Republicans Healthcare Replacement Plan

[DaGoose]

Dont Taz Me Bro......Which is why I said they should repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

I don't think so and I would bet a dollar against a dog biscuit that the vast majority of Americans would feel the same way.

Dont Taz Me Bro......That's an emotional argument, not a logical one. If they have a history of not paying, they should not be treated.

I say bullshit. Medical treatment is not a priveledge of the well off, it's a right of all American citizens.

Dont Taz Me Bro......That's completely irrelevant.

No it's not.

 

[DaGoose]

Bingo! And we've finally gotten to the crux of the whole problem. I knew I could steer you there eventually. The government forces them to treat people who can't or won't pay. So being that the government created this problem, the logical thing to have them do would be to repeal that law rather than have them interfere even more in the system and **** things up even worse. If uninsured people show up at the hospital then let the hospital work out some sort of payment plan or other arrangements for paying the bill.
If someone doesn't pay then don't treat them next time they show up. It's that simple.

Uhhhhh.....they do. They even take them to court. But you cannot get blood from a turnip and we still end up paying.



And failing to treat someoneone having a heart attack would be something NOBODY with a heart (or even a head) wants. Especially in the wealthiest nation in the world.

exactly but thats just half of it, lets say they need surgery, pace maker something very expensive and not easily available?

Again.....Medical treatment is not a priveledge of the well off, it's a right of all American citizens.

 

[Trajan]

Uhhhhh.....they do. They even take them to court. But you cannot get blood from a turnip and we still end up paying.



And failing to treat someoneone having a heart attack would be something NOBODY with a heart (or even a head) wants. Especially in the wealthiest nation in the world.

exactly but thats just half of it, lets say they need surgery, pace maker something very expensive and not easily available?

Again.....Medical treatment is not a priveledge of the well off, it's a right of all American citizens.

ah its a right, to bad that the right you wish to employ requires a commodity or that is a series of commodities. Rights don't deliver commodities in this context.

and you didn't answer the question; simply saying,' it will be' or its "not a privilege" is not an answer and using the 'right' thingy is an Alinskyism, no thx.

 

[Oddball]

Rights don't impose an obligation upon someone else to act.

 

[code1211]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I realize that most people think that allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines is a great idea. Supposedly, this would create more competition and reduce prices. However, there are a couple of big problems that doing so does not address.

First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

Secondly, when an insurance company currently denies payment to a covered patient, at least the company is local, so the customer has some chance of successfully fighting with their insurance company to get payment approved. Imagine trying to fight it out with your insurance company that is based in a state on the other side of the country. Good luck with that. And the opportunity for fraud amongst insurance companies would increase dramatically.

An another topic, encouraging states to set up high risk pools sounds like a great idea. This is exactly what was done prior to the new healthcare legislation. Some states did and some did not. If you lived in a state that did provide a high risk pool, the cost was out of reach for all but the very few. I knew a gentleman in Indiana who tried to get insurance through Indiana's high risk pool, because he was forced into early retirement. They wanted $2600 per month.

Since so many of you feel the government should not be involved with healthcare, I have a better idea. Why don't we stop forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees. They could be much more profitable without having to pay for their employee's healthcare. Leave it up to each and every individual/family to purchase their own insurance privately. Then lets see what happens.

Companies are not forced to do this. Companies offer this as a part of the compensation package.

 

[code1211]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I realize that most people think that allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines is a great idea. Supposedly, this would create more competition and reduce prices. However, there are a couple of big problems that doing so does not address.

First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

Secondly, when an insurance company currently denies payment to a covered patient, at least the company is local, so the customer has some chance of successfully fighting with their insurance company to get payment approved. Imagine trying to fight it out with your insurance company that is based in a state on the other side of the country. Good luck with that. And the opportunity for fraud amongst insurance companies would increase dramatically.

An another topic, encouraging states to set up high risk pools sounds like a great idea. This is exactly what was done prior to the new healthcare legislation. Some states did and some did not. If you lived in a state that did provide a high risk pool, the cost was out of reach for all but the very few. I knew a gentleman in Indiana who tried to get insurance through Indiana's high risk pool, because he was forced into early retirement. They wanted $2600 per month.
Since so many of you feel the government should not be involved with healthcare, I have a better idea. Why don't we stop forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees. They could be much more profitable without having to pay for their employee's healthcare. Leave it up to each and every individual/family to purchase their own insurance privately. Then lets see what happens.

This is an area in which the government should logically assume some of the cost for the individual. In the same way thazt the government subsidizes flood insurance, it could offer a subsidy to cover the excessive cost of insuring those with the pre-existing condition.

