The Alternative Plan That Obama Claims Doesn't Exist

[RightDown]

Why would the Democrats pass a Republican plan? Is that what they were elected to do? Do Republicans pass Democrat bills when they're in power?

Obamacare IS a Republican plan, created by them during the Clinton administration and modified from there.

The question is why did the GOP voted against this plan. But, we now know that the GOP picked health care as a purely political fight wherein they wanted to prove that they could still run the government, even though they had so severely lost the election.

It was not a GOP plan, it was a plan someone with the Heritage Foundation came up with rather than have hillarycare passed, if needed. Neither plan was right for America then or now.

Absolutely. B/c we all know that the Heritage Foundation is a think tank with a long rich history of working for the democratic party and its principles.

 

[tap4154]

Or, they order unnecessary tests because they own shares in the lab where the tests are being done and thus enhance their profit. Alternatively, they receive referral fees from labs where tests are done. In any case, they can make money by doing so.

High administration costs for doctors are also a reason why doctors pad their costs when the patient has goodo insurance. Doctors need a large staff to handle insurance company pre-approvals, and the administrative nightmare that is billing and collections. Insurance companies need staff to handle pre-approvals and claims. Insurance companies spend a lot of time and money denying claims or fighting to reduce the amount paid. All of this takes staff and costs money. Every dollar spent on administrative costs increases the cost of health care without improving the patient's health.

The US has the highest health care administration costs in the first world with nearly a third of every health care dollar being spent to cover administrative costs. Conversely, in Canada and other single payer countries, administration is less than 10% of health care costs.

There's NO real tort reform in the ACA for ONE reason: Filthy rich tort lawyers like John Edwards OWN the Dem party and Obama.

Trial lawyers could win bonanza in health care reform - CNN.com

I've talked to docs privately when working in their homes who tell me defensive medicine is a HUGE factor in the high cost of HC

Tort reform is a red herring. Health care costs are driven by other factors. Or do you really want to limit recovery to $250,000 for some poor bastard who has the wrong leg amputated by Dr. Frankenputz?

Trial lawyers and malpractice law suits are not the reason why health insurance is costly.

The Harvard researchers took a huge sample of 31,000 medical records, dating from the mid-1980s, and had them evaluated by practicing doctors and nurses, the professionals most likely to be sympathetic to the demands of the doctor's office and operating room. The records went through multiple rounds of evaluation, and a finding of negligence was made only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. Even with this conservative methodology, the study found that doctors were injuring one out of every 25 patients—and that only 4 percent of these injured patients sued. The medical malpractice myth.

That doesn't seem to be a pressing problem, does it?

Frivolous lawsuits are already shitcanned by directed verdicts and sanctions.

The 'trial lawyers are the problem' tact is false.

You don't understand... What docs tell me is that they run very expensive tests that they KNOW aren't required JUST for CYA. Multiply that times millions of patients and you have some SERIOUS money being wasted. It's not just about the folks that sue and win big settlements, it's about defensive measures docs and hospitals take to avoid those VERY expensive lawsuits, and the cost of those expensive tests just get passed on top the policy-holders... YOU!

If reasonable caps were allowed there would be less incentive for docs and hospitals to waste money on VERY expensive, unnecessary tests and CYA.

 

[RightDown]

There's NO real tort reform in the ACA for ONE reason: Filthy rich tort lawyers like John Edwards OWN the Dem party and Obama.

Trial lawyers could win bonanza in health care reform - CNN.com

I've talked to docs privately when working in their homes who tell me defensive medicine is a HUGE factor in the high cost of HC

Tort reform is a red herring. Health care costs are driven by other factors. Or do you really want to limit recovery to $250,000 for some poor bastard who has the wrong leg amputated by Dr. Frankenputz?

Trial lawyers and malpractice law suits are not the reason why health insurance is costly.

The Harvard researchers took a huge sample of 31,000 medical records, dating from the mid-1980s, and had them evaluated by practicing doctors and nurses, the professionals most likely to be sympathetic to the demands of the doctor's office and operating room. The records went through multiple rounds of evaluation, and a finding of negligence was made only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. Even with this conservative methodology, the study found that doctors were injuring one out of every 25 patients—and that only 4 percent of these injured patients sued. The medical malpractice myth.

That doesn't seem to be a pressing problem, does it?

Frivolous lawsuits are already shitcanned by directed verdicts and sanctions.

The 'trial lawyers are the problem' tact is false.

You don't understand... What docs tell me is that they run very expensive tests that they KNOW aren't required JUST for CYA. Multiply that times millions of patients and you have some SERIOUS money being wasted. It's not just about the folks that sue and win big settlements, it's about defensive measures docs and hospitals take to avoid those VERY expensive lawsuits, and the cost of those expensive tests just get passed on top the policy-holders... YOU!

If reasonable caps were allowed there would be less incentive for docs and hospitals to waste money on VERY expensive, unnecessary tests and CYA.

Yes I understand. I provided you with a study that shows malpractice in reality is not a big deal.

You tell me a story about how you talked to your doctor.

That being said, what does your contention have to do with the cost of health care? Can you see how capping damages can open the floodgates for negligent medical care?

If a doctor is motivated by fear to perform her duties in a manner that is not negligent, I'm all for it. The more the better. I want a defensive doctor and not some guy who plays his first hunch. If a test is truly unnecessary, a seasoned pro would know that. I'm not too concerned about this issue.

 

[RightDown]

We have a couple of big insurance companies that control the health insurance industry. There is no real competition. Everything the right accuses the ACA of being is true of private care - it rations care, it limits doctor choice and it regularly denies claims. What they forget is that without the public programs of Medicare, Medicaid and VA care, there would be no affordable private care. There's no money insuring old dying people and uninsurable sick folks.

Obama is doing what he has to do to pass this watered down public option for insurance. I don't care for the plan but it's all we have at the moment.

 

[tap4154]

Tort reform is a red herring. Health care costs are driven by other factors. Or do you really want to limit recovery to $250,000 for some poor bastard who has the wrong leg amputated by Dr. Frankenputz?

Trial lawyers and malpractice law suits are not the reason why health insurance is costly.

The Harvard researchers took a huge sample of 31,000 medical records, dating from the mid-1980s, and had them evaluated by practicing doctors and nurses, the professionals most likely to be sympathetic to the demands of the doctor's office and operating room. The records went through multiple rounds of evaluation, and a finding of negligence was made only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. Even with this conservative methodology, the study found that doctors were injuring one out of every 25 patients—and that only 4 percent of these injured patients sued. The medical malpractice myth.

That doesn't seem to be a pressing problem, does it?

Frivolous lawsuits are already shitcanned by directed verdicts and sanctions.

The 'trial lawyers are the problem' tact is false.

You don't understand... What docs tell me is that they run very expensive tests that they KNOW aren't required JUST for CYA. Multiply that times millions of patients and you have some SERIOUS money being wasted. It's not just about the folks that sue and win big settlements, it's about defensive measures docs and hospitals take to avoid those VERY expensive lawsuits, and the cost of those expensive tests just get passed on top the policy-holders... YOU!

If reasonable caps were allowed there would be less incentive for docs and hospitals to waste money on VERY expensive, unnecessary tests and CYA.

Yes I understand. I provided you with a study that shows malpractice in reality is not a big deal.

You tell me a story about how you talked to your doctor.

That being said, what does your contention have to do with the cost of health care? Can you see how capping damages can open the floodgates for negligent medical care?

If a doctor is motivated by fear to perform her duties in a manner that is not negligent, I'm all for it. The more the better. I want a defensive doctor and not some guy who plays his first hunch. If a test is truly unnecessary, a seasoned pro would know that. I'm not too concerned about this issue.

Like most libs you can't read and comprehend. No sense in restating my points over and over when all you hear are the voices in your head.

