Republicans Healthcare Replacement Plan

[AquaAthena]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

 

[Oddball]

So much for the churlish little demand of "oh, yeah?...what's your plan?"

 

[Claudette]

The Reps always had plans to reform HC.

The Dems just told em to STFU and get in the back of the bus.

 

[auditor0007]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I realize that most people think that allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines is a great idea. Supposedly, this would create more competition and reduce prices. However, there are a couple of big problems that doing so does not address.

First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

Secondly, when an insurance company currently denies payment to a covered patient, at least the company is local, so the customer has some chance of successfully fighting with their insurance company to get payment approved. Imagine trying to fight it out with your insurance company that is based in a state on the other side of the country. Good luck with that. And the opportunity for fraud amongst insurance companies would increase dramatically.

An another topic, encouraging states to set up high risk pools sounds like a great idea. This is exactly what was done prior to the new healthcare legislation. Some states did and some did not. If you lived in a state that did provide a high risk pool, the cost was out of reach for all but the very few. I knew a gentleman in Indiana who tried to get insurance through Indiana's high risk pool, because he was forced into early retirement. They wanted $2600 per month.

Since so many of you feel the government should not be involved with healthcare, I have a better idea. Why don't we stop forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees. They could be much more profitable without having to pay for their employee's healthcare. Leave it up to each and every individual/family to purchase their own insurance privately. Then lets see what happens.

 

[Oddball]

Point being is that it will render in-state quasi-monopolies and must-issue mandates impotent.

If I live in Iowa want to buy cafeteria style insurance (i.e. catastrophic medical and trauma only, with a high deductible) from a company in North Carolina, I can.

 

[midcan5]

This reminds me of the child writing Santa after Christmas has passed. The republicans had every opportunity to offer plans, they chose to do nothing, and did nothing. Plans now are meaningless as our democratically elected congress already accomplished the feat. Job now is to make it better, not go back in the cave with the republicans who have suddenly seen the light.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

 

[rdean]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

Oh, yea, because Virginia can be regulated by California. Makes sense. If you're an insurance company.

If people deduct HC from their taxes, only those with jobs can get health care. Worse, all heath care becomes government subsidized.

Insurance pools of sick people who may be on disability? You might as well say, "Fuck 'em. Let the suckers die. And Die Quickly". Then hope YOU don't get sick. You do have health care, don't you? Many Republicans don't.

The cost of emergency rooms for people without health care is one of the main reasons the cost skyrockets. How come the right can never talk about that?

Are you sure you've thought this pablum through?

 

[Bern80]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

Oh, yea, because Virginia can be regulated by California. Makes sense. If you're an insurance company.

If people deduct HC from their taxes, only those with jobs can get health care. Worse, all heath care becomes government subsidized.

Insurance pools of sick people who may be on disability? You might as well say, "Fuck 'em. Let the suckers die. And Die Quickly". Then hope YOU don't get sick. You do have health care, don't you? Many Republicans don't.

The cost of emergency rooms for people without health care is one of the main reasons the cost skyrockets. How come the right can never talk about that?

Are you sure you've thought this pablum through?

I think the problem is the left isn't saying what they really want. The more you read the arguments, the more it looks like what they're really after is free health care, not cheaper health care. Because how much it should cost and whether it should cost anything it all to the consumer are two entirely different arguments.

Costs are too high, we hear over and over again. Okay, what should it cost? What's a reasonable amount to charge for being rushed to the ER with a heart attack and your life being saved?

Maybe free market concepts really can't work in health care. The way the free market works the more in demand and/or scarce a resource is the more it's going to cost. I would say life saving services are pretty in demand and rather valuable, so it makes sense from a purely free market perspective, that that kind of service isn't going to be cheap.

 

[Oddball]

This reminds me of the child writing Santa after Christmas has passed. The republicans had every opportunity to offer plans, they chose to do nothing, and did nothing. Plans now are meaningless as our democratically elected congress already accomplished the feat. Job now is to make it better, not go back in the cave with the republicans who have suddenly seen the light.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

Liar...They offered these suggestions and were shut out.

 

[Greenbeard]

First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

Absolutely correct. But there's another aspect to the story beyond the misguided assumption that out-of-state insurers can offer you the same rates they offer people in lower-cost areas of their primary state who are treated in their local provider network.

And that's the notion that more competition in the insurance market naturally implies lower premiums. To an extent that's true, as it generally is, but only just so much. After a certain point, an increasingly fractured or diluted insurance market simply empowers providers in negotiations over the reimbursement rates assigned to various items in a fee schedule or chargemaster. Austin Frakt produced a handy graphic for one of his pieces on bilateral oligopoly:

The argument many unwittingly make is that if they're in a state characterized by point C, we ought to pursue policies that will push us over to point A. Unfortunately, that likely means even higher premiums than you already have.

 

[Cuyo]

The Reps always had plans to reform HC.

The Dems just told em to STFU and get in the back of the bus.

Oh please. They had 30 years and we got precisely SQUAT.

 

[Old Rocks]

From 2001 to 2007, the Repubs had everything. What did they offer us? Nada, zilch.

What we really need is one of these systems.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

 

[Big Black Dog]

Just about anything would be better than the crap the Democrats shoved down our throats against our will.