 

[code1211]

Who do you think pays for the health care of people with no insurance? Do you think it is the insurance companies? Do you think it is the hospital? No, it is you. So, whether you want affordable insurance for everyone, or you want to pay their bills through your premiums and hospital bills and taxes, either way, they will be treated. The difference is they will wait until their treatment is extremely expensive, as opposed to getting preventive treatment and early treatment.

You are obviously wrong. Didn't you listen to Nancy and Harry? The Rich get health care and the poor get no health care. They are dying in the streets and the Republicans are trying to run them over with their SUV's as they crawl toward the E-Room in which they will bleed to death.

Wow, some folks just don't listen.

 

[DaGoose]

exactly but thats just half of it, lets say they need surgery, pace maker something very expensive and not easily available?

Again.....Medical treatment is not a priveledge of the well off, it's a right of all American citizens.

ah its a right, to bad that the right you wish to employ requires a commodity or that is a series of commodities. Rights don't deliver commodities in this context.

and you didn't answer the question; simply saying,' it will be' or its "not a privilege" is not an answer and using the 'right' thingy is an Alinskyism, no thx.

I thought I did answer your question when I said it's a right of all American citizens.

Let me dumb it down then. Yes. Most surgeries and pace makers are part of medical treatment and thus included (as long as they are life saving or prolonging). One point I should make here is that the same things do not extend to non-essential medical treatment which is an important distinction.

One thing to keep in mind......It is what it is and you cannot change it no matter how much you complain. You and I will never see the day when someone is denied life saving medical treatment due to his or her inability to pay. Nor should we.

 

[rdean]

Who do you think pays for the health care of people with no insurance? Do you think it is the insurance companies? Do you think it is the hospital? No, it is you. So, whether you want affordable insurance for everyone, or you want to pay their bills through your premiums and hospital bills and taxes, either way, they will be treated. The difference is they will wait until their treatment is extremely expensive, as opposed to getting preventive treatment and early treatment.

Shhhh! Don't tell right wingers that. They were hoping uninsured sick people went off to die somewhere and disappeared or turned into soy-lent green or something.

We have insurance companies to protect. The number one concern for the American right.

 

[Bfgrn]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I realize that most people think that allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines is a great idea. Supposedly, this would create more competition and reduce prices. However, there are a couple of big problems that doing so does not address.

First of all, a company in Mississippi might be able to sell health insurance in New York, but there is no way they could sell a policy to someone in New York for the same amount that they sell it for in Mississippi, because the cost of healthcare is much higher in New York than in Mississippi. Basically, this would change very little, as these companies would have to still remain profitable. There costs would not change from local companies and their administrative costs would likely be much higher.

Secondly, when an insurance company currently denies payment to a covered patient, at least the company is local, so the customer has some chance of successfully fighting with their insurance company to get payment approved. Imagine trying to fight it out with your insurance company that is based in a state on the other side of the country. Good luck with that. And the opportunity for fraud amongst insurance companies would increase dramatically.

An another topic, encouraging states to set up high risk pools sounds like a great idea. This is exactly what was done prior to the new healthcare legislation. Some states did and some did not. If you lived in a state that did provide a high risk pool, the cost was out of reach for all but the very few. I knew a gentleman in Indiana who tried to get insurance through Indiana's high risk pool, because he was forced into early retirement. They wanted $2600 per month.
Since so many of you feel the government should not be involved with healthcare, I have a better idea. Why don't we stop forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees. They could be much more profitable without having to pay for their employee's healthcare. Leave it up to each and every individual/family to purchase their own insurance privately. Then lets see what happens.

This is an area in which the government should logically assume some of the cost for the individual. In the same way thazt the government subsidizes flood insurance, it could offer a subsidy to cover the excessive cost of insuring those with the pre-existing condition.

Thanks for reminding me!

GOP Favors Public Option for Property, Not People

September 23, 2009

Unlike people without health insurance, homeowners have access to public option flood insurance.

Even those who fail to take personal responsibility to buy insurance to protect their property can get benefits, thanks in good part to politicians who are leading opponents of public option healthcare.

Consider the example of Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was that state's senior senator when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, flooding his home looking out on the Gulf. Lott had not exercised personal responsibility by taking out flood insurance even though it was available from the federal government at low cost. He did have private insurance, but his insurer refused to pay much of the claim, saying it was not wind damage (which was covered by the policy), but water damage (which was excluded).

Weeks later Lott introduced Senate Bill 1936, which would have authorized retroactive flood insurance. The idea came from Representative Gene Taylor, a Democrat who represented the Mississippi Gulf Coast, which should remind us that when there is voter demand for reform, and campaign contributions are not the driving force, the parties have worked together.

Lott's bill would have let flood victims pay 10 years of flood insurance premiums after-the-fact plus a 5 percent late payment penalty. Since this storm was rated a once in 500 years occurrence, even 10 years of premiums would not come close to covering the real costs, meaning a taxpayer subsidy was built into the Lott bill.

