What Is The Republican Alternative To ObamaCare

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, all of what you say is true but still falls short.

The barrier has been raised to accessible and affordable quality health insurance for all Americans.

We are not going back to what we had before.

 

[Bern80]

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

House Republicans file, promote an alternative to Obamacare - Washington Times


Does anyone believe Obamacare is about healthcare? Look at the results so far:

Tens of thousands have new healthcare in the exchanges
Millions have lost coverage

Your Honor...

Exhibit E: The Republican subject responds not by answering the question, telling us what is the Republican response, what the subject does instead is engage in politricks, throwing up stats as to how many lost their junk insurance plants and how many have thus far been able to sign-up for insurance under the ACA.

For the record, I state that the subject has NOT, I repeat has NOT answered the question, therefore offering NO solution for affordable healthcare for the millions of American citizens in dire need of it.

What you fail to understand is that when you ask a question and demand an answer as you're doing it requires that I accept whatever premise is behind it. There are a couple of premises behind your question that you're asking we accept. 1) That there is actually a problem (which you just now finally defined as how to get healthcare to people that can't afford it) and 2) That it's the government's job to fix that problem. If you don't accept 2 then the there really is no answer to your question.

There's a distinction between no solution and an answer you don't like, it seems you are missing. I had a few questions for you earlier that you glossed over because they obviously aren't very convenient for you to answer with respect to your argument.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Know what, *****? **** YOU

Is your 'spouse' alive? I assume so.

What do you think would happen under obamacare? You ARE aware of the so-called "death panels' aren't you?

Know how those work? They attach a price, a cost-based derivative to a person's usefulness in an algorithm with an age component that only they know how it works and they apply it to a person's health care costs.

If it don't fir.... You die.

Did your 'spouse' die?

1.3 Million Dollars? Those E-VUL Insurance Companies spent $1,300,000 dollars to save your 'spouse' and you're bitching?

**** YOU!!

What a ******* douche.

And Bristol Myers didn't bring Taxol to market until 1993.

What a ******* douchebag you are. Honest to God

Excuse me?

"Paclitaxel is a mitotic inhibitor used in cancer chemotherapy. It was discovered in a US National Cancer Institute program at the Research Triangle Institute in 1967 ....."
Success Story: Taxol

Taxol has been used for cancer treatments since at least 1976 because my mother was on it for ovarian cancer at MD Anderson in Houston.

BMS adopted it for other types of cancers years later. Any time a specific drug company wants to take an existing drug and license it for a new, specific diagnosis, they have to get approval through the FDA.

No, my spouse died in 2009 when the cancer recurred.

Feel better now?

Frankly, of all the scared white people on here, you're the most frightened I've ever seen.

douchebag liar...... It may have been 'discovered' but it wasn't brought to Market until 1992. By Bristol Myers and the National Cancer Institute.

The Great Taxol Giveaway

And it wasn't approved by the FDA until 1998...

Drug Approval Package: Taxol (Paclitaxel) NDA# NDA 20-262/S-024

Taxol (Paclitaxel) Injection
Company: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Application No.: NDA 20-262/S-024
Approval Date: 6/30/1998

Idiot. Wiki is such a good source....

And tell me, what good would obamacare have done for your poor, deceased spouse?

Tell me that....

Peddle your hate somewhere else, loser

Taxol was given to women with ovarian cancer in 1976 at MD Anderson, and it may have been used in the experimental mode, which meant that there was no insurance to cover the cost. I was there and remember that it was unrefined and made many people violently ill.

Preventative screening would have shown the cancer at an early, contained stage-1 disease. The problem would have cost around $30,000 in 2004. That's what we learned at Sloan Kettering.

So as a policy holder who is going to bear the cost of others in their pool, which bill would you rather have spread around by your beloved health insurance carrier? $30,000 or $1,300,000?

You are truly vile...and so ******* scared right now your ball sack has disappeared.

