Republicans have some decent ideas for health care.

[WillowTree]

sure I read your post. I believe the Patriot act was well discussed and argued in both houses of Congress. Was it not? Was something you know about with held? Please show me. or do you just kneejerk to "the republicans did it too"?

It was discussed and argued, but there was also quite a bit of "closed door session" meetings held among the Republicans, and it was definitely hurried through.

under what circumstances?

 

[Vast LWC]

so then why don't demoncwats just admit they intend to give illegals full access to the "public option"?

Because they don't?

With the current language of the bill, illegals would be free to buy any insurance at regular costs, which is rational...

But they would NOT be able to access insurance that include any type of taxpayer funded subsidies.

 

[EriktheRed]

You said yourself that they are good ideas. Would you agree that these items should have been passed years ago?

National health care is such a huge change and many people are very queasy about the repercusions and cost.

Tort Reform WAS passed years ago, to no effect. 2005 to be exact.

However, further revisions could be added, and might indeed have an effect.

Patient Verification is going to be a touchy subject for REPUBLICANS though, not Democrats, as it would involve a large-scale biometric (probably fingerprint) identification system that will have Libertarians up in arms.

so then why don't demoncwats just admit they intend to give illegals full access to the "public option"?

Geez, I dunno, maybe because not being behind these things doesn't necessarily mean they intend for that to happen, and therefore don't have to admit to it. Libertarians aren't the only ones concerned about privacy issues.

 

[Modbert]

sure I read your post. I believe the Patriot act was well discussed and argued in both houses of Congress. Was it not? Was something you know about with held? Please show me. or do you just kneejerk to "the republicans did it too"?

Well discussed and argued my ass. They had that bill written months before 9/11 and rushed that into law as far as they could. The evidence of this is how quickly the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11. No bill written after 9/11 could of been written and put on the table that quickly.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiNUgJcNRJY]YouTube - Why did the Congress approve the Patriot Act?[/ame]

NO ONE read it. It wasn't even discussed or argued.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2PG1EJZ0Y&feature=fvw]YouTube - Patriot Act Presentation[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdT0RNYoFfM&feature=related]YouTube - Ron Paul - Patriot Act - NOBODY READ IT![/ame]

So I expect you to at least admit you were wrong.

 

[Vast LWC]

sure I read your post. I believe the Patriot act was well discussed and argued in both houses of Congress. Was it not? Was something you know about with held? Please show me. or do you just kneejerk to "the republicans did it too"?

It was discussed and argued, but there was also quite a bit of "closed door session" meetings held among the Republicans, and it was definitely hurried through.

under what circumstances?

I'm sorry, let me amend that statement.

The closed door meetings were to discuss expansion and amendment to the Patriot Act in 2005, when Republicans were firmly in control of both houses of congress and the presidency.

 

[WillowTree]

so then why don't demoncwats just admit they intend to give illegals full access to the "public option"?

Because they don't?

With the current language of the bill, illegals would be free to buy any insurance at regular costs, which is rational...

But they would NOT be able to access insurance that include any type of taxpayer funded subsidies.

again I know what the bill says.. but there is nothing provided to enforce the language of the bill. so that's why most Americans do not believe you.

 

[WillowTree]

It was discussed and argued, but there was also quite a bit of "closed door session" meetings held among the Republicans, and it was definitely hurried through.

under what circumstances?

I'm sorry, let me amend that statement.

The closed door meetings were to discuss expansion and amendment to the Patriot Act in 2005, when Republicans were firmly in control of both houses of congress and the presidency.

under a time of National Emergency.. quite different that what is happening now.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You see, the thing is, that things like Patient Verification and Tort Reform are pretty decent ideas.

I'm not so sure how they'd be implemented, and details would have to be worked out, but they are in fact pretty decent ideas that I, as a liberal, wouldn't mind seeing added to the existing proposed bill.

The problem is that Republicans have not actually been trying to work with Democrats to get their proposals added to the bill.

Instead they have been insisting that the whole thing be scrapped, and a whole new be started based on only their proposals.

It seems to me that if some Republicans take a more proactive stance here and lend their support to the bill if some of their ideas are added, then we would be having a much better time of it.

In fact, Republicans have tried to introduce amendments to require verification of legal status to qualify for subsidies, but the Dems have refused to allow the issue to come up for debate because polls show voters overwhelmingly would support it and the Dems are afraid that if everyone with a Spanish accent had to prove their legal status it might cost them some Latino votes.

