60 Minutes- Boehner and McConnell can't explain an ACA alternative plan

SlevinKelevra · Jan 26, 2015

Boehner and McConnell Bomb On 60 Minutes When Asked For GOP Alternative to Obamacare

6 years of telling us the ACA is doom, 6 years to invent an alternative.

and THIS is the best they can come up with? interstate commerce, and malpractice reform? how does that help people with pre-existing conditions, etc? :shock:

CBS’s Scott Pelley asked again, “So how do you do it? What’s the Republican plan?” Boehner answered with a weak, “We’re, We’re working on this. Having discussions amongst our members, got a lot of divergent views about how best to go back to a doctor/patient relationship that’s revered.”

Pelley kept hammering away and said that this is one of the biggest criticisms of the Republican Party is that they know what they are against, but can’t tell people what they are for. McConnell said that Pelley was mischaracterizing the success of Obamacare and claimed that the ACA will fail. McConnell said that the chances, of getting rid of Obamacare with Obama in the White House, were slim, but that Republicans were going to make the effort.

Pelley replied, “You don’t have an alternative.”

At this point, Boehner jumped back in and pushed the same old Republican ideas of letting people buy insurance across state lines and medical malpractice insurance reform. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell went on the most watched television news program in the country and promptly fell on their faces. The truth is that Republicans have no replacement plan for the ACA.

:doh

American · Jan 26, 2015

Obamacare in place with no replacement is like being up **** creek without a paddle. :lol:

EnigmaO01 · Jan 26, 2015

A pair of douchebags if I ever saw them. What's with that spray on tan of Boenher? WTF?! Is he that vain or is he at the golf course sipping martinis that often? Just think what the republicans in congress could have done with better leadership and a not a lush!

And McConnell has got to be the biggest partisan hack and liar of the senate. When your only and main goal is not to get the president reelected that doesn't say much. He sure hasn't done the republicans any favors and won't for the next two years.

If you're a democrat they are the gift that keeps on giving. If you're an American they've screwed you over by putting government in gridlock with their partisan agenda.

This two are going to be so frustrated for the next two years as they play their partisan games. They're already finding out the president is not quite the lame duck they thought he was.

Linc · Jan 26, 2015

American said:
Obamacare in place with no replacement is like being up **** creek without a paddle. :lol:

For GOP politicians and their posters who see their party losing ground on the ACA issue, one day at a time .

American · Jan 26, 2015

NIMBY said:
For GOP politicians and their posters who see their party losing ground on the ACA issue, one day at a time .

Everyone loses on the ACA issue.

Conservative · Jan 26, 2015

NIMBY said:
For GOP politicians and their posters who see their party losing ground on the ACA issue, one day at a time .

What a surprise, another thread that partisan Obama supporters post on. Still don't understand personal responsibility I see. Teachers like you continue to frustrate those of us that understand the role of the teacher and it isn't to convince the public that it is the role of the govt. to provide for their healthcare but rather the role of the govt. to promote personal responsibility and the private sector

Dittohead not! · Jan 26, 2015

American said:
Obamacare in place with no replacement is like being up **** creek without a paddle. :lol:

which is exactly where we find ourselves when it comes to the health care "system".

I liked it when Pelly asked them what they thought about Congress' 15% approval rating, and McConnel replied, "They're right."

I hadn't heard that the approval rating was actually that high, though.

VanceMack · Jan 26, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
Boehner and McConnell Bomb On 60 Minutes When Asked For GOP Alternative to Obamacare

6 years of telling us the ACA is doom, 6 years to invent an alternative.

and THIS is the best they can come up with? interstate commerce, and malpractice reform? how does that help people with pre-existing conditions, etc? :shock:

:doh

Prior to passing legislation no one read, approximately 80% of the country had that figured out. It started with this thing we like to call personal responsibility...a requirment for individuals to provide for the health care needs of themselves and their families. And for the most part, people did just that. To help pick up the slack, states instituted care programs to help those that couldnt afford healthcare or who qualified for disability coverage. Perfect? No...but then...even AFTER the ACA a large number of people chose not to seek coverage.

You mention pre-existing conditions. That could have been fixed with a few minor administrative adjustments. 1-make it illegal for insurance companies to jack up rates or drop people that have conditions identified while under coverage and 2-Improve state care for those with preexisting conditions identified when not previously insured. Problem solved. But to take people and tell them that they had a right to get insurance coverage AFTER their condition was discovered meaning insurers would then be on the hook for catastrophic behaviors AFTER the individual was identified...thats as foolish as telling people they can get coverage AFTER they wreck their car and the insurance company still has to fix it for them.

