What Is The GOP Healthcare Reform Plan?

[g5000]

Without looking, can you say what the Republican Party's plan for healthcare reform is? I bet you cannot.

I think most right wingers know as far as, "Repeal ObamaCare."

Okay. Then what?

 

[g5000]

We spend $2.5 trillion on healthcare in America. Costs have been going up, up, up, and up.

I personally detest ObamaCare. It was classic bait and switch. The argument was made along these lines:

1. We must do something.

2. This (ObamaCare) is something.

3. We must do this.


The problem is, ObamaCare won't bend down the cost curve. Bait and switch.

So what will?

 

[Publius1787]

Without looking, can you say what the Republican Party's plan for healthcare reform is? I bet you cannot.

I think most right wingers know as far as, "Repeal ObamaCare."

Okay. Then what?

A repeal of Obamacare would in it of itself be an improvement even without a plan. Your question begs a false alternative. Indeed, let the states do what they want with their own states and allow people to vote with their feet. Indeed, the reason why Democrats want a national healthcare system is because if any one state did it people and businesses would flee.

 

[g5000]

Let's not make this another topic attacking ObamaCare. ObamaCare should only be mentioned to serve as a contrast to alternate proposed solutions.

Let's focus on solutions we think will work.

Anyone can attack. It takes real effort to come up with solutions.

Propose, and be prepared to defend.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The GOP Plan?

Why it's, er, um, repeal ObamaCare, and then, er, well, um, drink Purple Drank

 

[Publius1787]

Let's not make this another topic attacking ObamaCare. ObamaCare should only be mentioned to serve as a contrast to alternate proposed solutions.

Let's focus on solutions we think will work.

Anyone can attack. It takes real effort to come up with solutions.

All things being equal and imperfect, repeal of Obamacare is a plan. Once again, the problem with healthcare is that the federal government got involved in the first place. Prices have skyrocketed ever since. Getting the federal government out of healthcare is a plan.

 

[martybegan]

Let's not make this another topic attacking ObamaCare. ObamaCare should only be mentioned to serve as a contrast to alternate proposed solutions.

Let's focus on solutions we think will work.

Anyone can attack. It takes real effort to come up with solutions.

Propose, and be prepared to defend.

You base your position on the assumption that everyone thinks health care is a federal issue. To me, it is not.

Unless you amend the consitution the government cannot be in the health care business, which is the end goal of all this Obamacare confusion. The single payer crowd then gets to point at it and say, Regulations dont work!!! We need government healthcare (federal) Now!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Without looking, can you say what the Republican Party's plan for healthcare reform is? I bet you cannot.

I think most right wingers know as far as, "Repeal ObamaCare."

Okay. Then what?

Troll thread is trolling.

 

[Redfish]

There is no need for a GOP healthcare reform plan. There was/in no healthcare crisis in the USA the demands reforming the entire system. No one was/is being denied healthcare in the USA. Yes, a few million did not have insurance--either they chose not to or could not afford it. If they chose not to buy it they decided to take a risk, if they could not afford it they were treated free at ERs and free clinics.

the entire obamacare bullshit was nothing but an attempt by the left to take over 1/6 of the american economy and eventually evolve into socialized medicine which sucks in europe and everywhere else.

it is a typical liberal power grab. Now even the unions are seeing through the lies and demanding that it be stopped.

 

[Publius1787]

We spend $2.5 trillion on healthcare in America. Costs have been going up, up, up, and up.

I personally detest ObamaCare. It was classic bait and switch. The argument was made along these lines:

1. We must do something.

2. This (ObamaCare) is something.

3. We must do this.


The problem is, ObamaCare won't bend down the cost curve. Bait and switch.

So what will?

The market will.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Let's not make this another topic attacking ObamaCare. ObamaCare should only be mentioned to serve as a contrast to alternate proposed solutions.

Let's focus on solutions we think will work.

Anyone can attack. It takes real effort to come up with solutions.

Propose, and be prepared to defend.

You base your position on the assumption that everyone thinks health care is a federal issue. To me, it is not.

Unless you amend the consitution the government cannot be in the health care business, which is the end goal of all this Obamacare confusion. The single payer crowd then gets to point at it and say, Regulations dont work!!! We need government healthcare (federal) Now!!