 

[Redfish]

Canadians aren't moving back to "private medicine", guy.

And the British and Canadians love their single payer systems and are very proud of them.

wrong again, joey boy

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times

Note the key word, option. Where are our options? Over 70% of Americans wanted a Public Option.

I'd be quite happy with a single-payer universal healthcare system that also allowed for people with the means to purchase more comprehensive supplemental plans. Let's do it!

got any proof of your 70% claim? of course not, because its a lie

 

[Wry Catcher]

The cost of medical care will never come down until there is tort reform. If you want Euro style medical care, you will have to have Euro style legal care too which means no suing doctors.

You're such a parrot. Do some research and see what impact litigation has on the cost of health care. What if malpractice goes unchecked and unsanctioned?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just so we know what we're talking about. The Heritage Plan sure looks familiar.

"Adequate" insurance, not comprehensive. IF you posted the entire text you would see that's what they're talking about. I had a catastrophic plan which was affordable, and covered everything after a $5K deductible with no copays or cap. ACA made that illegal. My new ACA-compliant plan is 92% more PLUS a 40% copay.

Without proof why should anyone believe you? This is the internet, anyone can claim anything. Please scan and post both policies (of course protect your identity, as well as your reputation by doing so)

 

[driveby]

The cost of medical care will never come down until there is tort reform. If you want Euro style medical care, you will have to have Euro style legal care too which means no suing doctors.

You're such a parrot. Do some research and see what impact litigation has on the cost of health care. What if malpractice goes unchecked and unsanctioned?

A holiday gift for you my friend.....

Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit | Laugh Right

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just so we know what we're talking about. The Heritage Plan sure looks familiar.

"Adequate" insurance, not comprehensive. IF you posted the entire text you would see that's what they're talking about. I had a catastrophic plan which was affordable, and covered everything after a $5K deductible with no copays or cap. ACA made that illegal. My new ACA-compliant plan is 92% more PLUS a 40% copay.

I'm sorry but you're spinning like a top. The ACA and the heritage foundation plan both mandate insurance coverage by individuals in the marketplace. Your distinction is puzzling.

What is the difference btn adequate coverage and comprehensive coverage? The ACA does not force anyone to buy insurance. For people that are poor, the ACA permits the purchase of catastrophic coverage only to avoid the penalty.

So just what are you talking about?

When my son was laid off my wife and I paid for his insurance at Kaiser; he was 31. Our monthly cost was $336.00 and his co-pay was $25.00 for an appointment with his personnel doctor or a major surgery. Each 90-day prescription was $25.00.

Today he's a Teamster, no monthly fee, $5.00 co-pay and $5.00 for each 90-day Rx.

No co-pay for preventative services.

 

[RightDown]

You don't understand... What docs tell me is that they run very expensive tests that they KNOW aren't required JUST for CYA. Multiply that times millions of patients and you have some SERIOUS money being wasted. It's not just about the folks that sue and win big settlements, it's about defensive measures docs and hospitals take to avoid those VERY expensive lawsuits, and the cost of those expensive tests just get passed on top the policy-holders... YOU!

If reasonable caps were allowed there would be less incentive for docs and hospitals to waste money on VERY expensive, unnecessary tests and CYA.

Yes I understand. I provided you with a study that shows malpractice in reality is not a big deal.

You tell me a story about how you talked to your doctor.

That being said, what does your contention have to do with the cost of health care? Can you see how capping damages can open the floodgates for negligent medical care?

If a doctor is motivated by fear to perform her duties in a manner that is not negligent, I'm all for it. The more the better. I want a defensive doctor and not some guy who plays his first hunch. If a test is truly unnecessary, a seasoned pro would know that. I'm not too concerned about this issue.

Like most libs you can't read and comprehend. No sense in restating my points over and over when all you hear are the voices in your head.