 

[boilermaker55]

Keep beating the drum about personal responsibilities while citizen united has made if far easier for large companies(corporations) to buy politicians and have the laws moved in their favor.
Your typical response does not make much sense in a litigious world where money and time give those with money and power all the edge.

Their alternative? Gut it and then go back to big insurance junk policies.

This is nonsensical. What junk policies? Why wouold you agree to pay for said 'junk' policy? You (the consumer) need to start taking a little ******* responsibility for yourself. You act as if you have no control over what kind of insurance coverage you have prior to Obamacare. I hate to say it people, but a big part of this problem is that consumers have absolved themselves of the rresponsibility of understanding and researching what they're purchasing. Employer based insurance is part of that problem, yes, but it's still no excuse for not figuring out how you want to handle the costs of arguably the most important facet of your life.

 

[bravoactual]

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco]Alan Grayson on the GOP Health Care Plan: "Don't Get Sick! And if You Do Get Sick, Die Quickly!"' - YouTube[/ame].

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bern80, all of what you say is true but still falls short.

The barrier has been raised to accessible and affordable quality health insurance for all Americans.

We are not going back to what we had before.

affordable healthcare coverage due to obamafail

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco]Alan Grayson on the GOP Health Care Plan: "Don't Get Sick! And if You Do Get Sick, Die Quickly!"' - YouTube[/ame].

grayson's a punk and if it wasn't for that secret service protection he wouldn't say some of the shit he says.

 

[Edgetho]

And speaking of Taxol, you whiny little *****... Didja know that the UK's great and wonderful, single-payer NHS REFUSED to pay the price for Taxol to treat women with ovarian cancer?

Did you know that? Of course you didn't.

It took a full court press from the media and Months of pressure to get the UK's National Health Service to pay for a drug (Taxol) that would save lives -- In 2000.

Then, the NHS refused to pay for it because it was too expensive and that set them back a few more years. While women died. Horribly. Now, you can get the treatment but you have to jump through a lot of hoops in the UK.

Here? They just use it. No questions asked.

You're a ******* douche.

And you're quite upset because I've scared you. And you should be scared. Insurance companies want you to die quickly when you have a stage-4 cancer.

My spouse just didn't die quick enough and that was the total bill: $1,300,000.00

So your story of the NHS is from 13 years ago. Guess what, douchebag? Insurance companies here deny the use of many kinds of cancer drugs as "experimental" so they don't have to pay for them. Happens all the time.

Ignorant ****, then take it up with the FDA. THEY are the ones that approve or deny the use of drugs and treatments.

******* idiot.

And here is an excerpt from an article from the year 2000

NICE approves Taxol for ovarian cancer

The cytotoxic drug paclitaxel (Taxol) is to be made available to all women in England and Wales with ovarian cancer following the long awaited ruling by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Paclitaxel, in combination with platinum, should be the first line treatment after surgery in all cases of ovarian cancer and should also be used to treat women whose cancer has recurred or has failed to respond to other forms of treatment, according to NICE.

The recommendation is expected to cost the NHS an additional £7m ($11.2m) a year to treat …

They ******* DENIED IT TO WOMEN DYING OF CANCER.

Did you get anything DENIED to you?

You're a lying ******* douche and I don't believe anything you say.

I still am having trouble understanding what effect obamacare would have had on your unfortunate circumstance.

How about -- None. You're just a hater..... A typical dimocrap

 

[MarcATL]

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

1. Sell insurance across State lines to increase Competition and lower cost.



2. Tort reform. Most studies save this would save around $250 billion a year. That could help a lot of uninsured people, couldn't it?



3. Expand health savings accounts



4. Allow people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance, make it illegal to deny them insurance, and place them in risk pools that aggressively control costs.


