Reality spells doom for GOP healthcare plan.

[Truthseeker420]

 

[taichiliberal]

Anyone who has been hospitalized recently understands the costs involved. A five day stay with a minor operation is going to run $40,000. Even if your insurance pays 80% you are on the hook for $8000.

If you are fairly well off you can withstand the $8K. But to a family struggling to get by that is devastating

Republicans are trying to substitute a voucher system where you get a set amount to shop around with. Anything above that is your problem

What happens in five or ten years when you have to ask republicans to vote on increases to the voucher amount? is Grover Norquist going to help you out?

The raises in vouchers was already put into the bill.
Seniors are paying monthly premiums right now.
The premiums for Senors are going up faster under the New Health Care Plan.
Under the New Health Care Plan the price paid to Doctors is capped. When you cap prices your have to raise the service fees in order the get payments for the cost of the service.
A simple example would be- If your Dr. charges 25.00 for an office visit, and Medicare pays only 5.00 of that, then the Doctor needs to charge Medicare 75.00 for that office visit in order to get even close to the 25.00 office visit. It raises the cost dramatically.
The problem with the new Health Care plan is that there is no competition, under the GOP's there would be competition.
When you have competition the prices are lowered.

Nice try, but you left out the FACT that if you cannot afford your current insurance rates, the gov't will offer a plan that you can afford, or assistance in purchasing one that you like.


But let me just pull the rug out from your bogus mantra regarding AHCA and medicare:

The chain e-mail claimed that Medicare Part B premiums would increase dramatically in future years because of the health care law supported by President Barack Obama. We couldn’t find evidence to support the e-mail’s numbers. And in fact, most Medicare beneficiaries will only pay $3.50 more a month in 2012. The e-mail’s projection for 2014 seems entirely fabricated. The health care law leaves in place the long-established methods for calculating Medicare Part B premiums. The chain e-mail makes the additional unproved claim that its allegations -- which are false anyway -- were accomplished nefariously and delayed for political purposes. We rate its claims Pants on Fire.



PolitiFact | Medicare premiums going up due to

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/

 

[taichiliberal]

Recently my 78 yr. old father, a retired NYC homicide detective, spent 1 week in the hospital for a bladder infection. He was diagnosed, treated, fed, nurses monitored him, and released on a short out patient status.

thank God he's okay now.

The cost, $23,000. With his insurance set up through his UNION, his out of pocket was $300! $2300 for an elderly couple with medical issues (Mom has a condition for the last 16 years that requires routine check-ups and occasional hospitalization due to flare-ups) would put them in dire straights.

Now, picture someone WITHOUT a union pension and medical coverage given an $8K voucher and told to shop around for an insurance company (sans the AHCA) that will give them equal coverage!

Somebody needs to hip Romney/Ryan that their corporate flunky BS dog just isn't going to fly.

In a system where there is competition among insurance companies you would get better coverage using your voucher than in a system where the government pays, and if it doesn't there is no recourse.

Government insurance presupposes that there will be coverage available when the government itself says that coverage will be on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis with a panel determining whether or not your procedure is covered at all.

1. We've been living with the vaunted "competition" of insurance companies since the Reagan era (HMO's)....which has resulted in the mess most Americans find themselves in (can't afford to be sick) along with the greed factor of health insurance companies with little oversight and lax regulation.....just ask Wendell Potter and Dr. Peelo.

2. THe ACHA takes affect when people cannot afford the rates insurance companies offers or they need assistence to compensate for they can afford. There is no "death panel" via gov't insurance plan.....which HAS EXISTED with the current state of health insurance companies (HMO's)....again, just ask Wendell Potter and Dr. Peelo.

3. PLEASE show me an insurance company that will give my parents the coverage they have now for $8K. I'll wait.

 

[taichiliberal]

Competetition does not work very well in the health care industry.
When is the last time you shopped around for the cost of a medical procedure?

"Doctor shopping" is against the law in some cases.