Well I just got off the phone with my doctor and he said that all testing he does is merited by the status of the patient. If the doctor fails to administer the tests necessary to fit the circumstance, then he's guilty of malpractice or professional negligence. I'm afraid that liability doesn't exist for superfluous tests to 'cover their asses' for any eventuality. If a doctor is padding his bill with unnecessary tests, then it must be some lawyer's fault. Rigggggggggggghhhhhttt.

In short, your doctor lied to you. Let me rephrase, your disturbing hatred of: government, the poor and middle class and Obama has warped you as a human being and you'll say just about anything to make a point....Mr. Anecdotal evidence.

 

[JoeB131]

[

single payer = free medical care for everyone! right, Joe?

you libs are so fricken stupid that you actually believe that only the evil rich will have to pay for this fiasco. Ask a Canadian or a Brit if thats the way it works for them. Ask a Canadian why they are moving back to private medicine and away from socialized medicine.

like all liberal ideas, socialized single payer medicine can never work.

Canadians aren't moving back to "private medicine", guy.

And the British and Canadians love their single payer systems and are very proud of them.

wrong again, joey boy

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times

not wrong at all.

Canadians live longer than we do, have a lower infant mortality rate, and spend about half per capita as we do.

So people have to wait for elective surgeries if they don't want to pay for them out of pocket.

same as here.

 

[tap4154]

Yes I understand. I provided you with a study that shows malpractice in reality is not a big deal.

You tell me a story about how you talked to your doctor.

That being said, what does your contention have to do with the cost of health care? Can you see how capping damages can open the floodgates for negligent medical care?

If a doctor is motivated by fear to perform her duties in a manner that is not negligent, I'm all for it. The more the better. I want a defensive doctor and not some guy who plays his first hunch. If a test is truly unnecessary, a seasoned pro would know that. I'm not too concerned about this issue.

Like most libs you can't read and comprehend. No sense in restating my points over and over when all you hear are the voices in your head.

Well I just got off the phone with my doctor and he said that all testing he does is merited by the status of the patient. If the doctor fails to administer the tests necessary to fit the circumstance, then he's guilty of malpractice or professional negligence. I'm afraid that liability doesn't exist for superfluous tests to 'cover their asses' for any eventuality. If a doctor is padding his bill with unnecessary tests, then it must be some lawyer's fault. Rigggggggggggghhhhhttt.

In short, your doctor lied to you. Let me rephrase, your disturbing hatred of: government, the poor and middle class and Obama has warped you as a human being and you'll say just about anything to make a point....Mr. Anecdotal evidence.

You're lying. You didn't talk to anyone but the crazy voices in your head.

 

[tap4154]

Canadians aren't moving back to "private medicine", guy.

And the British and Canadians love their single payer systems and are very proud of them.

wrong again, joey boy

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times

not wrong at all.

Canadians live longer than we do, have a lower infant mortality rate, and spend about half per capita as we do.

So people have to wait for elective surgeries if they don't want to pay for them out of pocket.

same as here.

Canadians have a higher average lifespan because they don't have all the gang activity and other sick behavior libs participate in, here in America. Infant mortality rates are recorded differently in different countries, so can't be compared. America counts them all, some nations don't. Look it up.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

There were several other plans offered up for health care reform, but I am guessing none were oppressive enough to suit Obama's tyrannical tastes.

Most libs will look the other way at yet another lie from Bam's mouth. Maybe they are so used to it that it doesn't phase them any more.

Politics: VIDEO: Tom Price explains the ObamaCare alternative Obama claims doesn't exist | Best of Cain

Why would the Democrats pass a Republican plan? Is that what they were elected to do? Do Republicans pass Democrat bills when they're in power?

Hastert, Frist and Bush did.

 

[tap4154]

When my son was laid off my wife and I paid for his insurance at Kaiser; he was 31. Our monthly cost was $336.00 and his co-pay was $25.00 for an appointment with his personnel doctor or a major surgery. Each 90-day prescription was $25.00.

Today he's a Teamster, no monthly fee, $5.00 co-pay and $5.00 for each 90-day Rx.