The more important issue than whether Republicans have any good ideas is why Democrats don't seem to have any good ideas. All of the reforms that are proposed by the various Dem schemes, such as insurance at standard rates for those with pre existing conditions, caps on out of pocket expenses and continuation of insurance if the individual stops paying premiums because of illness, will increase the costs to insurance companies and these increased costs will be passed on to consumers and businesses that provide health insurance to their employees. That means that almost every American would be paying more for health insurance than they do today if any of these plans become law and every business that provides health insurance to its employees would be paying more for each employee's coverage. It also means that all the cost estimates based on today's premiums are lower than the actual costs would be meaning higher deficits than projected and fewer uninsured that can be covered under the spending cap Obama promised.

It's as if Pelosi and the other Dem leaders sat down and said, "Voters want to see lower health insurance premiums, so let's devise a plan that will raise health insurance premiums, and voters want to see lower deficits, so let's devise a plan to increase the deficit, and voters want to see universal coverage, so let's devise a plan that is so impossibly expensive that universal coverage will be impossible to achieve."

The question should not be why Republicans are negative about this dangerous lunacy, but why Democrats who should want to see health insurance premiums decrease and deficits decrease and universal access to health care at affordable rates are not telling Obama and Pelosi and the other Dems leaders that they will throw them out of office if they don't scrap this excessively expensive and destructive collection of campaign slogans they are trying to pass of as health care reform and come up intelligent solutions that will address voters' real concerns: lower health insurance premiums, lower deficits and greater access to affordable health care.

 

[mskafka]

Most of these are good ideas in theory. But when you look at the facts, the end result isn't rosy.
Everyone knows about the pre-existing condition debate. Noone should be denied. I think that most people agree on that, regardless of your position.

Buying insurance across state lines seems like a great idea. Let's increase the competition! But all 50 states have different benefit mandates. And just for an example (not a real number)...say there are 100 insurance companies in the United States (I'm sure there are many). I'll bet you that 100/100 of those insurance companies are going to flock to say....Tennessee (my home state) where there are the least benefit mandates. I'm not saying that TN has the fewest as I have no idea.

It has been suggested by Republican Representative John Shadegg that the chronically ill be placed into "high risk pools", and that, "You put the sick people in there.....and you charge them the same rate as everyone else, but that's either subsidized by everyone else who buys health insurance in that state, or it's subsidized by tax dollars.".

Now respectfully, I want to make sure that I understand this. Is he saying that these sick people will not pay all of their own bills.....that the other people insured in the state will help cover their healthcare costs, and that our taxes will help pay for their care? If this is the case, then we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

This seems to be one of the major concerns about government healthcare...that "it's not my responsibility to pay for your healthcare". It appears that either way we go, this is going to happen. It's happening now. Doesn't it seem clear that even if we are allowed to "cross state lines" that our taxes will go up anyway? We're always going to subsidize the sick. That's just the way it is, as long as we have a thing called health insurance.

Right now as things stand, we have a LOT of uncompensated care. Hospitals are eating the costs, and using this care as tax write-offs. (charity care) Many but not all of these people are uninsured. I'm sure that the cost of this comes in the form of tax increases, and higher premiums for the insured.

So basically, we are going to eat it either way we go. Your thoughts?

 

[Maple]

You see, the thing is, that things like Patient Verification and Tort Reform are pretty decent ideas.

I'm not so sure how they'd be implemented, and details would have to be worked out, but they are in fact pretty decent ideas that I, as a liberal, wouldn't mind seeing added to the existing proposed bill.

The problem is that Republicans have not actually been trying to work with Democrats to get their proposals added to the bill.

Instead they have been insisting that the whole thing be scrapped, and a whole new be started based on only their proposals.

It seems to me that if some Republicans take a more proactive stance here and lend their support to the bill if some of their ideas are added, then we would be having a much better time of it.

Read HR 3400 it's there for all to see- Bush tried to get tort reform but the democratic congress would not go for it, keep in mind that the trail lawyer lobbyists are in the back pocket of the democratic party, even Howard Dean admitted that.

 

[Maple]

You said yourself that they are good ideas. Would you agree that these items should have been passed years ago?

National health care is such a huge change and many people are very queasy about the repercusions and cost.

Tort Reform WAS passed years ago, to no effect. 2005 to be exact.

However, further revisions could be added, and might indeed have an effect.

Patient Verification is going to be a touchy subject for REPUBLICANS though, not Democrats, as it would involve a large-scale biometric (probably fingerprint) identification system that will have Libertarians up in arms.

Tort reform has been passed in a couple of states, but most definitely not nation wide. Texas has passed it and they have seen an immediate response to it. Doctors are moving out of states where they have no reform and moving into the states that do.No wonder why, many physicians pay well over $100,000 per year for mal-practice insurance, it is estimated that 38 billion dollars a year is spent on defensive medicine, and estimated that 85% of physicians perform DEFENSIVE medicine. If there is no tort reform done, there will be no real reform of our health care. Doctors pass the cost of these ridiculous fees right back onto us the consumer and who can blame them they need to make a living too.Mal-practice insurance has risen 1400% in the last few years and when I see Obama and the democrats poo-poo tort reform as a 1st priority, I know full well this is not about reform of our health care it's about the takeover of 6% of our economy. Guess what all you libs, if and when you get the Obama Care that you have been dreaming about.

YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY SCREW YOU OR YOUR FAMILY MEMBER UP, they won't be held liable.

 

[Vast LWC]

under a time of National Emergency.. quite different that what is happening now.

What exactly constituted a national emergency in 2005 that does not consitute one now?

We're still in the same two wars we were then.

Do wars not count when there's a Democratic administration in your eyes?

 

[rightwinger]

Now respectfully, I want to make sure that I understand this. Is he saying that these sick people will not pay all of their own bills.....that the other people insured in the state will help cover their healthcare costs, and that our taxes will help pay for their care? If this is the case, then we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

This seems to be one of the major concerns about government healthcare...that "it's not my responsibility to pay for your healthcare". It appears that either way we go, this is going to happen. It's happening now. Doesn't it seem clear that even if we are allowed to "cross state lines" that our taxes will go up anyway? We're always going to subsidize the sick. That's just the way it is, as long as we have a thing called health insurance.

Thats the way insurance has always worked. The people who don't need it pay the expenses of those who do. Either way...we are the wealthiest country on earth. We can make sure that people who are severely ill can receive care and it doesn't bankrupt them. Those who are severely sick do not consider themselves fortunate

 

[Vast LWC]

You said yourself that they are good ideas. Would you agree that these items should have been passed years ago?

National health care is such a huge change and many people are very queasy about the repercusions and cost.

Tort Reform WAS passed years ago, to no effect. 2005 to be exact.

However, further revisions could be added, and might indeed have an effect.

Patient Verification is going to be a touchy subject for REPUBLICANS though, not Democrats, as it would involve a large-scale biometric (probably fingerprint) identification system that will have Libertarians up in arms.

Tort reform has been passed in a couple of states, but most definitely not nation wide. Texas has passed it and they have seen an immediate response to it. Doctors are moving out of states where they have no reform and moving into the states that do.No wonder why, many physicians pay well over $100,000 per year for mal-practice insurance, it is estimated that 38 billion dollars a year is spent on defensive medicine, and estimated that 85% of physicians perform DEFENSIVE medicine. If there is no tort reform done, there will be no real reform of our health care. Doctors pass the cost of these ridiculous fees right back onto us the consumer and who can blame them they need to make a living too.Mal-practice insurance has risen 1400% in the last few years and when I see Obama and the democrats poo-poo tort reform as a 1st priority, I know full well this is not about reform of our health care it's about the takeover of 6% of our economy. Guess what all you libs, if and when you get the Obama Care that you have been dreaming about.

YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY SCREW YOU OR YOUR FAMILY MEMBER UP, they won't be held liable.

Wait, wait you're right, upon further inspection the 2005 Tort reform act covered class action suits, but not medical malpractice suits. My bad.

 

[rdean]

You see, the thing is, that things like Patient Verification and Tort Reform are pretty decent ideas.

I'm not so sure how they'd be implemented, and details would have to be worked out, but they are in fact pretty decent ideas that I, as a liberal, wouldn't mind seeing added to the existing proposed bill.

The problem is that Republicans have not actually been trying to work with Democrats to get their proposals added to the bill.

Instead they have been insisting that the whole thing be scrapped, and a whole new be started based on only their proposals.

It seems to me that if some Republicans take a more proactive stance here and lend their support to the bill if some of their ideas are added, then we would be having a much better time of it.

Sorry, not feeling it. Tort reform? You mean reduce liabilities? Putting together some guidelines is not so bad, but letting a doctor get away Scot free for gross negligence goes against my sensibilities.

Patient Verification - what is that? A woman brings her child to the emergency room. The kid has just been hit be a car. The emergency room nurse, says, "Sorry, but little Pablo is going to have to die. Because you are an illegal alien. Oops."

We already know the senate bill says, "No public money for illegal aliens". How far to Republicans want to take that?

 

[Vast LWC]

In fact, Republicans have tried to introduce amendments to require verification of legal status to qualify for subsidies, but the Dems have refused to allow the issue to come up for debate because polls show voters overwhelmingly would support it and the Dems are afraid that if everyone with a Spanish accent had to prove their legal status it might cost them some Latino votes.

That's because limiting verification to people of hispanic origin is DISCRIMINATION, and is illegal.

In order to have a legal verification method, it would have to equally apply to everyone, which would require a verifiable national ID method. Republicans don't want that because it would cause a revolt in their party.

The more important issue than whether Republicans have any good ideas is why Democrats don't seem to have any good ideas.