VanceMack · Jan 26, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
which is exactly where we find ourselves when it comes to the health care "system".

I liked it when Pelly asked them what they thought about Congress' 15% approval rating, and McConnel replied, "They're right."

I hadn't heard that the approval rating was actually that high, though.

And yet...people are still putting most of those same congressmen right back in office...

MMC · Jan 26, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
Boehner and McConnell Bomb On 60 Minutes When Asked For GOP Alternative to Obamacare

6 years of telling us the ACA is doom, 6 years to invent an alternative.

and THIS is the best they can come up with? interstate commerce, and malpractice reform? how does that help people with pre-existing conditions, etc? :shock:

:doh

No its not the best they can come up.....that's why they have some alternatives going thru the House. Like Jindal's plan, and Tom Price's Plan. You were hoping again, huh? :roll:

Fearandloathing · Jan 26, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
Boehner and McConnell Bomb On 60 Minutes When Asked For GOP Alternative to Obamacare

6 years of telling us the ACA is doom, 6 years to invent an alternative.

and THIS is the best they can come up with? interstate commerce, and malpractice reform? how does that help people with pre-existing conditions, etc? :shock:

:doh

About as far removed from journalism as Pluto is from the sun.

This is a pure hatchet piece by a radical liberal blog site.

Speaker Boehner went on a dodge and weave filibuster when asked what the Republican alternative to Obamacare was, “Providing more access we could have done without taking control of the entire healthcare system. When you look at Obamacare, it’s a perfect example of what Washington does. It’s a one size fits all approach for the whole country all driven by Washington bureaucrats. I’ll bet they’ve hired tens of thousands of people between the IRS and over at Health and Human Services just to run this. All of the decisions, all of the rules decided by Washington. We have a wide, diverse country, and I just think it’s time for us to look at this differently. For those who don’t have access to affordable health insurance. Helping those at the bottom I think we’re all for it, but we don’t need Washington to ruin the greatest health delivery system that the world has ever known.”

Since when is that a filibuster? Since when is that a dodge?

FFS, as far as I'm concerned the Republicans are just wrong wrong on health care, totally wrong. As wrong as Obamacare.

But childishly creating bait threads dripping with false accusations does not in any way help the United States move into the 21st century. Once again proof that progressives don't want solutions to America's problems, they just want to fight what they hate.....

which is everyone not them.

Fearandloathing · Jan 26, 2015

VanceMack said:
Prior to passing legislation no one read, approximately 80% of the country had that figured out. It started with this thing we like to call personal responsibility...a requirment for individuals to provide for the health care needs of themselves and their families. And for the most part, people did just that. To help pick up the slack, states instituted care programs to help those that couldnt afford healthcare or who qualified for disability coverage. Perfect? No...but then...even AFTER the ACA a large number of people chose not to seek coverage.

You mention pre-existing conditions. That could have been fixed with a few minor administrative adjustments. 1-make it illegal for insurance companies to jack up rates or drop people that have conditions identified while under coverage and 2-Improve state care for those with preexisting conditions identified when not previously insured. Problem solved. But to take people and tell them that they had a right to get insurance coverage AFTER their condition was discovered meaning insurers would then be on the hook for catastrophic behaviors AFTER the individual was identified...thats as foolish as telling people they can get coverage AFTER they wreck their car and the insurance company still has to fix it for them.

One paragraph in fact...not 1,100 pages of "tortured language", lies, fraud, 300 % increases in premiums, higher deductibles......

Slartibartfast · Jan 26, 2015

VanceMack said:
And yet...people are still putting most of those same congressmen right back in office...

People tend to love the folks from their district strangely enough.

Conservative · Jan 26, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
which is exactly where we find ourselves when it comes to the health care "system".

I liked it when Pelly asked them what they thought about Congress' 15% approval rating, and McConnel replied, "They're right."

I hadn't heard that the approval rating was actually that high, though.

