What is the GOP position on Health Care Reform?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What is the GOP position on Health Care Reform?

Health Care - GOP Solutions for America - GOP.gov

Saving Healthcare

Only took me a few clicks to find those.

Has the left really become this lazy, or are they so intellectually bereft that all they can do is parrot Nancy Pelosi and Dialy Kos?

Does anyone else notice something about those? It's a bunch of meaningless jibberish.
They claim tort reform will reduce costs, except they're already exacted it on the state level in many areas and it's done nothing to reduce cost.
They claim a national market for insurance will provide real choice, ignoring that it'll simply mean companies will flock to the states which give the largest handouts to insurance companies and allows them to write policies that cover less and provide more tricks to opt out of contracts (the exact same thing happened when credit cards were deregulated).

oops disregard my previous post...you found it.

So you dont like those plans?

 

[Polk]

I work in the public sector and have not had a raise in salary for four years. What would have gone toward raises has been eaten up by rising health care premiums.

And while those premiums have risen, the quality of care has fallen. Our deductibles have gone up, our co-pays have as well. A gap policy was obtained to bridge the gaps our private sector insurer has in spades. This gap policy now no longer covers basic blood work.

I would like to have a better choice in health care providers.

But with all the debate in Washington, I haven't heard anything from the Republicans except NO!

Which begs the question: What is the Republican position of Health Care Reform? Do they see the status quo as sustainable, productive and the best possible for the American people? Are they acting in the best interest of the American people, or the best interest of the Insurance companies? And if it is indeed the latter, why do so many of the new Conservatives think that protecting Insurance companies and allowing them to continue to raise costs while eroding service is such a grand idea?

Tort reform is a state issue, and as such is out of the realm of Washington policy. The anti-trust exemption granted insurance companies seems to flout the competition and "free markets" so many Conservatives rely on to foist their ideology. Why is there no movement from the Right Wingers to enact real reform?

You gotta be kidding me.

If you did not get a raise in 4 years you are one of two things...

Really bad at what you do for a living..

or

Too stupid to get another job.

Talk about a post that uses talking points.......pathetic.

Most workers haven't seen a increase in real wages in 30 years. Are you going to claim that most people are shitty workers?

 

[Polk]

Health Care - GOP Solutions for America - GOP.gov

Saving Healthcare

Only took me a few clicks to find those.

Has the left really become this lazy, or are they so intellectually bereft that all they can do is parrot Nancy Pelosi and Dialy Kos?

Does anyone else notice something about those? It's a bunch of meaningless jibberish.
They claim tort reform will reduce costs, except they're already exacted it on the state level in many areas and it's done nothing to reduce cost.
They claim a national market for insurance will provide real choice, ignoring that it'll simply mean companies will flock to the states which give the largest handouts to insurance companies and allows them to write policies that cover less and provide more tricks to opt out of contracts (the exact same thing happened when credit cards were deregulated).

oops disregard my previous post...you found it.

So you dont like those plans?

The problem is they're not really plans. It's a list of things that sound good on paper, but don't actually do anything. As someone who has grown up around a lot of people involved in the health care industry, I'm highly sympathetic to the arguments for tort reform. The problem is, it doesn't really do any of the things it's advertised to do. It doesn't stop people from filing (and winning) nutty lawsuits. It reduces payouts to winners without regard to the merits of the case. It also doesn't do anything to the cost picture (which, when you think about it, is sorta obvious, as liability makes up less than two percent of total costs).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I haven't got a raise in 3 years, but i've got a lot of bonuses for increased sales and profits for the shop I run.


So you dont like the republican plans polk?

 

[Oddball]

The problem is they're not really plans. It's a list of things that sound good on paper, but don't actually do anything. As someone who has grown up around a lot of people involved in the health care industry, I'm highly sympathetic to the arguments for tort reform. The problem is, it doesn't really do any of the things it's advertised to do. It doesn't stop people from filing (and winning) nutty lawsuits. It reduces payouts to winners without regard to the merits of the case. It also doesn't do anything to the cost picture (which, when you think about it, is sorta obvious, as liability makes up less than two percent of total costs).

