What Is The GOP Healthcare Reform Plan?

[Greenbeard]

If we ask Paul Ryan (circa 2009), the answer is state-based exchanges, financial assistance to low-income people buying in the individual market, price and quality transparency, wellness programs, health information technology, entitlement reform. All of which made it into the Affordable Care Act.

That said, it's fairly obvious that they don't have much of a health agenda at the moment, nor is there any coherence in the GOP caucus beyond hating Obama. Sorry, Obamacare. They can't even agree on whether tort reform should become a federal issue, nor can they agree on whether they still like high-risk pools and should thus bolster the temporary ones in the ACA.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

I was denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition even though I had health insurance for a very long time. When I moved to a different state I was shut out. Insurance companies have a long history of denying coverage to anyone who costs them money or is a threat to cost them money. I don't even cost them money; I'm just a higher than normal risk.

 

[rdean]

Someone beat me too it. The GOP health care plan is "let him die".

You know it's awfully funny when Republicans say, "Oh, but we were doing so well until Obamacare was passed". Seems they don't even remember the number of people turned away with "pre existing conditions" and how that was defined. Your son could have an allergy and so your whole family cut. Or your wife having a mammogram so the whole family was cut.

your continual lies and trolling

WHAAAAATTT?????

We went all through this before Obamacare. Literally thousands of posts with links discussing what health care companies define as "pre-existing" condition. Did you forget? Weren't around then? Or just stupid?

 

[Mustang]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

LOL! Do you honestly think that insurance companies WANT to insure elderly patients? Of course they don't. Why do you think insurance companies wanted to exempt preexisting conditions from coverage, anyway?

Do you know what an elderly patient could realistically expect in the so-called free (unregulated) marketplace when it comes to health insurance? They would see overpriced policies that premium supports likely wouldn't cover in terms of the cost, and the policies wouldn't cover much of anything and would almost certainly have high deductibles and low caps on coverage payouts in case of illness.

In today's day and age, even HEALTHY people get dropped at some point after they get sick and start costing their HC company money. Or they're told that treatment isn't covered due to a byzantine labyrinth of exclusions written into their policies which legally allow companies to keep from paying. Or perhaps the prescribed treatment is considered 'experimental' even though it's commonly done.

Something as simple as using the wrong ambulance company can saddle you with the cost of being transported to the hospital. And if you get transported to the closest hospital which isn't covered by the policy? You're out of luck cuz your insurance company won't pay for that either.

Our healthcare system today is fraught with exceptions written into the policies which are specifically designed to allow the insurance companies to have a legal avenue to deny paying for your treatment or reimbursing you for your costs. They're VERY good at designing their policies with that end in mind.

Even today in America, people WITH insurance can and DO go through bankruptcies simply because of medical costs the insurance companies will not cover.

 

[francoHFW]

OP: O-Care actually, same as Nixoncare, Dolecare, etc- just proves the New BS GOP is a hypocrite slave to to Big Health and Pharma, just loves those huge profits and cruelty...Pub dupes!!

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Universal Single Payer Health Care. Do as Taiwan did. Send out a committee of people really committed to improving the whole of the health care in the us, observe how the other industrial nations that have far better results than we do at less cost do it, then bring back what best fits our nation and culture.

But far too much money is made by people like Rick Scott, his company had to pay back billions that they defrauded the government out of, to make consideration of a sane health care policy a possibility.

 

[rdean]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

LOL! Do you honestly think that insurance companies WANT to insure elderly patients? Of course they don't. Why do you think insurance companies wanted to exempt preexisting conditions from coverage, anyway?

Do you know what an elderly patient could realistically expect in the so-called free (unregulated) marketplace when it comes to health insurance? They would see overpriced policies that premium supports likely wouldn't cover in terms of the cost, and the policies wouldn't cover much of anything and would almost certainly have high deductibles and low caps on coverage payouts in case of illness.

In today's day and age, even HEALTHY people get dropped at some point after they get sick and start costing their HC company money. Or they're told that treatment isn't covered due to a byzantine labyrinth of exclusions written into their policies which legally allow companies to keep from paying. Or perhaps the prescribed treatment is considered 'experimental' even though it's commonly done.

