• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Repeal and Replace - OUR CURE

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I hope the Republicans will stand up to obama and repeal his 2700 pages of regulation and taxation. To do so though they must come up with a reasoned alternative and they've been chastised properly for not having one. I'll give them one:

OUR CURE

2 simple pages plus a 3rd Q&A, a real solution, real jobs, and none of this hyperbole from DC.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
69,736
Reaction score
51,857
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm for repeal and replace, as long as we replace it with single payer.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
70% of the people in this nation are satisfied with their health care. Single Payer changes that, and since congress and the elites have already shown how easy it would be for them to exempt themselves from such a plan its a mistake. It is also unnecessary. Please read my link and you'll see why.

Before obama care we had problems to resolve. Uninsured. Extremely high national costs. Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions. The link, "Our Cure" solves them - all and without the need for a single payer system for the whole country.


I'm for repeal and replace, as long as we replace it with single payer.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
43,212
Reaction score
19,317
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
70% of the people in this nation are satisfied with their health care. Single Payer changes that, and since congress and the elites have already shown how easy it would be for them to exempt themselves from such a plan its a mistake. It is also unnecessary. Please read my link and you'll see why.

Before obama care we had problems to resolve. Uninsured. Extremely high national costs. Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions. The link, "Our Cure" solves them - all and without the need for a single payer system for the whole country.
I like the general idea behind what they're saying here (Who is "they," by the way?). Even that sounds beyond too "Liberal" for the TPers.

I want to clarify that I'm not demonizing TPers, but when you talk about the Federal Government spending $650 million to put a healthcare system in place, that pretty much is against what they stand for.
 
Last edited:

sawdust

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
1,533
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
70% of the people in this nation are satisfied with their health care. Single Payer changes that, and since congress and the elites have already shown how easy it would be for them to exempt themselves from such a plan its a mistake. It is also unnecessary. Please read my link and you'll see why.

Before obama care we had problems to resolve. Uninsured. Extremely high national costs. Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions. The link, "Our Cure" solves them - all and without the need for a single payer system for the whole country.
A good start would be to repeal and replace Boehner.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,931
Reaction score
8,837
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
To do so though they must come up with a reasoned alternative
No, they don't.


Before obama care we had problems to resolve
What we had was fine.


Uninsured.
For the most part that was by choice of the consumer.
Secondly, those who wanted it and couldn't afford it, could seek out charity.
There should be no obligation to provided for those who can not, or chose to not, provided for themselves.


Extremely high national costs.
Few things could be done here that would drastically reduce the costs.
Limited liabilities and capping payouts.
Healthcare is an expensive commodity and there will always be those who can't afford it on their own.


Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions.
Which is an appropriate action and based on a logically sound rationale.


All they need to do, is let it get back to what it was.
They can work on it from there.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not a TPer. Never was or will be. I'm not a libertarian as another respondent here was. I want people to have insurance if they want it, and I want to see us have a public health care system for those who need it, but I also want the private system to go on doing what it does. This seems like an ideal solution.


I like the general idea behind what they're saying here (W


ho is "they," by the way?). Even that sounds beyond too "Liberal" for the TPers.

I want to clarify that I'm not demonizing TPers, but when you talk about the Federal Government spending $650 million to put a healthcare system in place, that pretty much is against what they stand for.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Did you read it or just summarily dismiss because it was 2,988 pages short of minutia?
I read it, and it's complete fiction

It also calls for a complete govt takeover of the health care industry
They will simply organize within a territory all of the city, county, and state health care facilities (excluding VA) into a network of care services for the people in the territory.
It sets up "health care networks" but doesn't require that any network include a hospital. What kind of health care can they deliver if they don't have one single hospital?

The new facilities must include a new or expanded medical school and a public medical center (clinic) that isn’t quite a hospital but is definitely an urgent care center.
The proposal does nothing to address problems like increase in costs associated with new technology, the overuse of diagnostic tests, lack of preventative care, etc
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
43,212
Reaction score
19,317
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not a TPer. Never was or will be. I'm not a libertarian as another respondent here was. I want people to have insurance if they want it, and I want to see us have a public health care system for those who need it, but I also want the private system to go on doing what it does. This seems like an ideal solution.
I'm not saying you're a TPer, I just don't think they'd like this much more than they like Obamacare.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Actually if you read it - you would notice the networks would incorporate all public facilities except VA's. Maybe you live in some weird place that doesn't have city, county or state hospitals but we got all kinds of them around here. Always underfunded, always unable to care for people, and always a burden on society - time to put them to use for the public good.