 

[Trajan]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I realize that most people think that allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines is a great idea. Supposedly, this would create more competition and reduce prices. However, there are a couple of big problems that doing so does not address.

First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

Secondly, when an insurance company currently denies payment to a covered patient, at least the company is local, so the customer has some chance of successfully fighting with their insurance company to get payment approved. Imagine trying to fight it out with your insurance company that is based in a state on the other side of the country. Good luck with that. And the opportunity for fraud amongst insurance companies would increase dramatically.

An another topic, encouraging states to set up high risk pools sounds like a great idea. This is exactly what was done prior to the new healthcare legislation. Some states did and some did not. If you lived in a state that did provide a high risk pool, the cost was out of reach for all but the very few. I knew a gentleman in Indiana who tried to get insurance through Indiana's high risk pool, because he was forced into early retirement. They wanted $2600 per month.

Since so many of you feel the government should not be involved with healthcare, I have a better idea. Why don't we stop forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees. They could be much more profitable without having to pay for their employee's healthcare. Leave it up to each and every individual/family to purchase their own insurance privately. Then lets see what happens.

how about we 'bend the cost curve'?

 

[mammastevens]

Who do you think pays for the health care of people with no insurance? Do you think it is the insurance companies? Do you think it is the hospital? No, it is you. So, whether you want affordable insurance for everyone, or you want to pay their bills through your premiums and hospital bills and taxes, either way, they will be treated. The difference is they will wait until their treatment is extremely expensive, as opposed to getting preventive treatment and early treatment.

 

[DaGoose]

This reminds me of the child writing Santa after Christmas has passed. The republicans had every opportunity to offer plans, they chose to do nothing, and did nothing. Plans now are meaningless as our democratically elected congress already accomplished the feat. Job now is to make it better, not go back in the cave with the republicans who have suddenly seen the light.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

Not to mention they controlled all three branches of government during the Bush years. I guess it wasn't a priority then.....

 

[JohnA]

This reminds me of the child writing Santa after Christmas has passed. The republicans had every opportunity to offer plans, they chose to do nothing, and did nothing. Plans now are meaningless as our democratically elected congress already accomplished the feat. Job now is to make it better, not go back in the cave with the republicans who have suddenly seen the light.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

well our *democratically elected congress* is now dominated by republicans and they have a mandate to pass/chance laws same as every *democratically elected congress *had previous to them .

the will of the poeple in the mid term election changed the ruling party in the house

they did it for a **reason * live with it

 

[midcan5]

Not to mention they controlled all three branches of government during the Bush years. I guess it wasn't a priority then.....

So so true - since the beginning of the last century they have done nothing for all Americans - why is that not evident?

The republican base is the corporations, the well to do, and the war industry - the last is part of a mindset controlled by conspiracy and fear.

Oddball and Zoom found it necessary to negative rep the truth, how telling.

Hi, you have received -322 reputation points from Oddball.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
liars get dinged...Now, g\'head andsnivel about it on the board.

Regards,
Oddball

Sure thing, love your three word replies. Gotta give you credit for brevity, hopefully that isn't just a sign of stupidty and a lack of knowledge. Hmm....

Hi, you have received -272 reputation points from Zoom-boing.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Liar.

Regards,
Zoom-boing

What is the lie? You offer no proof and merely show you are a tool (maybe fool) of the corporations and the republican party.

Oh and regarding the last election JKG said it best: "In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

 

[nraforlife]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I realize that most people think that allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines is a great idea. Supposedly, this would create more competition and reduce prices. However, there are a couple of big problems that doing so does not address.

First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

Secondly, when an insurance company currently denies payment to a covered patient, at least the company is local, so the customer has some chance of successfully fighting with their insurance company to get payment approved. Imagine trying to fight it out with your insurance company that is based in a state on the other side of the country. Good luck with that. And the opportunity for fraud amongst insurance companies would increase dramatically.

An another topic, encouraging states to set up high risk pools sounds like a great idea. This is exactly what was done prior to the new healthcare legislation. Some states did and some did not. If you lived in a state that did provide a high risk pool, the cost was out of reach for all but the very few. I knew a gentleman in Indiana who tried to get insurance through Indiana's high risk pool, because he was forced into early retirement. They wanted $2600 per month.

Since so many of you feel the government should not be involved with healthcare, I have a better idea. Why don't we stop forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees. They could be much more profitable without having to pay for their employee's healthcare. Leave it up to each and every individual/family to purchase their own insurance privately. Then lets see what happens.

Hmmmmm, perhaps what is needed is an approach to medical insurance similar to the credit union approach to banking.

 

[Bfgrn]

The current law allows for buying insurance across state lines. But Democrats added necessary consumer protection. The Republicans want to protect corporations, so they can steal the pennies off the eyes of the dead.

Does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Permit the Purchase of Health Insurance Across State Lines?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PACA) includes provisions that allow the purchasing of health insurance across state lines. However, these provisions are structured somewhat differently than earlier proposals. The differences are intended to provide states with more consumer protections from having those regulations undermined by cross state sales of insurance. The most important differences between the PPACA compact provisions and earlier interstate sales provisions are that the PPACA requires all states to comply with a minimum level of insurance regulation, and cross state sales would not be permitted in a state unless that state affirmatively joined a compact with one or more other states.