Repeal and Replace the Job-Destroying Health Care Law - A Pledge to America - GOP.gov

1. How, specifically, does that help the currently uninsured to get and/or afford health insurance?

2. How does "tort reform" help the currently uninsured to get, or afford, health insurance?

3. Lay that out, because that sounds like another generic RW talking point. What does "expand health savings accounts" mean? How does it apply, specifically, to the millions of currently uninsured Americans and help them get insured?

4. ObamaCare does that, so why not go with that and expound on OTHER ideas to help the currently uninsured?

How does scrapping the entire thing, and starting over help the currently uninsured? How is that idea even responsible?

 

[RKMBrown]

I hope not, but they'll probably push the same crap the Democrats did.

Your Honor...

Exhibit D: Avoidance. NOT addressing the question, aka NO solution.

Exhibit, schmibit.

The primary failing of ACA is the assumption that the key to dealing with health care costs is more insurance. Insurance is the problem, not the solution.

Ding ding ding... give the man a cigar!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The alternative to Obama Hellcare is Free Market healthcare.

You are right no one is pushing it because it requires NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT hence not politically correct.

.

Free market healthcare would be like any other free market -

each person or family would buy what they could afford, at market prices, and those who couldn't afford the market prices

would mostly go without.

That all depends on what you mean by not afford health insurance. If the family income is too low, Medicaid is the answer.
If the house payment, car payment, cell phone, Dish network, credit card payments etc., etc. are the reasons they can't afford it that comes down to a matter of priorities.

So a family shouldn't prioritize having a house over having health insurance?

btw, in a free market insurance environment, the seller can simply set prices so high for certain people, or simply deny them coverage outright,

if the insurer doesn't want to bother with them. Is that really the kind of country you want?

 

[Edgetho]

And who is pushing it?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans want to help Americans get good health insurance?

1. Sell insurance across State lines to increase Competition and lower cost.



2. Tort reform. Most studies save this would save around $250 billion a year. That could help a lot of uninsured people, couldn't it?



3. Expand health savings accounts



4. Allow people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance, make it illegal to deny them insurance, and place them in risk pools that aggressively control costs.


Repeal and Replace the Job-Destroying Health Care Law - A Pledge to America - GOP.gov

1. How, specifically, does that help the currently uninsured to get and/or afford health insurance?

2. How does "tort reform" help the currently uninsured to get, or afford, health insurance?

3. Lay that out, because that sounds like another generic RW talking point. What does "expand health savings accounts" mean? How does it apply, specifically, to the millions of currently uninsured Americans and help them get insured?

4. ObamaCare does that, so why not go with that and expound on OTHER ideas to help the currently uninsured?

How does scrapping the entire thing, and starting over help the currently uninsured? How is that idea even responsible?

obamacare does SHIT because that's what it is -- Shit.

And it is headed for the shitpile. Of that, you can be certain.

Maybe next time, you'll ask the grown ups for help.

 

[Contumacious]

1. How, specifically, does that help the currently uninsured to get and/or afford health insurance?

?

Typical fascist ************.

Let the federal government MANUFACTURE emergencies then adopt UNconstitutional powers.

STFU

That question has been asked and answered.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It covers what he wants it to cover, if it didn't he would get something else.

You can only get what you can afford. Sort of like your nitwit peers on here think, like shopping for a car.

oh, so the rising cost of insurance due to obamacare is affordable?

Insurance companies are cancelling policies and trying to steer people into more expensive policies for the benefit of the insurance companies.

 

[Meister]

You can only get what you can afford. Sort of like your nitwit peers on here think, like shopping for a car.

oh, so the rising cost of insurance due to obamacare is affordable?

Insurance companies are cancelling policies and trying to steer people into more expensive policies for the benefit of the insurance companies.

You're in complete denial if you don't think that the policies were forced to change because of the mandates obamacare placed on the industry.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, all of what you say is true but still falls short.

The barrier has been raised to accessible and affordable quality health insurance for all Americans.

We are not going back to what we had before.

