Where's Republicans' alternative to Obamacare? It's right here.

[Neomalthusian]

The problem is that healthcare in this country has been broken for decades.

What legitimate major comprehensive reform attempts have happened by Republicans over the years. I heard about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and tort reform for decades.

The Reoublicans could have been helped for decades. Pardon the dems if they do not buy any attempts from your side as comprehensive legislation aimed at providing comprehensive healthcare for Americans that cannot afford it.

You all have had years (decades) to come to the table and be taken seriously.

I am not talking about partisan Democrat and Republican political bull****. I'm talking about actual policy, comparing the PPACA to a proposed alternative.

Which is the better policy, and why? PPACA, just because Democrats voted for it and because Republicans are ***holes? No, specifically, which policy better addresses our overpriced health care problem?

 

[polgara]

Concessions? This ACA belongs to the political left. You own it. Nobody on the right voted for it. Everybody on the left did, and it bears the president's signature. It's your baby. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi had wanted the public option, they could've legislated and passed it. They didn't. What we now have is their product. The left is so desperate to distance themselves from this mess they've resorted to calling it Heritagecare, Romneycare, and maybe they'll get around to Gingrichcare when the smelling salts start to kick in.

Mary Landrieu, Democrat Senator from Louisiana wanted 300 million dollars for her bribe vote. She got it! Why did she require a bribe to vote yes on this great ACA plan? She recently stated she'd do it again today, too. This is the type of people we have representing us in DC today? :wow:

 

[imagep]

Public option would be like opening up medicare for all. Pay premium (sliding scale?) and you can buy in before you reach retirement age.

That sounds similar to the exchanges. A government system under which you can purchase insurance.

I don't think so. The state/fed exchanges are mere marketplaces (gathering points) for folks to shop for coverage from private insurance companies. If anything they are facilitators for the Ins Co's to increase the size of the pie offsetting the effect of their 20% cap on administration/profit.

So if these exchanges are actually a system of matching up people who need insurance to private insurance companies, then why are they so bad?

 

[Dickieboy]

So if these exchanges are actually a system of matching up people who need insurance to private insurance companies, then why are they so bad?

First it costs money to create the exchange which enables an activity that was available prior to their creation. Folks could purchase insurance prior without them.
Second, they facilitate the mandate which forces folks to engage thus increasing the size of the pie and thereby promote 'corporatism' which is commonly frowned upon.
Third, so far they DONT F'N WORK!

 

[Dickieboy]

The Reoublicans could have been helped for decades. Pardon the dems if they do not buy any attempts from your side as comprehensive legislation aimed at providing comprehensive healthcare for Americans that cannot afford it.

You all have had years (decades) to come to the table and be taken seriously.

Remind me who maintained the House from 1955-1995, FOUR DECADES...?

Go you can say it...

 

[Threegoofs]

Remind me who maintained the House from 1955-1995, FOUR DECADES...?

Go you can say it...

You mean the party that never threatened to shut the government down unless they got their way?

Yes...those were better times.

 

[Paschendale]

We can't afford it. We need the federal government to subsidize our purchase. That's not "affordable." That's called propping up unaffordability. It makes more people dependent on the federal government.

A better policy would do more to actually control the astronomical costs, not subsidize them. That's one of the reasons why HR 3121 is a better policy.

Okay, control them. Oh wait, you don't really mean control. You just mean make the whole thing cheaper and more profitable for insurance companies by keeping the people who really need healthcare but can't afford it out. If you want to control prices, you need to force the companies to lower them, or take them out of the equation entirely. But's socialism so it's eeeeeeevil.

Concessions? This ACA belongs to the political left. You own it. Nobody on the right voted for it. Everybody on the left did, and it bears the president's signature. It's your baby. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi had wanted the public option, they could've legislated and passed it. They didn't. What we now have is their product. The left is so desperate to distance themselves from this mess they've resorted to calling it Heritagecare, Romneycare, and maybe they'll get around to Gingrichcare when the smelling salts start to kick in.

Weird how no Republicans voted for it, even after they got to write most of it in the committees. They really will do anything to oppose Obama, regardless of how it affects the country and regardless of the facts.

I'm confused what was the point in giving Republicans concessions when ACA was passed with 0 Republican votes? IOW, what did the concessions gain?

Nothing. Which is why the Democrats should have just gone ahead with UHC or at least the public option, which is what the reformers actually wanted. Even after getting a whole lot of things their way, the Republicans still refused to be anything but obstructionists. There's basically no reason to allow them anything anymore. They apparently can't function in a system of compromise.

 

[Dickieboy]

You mean the party that never threatened to shut the government down unless they got their way?