Its not a take over of the health care system at all, its a separation that enables the 70% who enjoy a private system to continue doing so; a 70% that already pays for those without insurance by sharing their emergency rooms with them and getting stuck with the bill.

The proposal can't impact technology costs - nothing can - but it can impact labor costs. It does too. I suspect a lot of people in the industry like labor shortages and don't mind them so they can always earn more, but its time the tax payer fought back and put more people into the labor field to reduce our costs.


I read it, and it's complete fiction

It also calls for a complete govt takeover of the health care industry


It sets up "health care networks" but doesn't require that any network include a hospital. What kind of health care can they deliver if they don't have one single hospital?



The proposal does nothing to address problems like increase in costs associated with new technology, the overuse of diagnostic tests, lack of preventative care, etc
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It is rare you can get an extreme element of society on board. The proposal, it can be said to them, accomplishes much of what they want. It leave the 70% alone with the exception of $15 a month. It takes away the 2700 pages of mandates and regulations. You can't have it all - no one can. The extremist of the TP will never be happy with any solution.


I'm not saying you're a TPer, I just don't think they'd like this much more than they like Obamacare.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually if you read it - you would notice the networks would incorporate all public facilities except VA's. Maybe you live in some weird place that doesn't have city, county or state hospitals but we got all kinds of them around here. Always underfunded, always unable to care for people, and always a burden on society - time to put them to use for the public good.

Its not a take over of the health care system at all, its a separation that enables the 70% who enjoy a private system to continue doing so; a 70% that already pays for those without insurance by sharing their emergency rooms with them and getting stuck with the bill.

The proposal can't impact technology costs - nothing can - but it can impact labor costs. It does too. I suspect a lot of people in the industry like labor shortages and don't mind them so they can always earn more, but its time the tax payer fought back and put more people into the labor field to reduce our costs.
There is nothing in the proposal that impacts labor costs, or any costs at all, aside from raising costs for people with insurance by taxing their plans, and cutting the benefits for those on Medicare, etc.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Really?

So getting the uninsured out of private health care facilities that won't be paid for them doesn't save anyone a dime - really? Are you that out of touch with reality? It is one of the biggest burdens on the private system.

And adding 75000 working professionals a year to the industry won't impact labor costs any? Again have you lost touch with reality or just want to be against everything and for obamacare so badly?


There is nothing in the proposal that impacts labor costs, or any costs at all, aside from raising costs for people with insurance by taxing their plans, and cutting the benefits for those on Medicare, etc.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'm for repeal and replace, as long as we replace it with single payer.
While I do not oppose a single payer system, the best in-between would be to fold all government healthcare into a single system and also allow the private policies. It is quite ridiculous to have multiple federal systems even with Obamacare. Consolidating medicare, medicaid, VA, etc into a single system would make it harder for providers to cherrypick certain types of patients over others and create uniformity in benefits. This isn't about providing healthcare to the poor--it is all about maximizing healthcare profits. It is why medical providers fought Hillarycare but not Obamacare--well at least until it was too late and they realized that corporate medicine was about to screw small private practice providers.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,496
Reaction score
37,754
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I hope the Republicans will stand up to obama and repeal his 2700 pages of regulation and taxation. To do so though they must come up with a reasoned alternative and they've been chastised properly for not having one. I'll give them one:

OUR CURE

2 simple pages plus a 3rd Q&A, a real solution, real jobs, and none of this hyperbole from DC.
One HUGE hole in that plan "Any person with a denial of coverage due to pre existing conditions" is anyone that elects not to pay for insurance and then needs treatment. ;)
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,496
Reaction score
37,754
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
While I do not oppose a single payer system, the best in-between would be to fold all government healthcare into a single system and also allow the private policies. It is quite ridiculous to have multiple federal systems even with Obamacare. Consolidating medicare, medicaid, VA, etc into a single system would make it harder for providers to cherrypick certain types of patients over others and create uniformity in benefits. This isn't about providing healthcare to the poor--it is all about maximizing healthcare profits. It is why medical providers fought Hillarycare but not Obamacare--well at least until it was too late and they realized that corporate medicine was about to screw small private practice providers.
This simply creates a two tiered system, one that accepts the gov't defined "fair" reimbursement rate for care provided and another that caters to cash or private insurance customers at a higher rate of return.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Really?

