Healthcare Debate

I’m thankful there are a few congress members(republicans, a few democrats, and good ole Joe Lieberman) with some common sense who can stop the government take over of the health care system (public option)..

let’s do tort reform, let’s allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Thank goodness they realize it’s non sustainable and will lead to to rationed health care.

And don’t listen to them when they say women don’t need to get mammograms till 50…the rationing has already begun.

I’m also thankful for baby hugs.

All of the plans the republicans are proposing contain the same negative effects of the Public Option with absolutely ZERO ■■■■■■■ BENEFITS. Way to screw it up, boys. But yeah, you will keep defending them because anything resembling socialism is just inherently bad because it isn’t the American way.

this health care debate should probably go to a new thread…it is there that I shall blow you out of the water!

:wrongforum:

Your move, I suppose.

Is that a fact? All of the plans? ALL OF THEM?

I know you are far more intelligent than that. Not all of them, the one that gets presented sure - why? Because John Boehner is a tool bag.

I really want to see someone step in here and tell me how the Public Option is going to work, specifically how a private company can compete with the government. I’d also like for that person to tell me why I should be fined and possibly face prison time for not having health insurance.

Also please be able to explain why all the major medical insurance companies contribute so much money to Democrats and Republicans.

the repubs have a working plan..here’s the basic plan… I’m not saying you have to agree with their plan, but this “party of No” stuff going around is just nonsense.

10 Reasons to Support the Republican Alternative

Taking the First Step. Republicans listened to the American people and have produced a common sense, fiscally responsible health reform proposal—not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2,000+ page government takeover of 1/6th of our nation’s economy. Republicans have a better plan, one that lowers premiums for working families and small businesses, fights fraud, and will lead to expanded access to affordable health care coverage for all Americans without raising taxes, cutting benefits to seniors or spending money we don’t have.

Lowers Health Care Premiums.

According to CBO, the Republican Alternative would reduce health insurance premiums by up to:

10% for employees who get coverage through a small business (50 or fewer employees)

8% for those who do not have access to employer-provided coverage

3% for employees who get coverage through a large business

All told, under the GOP plan, premiums for millions of families would be nearly $5,000 lower than Speaker Pelosi’s cheapest insurance plan, according to CBO estimates.

Guarantees Affordable Coverage for Patients with Preexisting Conditions.

The Republican Alternative makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. So if you lose your health insurance because you lose your job, move, get divorced, or just want to change plans, you are protected. Through a new Universal Access Program, all patients with preexisting conditions will have access to affordable health care coverage–without waiting lists. The Republican Alternative also prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless an individually knowingly commits fraud on an application form. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.

Protects Seniors Medicare Benefits.

Unlike the Pelosi bill, seniors’ benefits are not cut and nothing in the Republican Alternative will increase seniors’ Medicare premiums.

No Tax Increases. Period.

Page 2 of 2

**Encourages Small Businesses to Offer Health Care Coverage,

Without Taxing Job Creation.**

Unlike the Pelosi bill, which punishes small businesses with onerous mandates and exorbitant taxes that CBO says will be passed on the employees in the form of lower wages, the Republican Alternative plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.

Enacts Real Medical Liability Reform.

The Republican Alternative saves $54 billion by helping to end costly junk lawsuits and curbing defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.

Empowers the Doctor- Patient Relationship.

The Republican Alternative eliminates taxpayer funding of a program that could lead to government intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship and the rationing of care on the basis of cost. Unlike the Pelosi bill that increases taxes and expands price controls on medical devices and prescription drugs, the Republican Alternative promotes innovation and places greater emphasis on prevention and wellness.

Prohibits Abortion Funding.

The Republican Alternative explicitly prohibits all federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.

No Entitlement Expansions Forcing Americans onto a Government Run Plan.

The Republican Alternative avoids a dramatic expansion in entitlement spending and reverses pressure to enact enormous additional tax increases in the future, including on the middle class.

Reduces the Deficit.

According to CBO, the Republican Alternative reduces the deficit by $68 billion over the next ten years and continues to reduce the deficit in the second budget window.

well, I was going to blow someone out of the water, but looks like Ron is doing a pretty good job by himself…

Any proposal that gets serious consideration. Of course the plan to do nothing won’t have much effect, aye?

The same way any private company competes with the government?

Well the fine comes in the form of an increased tax, and like with all tax, if you do not pay you could face jail time. Less than 500 people were incarcerated last year for not paying their taxes, so the likelihood of any of us going to jail is pretty low, unless you are willfully trying to send a statement.

As for WHY you should be requited to have minimum coverage; The same reason you are required to have a minimum car liability insurance. It’s a preventive measure. The benefit of you being able to pay your own medical bills out of pocket is not worth the expenses the rest of us have to pay for the many who can’t. Yes, some people can pay out of pocket, but how often is that the case?

the private sector can not compete against a govt run program because they have to make money. the govt plan can run a deficit, they won’t care. people will save a buck by going with the govt health care, leave their private insurance, and then they go out of business. You are aware of what health care is like in Canada and Europe right? that’s what Pelosi’s plan will get us

As a person with a crippling disease with no cure, I weep every night for humanity.

being a loser isn’t a disease :wink:

Lol, laughter is a pretty good medicine and it’s free!