Instead of being laughed at by his fellow Republicans for promoting socialism, the concept of retroactive relief was warmly embraced, although not the idea for retroactive insurance. Instead the government went with handouts.

...

There is also an interesting twist in this public option for another aspect of the health care debate - what to do about those who decline to buy insurance.

In Mississippi the relief for flooded buildings came with a requirement that owners buy flood insurance. It went further, requiring a covenant be added to their property deeds requiring the current and all future owners of that property to maintain public option flood insurance.

There is another word for that: government mandated insurance.

More

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Again.....Medical treatment is not a priveledge of the well off, it's a right of all American citizens.

According to who?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You and I will never see the day when someone is denied life saving medical treatment due to his or her inability to pay.

And that's precisely one of the factors why the service has become so expensive for the rest of us. You people ***** about the rising costs of health care, but you defend all of the factors that caused it to happen in the first place.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is an area in which the government should logically assume some of the cost for the individual. In the same way that the government subsidizes flood insurance

Why is the government subsidizing flood insurance? If you choose to live in a flood plain that's your decision and you should bear the responsibility.

 

[Trajan]

Again.....Medical treatment is not a priveledge of the well off, it's a right of all American citizens.

ah its a right, to bad that the right you wish to employ requires a commodity or that is a series of commodities. Rights don't deliver commodities in this context.

and you didn't answer the question; simply saying,' it will be' or its "not a privilege" is not an answer and using the 'right' thingy is an Alinskyism, no thx.

I thought I did answer your question when I said it's a right of all American citizens.

Let me dumb it down then. Yes. Most surgeries and pace makers are part of medical treatment and thus included (as long as they are life saving or prolonging). One point I should make here is that the same things do not extend to non-essential medical treatment which is an important distinction.

One thing to keep in mind......It is what it is and you cannot change it no matter how much you complain. You and I will never see the day when someone is denied life saving medical treatment due to his or her inability to pay. Nor should we.

you are apparently a stranger to commodities and markets and I dare say, reality. I can confer a right to vote upon you, or to buy a beverage at a certain age, you get a ballot and vote, no one outside your particular action is effected or the system/mechanism is not affected or is required to act or supply anything other than a peacie of paper and a positive action performed by your self.

conferring a right as in everyone who has cancer will get chemotherapy because we 'say its a right' is so completely different and so complex, its not even logical to attempt to link the 2.

and we will see folks denied care for far worse a reason than a lack ability to purchase it...there simply is not enough care/access/treatment to give everyone everything, period.

Once you really come to grips with that fact, the answer becomes obvious.

 

[DaGoose]

ah its a right, to bad that the right you wish to employ requires a commodity or that is a series of commodities. Rights don't deliver commodities in this context.

and you didn't answer the question; simply saying,' it will be' or its "not a privilege" is not an answer and using the 'right' thingy is an Alinskyism, no thx.

I thought I did answer your question when I said it's a right of all American citizens.

Let me dumb it down then. Yes. Most surgeries and pace makers are part of medical treatment and thus included (as long as they are life saving or prolonging). One point I should make here is that the same things do not extend to non-essential medical treatment which is an important distinction.

One thing to keep in mind......It is what it is and you cannot change it no matter how much you complain. You and I will never see the day when someone is denied life saving medical treatment due to his or her inability to pay. Nor should we.

you are apparently a stranger to commodities and markets and I dare say, reality. I can confer a right to vote upon you, or to buy a beverage at a certain age, you get a ballot and vote, no one outside your particular action is effected or the system/mechanism is not affected or is required to act or supply anything other than a peacie of paper and a positive action performed by your self.

conferring a right as in everyone who has cancer will get chemotherapy because we 'say its a right' is so completely different and so complex, its not even logical to attempt to link the 2.

and we will see folks denied care for far worse a reason than a lack ability to purchase it...there simply is not enough care/access/treatment to give everyone everything, period.

Once you really come to grips with that fact, the answer becomes obvious.

Ok....here's the "reality" of the situation. The first time someone dies from something that could have been treated (but wasn't due to his or her inability to pay) you would see a movement that would dwarf the Tea Party. Now let's say that person was a child. You could easily double the size of that movement.

The reality is that depriving life saving medical treatment due to the inability to pay simply "ain't gonna happen". Period. So there's no need to continue discussing this fantasy of yours.

 

[Trajan]

I thought I did answer your question when I said it's a right of all American citizens.

Let me dumb it down then. Yes. Most surgeries and pace makers are part of medical treatment and thus included (as long as they are life saving or prolonging). One point I should make here is that the same things do not extend to non-essential medical treatment which is an important distinction.

