Squashing The Ignorance. Republican Health Care Plans Exposed

[Procrustes Stretched]

YouTube - A health care plan for America

here is a list of the bills the republicans introduced that the dems have shut down

Republican Health Care Plans shot down by the Democrat congress


H.R. 198 Health Care Tax Deduction Act
H.R. 502 Health Care Freedom of Choice Act
H.R. 544 Flexible Health Savings Act
H.R. 879 Affordable Health Care Expansion Act
H.R. 1891 Sunset of Life Protection Act
H.R. 2607 The Small Business Health Fairness Act
H.R. 3217 Health Care Choice Act
H.R. 3218 Improving Health Care for All Americans Act
H.R. 3508 Healthy Savings Act
H.R. 3821 Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act
H.R. 3822 Improved Access to Employer Financed Health Insurance Act
H.R. 3823 Medicaid and SCHIP Beneficiary Choice Improvement Act
H.R. 3824 Expanded Health Insurance Options Act





Rooting Out Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Enhancing Transparency

H.R. 27 Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act
R. 203 Medicare Fraud Prevention Act
H.R. 2249 Health Care Price Transparency Promotion Act
H.R. 2785 Health Care Paperwork Reduction and Fraud Prevention Act



Medical Liability Reform

H.R. 1086 Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act
H.R. 1468 Medical Justice Act
H.R. 2787 Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act
H.R. 2975 Medical Practice Protection Act
H.R. 3372 Health Care Over Use Reform Today Act



Prevention/Wellness

H.R. 3468 Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act



Preserving Doctor/Patient Relationship

H.R. 2516 Medical Rights Act
H.R. 3002 Patients Act

2001 to 2007, the Republicans could have put into effect any health care plan that they wished to. They did nothing. They are for dothing nothing right now. All the lies in the world will not make up for that fact.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh my! That would be soooooooooooooooo terrible compared to what we currently have.

Yeah your right, i guess it would be better to deny coverage and care to everyone instead of just some people

Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet.

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.

Yet the USA has the best survival rate for most cancers and heart patients......Go figure.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh my! That would be soooooooooooooooo terrible compared to what we currently have.

Yeah your right, i guess it would be better to deny coverage and care to everyone instead of just some people

Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet.

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.

You picked a bad example. Costa Rica's debt, from their health care system, is 42.5% of their GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Try using france instead, they do better. Don't point me to england or cuba though as those countries will also hurt your argument, and to a lesser extent canada.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here's a new idea, lets get congress to pass a bill that would regulate the health insurance companies where they could not turn down anyone for a preexisting condition. We can add in some tarp reform, and some grouping of small businesses, maybe even some additional competition by allowing the sale of insurance across state lines.

Then Congress can get to work on the real problem facing America, Unemployment!

If people went back to work they would mostly have health insurance.

Or am I being too real or simplistic here?

too simplistic. Jobs with a reasonable pay scale will take away money to pay the premiums. The system has been broken for far too long.

take the profit out of health insurance. shit, let docs and hospitals make more with part of teh savings

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah your right, i guess it would be better to deny coverage and care to everyone instead of just some people

Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet.

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.

Yet the USA has the best survival rate for most cancers and heart patients......Go figure.

Nice talking point. It is even partly true. But only partly;

U.S. ranks high on cancer care, lowest on diabetes treatment - Health Matters - MarketWatch

you’re going to get breast cancer, your chances of being alive five years later are best in the United States, where 90.5% of patients make it to that benchmark. Canada, Japan and France are the next best places, statistically speaking, to fight the disease. The OECD average for breast cancer survival at the five-year mark was 81%. For colorectal cancer five-year survival rates, the U.S. comes in third behind Japan and Iceland and just ahead of Canada.

But the U.S. drops to the bottom when looking at benchmarks for two common chronic conditions, diabetes and asthma. In 2006, the U.S. had 36 diabetes-related lower-limb amputations per 100,000 people compared with an OECD average of 15. In the U.K., a country with what Pearson calls a very strong primary-care system, incidence of lower-limb amputations was four times lower than the U.S. at 9 per 100,000 people. Austria does best in avoiding amputations, with just 7 per 100,000 people, and South Korea performs nearly as well in this category with 8 amputations per 100,000.

 

[uscitizen]

Notice instead of making one giant clusterfuck of a bill the republicans are trying to take each change to the insurance coverage and health care industry one at a time.

Why would you try to hide everything in a 1500+ page bill Pelosi/Obama/Reid? Why can't you debate each change on its individual merits too?

How much is hidden in those acts?

Like the pill bill which guarantes no price bargaining with drug companies?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah your right, i guess it would be better to deny coverage and care to everyone instead of just some people

Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet.

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.

You picked a bad example. Costa Rica's debt, from their health care system, is 42.5% of their GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Try using france instead, they do better. Don't point me to england or cuba though as those countries will also hurt your argument, and to a lesser extent canada.

I see. They spend 42.5% of their GDP, if we are to beleive that statement, on their health care system.

So they are to be damned for spending 42.5% of their GDP to insure that their people live long and healthy lives. Much better to spend that amount on bombing people in other nations.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet.

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.

You picked a bad example. Costa Rica's debt, from their health care system, is 42.5% of their GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Try using france instead, they do better. Don't point me to england or cuba though as those countries will also hurt your argument, and to a lesser extent canada.

I see. They spend 42.5% of their GDP, if we are to beleive that statement, on their health care system.

So they are to be damned for spending 42.5% of their GDP to insure that their people live long and healthy lives. Much better to spend that amount on bombing people in other nations.

no no maybe i worded that badly.

Their national debt/year is 42.5% of their GDP and a large portion of that defecit spending is due to their health care expendatures. This level of debt is not sustainable and will cause inflation and recessions in any economy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah your right, i guess it would be better to deny coverage and care to everyone instead of just some people

Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet.

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.

You picked a bad example. Costa Rica's debt, from their health care system, is 42.5% of their GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Try using france instead, they do better. Don't point me to england or cuba though as those countries will also hurt your argument, and to a lesser extent canada.

try using 5 capitalist democracies...flaws and all?

why do you keep a closed mind to reality and truth?

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

United Kingdom
An interview with an expert on the UK's system +Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.


Japan

An interview with an expert on Japan's system +Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.


Germany

An interview with an expert on Germany's system +Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

Taiwan

An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system +Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.


Switzerland

An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

 

[Old Rocks]

Plymco, you are being decietful again. Look at the figures from your site. They are 50th in the world in ratio of public debt to GDP. And moved from 58% of GDP to 42.2% of GDP in 4 years. And in the last four years, in what direction has our percentage of public debt to GDP gone?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Public debt:
42.2% of GDP (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 50
58% of GDP (2004 est.)

 

[Old Rocks]

You picked a bad example. Costa Rica's debt, from their health care system, is 42.5% of their GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Try using france instead, they do better. Don't point me to england or cuba though as those countries will also hurt your argument, and to a lesser extent canada.

I see. They spend 42.5% of their GDP, if we are to beleive that statement, on their health care system.

So they are to be damned for spending 42.5% of their GDP to insure that their people live long and healthy lives. Much better to spend that amount on bombing people in other nations.

no no maybe i worded that badly.

Their national debt/year is 42.5% of their GDP and a large portion of that defecit spending is due to their health care expendatures. This level of debt is not sustainable and will cause inflation and recessions in any economy.

Yes, you certainly worded that badly.

Notice the direction of the Public Debt and GDP ratio. Improving while ours is going badly in the opposite direction.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Plymco, you are being decietful again. Look at the figures from your site. They are 50th in the world in ratio of public debt to GDP. And moved from 58% of GDP to 42.2% of GDP in 4 years. And in the last four years, in what direction has our percentage of public debt to GDP gone?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Public debt:
42.2% of GDP (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 50
58% of GDP (2004 est.)

Yes they have done better, look at their tax rates on their citizens over the same time period.

Even if it was down to 30% it would still be too high to sustain.

 

[Old Rocks]

Plymco, you are being decietful again. Look at the figures from your site. They are 50th in the world in ratio of public debt to GDP. And moved from 58% of GDP to 42.2% of GDP in 4 years. And in the last four years, in what direction has our percentage of public debt to GDP gone?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Public debt:
42.2% of GDP (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 50
58% of GDP (2004 est.)

Yes they have done better, look at their tax rates on their citizens over the same time period.

Even if it was down to 30% it would still be too high to sustain.

But they are not sustaining it, they are reducing it. And look at where our ratio is at right now and in which way it is going.

You are not making a good arguement for the stating that a well ran health care system is the primary cause of deficits.

 

[uscitizen]

2001 to 2007, the Republicans could have put into effect any health care plan that they wished to. They did nothing. They are for dothing nothing right now. All the lies in the world will not make up for that fact.

You are right that the reps did squat when they had the presidency and the congress. During that time, as the republicans are now, the democrats could have proposed some health care bills but they didn't either. It seems neither side even cared to try after 1994 till this year.

You know full well that anything that the Dems would have proposed concerning health care from 2001 untill 2007 would have been DOA.

The truth is, the Republicans simply do not want to change the system. They prefer that the Rick Scotts get very rich and fund their campaigns out of the money they make on health care fraud.