Love how so many point to Congressional Approval rating as if Congressional Elections are national. Does it really matter what Congressional approval ratings are? It is easy to say I don't like Congress but am happy with my Congressional Representative

jet57 · Jan 26, 2015

Conservative said:
What a surprise, another thread that partisan Obama supporters post on. Still don't understand personal responsibility I see. Teachers like you continue to frustrate those of us that understand the role of the teacher and it isn't to convince the public that it is the role of the govt. to provide for their healthcare but rather the role of the govt. to promote personal responsibility and the private sector

I'm certainly not an Obama supporter and the OP is exactly right: the Republicans have absolutely zilch to offer in ANY policy or industry scenario. All they do is complain about what is in effect. The GOP agenda is to keep on the status quo giving the 1% and Wall Street all the room they need to control the US economy.

faithful_servant · Jan 26, 2015

Why is this so stinking hard to figure out??
Step #1 - Pass a law that employers can no longer be insurance providers. If you want insurance, you pay for it. If your employer wants to compensate you for your insurance costs, that their prerogative. Have a safety net established that allows insurance companies to add an additional charge for the first five years the person carries insurance that goes into a fund to pay for loss of ability to pay the their premiums for 1 year. During that five year window, the ins. co. is on the hook for the year's worth of premiums, an expense that gets offset by the earnings on the extra the person pays the first five years (also see Step #4). This means that losing your job/benefits does not mean losing your coverage and since it's your policy, as long as you keep it, there's no issue with pre-existing conditions.

Step #2 = Pass a bill to pay for medical professionals education. After they graduate and have been in their chosen field for about 7 years, they pay the loan with a term of service equivalent to the years of education they got. This term of service means that the gov't gets to put you where there is a need for your area of expertise. Have a quota system for the different fields to make sure that we don't end up with 250,000 plastic surgeons and 12 obstetricians. If you choose to refuse to serve, you have to repay the loan at 15% APR on a 20 year loan. This will increase the supply of medical professionals, thus lowering the costs and quality of service through increased competition.

Step #3 - Reform tort laws to protect both the patient and the physician. Caps on lawsuits, established payment scales for types of injury (including death) or negligence. Nationwide database of repeat offenders to keep the bad eggs out. Penalties for frivolous lawsuits, even those that simply demand vastly more than the injury they have sustained justifies.

Step #4 - A national safety net program that is staffed by the folks in Step #2 and funded by the earnings on the monies collected as the safety net in step #1.

Step #5 - Make the pricing of prescription drugs based on a scale that takes into account the total cost of development, a reasonable rate of return for the Rx companies (to stimulate more research) and the level of demand/need for the drug (so if you're the only person in the world who suffers from "erroneous flower scent syndrome" where you can't tell the difference between the smell of rose and a hyacinth, the Rx co. gets to charge you pretty much whatever they want to).

JasperL · Jan 26, 2015

Fearandloathing said:
One paragraph in fact...not 1,100 pages of "tortured language", lies, fraud, 300 % increases in premiums, higher deductibles......

What paragraph? And if it was so easy, why hadn't anyone taken that simple step to solve a massive problem?

The reason is the pre-existing condition issue is immensely difficult to solve, and that's why statements like you highlighted - "fixed with a few minor administrative adjustments" - are objectively and correctly called a dodge and weave. No one informed believes it's possible because it's not.

Conservative · Jan 26, 2015

jet57 said:
I'm certainly not an Obama supporter and the OP is exactly right: the Republicans have absolutely zilch to offer in ANY policy or industry scenario. All they do is complain about what is in effect. The GOP agenda is to keep on the status quo giving the 1% and Wall Street all the room they need to control the US economy.

Your opinion noted, have you contacted your Representative and ask him/her what they have done to implement the programs you deem of value? What is see from people like you is whining and propaganda. National polls on Congress are irrelevant. Doesn't seem to me you really understand the role of the Federal Govt. vs. the state and local governments. Maybe you ought to find out

jaeger19 · Jan 26, 2015

VanceMack said:
Prior to passing legislation no one read, approximately 80% of the country had that figured out. It started with this thing we like to call personal responsibility...a requirment for individuals to provide for the health care needs of themselves and their families. And for the most part, people did just that. To help pick up the slack, states instituted care programs to help those that couldnt afford healthcare or who qualified for disability coverage. Perfect? No...but then...even AFTER the ACA a large number of people chose not to seek coverage.