You just spanked this morons SOCIALIST arse.. He claims to be non partisan but drools OBAMA daily.. LOL It's pathetic.

 

[The Rabbi]

We spend $2.5 trillion on healthcare in America. Costs have been going up, up, up, and up.

I personally detest ObamaCare. It was classic bait and switch. The argument was made along these lines:

1. We must do something.

2. This (ObamaCare) is something.

3. We must do this.


The problem is, ObamaCare won't bend down the cost curve. Bait and switch.

So what will?

The market will.

The left will never accept that. IN their minds "the market" is filled with GREEDY EEVUL CORPORATIONS intent on screwing people. While gov't is filled with well meaning knowledageable bureaucrats who are on our side.

 

[Publius1787]

We spend $2.5 trillion on healthcare in America. Costs have been going up, up, up, and up.

I personally detest ObamaCare. It was classic bait and switch. The argument was made along these lines:

1. We must do something.

2. This (ObamaCare) is something.

3. We must do this.


The problem is, ObamaCare won't bend down the cost curve. Bait and switch.

So what will?

The market will.

The left will never accept that. IN their minds "the market" is filled with GREEDY EEVUL CORPORATIONS intent on screwing people. While gov't is filled with well meaning knowledageable bureaucrats who are on our side.

Funny, they construe the US Constitution to allow for specific individual welfare, and thereby, open the door for corporate welfare, then they blame the market for the undue influence that they created. Now we have a corporate culture where it is impossible to do business without hiring an army of lobbyists and they have the nerve to blame conservatives.

 

[g5000]

I will start.

I propose we buy our health insurance the same way we buy our life, auto, and home insurance.

Under the current system, most people get their insurance through employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI). If you work for a small company, then your insurance pool is very small and therefore has little bargaining power. Also, if someone in your company uses a lot of healthcare resources, the premiums for every employee go up radically.

Your choices of options under the ESHI system are very limited. You have virtually no say in what plan you ultimately end up with.

Even worse, if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance at the same time. Can anyone actually afford COBRA? I don't think so.

ESHI bends the cost of healthcare in America up.



In the insurance arena, most health insurance providers are geographically limited by law. This has the result of their own bargaining power being limited when negotiating with healthcare providers.



In contrast, when I buy my life, auto, or home insurance, I buy it from an insurance provider whose market is not geographically limited. And I have a wide range of insurance providers from which to choose. That wide competition gives me leverage.

If I lose my job, my life, auto, and home insurance don't automatically cease.

What's more, I get discounts the longer I stay with my life, auto, or home insurance. I also get bundling discounts, and I get to choose which options I do or do not want.

Many states require I have auto insurance, and so that is as much a necessity as health insurance. Yet you don't see a big move for employers to provide it, or for the government to pay for it.



But the most perverse thing of all is that the government gets to write the rules for its competition!

Think about it. The government is in the health insurance business. And it gets to write the rules for everyone else in the health insurance business. How could this not work to the government's advanatage? How could the government not end up completely skewing the results in its favor, even if it meant driving up healthcare costs for everyone?

If you owned a business, would you be okay with your biggest competitor writing the rules you have to follow while your competitor wrote separate rules for themselves?


One more solution: Raise the retirement age. When Social Security was established, less than 6 percent of Americans were over the age of 65. When Medicare was established, 9 percent of Americans were over the age of 65.

Today, over 13 percent of Americans are over the age of 65. The entitlement burden for Social Security has more than doubled, and the entitlement burden for Medicare is rapidly approaching that benchmark.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors, it makes absolutely no sense we are retiring the same age they did.

By raising the eligibility age by five years, we would be contributing five years longer into the Treasury, and withdrawing five years less from it.

 

[rightwinger]

Same as it ever was........Let em die

 

[g5000]

Without looking, can you say what the Republican Party's plan for healthcare reform is? I bet you cannot.

I think most right wingers know as far as, "Repeal ObamaCare."

Okay. Then what?

A repeal of Obamacare would in it of itself be an improvement even without a plan. Your question begs a false alternative. Indeed, let the states do what they want with their own states and allow people to vote with their feet. Indeed, the reason why Democrats want a national healthcare system is because if any one state did it people and businesses would flee.