Not everyone owns a car and those that don’t do not have to pay for auto insurance. Hundreds if not thousands of New Yorkers don’t own a car, they take the subway, public transit, taxi, etc. Should they have to pay auto insurance even though they don’t own a car or drive one?

The government justs prints money and has no accountibiltiy. This is just a means to an end…it’s to get single payer insurance and the government will own all. Obama has said this before in soundbytes…he wants a single payer system and by making a public opition, it will crush the private sector and the government will come out on top.

In the private sector…they expect results! The government…ehhh…not so much.

With the pre-existing conditions thing…You don’t buy fire insurance for your house while your house is burning…you do it before “in case of” fire. Not the other way around, it would be bad business.

Until they find a way to make the insurance industry about helping people and not about making money it’s all just lipstick on a pig.

Two things, as I don’t follow this as closesly as others:

First: Is John Boehner’s name pronounced “■■■■■”?

Second: The poor, those who cannot afford health coverage, or uninsured altogether; if they get H1-N1, or let’s say Cancer, what happens to them currently, and what would happen to them under the Republican proposal, and the Democratic proposal? If they go in to seek help, are they turned away because they have no coverage? Isn’t that against the Hypocratic Oath? Do they get treated and the taxpayers just foot the bill?

I’m fortunate enough to have health insurance, so I’m curious as to what is currently happening to those without insurance, and what who be the effects of a change. I’m interested in both Ron, TC, and EU’s opinions.

I wish I could articulate all of this better, and I’m going between this and getting stuff ready for turkey day, but…

Any way you look at it, private insurers stand to make less money, or raise prices to make up the difference.

Okay, first off what exactly is this republican plan? I can post a wish list of what the democrats hope to get out of their plan too, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is all going to happen. I thought I was going to be schooled here. Where is it?

Look, I humored Ron a little with his “how can private compete with public” question, and I do believe they can, but I pose the question: Should they?

Competition amongst insurance companies makes it harder for the insurers to negotiate lower rates with doctors and hospitals. The larger the insurance company, the better rates they can negotiate. It’s like buying in bulk at wholesale. No one wants to point out this little issue, especially from the right, because it just lends more credence to that evil, socialist, universal health care. A single payer would hold all of the customers and be able to negotiate the absolute best rates, and if it were a non-profit, government-run single-payer, then rates would beat ANY private insurance company even if that company had a monopoly over the whole country. The problem with a single-payer, private or public, is they could start to short change the doctors and hospitals. Despite what one slighted poll says, MOST medical providers are in SUPPORT of the public option, because it may mean cha-ching for them. When people who have Blue Cross and Aetna cancel their coverage and move to the public option (or whatever other competitive health insurance company has been freed up to deal with them), Blue Cross and Aetna lose a little of their ability to haggle with the providers.

What I’ve seen of the republican plan looks to cause the exact same negative effects as what is already on the plate, with no real long-term payoff. They just want to stir the pot now and let there be more competition between private insurers, but then you get the same negative results of the Public Option with little long-term benefit.

Oh please, don’t give me those fear tactics, and don’t forget that we have plenty of Canadians and Europeans on this forum who are more than happy with their health care.

tort reform would save massive amounts of money for everyone(except lawyers)…reducing malpractice payouts= lower insurance for doctors=lower costs for patients. Let’s hear what Howard Dean says is the reason for no tort reform in the Democrat bill:

This logic does not even apply. You chose to own a car that may someday cost someone else money, but we all have to have the body we were given, and that body gets old, it gets sick, it gets hurt and unless you plan to just bleed out on your bathroom floor then you will probably have to see a doctor, hospital, or surgeon at some point in your life. Most people will have insurance, just like most people who have cars have liability insurance. Most people without insurance probably can’t afford to pay for their hospital bills, just like most people who don’t have liability insurance can’t afford to pay for someone eases damage should they be in an accident. It is preventive. It would also help everyone get better rates. Wholesale.

And you mention public transit? SOCIALIST!

Honestly it would be for the best, but the Public Option has to be effective to get that way.

This is ridiculous. You should be ashamed for saying such a thing, really.

Indeed it is not. It’s pronounced Bane-er. Which I’m not sure is any better.

Tax payers foot the bill under status quo, or either plan. With a public option, those who cannot afford do to income are given assistance by the government. This money comes from tax payers. When you use an emergency room currently, the bill is typically picked up by tax payers through an navigable maze of bureaucracy and exemptions.

A lot of people currently can not afford medical care, specifically life saving surgeries. It’s a problem and something needs to be done. Unfortunately Big Insurance is lobbying both sides, and getting something they find to work. Coincidence rates are going up as the result of a public option? You kick out the people who can’t afford it and let the government take care of them. Then raise rates on those who can afford to cover the loss.

There is a massive problem with trying to have private companies compete with the government, it does not work. It limits the market and decreases competition which results in increased rates. It’s economics 101.

But I do like TC’s analogy about car insurance, as I just studied this in Torts. It’s not the same. You are forced, by a state government, to have automobile insurance so that the HARM YOU CAUSE TO OTHERS is covered. If the federal government forces us to have health insurance, what liability is being covered up? Where is the insolvent party causing the harm? Apples and Oranges. There is no reason to force someone to have healthcare, and to characterize the plans presented by both sides as anything less than the striping away of our freedom is a great deception.

One size fits all!