So getting the uninsured out of private health care facilities that won't be paid for them doesn't save anyone a dime - really? Are you that out of touch with reality? It is one of the biggest burdens on the private system.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Private facilities are paid for the services they render, even if the patient is uninsured.


And adding 75000 working professionals a year to the industry won't impact labor costs any? Again have you lost touch with reality or just want to be against everything and for obamacare so badly?
The proposal does not require adding 75000 working professionals a year to the industry. You made that up
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Wow not sure what you are reading, but I'm going to call out any load you make up that ignores the reality of it.

Private facilities are now required to care for anyone that walks in. If that person does not pay they divide the bill up among the many that do through insurance. Hence our insurance rates are the highest in the world. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but this is for people that do.

That proposal calls for expanding 300 universities or colleges and gives them the resources to educate more people in the field of health care - it doesn't create 75,000 more jobs its creates 75,000 more trained people to take jobs every year. That puts pressure on the job market, pressure that does not exist right now, and that means there will be wage pressures favorable to rate payers (can you say cost savings) instead of nurses and health care professionals. Of course if you are one of those I can see your opposition to the plan is self interest and this is for the interest of society - not you.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Private facilities are paid for the services they render, even if the patient is uninsured.




The proposal does not require adding 75000 working professionals a year to the industry. You made that up
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wow not sure what you are reading, but I'm going to call out any load you make up that ignores the reality of it.

Private facilities are now required to care for anyone that walks in. If that person does not pay they divide the bill up among the many that do through insurance. Hence our insurance rates are the highest in the world. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but this is for people that do.
IOW, they *do* get paid for the services they render

In addition, nothing in the proposal would change any of that. The fact is, the uninsured can not pay the bills themselves. Other people will have to pay. The proposal is useless. It does nothing to lower costs.


That proposal calls for expanding 300 universities or colleges and gives them the resources to educate more people in the field of health care - it doesn't create 75,000 more jobs its creates 75,000 more trained people to take jobs every year. That puts pressure on the job market, pressure that does not exist right now, and that means there will be wage pressures favorable to rate payers (can you say cost savings) instead of nurses and health care professionals. Of course if you are one of those I can see your opposition to the plan is self interest and this is for the interest of society - not you.
No, the proposal does not require the training of anyone. Not one single person.

Your 75,000 # is a lie. You made it up
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This simply creates a two tiered system, one that accepts the gov't defined "fair" reimbursement rate for care provided and another that caters to cash or private insurance customers at a higher rate of return.
As opposed to a system where nobody but the bottom feeders and corporations will treat medicare patients?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,496
Reaction score
37,754
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As opposed to a system where nobody but the bottom feeders and corporations will treat medicare patients?
My point exactly. The problem that we now see with gov't attempts to "control costs" are simply resulting in denial of quality care. Instead of making costs known and allowing folks to shop around we now have paying and billing handeled by gov't controlled third parties. If my "co pay" was $30 for a cartload of groceries then why would I care what each item in it actually costs?
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Yes its a two tierd system. The complaints are people can't get insured - this covers that. The complaints were people couldn't afford it - this cover that. The lefts opinion in handling it was to take the middle class health care system and share it with the poor and those who can't afford insurance. There is already a vast number of city hospitals, county hospitals, state hospitals, and all this does it network them so they can offer the poor reasoned services and the middle class' system can go on. Instead of indirectly paying for the poor to share the middle class system the middle class and wealthy can pay to create a reasoned new system for the poor.
 

274ina

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
641
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yoru link is like your CEO care. An illusion to fool the masses.
 
Top Bottom