Covered that one in #17.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Does anyone else notice something about those? It's a bunch of meaningless jibberish.
They claim tort reform will reduce costs, except they're already exacted it on the state level in many areas and it's done nothing to reduce cost.
They claim a national market for insurance will provide real choice, ignoring that it'll simply mean companies will flock to the states which give the largest handouts to insurance companies and allows them to write policies that cover less and provide more tricks to opt out of contracts (the exact same thing happened when credit cards were deregulated).

oops disregard my previous post...you found it.

So you dont like those plans?

The problem is they're not really plans. It's a list of things that sound good on paper, but don't actually do anything. As someone who has grown up around a lot of people involved in the health care industry, I'm highly sympathetic to the arguments for tort reform. The problem is, it doesn't really do any of the things it's advertised to do. It doesn't stop people from filing (and winning) nutty lawsuits. It reduces payouts to winners without regard to the merits of the case. It also doesn't do anything to the cost picture (which, when you think about it, is sorta obvious, as liability makes up less than two percent of total costs).

Well how about the plan to purchase insurance across state lines so that competition can drive down prices? That is the governments very argument for including a public option, to increase competition.

Is that a bad plan too?

 

[Polk]

oops disregard my previous post...you found it.

So you dont like those plans?

The problem is they're not really plans. It's a list of things that sound good on paper, but don't actually do anything. As someone who has grown up around a lot of people involved in the health care industry, I'm highly sympathetic to the arguments for tort reform. The problem is, it doesn't really do any of the things it's advertised to do. It doesn't stop people from filing (and winning) nutty lawsuits. It reduces payouts to winners without regard to the merits of the case. It also doesn't do anything to the cost picture (which, when you think about it, is sorta obvious, as liability makes up less than two percent of total costs).

Well how about the plan to purchase insurance across state lines so that competition can drive down prices? That is the governments very argument for including a public option, to increase competition.

Is that a bad plan too?

It's something that would be subject to the provisions surrounding it. The problem is that everything which would make it "work" would also make it useless. Without minimum national standards, every insurance company will pack their bags and operate out of the states which allow them to cover fewer procedures, count more things as pre-existing conditions, and allow more shenanigans to break contracts. With minimum national standards, that issue would be resolved, but would make interstate purchase basically useless.

 

[Maple]

Does anyone else notice something about those? It's a bunch of meaningless jibberish.
They claim tort reform will reduce costs, except they're already exacted it on the state level in many areas and it's done nothing to reduce cost.
They claim a national market for insurance will provide real choice, ignoring that it'll simply mean companies will flock to the states which give the largest handouts to insurance companies and allows them to write policies that cover less and provide more tricks to opt out of contracts (the exact same thing happened when credit cards were deregulated).

oops disregard my previous post...you found it.

So you dont like those plans?

The problem is they're not really plans. It's a list of things that sound good on paper, but don't actually do anything. As someone who has grown up around a lot of people involved in the health care industry, I'm highly sympathetic to the arguments for tort reform. The problem is, it doesn't really do any of the things it's advertised to do. It doesn't stop people from filing (and winning) nutty lawsuits. It reduces payouts to winners without regard to the merits of the case. It also doesn't do anything to the cost picture (which, when you think about it, is sorta obvious, as liability makes up less than two percent of total costs).

The GOP has given you their ideas, they can't plan anything because the democrats are in full control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. That's why there is NO PLAN, they can't even get an amendment in the current bills, they are BLOCKED by the democrats, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THEY ATTEMPT TO DO IS NOT EVEN BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE. Get it now???????????????????????????????

btw- the democrats can't get the public option votes within their own party, Lieberman, Nelson and many others are not going to vote for this bill if it contains a public option, it's a mute point now. There will be no government control over health insurance, it's political suicide and the dems know it, many more will continue to bail on this plan.

 

[Oddball]

It's something that would be subject to the provisions surrounding it. The problem is that everything which would make it "work" would also make it useless. Without minimum national standards, every insurance company will pack their bags and operate out of the states which allow them to cover fewer procedures, count more things as pre-existing conditions, and allow more shenanigans to break contracts. With minimum national standards, that issue would be resolved, but would make interstate purchase basically useless.

How many times are you going to float that red herring?

What's in it for an insurance company to not custom build a program for those doing the buying?

 

[Polk]

oops disregard my previous post...you found it.

So you dont like those plans?

The problem is they're not really plans. It's a list of things that sound good on paper, but don't actually do anything. As someone who has grown up around a lot of people involved in the health care industry, I'm highly sympathetic to the arguments for tort reform. The problem is, it doesn't really do any of the things it's advertised to do. It doesn't stop people from filing (and winning) nutty lawsuits. It reduces payouts to winners without regard to the merits of the case. It also doesn't do anything to the cost picture (which, when you think about it, is sorta obvious, as liability makes up less than two percent of total costs).

The GOP has given you their ideas, they can't plan anything because the democrats are in full control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. That's why there is NO PLAN, they can't even get an amendment in the current bills, they are BLOCKED by the democrats, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THEY ATTEMPT TO DO IS NOT EVEN BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE. Get it now???????????????????????????????

Dozens of amendments introduced by Republicans have been voted on and inserted in the bill. It's just like on stimulus. If anything, Obama and the congressional leadership bend over backwards to try to win Republican support. The Republicans decided the way to go was jam in as many amendments as they could, then vote against it anyway.

btw- the democrats can't get the public option votes within their own party, Lieberman, Nelson and many others are not going to vote for this bill if it contains a public option, it's a mute point now. There will be no government control over health insurance, it's political suicide and the dems know it, many will bail on this plan.

Lieberman isn't a member of the Democratic Party.

 

[Oddball]

The GOP has given you their ideas, they can't plan anything because the democrats are in full control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. That's why there is NO PLAN, they can't even get an amendment in the current bills, they are BLOCKED by the democrats, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THEY ATTEMPT TO DO IS NOT EVEN BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE. Get it now???????????????????????????????

Which also debunks the OP.

All the whiners are left with is to divert and argue about the alternative plan....Which does indeed exist.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Pilgrim and the rest; ideas do not make a comprehensive health plan.

All I saw were ideas even from the web sites that were linked.

I agree with most of the ideas brought up but they are worthless unless they are part of a comprehensive plan. Once the plan is put together , funding , individual and government costs can be discussed. The total affect can only be evaluated with a total plan.

The Democrats have brought forth a comprehensive plan. It has been evaluated and criticized.

The Republicans need to do the same. NOT JUST IDEAS BUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Pilgrim and the rest; ideas do not make a comprehensive health plan.

All I saw were ideas even from the web sites that were linked.

I agree with most of the ideas brought up but they are worthless unless they are part of a comprehensive plan. Once the plan is put together , funding , individual and government costs can be discussed. The total affect can only be evaluated with a total plan.

The Democrats have brought forth a comprehensive plan. It has been evaluated and criticized.

The Republicans need to do the same. NOT JUST IDEAS BUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN!!!!

See #17.

 

[Polk]

It's something that would be subject to the provisions surrounding it. The problem is that everything which would make it "work" would also make it useless. Without minimum national standards, every insurance company will pack their bags and operate out of the states which allow them to cover fewer procedures, count more things as pre-existing conditions, and allow more shenanigans to break contracts. With minimum national standards, that issue would be resolved, but would make interstate purchase basically useless.

How many times are you going to float that red herring?

What's in it for an insurance company to not custom build a program for those doing the buying?

It's not a red herring. In every other industry where this sort of thing has been tried, companies have done the same thing. Here in the real world, companies are out to maximize their profits. You think they're operating some giant charity.

