• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...


EPC disagrees with you, both in strict language, and in implied blanket intent.
 
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.
Click to expand...


yawn.gif



In a new plan discussed today, Governor Bobby Jindal outlined his alternative plan to Obamacare. So instead of Democrats always pretending like Republicans just want to repeal the health care law, here is the replacement that Governor Jindal has in mind.

“In terms of 2016, look, it’s no secret that I’ve said it’s something I’m thinking about. But right now, I’m focused on winning the war of ideas.” Finally, someone who has legitimate ideas that Republicans can get behind and support. Tell the Democrats we don’t just complain, we come up with alternatives!....snip~

Bobby Jindal Unveils New Plan to Replace Obamacare, Talks 2016 - Heather Ginsberg



e2432fbb-c2db-415b-94d1-25ad7b3af88d@news.ap.org.jpg


Tom Price’s Obamacare replacement saves $2.34 trillion over 10 years.....

Legislation offered by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that would repeal Obamacare and replace it with patient-centered healthcare reform would save taxpayers nearly $2.34 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an independent analysis by a former Congressional Budget Office director. The Empowering Patients First Act, H.R. 2300, would provide Americans with tax incentives for maintaining health insurance coverage, improve access to health savings accounts (HSAs), reform Medicare and Medicaid, and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. It would also guarantee coverage for roughly 1% of Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as director of the CBO from 2003 to 2005, and Stephen Parente estimated that these reforms will reduce health insurance premiums almost across the board and reduce the budget deficit by nearly $2.34 trillion in the 10-year budget window from 2014 to 2023. “H.R. 2300 would lead to smaller premium increases on average when compared to current law. The largest reductions would occur in narrow network and high PPO insurance products,” wrote Holtz-Eakin and Parente at the American Action Forum.

Tom Price's Obamacare replacement saves $2.34 trillion over 10 years | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government


rolleyes.png
 
Repeal and replace with nothing.

Get the government out of healthcare, period.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
EPC isn't a "they", genius

try reading the constitution sometime.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to cite the SPECIFIC Constitution protections you are claiming exist (that for some reason DIDNT exist prior to the passage of the ACA).
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

Obviously, it doesn't matter what the approval rating is. If it did, we'd have gotten rid of them a long time ago. And, of course, being happy with one's own representative is the reason.

If your representative makes the right noises about balancing the budget and cutting back the size of the federal bureaucracy while bringing home the pork to his district, then he'll be there forever.
\
 
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
Click to expand...

Just to point out.. your solution did NOT resolve the problem with pre existing conditions. That's what I pointed out.

Secondly.. I never stated that the ACA is FORCING everyone to have insurance... but it does require you to have insurance OR PAY A PENALTY.. a requirement that was not there previously. And that mandate is necessary to reform of pre existing conditions.
 
JayDubya said:
Repeal and replace with nothing.

Get the government out of healthcare, period.
Click to expand...

Sure.. if you want to go back to healthcare circa 1900....
 
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).
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe that an (admittedly practical) plan like that could ever get past the insurance lobby, the trial lawyers association, and the pharmacy lobby?

Good luck with that.
 
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.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been just the Republicans who have been critical of the ACA - they are just responding to the voters who are unhappy, so why not tell it like it is! The Repubs in Congress don't have a dog in this fight because they're exempt, and so is the rest of Congress, the Supreme Court and many unions. Why is this, if it's such a great plan? Are the Obamas on the ACA plan? I haven't heard. And how many people are just going to pay the penalty? I haven't heard about those numbers either.
 
jaeger19 said:
Just to point out.. your solution did NOT resolve the problem with pre existing conditions. That's what I pointed out.

Secondly.. I never stated that the ACA is FORCING everyone to have insurance... but it does require you to have insurance OR PAY A PENALTY.. a requirement that was not there previously. And that mandate is necessary to reform of pre existing conditions.
Click to expand...
Sure it did. It requires insurance companies to NOT drop people provided that they pay premiums.

As for people not being forced...awesome. So, with the passage of the ACA and with people being lied to and forced out of their existing plans and forced into plans that are in many cases more expensive, we have essentially managed to reach the levels of uninsured seen in 2008.
 
leoborn said:
It hasn't been just the Republicans who have been critical of the ACA - they are just responding to the voters who are unhappy, so why not tell it like it is! The Repubs in Congress don't have a dog in this fight because they're exempt, and so is the rest of Congress, the Supreme Court and many unions. Why is this, if it's such a great plan? Are the Obamas on the ACA plan? I haven't heard. And how many people are just going to pay the penalty? I haven't heard about those numbers either.
Click to expand...
In fairness, the ACA doesnt FORCE you into an exchange plan. If you already have insurance you satisfy the requirements under the ACA. Congress, the President...they have existing care plans that meet or exceed the ACA mandates.
 
Unrepresented said:
Step 6, cut out the middleman and just go universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

Universal healthcare still has a middle man... private insurance companies administer medicare and Medicaid in this country. In many if not most socialized medicine countries.. private insurance companies administer their government coverage.
 
Let us know when Price's stack of paper hits the House floor for debate.
Otherwise, it is destined for McConnell's circular file .

MMC said:
In a new plan discussed today, Governor Bobby Jindal outlined his alternative plan to Obamacare. So instead of Democrats always pretending like Republicans just want to repeal the health care law, here is the replacement that Governor Jindal has in mind.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Obviously, it doesn't matter what the approval rating is. If it did, we'd have gotten rid of them a long time ago. And, of course, being happy with one's own representative is the reason.

If your representative makes the right noises about balancing the budget and cutting back the size of the federal bureaucracy while bringing home the pork to his district, then he'll be there forever.
\
Click to expand...

Congressmen are like farts and children.
No one ever likes anybody Else's.
But they don't mind their own brand.
 
NIMBY said:
Let us know when Price's stack of paper hits the House floor for debate.
Otherwise, it is destined for McConnell's circular file .
Click to expand...

Do us a favor and let us know when it comes out of the House. Consider it a homework assignment.
homework.gif
 
VanceMack said:
In fairness, the ACA doesnt FORCE you into an exchange plan. If you already have insurance you satisfy the requirements under the ACA. Congress, the President...they have existing care plans that meet or exceed the ACA mandates.
Click to expand...

Like the man said, If you like your plan you can keep it.
 
jaeger19 said:
Universal healthcare still has a middle man... private insurance companies administer medicare and Medicaid in this country. In many if not most socialized medicine countries.. private insurance companies administer their government coverage.
Click to expand...
I'll accept a middle man over the multiple middle men inherent in patchworking together a compromised system that bows to ideologues rather than human needs.
 
d head said:
Like the man said, If you like your plan you can keep it.
Click to expand...
Thats not what he said...but that is what the ACA provides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom