this is a terrible piece of legislation.

I repeat, there was no healthcare crisis in the USA before ACA. The ACA law is not about healthcare or insurance. It is about nationalizing medicine.

 

[MarcATL]

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

House Republicans file, promote an alternative to Obamacare - Washington Times


Does anyone believe Obamacare is about healthcare? Look at the results so far:

Tens of thousands have new healthcare in the exchanges
Millions have lost coverage

Your Honor...

Exhibit E: The Republican subject responds not by answering the question, telling us what is the Republican response, but what the subject does instead is engage in politricks, throwing up stats as to how many lost their junk insurance plants and how many have thus far been able to sign-up for insurance under the ACA.

For the record, I state that the subject has NOT, I repeat has NOT answered the question, therefore offering NO solution for affordable healthcare for the millions of American citizens in dire need of it.

 

[Edgetho]

Not only that, but true. The total bill for my spouse's 3.5 year cancer battle was $1,300,000.00. That included all billing from one internist, one oncologist, the hospital here in town and Sloan Kettering in NYC.

Three major surgeries, and two years of chemotherapy. Endless doctor's visits, MRIs, PET scans, CAT scans, lab, lab, lab.

Oncologists/cancer centers take a $31.00/dose 40-year-old chemo drug like Taxol (Paclitaxel) and charge $3000 to stick it in your arm. That's just ONE drug used.

But fuck Obamacare or anybody else who tries to correct that little problem.

Know what, bitch? FUCK YOU

Is your 'spouse' alive? I assume so.

What do you think would happen under obamacare? You ARE aware of the so-called "death panels' aren't you?

Know how those work? They attach a price, a cost-based derivative to a person's usefulness in an algorithm with an age component that only they know how it works and they apply it to a person's health care costs.

If it don't fir.... You die.

Did your 'spouse' die?

1.3 Million Dollars? Those E-VUL Insurance Companies spent $1,300,000 dollars to save your 'spouse' and you're bitching?

FUCK YOU!!

What a fucking douche.

And Bristol Myers didn't bring Taxol to market until 1993.

What a fucking douchebag you are. Honest to God

Excuse me?

"Paclitaxel is a mitotic inhibitor used in cancer chemotherapy. It was discovered in a US National Cancer Institute program at the Research Triangle Institute in 1967 ....."
Success Story: Taxol

Taxol has been used for cancer treatments since at least 1976 because my mother was on it for ovarian cancer at MD Anderson in Houston.

BMS adopted it for other types of cancers years later. Any time a specific drug company wants to take an existing drug and license it for a new, specific diagnosis, they have to get approval through the FDA.

No, my spouse died in 2009 when the cancer recurred.

Feel better now?

Frankly, of all the scared white people on here, you're the most frightened I've ever seen.

douchebag liar...... It may have been 'discovered' but it wasn't brought to Market until 1992. By Bristol Myers and the National Cancer Institute.

The Great Taxol Giveaway

And it wasn't approved by the FDA until 1998...

Drug Approval Package: Taxol (Paclitaxel) NDA# NDA 20-262/S-024

Taxol (Paclitaxel) Injection
Company: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Application No.: NDA 20-262/S-024
Approval Date: 6/30/1998

Idiot. Wiki is such a good source....

And tell me, what good would obamacare have done for your poor, deceased spouse?

Tell me that....

Peddle your hate somewhere else, loser

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And speaking of Taxol, you whiny little bitch... Didja know that the UK's great and wonderful, single-payer NHS REFUSED to pay the price for Taxol to treat women with ovarian cancer?

Did you know that? Of course you didn't.

It took a full court press from the media and Months of pressure to get the UK's National Health Service to pay for a drug (Taxol) that would save lives -- In 2000.

Then, the NHS refused to pay for it because it was too expensive and that set them back a few more years. While women died. Horribly. Now, you can get the treatment but you have to jump through a lot of hoops in the UK.

Here? They just use it. No questions asked.

You're a fucking douche.

And you're quite upset because I've scared you. And you should be scared. Insurance companies want you to die quickly when you have a stage-4 cancer.

My spouse just didn't die quick enough and that was the total bill: $1,300,000.00

So your story of the NHS is from 13 years ago. Guess what, douchebag? Insurance companies here deny the use of many kinds of cancer drugs as "experimental" so they don't have to pay for them. Happens all the time.

you can't scare people with failure try again.

 

[Redfish]

I don't think it's a good idea to FORCE an insurance company to add people with pre-existing conditions to the same health plan as people without pre-existing conditions. It's a matter of risk pools and unfair pricing. That's like letting people with totaled cars buy car insurance and forcing the insurance company to buy the guy a new car. It's nutz.

But hey if an insurance company wants to create a plan for people with already huge medical costs, so those people can share their costs, whatever, it's a free country isn't it?

Would you put people with pre-existing conditions on medicaid? Or just let them die? I think putting them in the insurance risk pool is a better solution.

Why not allow them on medicare? if obamacare was all about helping people who had pre-existing conditions?

If you are 65 or over, you are on medicare. The vast majority of people with pre-existing conditions are on medicare or medicaid. putting that requirement in insurance is not a big financial deal.

 

[dblack]

What problem really needs solving?

Exactly. In my view there are two distinct, but related, problems: What to do about overpriced health care, and how to help people who can't afford it. Dealing with first problem would obviously make the second easier to deal with. But by completely ignoring the first, the Democrats have only ensured that more and more of us won't be able to afford it.

 

[Bern80]

Their alternative? Gut it and then go back to big insurance junk policies.

This is nonsensical. What junk policies? Why wouold you agree to pay for said 'junk' policy? You (the consumer) need to start taking a little fucking responsibility for yourself. You act as if you have no control over what kind of insurance coverage you have prior to Obamacare. I hate to say it people, but a big part of this problem is that consumers have absolved themselves of the rresponsibility of understanding and researching what they're purchasing. Employer based insurance is part of that problem, yes, but it's still no excuse for not figuring out how you want to handle the costs of arguably the most important facet of your life.

 

[boilermaker55]

From your own source:
Establishing Universal Access Programs to guaran
tee access to affordable
care for those with pre
-
ex
isting conditions
.
The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high
-
risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre
-
existing
conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable ca
re
–
while lowering costs for all Americans

And Republican alternatives are out there. I found this in two seconds.

http://camp.house.gov/uploadedfiles/summary_of_republican_alternative_health_care_plan.pdf

 

[MarcATL]

Doesn't matter what is said or not here, you will call people liars and push your commie bull shit, and from what I'm seeing people ain't going to play your game, good for them.

Your Honor, may I present to you Exhibit F:

Here the Republican subject blatantly refuses to answer the question, and engages with an old and tired trick of positing WHY they won't by speculating and predicting that their answer won't matter and/or make a difference.

Therefore offering NO solution to the direct question as to what the Republican alternative is to ObamaCare.

Your Honor, may the record show that this is the FIFTH consecutive Republican response on the first (1st) page of this thread that offers NO solution to the millions of uninsured Americans.

See a pattern here?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Would you put people with pre-existing conditions on medicaid? Or just let them die? I think putting them in the insurance risk pool is a better solution.

Why not allow them on medicare? if obamacare was all about helping people who had pre-existing conditions?

If you are 65 or over, you are on medicare. The vast majority of people with pre-existing conditions are on medicare or medicaid. putting that requirement in insurance is not a big financial deal.

But that was the big selling point for obamacare.