You mention pre-existing conditions. That could have been fixed with a few minor administrative adjustments. 1-make it illegal for insurance companies to jack up rates or drop people that have conditions identified while under coverage and 2-Improve state care for those with preexisting conditions identified when not previously insured. Problem solved. But to take people and tell them that they had a right to get insurance coverage AFTER their condition was discovered meaning insurers would then be on the hook for catastrophic behaviors AFTER the individual was identified...thats as foolish as telling people they can get coverage AFTER they wreck their car and the insurance company still has to fix it for them.

I don't think you understand the problem with pre existing conditions..

If I have a pre existing condition.. before the ACA.. it meant that I could not leave my job.. if I got let go and lost coverage, or I could not shop around for better rates.. simply because of a pre existing condition.

And you don't seem to understand the ACA... the ACA requires that everyone have insurance.. thus trying to avoid people not having insurance until they need it.

SlevinKelevra · Jan 26, 2015

jaeger19 said:
I don't think you understand the problem with pre existing conditions..

If I have a pre existing condition.. before the ACA.. it meant that I could not leave my job.. if I got let go and lost coverage, or I could not shop around for better rates.. simply because of a pre existing condition.

And you don't seem to understand the ACA... the ACA requires that everyone have insurance.. thus trying to avoid people not having insurance until they need it.

boom. headshot.

jaeger19 · Jan 26, 2015

faithful_servant said:
Why is this so stinking hard to figure out??
Step #1 - Pass a law that employers can no longer be insurance providers. If you want insurance, you pay for it. If your employer wants to compensate you for your insurance costs, that their prerogative. Have a safety net established that allows insurance companies to add an additional charge for the first five years the person carries insurance that goes into a fund to pay for loss of ability to pay the their premiums for 1 year. During that five year window, the ins. co. is on the hook for the year's worth of premiums, an expense that gets offset by the earnings on the extra the person pays the first five years (also see Step #4). This means that losing your job/benefits does not mean losing your coverage and since it's your policy, as long as you keep it, there's no issue with pre-existing conditions.

Step #2 = Pass a bill to pay for medical professionals education. After they graduate and have been in their chosen field for about 7 years, they pay the loan with a term of service equivalent to the years of education they got. This term of service means that the gov't gets to put you where there is a need for your area of expertise. Have a quota system for the different fields to make sure that we don't end up with 250,000 plastic surgeons and 12 obstetricians. If you choose to refuse to serve, you have to repay the loan at 15% APR on a 20 year loan. This will increase the supply of medical professionals, thus lowering the costs and quality of service through increased competition.

Step #3 - Reform tort laws to protect both the patient and the physician. Caps on lawsuits, established payment scales for types of injury (including death) or negligence. Nationwide database of repeat offenders to keep the bad eggs out. Penalties for frivolous lawsuits, even those that simply demand vastly more than the injury they have sustained justifies.

Step #4 - A national safety net program that is staffed by the folks in Step #2 and funded by the earnings on the monies collected as the safety net in step #1.

Step #5 - Make the pricing of prescription drugs based on a scale that takes into account the total cost of development, a reasonable rate of return for the Rx companies (to stimulate more research) and the level of demand/need for the drug (so if you're the only person in the world who suffers from "erroneous flower scent syndrome" where you can't tell the difference between the smell of rose and a hyacinth, the Rx co. gets to charge you pretty much whatever they want to).

1. Not a bad idea.. similar to many HSA programs... but no limits.. and give the company that pays for your insurance costs a tax break.

2. Good idea.. lower the cost of healthcare..

however, I will point out that for the most part about competition... competition in healthcare actually increases healthcare costs for the most part..

3. Caps on lawsuits.. not the best idea... the lawyers will increase volume if they can't make their nut on one or two bad cases. Add a state or federal arbitration program that emphasizes trying to get the injured patient back to being whole.. rather than total amount of money. Most patients want to be returned to a better state.. and are not as interested in getting maximum payment... their lawyers however....

Also.. the penalty for frivolous lawsuits needs to be on the lawyer. I am held accountable for the decisions and advice I give my patients.. the lawyer should be accountable for the advice they give their clients.

Clients often don't have much money.. so a threat of a penalty means nothing to people that have nothing to lose.

4. We already have a system set up for this.. and the folks in step 2 could easily be folded in.

5. Never trust a federal scale...

VanceMack · Jan 26, 2015

jaeger19 said:
I don't think you understand the problem with pre existing conditions..