Something as simple as using the wrong ambulance company can saddle you with the cost of being transported to the hospital. And if you get transported to the closest hospital which isn't covered by the policy? You're out of luck cuz your insurance company won't pay for that either.

Our healthcare system today is fraught with exceptions written into the policies which are specifically designed to allow the insurance companies to have a legal avenue to deny paying for your treatment or reimbursing you for your costs. They're VERY good at designing their policies with that end in mind.

Even today in America, people WITH insurance can and DO go through bankruptcies simply because of medical costs the insurance companies will not cover.

I wish that for once, these Republicans would live in this world and not in that imaginary "Land of Milk and Cookies". Some things are so obvious you can't believe they really want to argue them. Someone at 80 "shopping" for health care? Really?

 

[bendog]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

the voucher plan is simply a symptom of the extreme of the gop's love of Ayn Rand. You have people at age 66 (or 65, but 66 is the break for soc sec) who are entering the most vulnerable time of their adult years. At age 80, we have about a 25% chance of dementia, and there are 500k people with parkinsons, most over 50, and that number will grow with the boomers aging. Yet, Rand Paul wants these people to evaluate market solutions and make informed choices.

Look, I don't like obamacare. I don't like private sector employer sponsoned care. I don't like single payor on the canadian or worse brit modle. But vouchers and medicare are just a symptom of why the GOP is frigging joke when it comes to solving this issue.

 

[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.

I was denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition even though I had health insurance for a very long time. When I moved to a different state I was shut out. Insurance companies have a long history of denying coverage to anyone who costs them money or is a threat to cost them money. I don't even cost them money; I'm just a higher than normal risk.

I understand. There are two good provisions in the ACA bill. The one that requires insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions and the one that eliminates the lifetime maximum payment. The rest of it is terrible legislation.

keep those two and dump the rest.

 

[Redfish]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

the voucher plan is simply a symptom of the extreme of the gop's love of Ayn Rand. You have people at age 66 (or 65, but 66 is the break for soc sec) who are entering the most vulnerable time of their adult years. At age 80, we have about a 25% chance of dementia, and there are 500k people with parkinsons, most over 50, and that number will grow with the boomers aging. Yet, Rand Paul wants these people to evaluate market solutions and make informed choices.

Look, I don't like obamacare. I don't like private sector employer sponsoned care. I don't like single payor on the canadian or worse brit modle. But vouchers and medicare are just a symptom of why the GOP is frigging joke when it comes to solving this issue.

people who are not capable of making their own decisions are either under the care of family or some care facility. your argument about them and vouchers does not hold water.

The bottom line is that there was/is no healthcare crisis in the USA that required overturning the entire system and making it part of the government beaurocracy. No one in the USA was denied medical care--no one.

Yes, we spend a lot of money on it. want to make it cheaper? get lawyers out of it--tort reform, reduce drug patents from 12 years to 4 years, allow interstate rate competition between insurance companies---just for starters

 

[rdean]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

the voucher plan is simply a symptom of the extreme of the gop's love of Ayn Rand. You have people at age 66 (or 65, but 66 is the break for soc sec) who are entering the most vulnerable time of their adult years. At age 80, we have about a 25% chance of dementia, and there are 500k people with parkinsons, most over 50, and that number will grow with the boomers aging. Yet, Rand Paul wants these people to evaluate market solutions and make informed choices.

Look, I don't like obamacare. I don't like private sector employer sponsoned care. I don't like single payor on the canadian or worse brit modle. But vouchers and medicare are just a symptom of why the GOP is frigging joke when it comes to solving this issue.

people who are not capable of making their own decisions are either under the care of family or some care facility. your argument about them and vouchers does not hold water.

The bottom line is that there was/is no healthcare crisis in the USA that required overturning the entire system and making it part of the government beaurocracy. No one in the USA was denied medical care--no one.