I was talking about the cost in insurance premiums and different insurance plans.

Competition doesn't work well in the health care industry! Have you noticed how elective plastic surgery has dropped in cost due to competition! It works just like it does everywhere else.

Now lets be truthful about doctor shopping. The term doctor shopping doesn't refer to comparitive shopping to obtain a lower cost. It refers to the practice of getting prescriptions for certain classes of narcotics from multiple prescribers.

What YOU call doctor shopping is generally considered a fully legal second opinion.

You do understand that an elective is something you want, not what you need, right? That's just one bogus comparison you use. And since the Shrub and company gave us a perscription plan B that does not allow for bargaining for lower drug rates, you're using a false mantra again.

 

[Stephanie]

I always took you for a child

 

[taichiliberal]

Fact from the Government budget office. Medicare is going broke in 12 years.
Dem's New Health Care plan keeps Medicare solvent for 8 years. Then something else must be done.
Repubs plan is to reform Medicare and to keep it solvent for future generations.

you can't get that through peoples heads..
that why all the fear mongering by Democrats

That's because its a LIE, Stephie dear. FYI: http://www.usmessageboard.com/5832343-post22.html

 

[taichiliberal]

I always took you for a child

Crude, but accurate cartoons. And aren't you ashamed that a child is not as willfully ignorant as you, Stephie old girl.

Here, learn something: http://www.usmessageboard.com/5832343-post22.html

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Reality spells doom for GOP healthcare plan.

Reality spells doom for most GOP plans.

...GOP health care plan?

Yes, we’d all like to see that ‘plan.’ All we’ve heard from the GOP is repeal the ACA, weaken Medicare, and screw you if you can’t afford insurance.

 

[Dot Com]

katzndogs should stop while she's behind LOL

 

[Truthseeker420]

It's against the law to take children.

 

[Truthseeker420]

It's against the law to take children.

 

[Liability]

Reality is a concept the left fights against.

If they cared at all about reality, they would revolt AGAINST the endless acquisition of debt which seems to be the only policy of the current administration.

Without intervention, and the libs offer no intervention worthy of the name, the Medicare system will collapse. Not maybe. Definitely.

Yet the libs oppose intervention, while they passively take a see nothing and do nothing attitude toward the raiding of Medicare by the incumbent.

Thus, it is clear: there's no logical reason to take seriously the musings in the silly OP.

 

[Greenbeard]

Without intervention, and the libs offer no intervention worthy of the name, the Medicare system will collapse. Not maybe. Definitely.

Romney proposes to move the date of the Medicare trust fund's insolvency up to 2016. In return, he promises to start reforming Medicare starting in 2023.

Sounds like a great plan.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The cost, $23,000. With his insurance set up through his UNION, his out of pocket was $300!

And the reason the cost was $23,000 is because his out of pocket costs were only $300.

That's the problem.

 

[alan1]

Why should the government be meddling in a persons healthcare?

Oh, that's right, politicians and the media told you they should be.

The question shouldn't be about which political party has the "right" or "best" plan, the question should be why the hell is the government sticking it's obtrusive nose into personal matters? And personal choices?

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's medicare plan.

We will take 716 billion dollars out of medicare and make it up by not paying the doctors, hospitals or other providers.

The medical care personnel will keep working because they are nice people who have the good of the people more at heart than making money.

That's the plan.

 

[Liability]

Without intervention, and the libs offer no intervention worthy of the name, the Medicare system will collapse. Not maybe. Definitely.

Romney proposes to move the date of the Medicare trust fund's insolvency up to 2016. In return, he promises to start reforming Medicare starting in 2023.

Sounds like a great plan.

Nobody proposes moving an unavoidable date with insolvency up. That's ridiculous and it's simply untrue. It will BE insolvent when it becomes insolvent and if anybody challenges the projected date of such insolvency, that's very different than suggesting it gets moved up.

And he is NOT suggesting starting reform in 2023, either.