This is a non-productive statement. I specifically didn't say Republicans didn't have good ideas, in fact I stated the opposite. That is called "being positive", and "trying to work with others".

All of the reforms that are proposed by the various Dem schemes, such as insurance at standard rates for those with pre existing conditions, caps on out of pocket expenses and continuation of insurance if the individual stops paying premiums because of illness, will increase the costs to insurance companies and these increased costs will be passed on to consumers and businesses that provide health insurance to their employees. That means that almost every American would be paying more for health insurance than they do today if any of these plans become law and every business that provides health insurance to its employees would be paying more for each employee's coverage. It also means that all the cost estimates based on today's premiums are lower than the actual costs would be meaning higher deficits than projected and fewer uninsured that can be covered under the spending cap Obama promised.

It's as if Pelosi and the other Dem leaders sat down and said, "Voters want to see lower health insurance premiums, so let's devise a plan that will raise health insurance premiums, and voters want to see lower deficits, so let's devise a plan to increase the deficit, and voters want to see universal coverage, so let's devise a plan that is so impossibly expensive that universal coverage will be impossible to achieve."

The question should not be why Republicans are negative about this dangerous lunacy, but why Democrats who should want to see health insurance premiums decrease and deficits decrease and universal access to health care at affordable rates are not telling Obama and Pelosi and the other Dems leaders that they will throw them out of office if they don't scrap this excessively expensive and destructive collection of campaign slogans they are trying to pass of as health care reform and come up intelligent solutions that will address voters' real concerns: lower health insurance premiums, lower deficits and greater access to affordable health care.

And more negativity. Sigh.

 

[Vast LWC]

Sorry, not feeling it. Tort reform? You mean reduce liabilities? Putting together some guidelines is not so bad, but letting a doctor get away Scot free for gross negligence goes against my sensibilities.

Patient Verification - what is that? A woman brings her child to the emergency room. The kid has just been hit be a car. The emergency room nurse, says, "Sorry, but little Pablo is going to have to die. Because you are an illegal alien. Oops."

We already know the senate bill says, "No public money for illegal aliens". How far to Republicans want to take that?

I believe they were talking about setting caps on individual lawsuits, so you can't have somebody suing a doctor for 10 million dollars over a clamp that was left in a patient, etc...

Patient Verification is important to make sure that people who are trying to get taxpayer funded care are not illegals. Emergency care for children is covered under other laws.

I'm a liberal, but I'm saying that just because a Republican suggests something, doesn't mean that it's necessarily a bad idea.

 

[rdean]

Sorry, not feeling it. Tort reform? You mean reduce liabilities? Putting together some guidelines is not so bad, but letting a doctor get away Scot free for gross negligence goes against my sensibilities.

Patient Verification - what is that? A woman brings her child to the emergency room. The kid has just been hit be a car. The emergency room nurse, says, "Sorry, but little Pablo is going to have to die. Because you are an illegal alien. Oops."

We already know the senate bill says, "No public money for illegal aliens". How far to Republicans want to take that?

I believe they were talking about setting caps on individual lawsuits, so you can't have somebody suing a doctor for 10 million dollars over a clamp that was left in a patient, etc...

Patient Verification is important to make sure that people who are trying to get taxpayer funded care are not illegals. Emergency care for children is covered under other laws.

I'm a liberal, but I'm saying that just because a Republican suggests something, doesn't mean that it's necessarily a bad idea.

10 million for a clamp? That is an exaggeration, right? I understand what you are saying and that's why "guideline" seem like a good idea. However, Republicans hate government guidelines. Most judges are fair an don't hand out millions like candy corn.

Emergency care is covered by other laws, but since the "no immigrant" clause is in the Senate bill, what do you think Republicans are talking about? They know what's in the Senate bill.

You are just doing what Obama is trying to do. Even when Republicans co author a bill, they will vote against it if they believe Obama is for it. Yet Obama still tried to be non partisan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We will have to have a national ID card if we want patient verification.

We cannot legally single out far rightoid neo-idiots to be verified before they receive health care.

A national ID card? Are you kidding me? Half of the Dems won't sign on, much less the GOP.

 

[Vast LWC]

We will have to have a national ID card if we want patient verification.

We cannot legally single out far rightoid neo-idiots to be verified before they receive health care.

A national ID card? Are you kidding me? Half of the Dems won't sign on, much less the GOP.

Wait, that's interesting, so if the Democrats say "OK let's go with your idea" and point it out as a Republican contribution...

then the Dems can safely sign on, saying it wasn't their idea, they're just doing it to satisfy the Republicans...

And voila, we'll have a national ID system. Why I think that's a great idea!

Republicans have their "verification", but they'll be ruined forever.



Tort reform is a good idea though, just in general.