The status quo was bankrupting us. We cannot do nothing.

 

[Publius1787]

Without looking, can you say what the Republican Party's plan for healthcare reform is? I bet you cannot.

I think most right wingers know as far as, "Repeal ObamaCare."

Okay. Then what?

A repeal of Obamacare would in it of itself be an improvement even without a plan. Your question begs a false alternative. Indeed, let the states do what they want with their own states and allow people to vote with their feet. Indeed, the reason why Democrats want a national healthcare system is because if any one state did it people and businesses would flee.

The status quo was bankrupting us. We cannot do nothing.

Government involvement in healthcare was bankrupting us so the solution is more government involvement?

 

[g5000]

A repeal of Obamacare would in it of itself be an improvement even without a plan. Your question begs a false alternative. Indeed, let the states do what they want with their own states and allow people to vote with their feet. Indeed, the reason why Democrats want a national healthcare system is because if any one state did it people and businesses would flee.

The status quo was bankrupting us. We cannot do nothing.

Government involvement in healthcare was bankrupting us so the solution is more government involvement?

The status quo was employer-provided healthcare for most Americans, Medicare for seniors, and emergency rooms for everyone else.

This was costing us $2.5 trillion a year, and climbing. It was, and is, unsustainable. The premise that "something must be done" is valid.

Do you even know what the GOP alternate plan to ObamaCare was? That was my original challenge in this topic. I am guessing you don't.

 

[Publius1787]

I will start.

I propose we buy our health insurance the same way we buy our life, auto, and home insurance.

Under the current system, most people get their insurance through employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI). If you work for a small company, then your insurance pool is very small and therefore has little bargaining power. Also, if someone in your company uses a lot of healthcare resources, the premiums for every employee go up radically.

Your choices of options under the ESHI system are very limited. You have virtually no say in what plan you ultimately end up with.

Even worse, if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance at the same time. Can anyone actually afford COBRA? I don't think so.

ESHI bends the cost of healthcare in America up.



In the insurance arena, most health insurance providers are geographically limited by law. This has the result of their own bargaining power being limited when negotiating with healthcare providers.



In contrast, when I buy my life, auto, or home insurance, I buy it from an insurance provider whose market is not geographically limited. And I have a wide range of insurance providers from which to choose. That wide competition gives me leverage.

If I lose my job, my life, auto, and home insurance don't automatically cease.

What's more, I get discounts the longer I stay with my life, auto, or home insurance. I also get bundling discounts, and I get to choose which options I do or do not want.

Many states require I have auto insurance, and so that is as much a necessity as health insurance. Yet you don't see a big move for employers to provide it, or for the government to pay for it.



But the most perverse thing of all is that the government gets to write the rules for its competition!

Think about it. The government is in the health insurance business. And it gets to write the rules for everyone else in the health insurance business. How could this not work to the government's advanatage? How could the government not end up completely skewing the results in its favor, even if it meant driving up healthcare costs for everyone?

If you owned a business, would you be okay with your biggest competitor writing the rules you have to follow while your competitor wrote separate rules for themselves?


One more solution: Raise the retirement age. When Social Security was established, less than 6 percent of Americans were over the age of 65. When Medicare was established, 9 percent of Americans were over the age of 65.

Today, over 13 percent of Americans are over the age of 65. The entitlement burden for Social Security has more than doubled, and the entitlement burden for Medicare is rapidly approaching that benchmark.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors, it makes absolutely no sense we are retiring the same age they did.

By raising the eligibility age by five years, we would be contributing five years longer into the Treasury, and withdrawing five years less from it.

A complicated system of which cannot be controlled by a central authority.

 

[g5000]

A repeal of Obamacare would in it of itself be an improvement even without a plan. Your question begs a false alternative. Indeed, let the states do what they want with their own states and allow people to vote with their feet. Indeed, the reason why Democrats want a national healthcare system is because if any one state did it people and businesses would flee.

The status quo was bankrupting us. We cannot do nothing.

Government involvement in healthcare was bankrupting us so the solution is more government involvement?

Nope. I made a proposal. Take a look at it.