 

[Oddball]

It's something that would be subject to the provisions surrounding it. The problem is that everything which would make it "work" would also make it useless. Without minimum national standards, every insurance company will pack their bags and operate out of the states which allow them to cover fewer procedures, count more things as pre-existing conditions, and allow more shenanigans to break contracts. With minimum national standards, that issue would be resolved, but would make interstate purchase basically useless.

How many times are you going to float that red herring?

What's in it for an insurance company to not custom build a program for those doing the buying?

It's not a red herring. In every other industry where this sort of thing has been tried, companies have done the same thing. Here in the real world, companies are out to maximize their profits. You think they're operating some giant charity.

Besides credit cards, which provide nothing but the ability to go into debt, name 'em.

 

[Oddball]

It's not a red herring. In every other industry where this sort of thing has been tried, companies have done the same thing. Here in the real world, companies are out to maximize their profits. You think they're operating some giant charity.

If that's the case, insurance companies are doing a pretty piss poor job of it. I guess you haven't seen the latest profit percentage numbers of major industries, have you?

 

[Maple]

Pilgrim and the rest; ideas do not make a comprehensive health plan.

All I saw were ideas even from the web sites that were linked.

I agree with most of the ideas brought up but they are worthless unless they are part of a comprehensive plan. Once the plan is put together , funding , individual and government costs can be discussed. The total affect can only be evaluated with a total plan.

The Democrats have brought forth a comprehensive plan. It has been evaluated and criticized.

The Republicans need to do the same. NOT JUST IDEAS BUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN!!!!

Again Elmer, The republicans can not make any plans as they are in the minority in the house, the senate and the presidency. Their plans are blocked at each and every opportunity by the democratic controlled EVERYTHING, they can not offer amendments, nothing, they are not in control. they can not bring anything to the floor of either house for a vote.

 

[Maple]

For you Polk on Tort reform.

Pajamas Media » Tort Reform Can Lower Costs Without Harming Health Care. So Why Isn’t It in Obama’s Plan?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Pilgrim and the rest; ideas do not make a comprehensive health plan.

All I saw were ideas even from the web sites that were linked.

I agree with most of the ideas brought up but they are worthless unless they are part of a comprehensive plan. Once the plan is put together , funding , individual and government costs can be discussed. The total affect can only be evaluated with a total plan.

The Democrats have brought forth a comprehensive plan. It has been evaluated and criticized.

The Republicans need to do the same. NOT JUST IDEAS BUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN!!!!

You are right in they cannot approve legislatioon that will go for a vote before the house or senate.

But they can put together a comprehensive plan that they can take to the American people and say here is the plan we would offer if we had control of congress.

That could be compared to the bill the Democrats brought forth.

Again Elmer, The republicans can not make any plans as they are in the minority in the house, the senate and the presidency. Their plans are blocked at each and every opportunity by the democratic controlled EVERYTHING, they can not offer amendments, nothing, they are not in control. they can not bring anything to the floor of either house for a vote.

You are right that the Republican cannot control the bill before congress.

They can put forth what a bill would be like if they were in controll of congress.

The American public would have a comprehensive program they could compare the the Democratic bil.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many times are you going to float that red herring?

What's in it for an insurance company to not custom build a program for those doing the buying?

It's not a red herring. In every other industry where this sort of thing has been tried, companies have done the same thing. Here in the real world, companies are out to maximize their profits. You think they're operating some giant charity.

Besides credit cards, which provide nothing but the ability to go into debt, name 'em.

I wouldn't even count credit cards. Some cards offer low rates. Some cards offer cash back. Some cards offer different perks for different things.
There is a lot of differentiation going on in that market.
What Polk doesnt understand, or doesnt want to understand, is that every feature offered in a health care plan should make money. And it should be in the best interest of the buyer of the plan to get it. Otherwise they wouldn't offer them and the buyers wouldn't take them.
But again, gov't comes in a screws up the equation and tells people in MA, "you must have mental health insurance." Maybe someone doesnt want to buy mental health insurance. But they must have it. And they must pay for it as well. This is why comparable policies differ radically in cost from NH to MA.