Yes, we spend a lot of money on it. want to make it cheaper? get lawyers out of it--tort reform, reduce drug patents from 12 years to 4 years, allow interstate rate competition between insurance companies---just for starters

the closing of mental health hospitals in California and across the United States. Is it any wonder that California seems to have all of the crazy homeless people? State mental hospitals were taken away by Governor Reagan in the seventies, and federal mental health programs were later taken away by President Reagan in the eighties.

Ronald Reagan: The Bad and the Ugly

Republicans want to do what Reagan did. It's one of the reasons they admire him so. Instead of "insane homeless people" say "elderly homeless people". Republicans think it has such a nice ring to it.

 

[bendog]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

the voucher plan is simply a symptom of the extreme of the gop's love of Ayn Rand. You have people at age 66 (or 65, but 66 is the break for soc sec) who are entering the most vulnerable time of their adult years. At age 80, we have about a 25% chance of dementia, and there are 500k people with parkinsons, most over 50, and that number will grow with the boomers aging. Yet, Rand Paul wants these people to evaluate market solutions and make informed choices.

Look, I don't like obamacare. I don't like private sector employer sponsoned care. I don't like single payor on the canadian or worse brit modle. But vouchers and medicare are just a symptom of why the GOP is frigging joke when it comes to solving this issue.

people who are not capable of making their own decisions are either under the care of family or some care facility. your argument about them and vouchers does not hold water.

The bottom line is that there was/is no healthcare crisis in the USA that required overturning the entire system and making it part of the government beaurocracy. No one in the USA was denied medical care--no one.

Yes, we spend a lot of money on it. want to make it cheaper? get lawyers out of it--tort reform, reduce drug patents from 12 years to 4 years, allow interstate rate competition between insurance companies---just for starters

bullcrap. You think people with dementia are under the care of the family or in centers. YOU HAVE TO BE DECLARED INCOMPETENT OR HAVE A GUARDIAN FOR OTHERS TO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS. jfc.

 

[Mustang]

This is a good time to talk about Medicare vouchers, without the obvious Democratic hyperbole attached in the graphic.


A voucher plan (sometimes called "premium support") would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it as claimed in the graphic), or they could take a voucher equal to the cost of Medicare and buy insurance for themselves. They could buy a budget insurance plan and pocket the difference, or they could buy coverage equal to what Medicare covers, or they could buy a plan better than what Medicare offers by spending a little of their own money in addition to the voucher.

That's the starting line.

The questions about vouchers revolve around what happends after Year One.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for vouchers they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. If the rules tie the amount of the voucher checks to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the voucher check by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the voucher index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a voucher program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare for the same amount as the voucher. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a voucher program, you better peg the voucher check to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the voucher support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

LOL! Do you honestly think that insurance companies WANT to insure elderly patients? Of course they don't. Why do you think insurance companies wanted to exempt preexisting conditions from coverage, anyway?

Do you know what an elderly patient could realistically expect in the so-called free (unregulated) marketplace when it comes to health insurance? They would see overpriced policies that premium supports likely wouldn't cover in terms of the cost, and the policies wouldn't cover much of anything and would almost certainly have high deductibles and low caps on coverage payouts in case of illness.

In today's day and age, even HEALTHY people get dropped at some point after they get sick and start costing their HC company money. Or they're told that treatment isn't covered due to a byzantine labyrinth of exclusions written into their policies which legally allow companies to keep from paying. Or perhaps the prescribed treatment is considered 'experimental' even though it's commonly done.

Something as simple as using the wrong ambulance company can saddle you with the cost of being transported to the hospital. And if you get transported to the closest hospital which isn't covered by the policy? You're out of luck cuz your insurance company won't pay for that either.

Our healthcare system today is fraught with exceptions written into the policies which are specifically designed to allow the insurance companies to have a legal avenue to deny paying for your treatment or reimbursing you for your costs. They're VERY good at designing their policies with that end in mind.

Even today in America, people WITH insurance can and DO go through bankruptcies simply because of medical costs the insurance companies will not cover.

I wish that for once, these Republicans would live in this world and not in that imaginary "Land of Milk and Cookies". Some things are so obvious you can't believe they really want to argue them. Someone at 80 "shopping" for health care? Really?