Yes...those were better times.

Uh...yeah like the first one...:

Why did it happen? The major budget conflict during this period came because Ford vetoed a funding bill for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare (or HEW, today split into the Departments of Education and of Health and Human Services), arguing that it failed to restrain spending adequately.
What resolved it? Congress overrode Ford's veto Oct. 1, so the spending bills took effect, but it wasn't until over a week later that the partial shutdown ended, as it was only on Oct.11 that a continuing resolution ending funding gaps for other parts of government became law.

Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended

Note the Democrats shut the government down because they wanted MORE money and Ford vetoed the budget...and what did they do...overrode the veto...talk about 'getting one's way' (thinking hostage taking, terrorist, etc. now)...you may want to read the others as there are SEVERAL that typify what you claim they did not do...

 

[TurtleDude]

It looks as if prices are rising, rather than falling. And it also looks as if the uninsured numbers aren't going to drop much, either. CBO: Obamacare Will Leave 30 Million Uninsured | CNS News So we will still be paying for the uninsured in the ER anyway.

its another failed expand the dependency scheme that the dems are famous for

 

[Threegoofs]

Uh...yeah like the first one...:

Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended

Note the Democrats shut the government down because they wanted MORE money and Ford vetoed the budget...and what did they do...overrode the veto...talk about 'getting one's way' (thinking hostage taking, terrorist, etc. now)...you may want to read the others as there are SEVERAL that typify what you claim they did not do...

I'm pretty sure vetos and overriding vetos are SOP. Refusing to vote on a bill because you want to nullify existing law because you can't do it legitimately...not so much.

 

[Dickieboy]

Nothing. Which is why the Democrats should have just gone ahead with UHC or at least the public option, which is what the reformers actually wanted.

Well, why didn't they? It was surely not a concession to Republicans as they didn't need to. No sir, I doubt the leadership could keep the caucus together to pass single payer.

Even after getting a whole lot of things their way, the Republicans still refused to be anything but obstructionists. There's basically no reason to allow them anything anymore. They apparently can't function in a system of compromise.

Didn't you just say Republicans didn't get what they wanted in the ACA debate? What is the whole lot in 'getting a whole lot of things their way'?

 

[Dickieboy]

I'm pretty sure vetos and overriding vetos are SOP. Refusing to vote on a bill because you want to nullify existing law because you can't do it legitimately...not so much.

So you agree the Democrats threatened Ford with a shutdown, then shutdown the government to get what they wanted...? (which was your assertion in #31)

Kinda looks like you now are moving the goal post...

 

[Neomalthusian]

Okay, control them. Oh wait, you don't really mean control.

Yes I do. There are two ways: promote elasticity of demand for both health care and health insurance, or have the government take over the whole industry and set prices.

PPACA does neither. Folks who promote this law are promoting continued lack of cost control.

 

[Paschendale]

Yes I do. There are two ways: promote elasticity of demand for both health care and health insurance, or have the government take over the whole industry and set prices.

PPACA does neither. Folks who promote this law are promoting continued lack of cost control.

"Promote elasticity of demand". What a delightfully vague notion.

 

[year2late]

I am not talking about partisan Democrat and Republican political bull****. I'm talking about actual policy, comparing the PPACA to a proposed alternative.

Which is the better policy, and why? PPACA, just because Democrats voted for it and because Republicans are ***holes? No, specifically, which policy better addresses our overpriced health care problem?

But isn't the partisan crap all part of it? What good faith negotiation could we ever have - especially from the right. But clearly having a good faith discussion with any politician who is beholding to big money (and quadruple threat since Citizens United.

What would be the best policy? Single payer plan (think medicare for all with adjustments) that is on a sliding scale. Cut out the flipping middle men. And a plan that allows negotiation for pharmaceuticals - the VA is allowed to, so should medicare (etc)

 

[year2late]

That sounds similar to the exchanges. A government system under which you can purchase insurance.

Not really.

At the top of a private insurance company is a CEO making huge money on the backs of patients. The same CEO is beholding to stockholders so decisions are made based on what is best for the company and not the patient.

Medicare has been shown to operate on low overhead.

One way you have a government exchange that offers private insurance the other cuts out the middle man between the patient and the government.

 

[year2late]

So... fewer poor people benefit, but rich people get more money out of it. Sounds like the Republicans.

When I think about the major issues with health care in this country, I think of several things.

1) Prexisting conditions and protections for patients once they get sick.