One thing to keep in mind......It is what it is and you cannot change it no matter how much you complain. You and I will never see the day when someone is denied life saving medical treatment due to his or her inability to pay. Nor should we.

you are apparently a stranger to commodities and markets and I dare say, reality. I can confer a right to vote upon you, or to buy a beverage at a certain age, you get a ballot and vote, no one outside your particular action is effected or the system/mechanism is not affected or is required to act or supply anything other than a peacie of paper and a positive action performed by your self.

conferring a right as in everyone who has cancer will get chemotherapy because we 'say its a right' is so completely different and so complex, its not even logical to attempt to link the 2.

and we will see folks denied care for far worse a reason than a lack ability to purchase it...there simply is not enough care/access/treatment to give everyone everything, period.

Once you really come to grips with that fact, the answer becomes obvious.

Ok....here's the "reality" of the situation. The first time someone dies from something that could have been treated (but wasn't due to his or her inability to pay) you would see a movement that would dwarf the Tea Party. Now let's say that person was a child. You could easily double the size of that movement.

thats already occurred, many many times. and will continue to.

The reality is that depriving life saving medical treatment due to the inability to pay simply "ain't gonna happen". Period. So there's no need to continue discussing this fantasy of yours.

fantasy of mine?

let me ask you a Q I probably should have asked first-

is there enough access-care-treatments for everyone to have whatever they need when they need it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I'd like to see an accounting of such a plan. My guess, if all Americans were provided free preventative medical care - covered by medicare - the real cost would be lower and the deficit would not explode. The plan you advocate is simply another handout to the medical-insurance complex.
A public option provides real competition.

 

[DaGoose]

you are apparently a stranger to commodities and markets and I dare say, reality. I can confer a right to vote upon you, or to buy a beverage at a certain age, you get a ballot and vote, no one outside your particular action is effected or the system/mechanism is not affected or is required to act or supply anything other than a peacie of paper and a positive action performed by your self.

conferring a right as in everyone who has cancer will get chemotherapy because we 'say its a right' is so completely different and so complex, its not even logical to attempt to link the 2.

and we will see folks denied care for far worse a reason than a lack ability to purchase it...there simply is not enough care/access/treatment to give everyone everything, period.

Once you really come to grips with that fact, the answer becomes obvious.

thats already occurred, many many times. and will continue to.

The reality is that depriving life saving medical treatment due to the inability to pay simply "ain't gonna happen". Period. So there's no need to continue discussing this fantasy of yours.

fantasy of mine?

let me ask you a Q I probably should have asked first-

is there enough access-care-treatments for everyone to have whatever they need when they need it?

Please show me where someone has died due to a denial of medical treatment in an emergency room.....and there were no repercussions.

I honestly don't know the answer to your question. Maybe you can show me where we don't?

I will confess that I really don't understand why EVERY OTHER modern nation in the world can have some type of UHC and somehow we can't do it? That's bullshit.

 

[boedicca]

Goose's bringing up abortion causes me to note the irony of those, who think the government has no business telling a woman what she should do with her body, promoting vast government control over all other aspects of our bodies.

And just how is (or would) the government have "vast government control over all other aspects of our bodies"?

Please be specific.

The HHS Secretary and her army of minions will get to decide what medicines, technology, and procedures can be used for your health issues. One's health is one of the most intimate aspects of a human being; ObamaCare gives the government ultimate power over it.

Example: The FDA has recently reversed its approval of Avastin as a treatment for breast cancer based on "the risk not being worth the benefit". Now Medicare has stopped covering it in some states (just a start). So what this means is that women who are DYING are now denied the treatment that they and their doctors believe will improve the length and quality of their remaining life. That is a value judgment better left to the patient and her medical advisors, not one that should be made by the HHS.

 

[boedicca]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced HR 299 which would do five things:

Repeal ObamaCare

Allow people to buy their health insurance across state lines

Allow people to join insurance pools

Encourage states to set up high-risk pools

Allow individuals and businesses to deduct 100% of their health care expenses (including insurance costs) from their taxes

This contains several of the elements of real reform that most people can agree on–elements Democrats claim they support–without the bloated bureaucracy, loss of freedom, and outright assault on the U.S. Constitution. Instead of adding to the operating cost of businesses, it helps ease their overhead.

Much more: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/...utm_campaign=Feed:+DakotaVoice+(Dakota+Voice)

I'd like to see an accounting of such a plan. My guess, if all Americans were provided free preventative medical care - covered by medicare - the real cost would be lower and the deficit would not explode. The plan you advocate is simply another handout to the medical-insurance complex.
A public option provides real competition.

Your belief is not valid accounting. I'd like to see a proper financial analysis (and not the CBO fiction) that supports this claim.