Finally, a responsible GOP response to Obamacare

[Stephanie]

awww, do you wittle kiddies in the Democrat party need someone to hold your hand, ALL THE TIME or what.

REMEMBER Pelosi, you have to pass it to see what is in it.

obama: you can KEEP YOUR PLAN if you like your plan

sit down children. You all SURVIVED all these years without OSCAMcare. I'm sure you will continue to survive

 

[LoneLaugher]

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

 

[g5000]

Wow.

Just...wow.

I am gobsmacked that anyone could believe that ObamaCare was not a massive increase of federal control over health care.

 

[g5000]

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Spoken like a congenital liberal.

By the way, how could you argue that "heavy regulations" are needed and yet dispute ObamaCare was not an increase in centralized control over health care?

Positively schizophrenic!

 

[hadit]

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Not the kind of regulations that prevent people from buying the insurance plan they really want and need. Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's boner pills, for example, or birth control, or chopadictomy?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow.

Just...wow.

I am gobsmacked that anyone could believe that ObamaCare was not a massive increase of federal control over health care.

Massive? Cool word.

You go with that.

 

[hadit]

Wow.

Just...wow.

I am gobsmacked that anyone could believe that ObamaCare was not a massive increase of federal control over health care.

That individual mandate (I can't remember, is it a fee or a tax this week? It keeps changing) should have given it away.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Q

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Not the kind of regulations that prevent people from buying the insurance plan they really want and need. Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's boner pills, for example, or birth control, or chopadictomy?

Blah.....blah....talking point......blah.......

 

[hadit]

Q

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Not the kind of regulations that prevent people from buying the insurance plan they really want and need. Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's boner pills, for example, or birth control, or chopadictomy?

Blah.....blah....talking point......blah.......

Hey, be my guest if you want to pay for some old geezer's boner pills.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Spoken like a congenital liberal.

By the way, how could you argue that "heavy regulations" are needed and yet dispute ObamaCare was not an increase in centralized control over health care?

Positively schizophrenic!

I'm a liberal. Congenital? Not so sure.

Please.......stop with the overstatements. They are boring.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, Obamacare was a well intentioned response to a real problem. But, like LBJ, Obama's need for central control created problems in areas that weren't broken.

Obama's need for central control?

How about elaborating on that a bit.

You missed Dodd Frank and the takeover of the student loan business, in addition to ACA? As well as new edicts from the EPA that regulate every pothole with water in them?
The trouble with debating you is you are so far behind on the information curve you never get up to speed.

Aren't you precious. You think you've been debating this whole time.

No, I know better with you. I am simply trying to school you. And failing because some people are just too fucking stupid.

 

[bendog]

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Why? Were HC insurance policies not already adequately monitored and regulated by state insurance commissioners? My coverage is a bit better because of Obamacare in that my wellness coverage is now a little more comprehensive, although my Internist who used to take half a day giving me tests on various organs decided to retire rather than provide lesser attention per patient. But, do you have any evidence that state commissioners weren't

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Why? Were HC insurance policies not already adequately monitored and regulated by state insurance commissioners? My coverage is a bit better because of Obamacare in that my wellness coverage is now a little more comprehensive, although my Internist who used to take half a day giving me tests on various organs decided to retire rather than provide lesser attention per patient. But, do you have any evidence that state commissioners weren't adequately monitoring the policies in their state?

There were too many people not covered. But there are other ways to allow them to access coverage. The OP is just one of them. You don't need a hard mandate to achieve near universal coverage. Medicare doesn't have a hard mandate. But, you can set up a system where if someone has chosen to NOT obtain coverage, and then tries to buy in only when sick, it becomes very, very expensive.