2)The working poor. These ARE the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people. They take minimum wage jobs that prop the rest of us up. They frequently work more than one job just to get by. It disgusts me that these people who work their asses off are too rich to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to buy insurance. These aren't lazy people - there are people working their asses off and by necessity consider health care a luxury. Health care a luxury in the US - how third world of us.

In my book, any health care reform would need to fully address these issues.

The proposed reform seems to toss those concerns into the toilet.

 

[Thrilla]

When I think about the major issues with health care in this country, I think of several things.

1) Prexisting conditions and protections for patients once they get sick.

2)The working poor. These ARE the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people. They take minimum wage jobs that prop the rest of us up. They frequently work more than one job just to get by. It disgusts me that these people who work their asses off are too rich to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to buy insurance. These aren't lazy people - there are people working their asses off and by necessity consider health care a luxury. Health care a luxury in the US - how third world of us.

In my book, any health care reform would need to fully address these issues.

The proposed reform seems to toss those concerns into the toilet.

Obamacare seems to address your concerns...and it has the added bonus of being one gigantic corporate welfare program that benefits a few specific insurance companies who stand to profit big time.


instead of getting rid of extremely costly middlemen and addressing those concerns directly between patient and care provider... our lovely government decided to put healthcare in the hands of corporations that don't provide one ounce of healthcare.
and the loyal throngs of liberal supporters cheer for it...

 

[iguanaman]

Obamacare seems to address your concerns...and it has the added bonus of being one gigantic corporate welfare program that benefits a few specific insurance companies who stand to profit big time.


instead of getting rid of extremely costly middlemen and addressing those concerns directly between patient and care provider... our lovely government decided to put healthcare in the hands of corporations that don't provide one ounce of healthcare.
and the loyal throngs of liberal supporters cheer for it...

LOL Now you are in favor of Medicare for all? Why didn't say so earlier? If that's what the Republicans want. Why don't they say so now?
We will get down business as soon as the Govt. is open and the debt ceiling is raised. There is support for that proposal if Republicans are on board. Otherwise I'll take the limit on "overhead" that the AHC act gives us over the "nothing" that amounts to the GOP proposal.

 

[year2late]

LOL Now you are in favor of Medicare for all? Why didn't say so earlier? If that's what the Republicans want. Why don't they say so now?
We will get down business as soon as the Govt. is open and the debt ceiling is raised. There is support for that proposal if Republicans are on board. Otherwise I'll take the limit on "overhead" that the AHC act gives us over the "nothing" that amounts to the GOP proposal.

I thought medicare for all was a great idea (at least a phenomenal starting spot)

 

[jimbo]

Obamacare was supposed to cover everyone--at least that is what I thought I heard was the reason for changing our health care system.. At the time I thought I heard this, there were 30 million people who weren't covered by insurance. Now that Obamacare is the law of the land, there are still 30 million who will not be covered. What mischief is that 30 million up to, anyway?

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

When Obama first touted his health care plan, the claim was 6 million without health care. Now the claim is 30 million. So just the threat of Barrycare has increased the number of uninsured by a factor of 6.

 

[Thrilla]

LOL Now you are in favor of Medicare for all? Why didn't say so earlier? If that's what the Republicans want. Why don't they say so now?
We will get down business as soon as the Govt. is open and the debt ceiling is raised. There is support for that proposal if Republicans are on board. Otherwise I'll take the limit on "overhead" that the AHC act gives us over the "nothing" that amounts to the GOP proposal.

why are you asking me about what Republicans want?... I'm a Libertarian...I don't give a **** what Republicans want.

and yes, we already know you support massive corporate welfare scheme ... that goes without saying.

you want the debt ceiling raised?.... well good for you.... congratulations on supporting a nonsense "function" of government
I want it gone for good... it serves no purpose... it's as useless as nipples on a nun.


I said nothing about supporting medicare for all....don't lie about me to my face.

 

[Thrilla]

I thought medicare for all was a great idea (at least a phenomenal starting spot)

you want free healthcare.. and that's just a starting spot??...what else could you possibly want, to be paid for getting treated?

 

[douglas]

why are you asking me about what Republicans want?... I'm a Libertarian...I don't give a **** what Republicans want.

and yes, we already know you support massive corporate welfare scheme ... that goes without saying.

you want the debt ceiling raised?.... well good for you.... congratulations on supporting a nonsense "function" of government
I want it gone for good... it serves no purpose... it's as useless as nipples on a nun.


I said nothing about supporting medicare for all....don't lie about me to my face.

Liked for "nun nipples".

 

[year2late]

you want free healthcare.. and that's just a starting spot??...what else could you possibly want, to be paid for getting treated?

Who said I want free healthcare? What the hell are you talking about?