If I have a pre existing condition.. before the ACA.. it meant that I could not leave my job.. if I got let go and lost coverage, or I could not shop around for better rates.. simply because of a pre existing condition.

And you don't seem to understand the ACA... the ACA requires that everyone have insurance.. thus trying to avoid people not having insurance until they need it.

I understand perfectly well. Preexisting conditions suck. I offered a solution that resolved that without creating a debacle. Its entirely unrealistic to expect ANY insurer to take on someone new with a preexisting condition. Its nice that you think the ACA is forcing everyone to have insurance. The fact of the matter is that it isnt happening. People are still opting out and willing to pay fines. About 2/3s...didnt even bother looking things up or attempting to be covered.
Who is still uninsured under Obamacare

Unrepresented · Jan 26, 2015

faithful_servant said:
Why is this so stinking hard to figure out??
Step #1 - Pass a law that employers can no longer be insurance providers. If you want insurance, you pay for it. If your employer wants to compensate you for your insurance costs, that their prerogative. Have a safety net established that allows insurance companies to add an additional charge for the first five years the person carries insurance that goes into a fund to pay for loss of ability to pay the their premiums for 1 year. During that five year window, the ins. co. is on the hook for the year's worth of premiums, an expense that gets offset by the earnings on the extra the person pays the first five years (also see Step #4). This means that losing your job/benefits does not mean losing your coverage and since it's your policy, as long as you keep it, there's no issue with pre-existing conditions.

Step #2 = Pass a bill to pay for medical professionals education. After they graduate and have been in their chosen field for about 7 years, they pay the loan with a term of service equivalent to the years of education they got. This term of service means that the gov't gets to put you where there is a need for your area of expertise. Have a quota system for the different fields to make sure that we don't end up with 250,000 plastic surgeons and 12 obstetricians. If you choose to refuse to serve, you have to repay the loan at 15% APR on a 20 year loan. This will increase the supply of medical professionals, thus lowering the costs and quality of service through increased competition.

Step #3 - Reform tort laws to protect both the patient and the physician. Caps on lawsuits, established payment scales for types of injury (including death) or negligence. Nationwide database of repeat offenders to keep the bad eggs out. Penalties for frivolous lawsuits, even those that simply demand vastly more than the injury they have sustained justifies.

Step #4 - A national safety net program that is staffed by the folks in Step #2 and funded by the earnings on the monies collected as the safety net in step #1.

Step #5 - Make the pricing of prescription drugs based on a scale that takes into account the total cost of development, a reasonable rate of return for the Rx companies (to stimulate more research) and the level of demand/need for the drug (so if you're the only person in the world who suffers from "erroneous flower scent syndrome" where you can't tell the difference between the smell of rose and a hyacinth, the Rx co. gets to charge you pretty much whatever they want to).

Step 6, cut out the middleman and just go universal healthcare.

SlevinKelevra · Jan 26, 2015

VanceMack said:
I understand perfectly well. Preexisting conditions suck. I offered a solution that resolved that without creating a debacle. Its entirely unrealistic to expect ANY insurer to take on someone new with a preexisting condition. Its nice that you think the ACA is forcing everyone to have insurance. The fact of the matter is that it isnt happening. People are still opting out and willing to pay fines. About 2/3s...didnt even bother looking things up or attempting to be covered.
Who is still uninsured under Obamacare

So since the "free market" has no option for them, is govt intervention warranted? or is health-based discrimination by private businesses viable in this countries constittional model?

VanceMack · Jan 26, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
So since the "free market" has no option for them, is govt intervention warranted? or is health-based discrimination by private businesses viable in this countries constittional model?

Is government intervention 'warranted'? No. And unless you can point to some Constitutional right that forces an insurer to take on someone with a pre-existing condition you are just making **** up trying to 'prove' your argument. Emotional appeals are wonderful when you are sitting around sharing stories with the girls and watching The View, but they suck as a basis for governance.

Still...there could have been course adjustments made. A law preventing an insurer from dropping someone (regardless of whether or not they changed jobs) as long as they maintained their premiums would have been just fine. Insurance companies should not be expected to take on new clients with preexisting conditions. Its wrong minded in every way.

60 Minutes- Boehner and McConnell can't explain an ACA alternative plan

Sage

Trump Grump Whisperer

NIMBY

Trump Grump Whisperer

master political analyst

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

How long is now?

How long is now?

Jesus loves you.

Sage

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Undisclosed

Sage

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency