Squashing The Ignorance. Republican Health Care Plans Exposed

[Christopher]

"government becoming involved in health care over the years has been a large reason for cost increases in health care." Unsupportable assertion. "Why would we want a public option as part of the reform when that is the case?" That is not the case, and a two-tier system in Australia gives better care, accessible to all, at a far less cost.

Actually, it is supported by the CBO where I got the information (bold emphasis added below). Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

Changes in Third-Party Payment. More generous third-party payment—from the creation of Medicare and Medicaid and subsequent changes to these programs, for example—effectively reduced the average out-of-pocket cost of health care over the past several decades, leading to higher health care expenditures. As a share of all per capita spending on personal health care, consumers’ out-of-pocket costs have fallen sharply, from 52 percent in 1965 to 15 percent in 2005 (see Figure 6). Empirical analyses suggest that under an assumption of no change in medical technology, the expansion of insurance coverage can account for 10 percent to 13 percent of the long-term rise in health care spending (see Table 2). That expansion, in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.8

Not to mention the cost shifting that has occurred and increased private health insurance because of Medicare and Medicaid.

You still did not answer my question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are accepting the uncertainity of the CBO as certain? And, yes, Australia's system works just as I described it. That you disagree does not mean that you have a valid point. You don't.

 

[Navy1960]

The public health system is called Medicare. It ensures free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidised out-of-hospital medical treatment. It is funded by a 1.5% tax levy on all taxpayers, an extra 1% levy on high income earners, as well as general revenue.[citation needed]

The private health system is funded by a number of private health insurance organisations. The largest of these is Medibank Private, which is government-owned, but operates as a government business enterprise under the same regulatory regime as all other registered private health funds. The Coalition Howard government had announced that Medibank would be privatised if it won the 2007 election, however they were defeated by the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd which had already pledged that it would remain in government ownership.

Health care in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me ask you something, would you advocate defunding Australian Medicare in order to provide the seed funding for another branch of the Australian Govt. that does the exact same thing as Medicare?. That is exactly what is being proposed in the current legislation here along with a whole host of other nonsense that has little if anything to do with healthcare reform that an Australian would recognize or endorse. Let me give you another example, the current proposed legislation expands state Medicade by a significant amount, there are 2 problems with that, one is it places the burden of paying for that on the states, which most here in this nation Jake are already close to bankruptcy. The other problem is actually finding Doctors that will take Medicade as a means of healthcare insurance. So what it will do is tunnel many poor Americans into long lines and poor quality healthcare because of the significant number of Doctors that do not take Medicade. It's one thing to say you have health insurance , it's a complete different thing to actually have some place to use it. If this legislation had any noble intentions at all it would be closer to the Australian Model and look a whole lot less like a big Govt. expansion and hiring vehicle.

 

[Coyote]

How dare you put that crap up!! The Republican plan is for sick people to DIE, and DIE QUICKLY!! Everyone knows that!! (rolleyes)

....and the Democrat plan is death panels and no doctor choice.


Well....ignorance abounds.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Zander is ignorant about politics, but is a Los Angeles Dodgers phanatic, so there is some good in him!

 

[Coyote]

And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it. I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance. Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care. If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.

I've talked to several Dr.'s on this and everyone of them are for healthcare reform, but not what the democrats are offering. All of them said that tort reform is a must, and no public option. They stated that health insurance companies should be able to sell their wares in all 50 states. That is how your drive prices down, without a government option. Hell, what do they know? They're only some stupid ass Doctors who really don't know more than a politician in DC

I agree with the tort reform but not the public option part. I'm disappointed that tort reform is not being addressed unless it's such a huge can of worms (going beyond medical) that it needs to be addressed on it's own. But I also am skeptical - the trial lawyers and the insurance groups make up two of the biggest and most powerful special interest groups we have. Thus there has been little headway on tort reform and constant attempts to derail or mislead the public on what the public option would mean.

I don't see how you can lower healthcare costs and increase coverage without some sort of public option for those who can't afford insurance or can't get insurance. While insurance companies may be forced to accept pre-existing conditions - they may make the premiums so costly as to be essentially unaffordable. I view the public option in much the way I view car insurance in my state. Everyone is legally required to have car insurance but for some people who's driving record is risky they can't get private insurance so instead they have to get it from a state insurance fund.

But there are other parts of healthcare reform that I think need to be addressed but I don't see coming up much in discussion. One is the horrendous cost of medical education - a cost which leaves students in debt for years and pushes them to enter specializations rather than the lower paying GP market. We don't have enough GP's becuase when you combine the costs of malpractice insurance and student loans to be paid back -they don't earn enough. Of course you don't have to have a GP for everything - there are a lot of things that can now be done by Nurse Practioners and Physician Assistants at a lower cost.

Anyway - just my opinion not backed by sources.

 

[Coyote]

Zander is ignorant about politics, but is a Los Angeles Dodgers phanatic, so there is some good in him!

Well...if he likes dogs (or cats) and classic rock music....or other music....I might relent in my unceasing hostility towards him

 

[JakeStarkey]

Zander is ignorant about politics, but is a Los Angeles Dodgers phanatic, so there is some good in him!

Well...if he likes dogs (or cats) and classic rock music....or other music....I might relent in my unceasing hostility towards him

I know that he marches to the far right fife and drum corps tunes, but I don't know about animals. He probably eats them. I do, too.

 

[Christopher]

Now you are accepting the uncertainity of the CBO as certain? And, yes, Australia's system works just as I described it. That you disagree does not mean that you have a valid point. You don't.

You are ignoring the evidence I just gave you from a credible source which discusses OUR (you know, the United States') health care system and the effects government involvement has had (not will have). You are trying to compare apples to oranges and say they are the same. I am going to stick to evidence about our system.

I accept the facts from history how government programs typically work and the fact that the CBO says the cost estimates for this bill have a substantial amount of uncertainty about them.

You still have not answered my question. Let me rephrase it: Do you think that we should agree to pass a bill where the CBO says the cost estimates have “substantial uncertainty”?

I think we should be more certain about the real economic effects of the bill before jumping on board with it, particularly considering our economic situation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The CBO has advised that it can't reliably advise with "certainity".

 

[Christopher]

The CBO has advised that it can't reliably advise with "certainity".

You really need to go back and read what the CBO said before you put words in their mouth. Here is the quote, again:

Estimated Budgetary Impact
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $130 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be small reductions in federal budget deficits if all of the provisions continued to be fully implemented. Those estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.

They said the estimates on cost are “subject to substantial uncertainty”. Now, when are you going to answer my question?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.

 

[Meister]

The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.

The right thinking individual just doesn't want what the democrats are shoving down our throats. Let's have healthcare reform, and not a public option. Most Americans don't want what the dems are offering, that's why the dems are pushing this before the end of the year. The anti dem healthcare sentiment is growing.
But, the left wing politiicans know it isn't about healthcare reform, but it's all about control.

 

[Coyote]

Zander is ignorant about politics, but is a Los Angeles Dodgers phanatic, so there is some good in him!

Well...if he likes dogs (or cats) and classic rock music....or other music....I might relent in my unceasing hostility towards him

I know that he marches to the far right fife and drum corps tunes, but I don't know about animals. He probably eats them. I do, too.

Eating them's ok....it's Bambi season now

 

[Christopher]

The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.

In other words, you cannot answer a simple yes or no question.

 

[Maple]

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

I don't think President Washington was talking about a National takeover of 6% of our economy,and I really don't think that if he were alive today would support any of these big spending projects. Good try though.

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson That's what our founders thought and they were not for big government.

 

[Maple]

And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it. I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance. Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care. If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.

I've talked to several Dr.'s on this and everyone of them are for healthcare reform, but not what the democrats are offering. All of them said that tort reform is a must, and no public option. They stated that health insurance companies should be able to sell their wares in all 50 states. That is how your drive prices down, without a government option. Hell, what do they know? They're only some stupid ass Doctors who really don't know more than a politician in DC

I have talked to two doctors, one my own physician, who are in their mid-50's who think this whole bill is a scam and threaten to retire and close up shop should this public option be included. With the medicare cuts, one doctor in town is sending out letters to his patients stating that he may no longer be able to treat medicare patients.

There are ways that this can be accomplished in the private sector, but when you don't see ANY TORT reform measures in this bill it should tell you that this is NOT about health care reform, it's about a national take over of our health care. Without TORT reform we can not REDUCE the costs of healthcare, it can't be done.

 

[Maple]

Now you are accepting the uncertainity of the CBO as certain? And, yes, Australia's system works just as I described it. That you disagree does not mean that you have a valid point. You don't.

You are ignoring the evidence I just gave you from a credible source which discusses OUR (you know, the United States') health care system and the effects government involvement has had (not will have). You are trying to compare apples to oranges and say they are the same. I am going to stick to evidence about our system.

I accept the facts from history how government programs typically work and the fact that the CBO says the cost estimates for this bill have a substantial amount of uncertainty about them.

You still have not answered my question. Let me rephrase it: Do you think that we should agree to pass a bill where the CBO says the cost estimates have “substantial uncertainty”?

I think we should be more certain about the real economic effects of the bill before jumping on board with it, particularly considering our economic situation.

Medicare is at least 10 times the cost of what it was projected to cost when it was implemented and it's bankrupt.

 

[Maple]

The CBO has posted nothing that would stop a right-thinking individual of voting for health reform.

No kiddin, what part of SUBSTANTIAL UNCERTAINTY does anyone have a hard time understanding?

 

[Polk]

And there are plenty of medical professionals who are for it. I had to take a friend to ER several months ago, and almost every professional there from the doctors to the externs were for national health insurance. Having said all of that, Ollie, I truly hope you are getting good care. If you are not, then go to the ombudsman then and complain, long and loudly.

I've talked to several Dr.'s on this and everyone of them are for healthcare reform, but not what the democrats are offering. All of them said that tort reform is a must, and no public option. They stated that health insurance companies should be able to sell their wares in all 50 states. That is how your drive prices down, without a government option. Hell, what do they know? They're only some stupid ass Doctors who really don't know more than a politician in DC

I have talked to two doctors, one my own physician, who are in their mid-50's who think this whole bill is a scam and threaten to retire and close up shop should this public option be included. With the medicare cuts, one doctor in town is sending out letters to his patients stating that he may no longer be able to treat medicare patients.

There are ways that this can be accomplished in the private sector, but when you don't see ANY TORT reform measures in this bill it should tell you that this is NOT about health care reform, it's about a national take over of our health care. Without TORT reform we can not REDUCE the costs of healthcare, it can't be done.

I swear, you just can't stop peddling bullshit. Malpractice makes up a whopping two percent of total health care costs. Even if you could completely eliminate malpractice payouts (which you can't), you'd have reduced health care spending by two percent at most. Furthermore, the notion that the bill is a "national takeover of our health care" is asinine. A national takeover would consist of the government seizing control of hospitals and making doctors government employees. Does the bill do that? The answer, of course, is no.