Or make legally by charging us 10X the price they charge other countries for the same prescription medicine made in the same factory.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Plymco, you are being decietful again. Look at the figures from your site. They are 50th in the world in ratio of public debt to GDP. And moved from 58% of GDP to 42.2% of GDP in 4 years. And in the last four years, in what direction has our percentage of public debt to GDP gone?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

Public debt:
42.2% of GDP (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 50
58% of GDP (2004 est.)

Yes they have done better, look at their tax rates on their citizens over the same time period.

Even if it was down to 30% it would still be too high to sustain.

But they are not sustaining it, they are reducing it. And look at where our ratio is at right now and in which way it is going.

You are not making a good arguement for the stating that a well ran health care system is the primary cause of deficits.

That wasn't my argument. I was saying the level of debt isn't sustainable which is why the taxes on their citizens grew by 50% (not to 50% they are 50% greater than they were 20 years ago). Even with the additional taxes the ratio of debt to GDP is still to high to sustain.

As far as ours it has gotten worse in the last 10 months, actually in the last 2 years and 8 months. In the last 10 months it has gotten progressively worse than it was for the 2 years prior.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Plymco, now you are not only indulging in hyperbole, but also deciet.

Even little Costa Rica, which is most definately not an industrial nation, has a better heatlh care record than we do, third in longevity behind Japan and France. And they have had universal health care for 60 years. With an average income 1/10 that of the United States.

Yet the USA has the best survival rate for most cancers and heart patients......Go figure.

Nice talking point. It is even partly true. But only partly;

U.S. ranks high on cancer care, lowest on diabetes treatment - Health Matters - MarketWatch

you’re going to get breast cancer, your chances of being alive five years later are best in the United States, where 90.5% of patients make it to that benchmark. Canada, Japan and France are the next best places, statistically speaking, to fight the disease. The OECD average for breast cancer survival at the five-year mark was 81%. For colorectal cancer five-year survival rates, the U.S. comes in third behind Japan and Iceland and just ahead of Canada.

But the U.S. drops to the bottom when looking at benchmarks for two common chronic conditions, diabetes and asthma. In 2006, the U.S. had 36 diabetes-related lower-limb amputations per 100,000 people compared with an OECD average of 15. In the U.K., a country with what Pearson calls a very strong primary-care system, incidence of lower-limb amputations was four times lower than the U.S. at 9 per 100,000 people. Austria does best in avoiding amputations, with just 7 per 100,000 people, and South Korea performs nearly as well in this category with 8 amputations per 100,000.

With 2 diabetics in the household, one who just lost their insurance because of being laid off, I can tell you that most people in the USA with Diabetes do not listen to what they are told about the disease. It is perfectly controllable, sometimes without any drugs. Other times unfortunately there seems to be nothing anyone can do. I'd bet we have more diabetes over all, because of our lifestyle choices, which may also account for your numbers, choices. So many refuse to give up little things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many new health care threads are going to keep containing the lie that Republicans have no health insurance reform plans?

Seriously you people need to be mugged by the truth.

Curious question, have you bothered to read all of those bills or are you just saying "Republicans have a plan! I win!"?

Because they have shit like this:

GOP Alternative Will Not Bar Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions – Talk Radio News Service

Ohmigod, Plymco! How could you DARE to think your list made your point that there are, in fact, Republican plans concerning health care when none of them meet with Dogbert's approval of what's good and right?! What the hell were you thinking?! Dogbert doesn't like what they say, so OBVIOUSLY they not only suck, they DON'T EXIST! . . . In fact, they suck AND don't exist at the very same time.

Curious question, Dogbert. Did you just assume no one had read those bills because you were certain that everyone would define "shit" the same way you would, or did you just not want to deal with the fact that, indeed, Plymco wins because you and your cohorts have been wrong all this time you've been trumpeting that Republicans don't have a plan?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Republican plans do not increase coverage significantly to include almost all Americans. Show us where.

The question is access, not quality or cost. Until you can guarantee access, the health insurance industry is going to continue to take us all for a ride.

 

[SFC Ollie]

If they would get people back to work then maybe we could worry about health care and fixing those problems, but healthcare reform doesn't feed the hungry or house the homeless, Jobs do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, and how many members of the Republican Party in Congress opposed health care refrom during the first term of the Clinton Administration?

It seems that Michelle Bachman is not as crazy as she seems, and that her effort to "kill" health care reform today is not the act of a crazy women** at all. The evidence (what the R's do and have done, not what they say) suggests, strongly, that stopping health care reform is their policy.

** Please don't assume by this post Rep. Bachman is not crazy, all indications (whenever she speaks) suggests her synapses are not firing in an orderly fashion.

It must be nice to live in such a simple world, where all "health care reform" is the same, and one is either for reform or against it. Here in the real world, where the rest of us live, one can be for health care reform and still oppose utterly noxious, idiotic ideas masquerading as health care reform.