Since you are hostile to truth, I will share the correction of your deliberate distortions:“President Obama’s new ad, ‘Facts,’ gets the facts wrong,” Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.

“The facts concerning the president’s record on Medicare are clear: 1) Obama cut the program by $716 billion, 2) millions will be forced to lose their Medicare Advantage coverage and 3) the program will go bankrupt in 2024.”

-- Obama’s Answer to Romney Medicare Attack? AARP - ABC News


You lib idiots need to stop taking your "information" from bullshit sites like Think Progress.

 

[Greenbeard]

Nobody proposes moving an unavoidable date with insolvency up. That's ridiculous and it's simply untrue.

I'd have so much more respect from Romneyites if they agreed with his policies and could at least half-heartedly defend them; instead, they seem to spend most of their time denying that Romney's proposals exist.

The ACA moved the insolvency date from 2016 into at least the mid-2020s, thanks to the savings that Romney and Co. routinely decry. Paul Ryan, in developing his budget, realized that he had to at least pay lip service to exempting 55-year-olds and up from the voucherization of Medicare, meaning it doesn't start until the early 2020s. Yet that required him to adopt the ACA's cost savings (while ostensibly repealing the rest of the law) to keep the insolvency date from reverting back to 2016.

Preserving the ACA's Medicare cost savings while demonizing them proved too much even for Romney. So he recently declared that this is an area where his Medicare plan differs from his running mate's: Romney will restore the "cuts" and thus increase Medicare's expenditures, unlike Ryan who retained them in his budgets.

But that brings the insolvency date back from the mid-to-late 2020s to 2016. So either current and soon-to-be Medicare beneficiares aren't exempt from Romney's vouchercare proposal (i.e. it does go into effect earlier than 2023, as you seem to think it does, but contrary to what Romney's been saying) or Medicare's trust fund is going insolvent several years before Romney's reforms go into effect.

You're allowed to acknowledge what Romney is suggesting and just dislike it. I won't tell the RNC.

 

[Liability]

Nobody proposes moving an unavoidable date with insolvency up. That's ridiculous and it's simply untrue.

I'd have so much more respect from Romneyites if they agreed with his policies and could at least half-heartedly defend them; instead, they seem to spend most of their time denying that Romney's proposals exist.

The ACA moved the insolvency date from 2016 into at least the mid-2020s, thanks to the savings that Romney and Co. routinely decry. Paul Ryan, in developing his budget, realized that he had to at least pay lip service to exempting 55-year-olds and up from the voucherization of Medicare, meaning it doesn't start until the early 2020s. Yet that required him to adopt the ACA's cost savings (while ostensibly repealing the rest of the law) to keep the insolvency date from reverting back to 2016.

Preserving the ACA's Medicare cost savings while demonizing them proved too much even for Romney. So he recently declared that this is an areas where his Medicare plan differs from his running mate's: Romney will restore the "cuts" and thus increase Medicare's expenditures.

But that brings the insolvency date back from the mid-to-late 2020s to 2016. So either current and soon-to-be Medicare beneficiares aren't exempt from Romney's vouchercare proposal or Medicare's trust fund is going insolvent several years before Romney's reforms go into effect.

You're allowed to acknowledge what Romney is suggesting and just dislike it. I won't tell the RNC.

The day might come when any reasonable person worries about who or what YOU "respect."

But your endless distortions of the Ryan plan and the Romney "plan" cost you far too much credibility for such a thing to happen any time soon.

Some day, perhaps, you will be honest about what the Obummer plan is -- other than simply RAIDING Medicare by approximately 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars.

But I'm not banking on it.

 

[Greenbeard]

But your endless distortions of the Ryan plan and the Romney "plan" cost you far too much credibility for such a thing to happen any time soon.

Can you fill me in on what happens between 2016, when Romney bankrupts the trust fund, and 2023 when his reforms start?

Is there a secret plan for getting seniors through Romney's Seven Lean Years?