No co-pay for preventative services.

His employer is paying the bulk or all of the premium. It's considered part of his overall salary/benefit package, it's not "free". I'm a self-employed individual so pay my own way.

 

[tap4154]

I'm sorry but you're spinning like a top. The ACA and the heritage foundation plan both mandate insurance coverage by individuals in the marketplace. Your distinction is puzzling.

What is the difference btn adequate coverage and comprehensive coverage? The ACA does not force anyone to buy insurance. For people that are poor, the ACA permits the purchase of catastrophic coverage only to avoid the penalty.

So just what are you talking about?

The ACA is forcing everyone to have a policy which includes the coverage THEY decided we need. This drives the costs WAY up for folks like me who don't need maternity, pediatric dental, mental health, and sex change coverage.

Libs here don't seem to know ANY facts about the ACA

 

[Zoom-boing]

But Obama promised costs would go down?.........

The only folks paying less under the ACA are those getting big subsidies, or folks with serious pre-existing conditions. EVERYONE else is paying much more for less coverage.

Er, not necessarily.

The Obama administration has directly conceded for the first time that 'in many cases,' health insurance plans offered through government exchanges are more expensive than plans consumers bought before the Affordable Care Act became law – even when government subsidies are figured in.

In a letter to state insurance commissioners, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen wrote on Thursday that one reason for the new Obamacare measures the president announced Thursday is that millions of consumers receiving cancellation letters from their insurers are learning the Affordable Care Act options are in fact less affordable.

'Although affected individuals and small businesses may access quality health insurance coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces,' Cohen wrote, 'in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage, and thus they may [be] dissuaded from immediately transitioning to such coverage.'

Obamacare plans cost more 'in many cases' even WITH government subsidies, Obama administration admits for the first time | Mail Online

 

[tap4154]

But Obama promised costs would go down?.........

The only folks paying less under the ACA are those getting big subsidies, or folks with serious pre-existing conditions. EVERYONE else is paying much more for less coverage.

Er, not necessarily.

The Obama administration has directly conceded for the first time that 'in many cases,' health insurance plans offered through government exchanges are more expensive than plans consumers bought before the Affordable Care Act became law – even when government subsidies are figured in.

In a letter to state insurance commissioners, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen wrote on Thursday that one reason for the new Obamacare measures the president announced Thursday is that millions of consumers receiving cancellation letters from their insurers are learning the Affordable Care Act options are in fact less affordable.

'Although affected individuals and small businesses may access quality health insurance coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces,' Cohen wrote, 'in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage, and thus they may [be] dissuaded from immediately transitioning to such coverage.'

Obamacare plans cost more 'in many cases' even WITH government subsidies, Obama administration admits for the first time | Mail Online

I said "big subsidies". I've looked at the plans and ALL are more expensive than current plans with more copays and higher deductibles, and the gold plans with low or no deductibles are VERY expensive. Even with a partial subsidy folks will be paying more. Folks at or just above the poverty level can supposedly get good plans almost entirely paid for by the rest of the nation, but many of those will end up in Medicaid.

 

[ron4342]

There were several other plans offered up for health care reform, but I am guessing none were oppressive enough to suit Obama's tyrannical tastes.

Most libs will look the other way at yet another lie from Bam's mouth. Maybe they are so used to it that it doesn't phase them any more.

Politics: VIDEO: Tom Price explains the ObamaCare alternative Obama claims doesn't exist | Best of Cain

In the past when one party came up with a bill the other party would offer an alternative bill. Then both parties would appoint members from their party to sit down with the members of the other party and take the best from each bill. IT WAS CALLED COMPROMISING!!! "If you accept this part of our bill we will accept that part of your bill." Now COMPROMISE is a dirty word in the republican party.
With the above in mind, when the Democrats introduced ACA what was the name of the bill the republicans introduced?
THERE WAS NO HEALTH CARE BILL INTRODUCED BY THE REPUBLICANS <period>