There's a basic difference in philosophies. I believe people will act in their own self-interest, without the govt telling them what to do. But, govt's reason to exist, and justification for taking money, rests upon setting up markets where everyone can get in, and where everyone knows what the ground rules are. Individuals may still die of stuff most don't die of. Some people may choose cheaper policies to try and pocket a little more money, and some of them may miscalculate. Death and taxes are the only givens in life. (unless you're an oligarch, but that's a whole 'nother topic)

 

[bendog]

Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Why? Were HC insurance policies not already adequately monitored and regulated by state insurance commissioners? My coverage is a bit better because of Obamacare in that my wellness coverage is now a little more comprehensive, although my Internist who used to take half a day giving me tests on various organs decided to retire rather than provide lesser attention per patient. But, do you have any evidence that state commissioners weren't

I may have said Obama's need for control, but if I did, I meant liberals. There were, are, ways to achieve near universal care while still allowing more individual control of what insurance to by, where to buy it, and even whether to buy it. The real goal was single provider, but the liberals didn't have the votes. And, even at that, there's a good argument that Obamacare is designed to eventually usher in single provider.

Basically, the only way to truly affect HC inflation is to affect consumption of HC. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on that. And, they can also agree that this can be done by a central planning agency rationing, or by people choosing to consume less. The fact is the conservatives just ceded the playing field to Obama and refused to even negotiate.

Health care is something that requires heavy regulations. That's unavoidable.

Why? Were HC insurance policies not already adequately monitored and regulated by state insurance commissioners? My coverage is a bit better because of Obamacare in that my wellness coverage is now a little more comprehensive, although my Internist who used to take half a day giving me tests on various organs decided to retire rather than provide lesser attention per patient. But, do you have any evidence that state commissioners weren't adequately monitoring the policies in their state?

There were too many people not covered. But there are other ways to allow them to access coverage. The OP is just one of them. You don't need a hard mandate to achieve near universal coverage. Medicare doesn't have a hard mandate. But, you can set up a system where if someone has chosen to NOT obtain coverage, and then tries to buy in only when sick, it becomes very, very expensive.

There's a basic difference in philosophies. I believe people will act in their own self-interest, without the govt telling them what to do. But, govt's reason to exist, and justification for taking money, rests upon setting up markets where everyone can get in, and where everyone knows what the ground rules are. Individuals may still die of stuff most don't die of. Some people may choose cheaper policies to try and pocket a little more money, and some of them may miscalculate. Death and taxes are the only givens in life. (unless you're an oligarch, but that's a whole 'nother topic)

Do you think it is good if someone chooses not to buy coverage and then needs to go bankrupt due to medical bills?

I don't.

FDR had it right in 1944. An excerpt from his "Second Bill of Rights"

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/images/exerpt_d.jpg

 

[Mac1958]

The plan includes government involvement. Surely the purists won't allow that.

We already have a government/private collaboration that works. It would free businesses from the costs of providing health coverage, which is insane. It would maintain free market competition and innovation. It would open up millions of new potential clients to the insurance companies. It would cover preventive/diagnostic care, so critical in keeping long term costs down.

Medicare/Medicare Supplements/Medicare Advantage. It's already there. It already works.

We have six (6) fucking different delivery/payment systems right now. Does anyone think that's smart?

Really?

.

 

[Coyote]

Without a mandate how will the costs be kept down? Will insurance be forced to take everyone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, Obamacare was a well intentioned response to a real problem. But, like LBJ, Obama's need for central control created problems in areas that weren't broken.

Obama's need for central control?

How about elaborating on that a bit.

You missed Dodd Frank and the takeover of the student loan business, in addition to ACA? As well as new edicts from the EPA that regulate every pothole with water in them?
The trouble with debating you is you are so far behind on the information curve you never get up to speed.

Aren't you precious. You think you've been debating this whole time.

No, I know better with you. I am simply trying to school you. And failing because some people are just too fucking stupid.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

lol

 

[rightwinger]

Those alternatives generally loosen the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on discriminating against customers with pre-existing health conditions.

Puts us back where we started.....Sorry cancer boy, no insurance for you