Obamacare is not what we had before. And before when exactly? Because way back in the day like the middle part of the last century the common form of insurance was referred to as major medical. It covered major health care expenses. The every day maintanence type things, people simply paid for.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

And speaking of Taxol, you whiny little *****... Didja know that the UK's great and wonderful, single-payer NHS REFUSED to pay the price for Taxol to treat women with ovarian cancer?

Did you know that? Of course you didn't.

It took a full court press from the media and Months of pressure to get the UK's National Health Service to pay for a drug (Taxol) that would save lives -- In 2000.

Then, the NHS refused to pay for it because it was too expensive and that set them back a few more years. While women died. Horribly. Now, you can get the treatment but you have to jump through a lot of hoops in the UK.

Here? They just use it. No questions asked.

You're a ******* douche.

And you're quite upset because I've scared you. And you should be scared. Insurance companies want you to die quickly when you have a stage-4 cancer.

My spouse just didn't die quick enough and that was the total bill: $1,300,000.00

So your story of the NHS is from 13 years ago. Guess what, douchebag? Insurance companies here deny the use of many kinds of cancer drugs as "experimental" so they don't have to pay for them. Happens all the time.

Ignorant ****, then take it up with the FDA. THEY are the ones that approve or deny the use of drugs and treatments.

******* idiot.

And here is an excerpt from an article from the year 2000

NICE approves Taxol for ovarian cancer

The cytotoxic drug paclitaxel (Taxol) is to be made available to all women in England and Wales with ovarian cancer following the long awaited ruling by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Paclitaxel, in combination with platinum, should be the first line treatment after surgery in all cases of ovarian cancer and should also be used to treat women whose cancer has recurred or has failed to respond to other forms of treatment, according to NICE.

The recommendation is expected to cost the NHS an additional £7m ($11.2m) a year to treat …

They ******* DENIED IT TO WOMEN DYING OF CANCER.

Did you get anything DENIED to you?

You're a lying ******* douche and I don't believe anything you say.

I still am having trouble understanding what effect obamacare would have had on your unfortunate circumstance.

How about -- None. You're just a hater..... A typical dimocrap

Yes, there was plenty denied to us.

Our insurance failed to confirm the oncologist's diagnosis of transitional as opposed to renal cell type, thus delaying the start of chemotherapy.

A procedure that was given to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg specifically, and almost within about within the same week that we were seeking the same procedure for my spouse at Sloan Kettering. And you will note she is still alive.

Our insurer decided that PET scans would no longer be allowed after about a year or so. The best diagnostic tool available. Too expensive, they said.

I don't care if you don't believe me. You're HOPING I'm a liar.

You will find out the reality soon enough for either yourself or someone in your family.

THe ACA affords SCREENING, preventative testing. That would have saved my spouse's life.

 

[Bern80]

Keep beating the drum about personal responsibilities while citizen united has made if far easier for large companies(corporations) to buy politicians and have the laws moved in their favor.
Your typical response does not make much sense in a litigious world where money and time give those with money and power all the edge.

Their alternative? Gut it and then go back to big insurance junk policies.

This is nonsensical. What junk policies? Why wouold you agree to pay for said 'junk' policy? You (the consumer) need to start taking a little ******* responsibility for yourself. You act as if you have no control over what kind of insurance coverage you have prior to Obamacare. I hate to say it people, but a big part of this problem is that consumers have absolved themselves of the rresponsibility of understanding and researching what they're purchasing. Employer based insurance is part of that problem, yes, but it's still no excuse for not figuring out how you want to handle the costs of arguably the most important facet of your life.

yes that's a problem, but at the end of the day you can't lie to people about you're selling. You can't pretend you don't have the ability to find out if your insurance company can drop you if you get sick. You can't pretend that you can't find out specifically what your policy covers. You can. The simpe reality is most people don't take the time to find out.