Conservatives seem to have some kind of almost childlike (personally, I would call it childish) faith in unbridled capitalism as if it's a cure-all more potent than the latest wonder drug. Well, they need to spend more time in a history classroom to understand what a lack of regulation leads to when people embrace greed as well as a legal loophole to seize an opportunity to make money at the expense of a trusting public with no real legal recourse if the products they're sold don't perform as advertised.

In healthcare (as in plenty of other fields) unbridled (as in unregulated) capitalism has brought out charlatans and hucksters who have offered everything from alcohol and opiate-laced miracle elixirs in the 1800s which did little more than causing drug addiction while preventing medical treatment to Mexican laetrile cancer treatments (remember Steve McQueen) in the 1970s and 1980s which cleaned out people's bank accounts to leave them destitute at the time of their early demise.

Even today, there are plenty of companies that fly through the exception window that their vitamin and food supplements products have because they don't have to comply with any FDA regulations on product claims. That allows them to pretty much market their products how they see fit. I've heard their advertisements on talk radio (where else would it play as well?), and they're nothing short of shamelessly exploitative of people who have medical conditions and aging issues by offering them false hope of relief or even a cure, after issuing a legal disclaimer at the beginning of their infomercials specifically designed to protect them from any lawsuits. Their infomercials are made to sound like a radio interview segment.of the vitamin and supplement instead of the paid commercial it really is.

Therefore, there's a damn good reason why insurance businesses are heavily regulated.

 

[bendog]

There is a myth in the gop that both Hayak and Reagan said a free market is the solution to every problem. And, I don't like Obamacare.

 

[Redfish]

the voucher plan is simply a symptom of the extreme of the gop's love of Ayn Rand. You have people at age 66 (or 65, but 66 is the break for soc sec) who are entering the most vulnerable time of their adult years. At age 80, we have about a 25% chance of dementia, and there are 500k people with parkinsons, most over 50, and that number will grow with the boomers aging. Yet, Rand Paul wants these people to evaluate market solutions and make informed choices.

Look, I don't like obamacare. I don't like private sector employer sponsoned care. I don't like single payor on the canadian or worse brit modle. But vouchers and medicare are just a symptom of why the GOP is frigging joke when it comes to solving this issue.

people who are not capable of making their own decisions are either under the care of family or some care facility. your argument about them and vouchers does not hold water.

The bottom line is that there was/is no healthcare crisis in the USA that required overturning the entire system and making it part of the government beaurocracy. No one in the USA was denied medical care--no one.

Yes, we spend a lot of money on it. want to make it cheaper? get lawyers out of it--tort reform, reduce drug patents from 12 years to 4 years, allow interstate rate competition between insurance companies---just for starters

the closing of mental health hospitals in California and across the United States. Is it any wonder that California seems to have all of the crazy homeless people? State mental hospitals were taken away by Governor Reagan in the seventies, and federal mental health programs were later taken away by President Reagan in the eighties.

Ronald Reagan: The Bad and the Ugly

Republicans want to do what Reagan did. It's one of the reasons they admire him so. Instead of "insane homeless people" say "elderly homeless people". Republicans think it has such a nice ring to it.

Have the liberal democrats reopened them??? Nope, end of story.

 

[Redfish]

the voucher plan is simply a symptom of the extreme of the gop's love of Ayn Rand. You have people at age 66 (or 65, but 66 is the break for soc sec) who are entering the most vulnerable time of their adult years. At age 80, we have about a 25% chance of dementia, and there are 500k people with parkinsons, most over 50, and that number will grow with the boomers aging. Yet, Rand Paul wants these people to evaluate market solutions and make informed choices.

Look, I don't like obamacare. I don't like private sector employer sponsoned care. I don't like single payor on the canadian or worse brit modle. But vouchers and medicare are just a symptom of why the GOP is frigging joke when it comes to solving this issue.

people who are not capable of making their own decisions are either under the care of family or some care facility. your argument about them and vouchers does not hold water.

The bottom line is that there was/is no healthcare crisis in the USA that required overturning the entire system and making it part of the government beaurocracy. No one in the USA was denied medical care--no one.

Yes, we spend a lot of money on it. want to make it cheaper? get lawyers out of it--tort reform, reduce drug patents from 12 years to 4 years, allow interstate rate competition between insurance companies---just for starters

bullcrap. You think people with dementia are under the care of the family or in centers. YOU HAVE TO BE DECLARED INCOMPETENT OR HAVE A GUARDIAN FOR OTHERS TO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS. jfc.

No you don't. you can sign a power of attorney giving a family member authority to make decisions for you. There is no requirement to be declared anything.

amazing how ignorant you libs are of how the world works.

 

[bendog]

Fish, your posts repeatedly show you live in a seperate reality with blinders to protect you from anything that might possibly conflict with that reality. I walk my dog every morning. Before we go a block, I pass one oldster who has a home healhcare aide come by every morning to keep him out of a nursing home. He has no nearby kin, and is not institutionalized: he has medicare. I then pass an old widow. Her son lives nearby, but he's got his own problems, and the mom depends on two caretakeers. She has no guardian or anyone else to make decisions. She has medicare.

Go float with your illusions.

 

[Redfish]

Fish, your posts repeatedly show you live in a seperate reality with blinders to protect you from anything that might possibly conflict with that reality. I walk my dog every morning. Before we go a block, I pass one oldster who has a home healhcare aide come by every morning to keep him out of a nursing home. He has no nearby kin, and is not institutionalized: he has medicare. I then pass an old widow. Her son lives nearby, but he's got his own problems, and the mom depends on two caretakeers. She has no guardian or anyone else to make decisions. She has medicare.

Go float with your illusions.

Ok, what's your point? are you saying you have to be declared incompetent to get medicare? I was just responding to an incorrect post where someone said that you had to be declared incompetent in order to have someone act for you---that is wrong.

My mother was unable to care for herself during her last few years and my brother and I both had power of attorney to make decisions for her. There was, and is, no requirement for the person to be declared incompetent for that to happen.

your neighbors seem to be managing. But at some point they will need someone (a relative or the state) to take responsibility for them.

 

[rdean]

people who are not capable of making their own decisions are either under the care of family or some care facility. your argument about them and vouchers does not hold water.

The bottom line is that there was/is no healthcare crisis in the USA that required overturning the entire system and making it part of the government beaurocracy. No one in the USA was denied medical care--no one.

Yes, we spend a lot of money on it. want to make it cheaper? get lawyers out of it--tort reform, reduce drug patents from 12 years to 4 years, allow interstate rate competition between insurance companies---just for starters

bullcrap. You think people with dementia are under the care of the family or in centers. YOU HAVE TO BE DECLARED INCOMPETENT OR HAVE A GUARDIAN FOR OTHERS TO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS. jfc.

No you don't. you can sign a power of attorney giving a family member authority to make decisions for you. There is no requirement to be declared anything.

amazing how ignorant you libs are of how the world works.

Unless you don't have any family. Then what? And you call other people stupid. Ironic.

 

[rdean]

Fish, your posts repeatedly show you live in a seperate reality with blinders to protect you from anything that might possibly conflict with that reality. I walk my dog every morning. Before we go a block, I pass one oldster who has a home healhcare aide come by every morning to keep him out of a nursing home. He has no nearby kin, and is not institutionalized: he has medicare. I then pass an old widow. Her son lives nearby, but he's got his own problems, and the mom depends on two caretakeers. She has no guardian or anyone else to make decisions. She has medicare.

Go float with your illusions.

Ok, what's your point? are you saying you have to be declared incompetent to get medicare? I was just responding to an incorrect post where someone said that you had to be declared incompetent in order to have someone act for you---that is wrong.

My mother was unable to care for herself during her last few years and my brother and I both had power of attorney to make decisions for her. There was, and is, no requirement for the person to be declared incompetent for that to happen.

your neighbors seem to be managing. But at some point they will need someone (a relative or the state) to take responsibility for them.

That's the point dummy. Under Republicans, the "state" just throws them out into the street. You should have watched the GOP debates. I did. I know what they stand for. How come you don't?