 

[Meister]

Keep beating the drum about personal responsibilities while citizen united has made if far easier for large companies(corporations) to buy politicians and have the laws moved in their favor.
Your typical response does not make much sense in a litigious world where money and time give those with money and power all the edge.

This is nonsensical. What junk policies? Why wouold you agree to pay for said 'junk' policy? You (the consumer) need to start taking a little ******* responsibility for yourself. You act as if you have no control over what kind of insurance coverage you have prior to Obamacare. I hate to say it people, but a big part of this problem is that consumers have absolved themselves of the rresponsibility of understanding and researching what they're purchasing. Employer based insurance is part of that problem, yes, but it's still no excuse for not figuring out how you want to handle the costs of arguably the most important facet of your life.

yes that's a problem, but at the end of the day you can't lie to people about you're selling. You can't pretend you don't have the ability to find out if your insurance company can drop you if you get sick. You can't pretend that you can't find out specifically what your policy covers. You can. The simpe reality is most people don't take the time to find out.

It was the only way that Obama could secure enough democrat votes to get this debacle passed. He would have sold his mother and father to attain this travesty.

 

[Edgetho]

And you're quite upset because I've scared you. And you should be scared. Insurance companies want you to die quickly when you have a stage-4 cancer.

My spouse just didn't die quick enough and that was the total bill: $1,300,000.00

So your story of the NHS is from 13 years ago. Guess what, douchebag? Insurance companies here deny the use of many kinds of cancer drugs as "experimental" so they don't have to pay for them. Happens all the time.

Ignorant ****, then take it up with the FDA. THEY are the ones that approve or deny the use of drugs and treatments.

******* idiot.

And here is an excerpt from an article from the year 2000

NICE approves Taxol for ovarian cancer

The cytotoxic drug paclitaxel (Taxol) is to be made available to all women in England and Wales with ovarian cancer following the long awaited ruling by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Paclitaxel, in combination with platinum, should be the first line treatment after surgery in all cases of ovarian cancer and should also be used to treat women whose cancer has recurred or has failed to respond to other forms of treatment, according to NICE.

The recommendation is expected to cost the NHS an additional £7m ($11.2m) a year to treat …

They ******* DENIED IT TO WOMEN DYING OF CANCER.

Did you get anything DENIED to you?

You're a lying ******* douche and I don't believe anything you say.

I still am having trouble understanding what effect obamacare would have had on your unfortunate circumstance.

How about -- None. You're just a hater..... A typical dimocrap

Yes, there was plenty denied to us.

Our insurance failed to confirm the oncologist's diagnosis of transitional as opposed to renal cell type, thus delaying the start of chemotherapy.

A procedure that was given to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg specifically, and almost within about within the same week that we were seeking the same procedure for my spouse at Sloan Kettering. And you will note she is still alive.

Our insurer decided that PET scans would no longer be allowed after about a year or so. The best diagnostic tool available. Too expensive, they said.

I don't care if you don't believe me. You're HOPING I'm a liar.

You will find out the reality soon enough for either yourself or someone in your family.

No. I KNOW you're a liar.

A first year law-student would ******* OWN that Insurance Company if what you claim were true.

It isn't.

I spent 25 years in the Insurance Industry and what you're describing (actually lying about) I've seen a hundred times.

You're bitter. I don't blame you for being hurt. I don't blame you for being a little bitter.

But the hate? Out of control.

You still haven't told me what good the ACA would have done you.

And let me tell you something else....... After spending $1,300,000 you're trying to claim that the Insurance Company was being cheap?

**** you.

Throwing money at a problem seldom fixes it.

And the last I checked, Insurance Companies don't do PET Scans or chemotherapy.

The last I checked Doctors and Hospitals don't WORK for Insurance Companies. If they thought that the Chemo or the PET Scan was so important, then they should have done it and worried about the money later.

Insurance Companies don't treat people.... Doctors and Hospitals do.

Wanna get pissed, get pissed at THEM.

Idiot.

I still think you're full of shit