The Republican health care bill

Dr.Who

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
6,776
Location
Horse Country
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmFmNzA3MzNlOWRmYTJjY2YwYTk4MmZmZDc2NjJlMDk=&w=MA==

"That is why the CBO’s evaluation of the House Republican alternative is so encouraging. The Republican approach is to focus on lowering costs, which in turn would make coverage easier to afford — and the CBO says this approach would succeed. It estimates that the Republican bill would lower Americans’ insurance premiums — by 5 to 8 percent in the small-group market, up to 3 percent in the large-group market, and 7 to 10 percent in the individual market — while increasing the number of insured by 3 million."

"But the CBO score for the House GOP bill was also extremely positive in another way: It said that the bill would reduce deficits by $68 billion. This, in tandem with the verdict that the bill would lower premiums, provides a prime opportunity for Senate Republicans to advance a proposal that does a better job of reducing the number of uninsured."

"[elsewhere] The CBO has already scored such a tax credit, albeit with somewhat different terms. Based on that prior CBO scoring, this proposal would likely reduce federal revenues by about $190 billion by the end of 2019, while increasing the number of insured by about 12 million. (If it were to insure more, it would reduce revenues by more, and the inverse is also true.) These 12 million people would largely be in addition to the 3 million newly insured from the House Republican bill, and would put a significant dent in the number of uninsured."

(I would add that the number of truly uninsured, those who don't have insurance, are citizens, and want to be insured, is about 13 million.)

"The Senate Democratic bill — as passed by the Senate Finance Committee and now in the hands of Senator Reid — would raise taxes and fines on Americans by over half a trillion dollars. A Republican bill along the lines of the one proposed here wouldn’t impose any new taxes or fines.

The Democratic bill would provide strong incentives for people not to buy insurance until they are already sick or injured, raising premiums for everyone else in the process; the Republican bill would provide strong incentives and opportunities for people to buy insurance, letting them shop across state lines for the best values from coast to coast."

The Democratic bill would fail to end runaway medical-malpractice suits, which cause doctors to practice costly defensive medicine, stop practicing in certain areas, and pass along expensive malpractice premiums to patients; the Republican bill would end such runaway suits, saving the federal government $54 billion over ten years, according to the CBO, and likely saving Americans many times that in health costs.

The Democratic bill would funnel those without employer-provided insurance into government-run exchanges, where plans would look similar because the government would tell companies how they have to look; the Republican bill would keep alive and even expand the private market. The Democratic bill would perpetuate the federal government’s counter-productive limits on allowing private companies to offer lower premiums for healthier lifestyles; the Republican bill would welcome these Safeway-style cost-cutting efforts.

The Democratic bill would require younger Americans to subsidize the premiums of older Americans, banning private companies from offering plans to younger people at their true price; the Republican bill would not impose this heavy burden on young adults. The Democratic bill would limit the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), making it harder for people to control their own health-care dollars and forcing them to pay money to their insurance companies rather than directly to their doctors; the Republican bill would encourage HSAs, private control, and price-consciousness."

The Democratic bill would result in an additional 27 million Americans (29 million people) having insurance, at a cost of $31,000 per newly insured American; the Republican bill would result in about 15 million more Americans having insurance, at a cost of less than $15,000 per newly insured American. Otherwise stated, the Republican bill would newly insure about 15 million Americans per $200 billion spent, compared to fewer than 7 million per $200 billion under the Democratic bill.

The Democratic bill would siphon over $400 billion out of already-barely-solvent Medicare; the Republican bill wouldn’t touch Medicare (aside from the proposal regarding DSH payments). The Democratic bill says that it would cut doctors’ Medicare payments by 25 percent and never raise them back up — making it harder for Medicare patients to find doctors willing to see them; the Republican bill would leave doctors’ payments alone.

Finally, the Democratic bill would likely raise Americans’ insurance premiums substantially; the Republican bill would lower Americans’ insurance premiums significantly — according to the CBO.

The Republican bill would have no obvious weaknesses. Aside from inefficiently and expensively increasing the number of insured, the Democratic bill would have no obvious strengths."

That being said how about we skip both the bills and just have congress create a just society so that all of us can be as productive as possible and earn enough money to be proud of our accomplishments and afford our own care. They broke it and I don't trust either party to fix it. But I trust the Dems less.
 
Werbung:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmFmNzA3MzNlOWRmYTJjY2YwYTk4MmZmZDc2NjJlMDk=&w=MA==

"That is why the CBO’s evaluation of the House Republican alternative is so encouraging. The Republican approach is to focus on lowering costs, which in turn would make coverage easier to afford — and the CBO says this approach would succeed. It estimates that the Republican bill would lower Americans’ insurance premiums — by 5 to 8 percent in the small-group market, up to 3 percent in the large-group market, and 7 to 10 percent in the individual market — while increasing the number of insured by 3 million."

"But the CBO score for the House GOP bill was also extremely positive in another way: It said that the bill would reduce deficits by $68 billion. This, in tandem with the verdict that the bill would lower premiums, provides a prime opportunity for Senate Republicans to advance a proposal that does a better job of reducing the number of uninsured."

"[elsewhere] The CBO has already scored such a tax credit, albeit with somewhat different terms. Based on that prior CBO scoring, this proposal would likely reduce federal revenues by about $190 billion by the end of 2019, while increasing the number of insured by about 12 million. (If it were to insure more, it would reduce revenues by more, and the inverse is also true.) These 12 million people would largely be in addition to the 3 million newly insured from the House Republican bill, and would put a significant dent in the number of uninsured."

(I would add that the number of truly uninsured, those who don't have insurance, are citizens, and want to be insured, is about 13 million.)

"The Senate Democratic bill — as passed by the Senate Finance Committee and now in the hands of Senator Reid — would raise taxes and fines on Americans by over half a trillion dollars. A Republican bill along the lines of the one proposed here wouldn’t impose any new taxes or fines.

The Democratic bill would provide strong incentives for people not to buy insurance until they are already sick or injured, raising premiums for everyone else in the process; the Republican bill would provide strong incentives and opportunities for people to buy insurance, letting them shop across state lines for the best values from coast to coast."

The Democratic bill would fail to end runaway medical-malpractice suits, which cause doctors to practice costly defensive medicine, stop practicing in certain areas, and pass along expensive malpractice premiums to patients; the Republican bill would end such runaway suits, saving the federal government $54 billion over ten years, according to the CBO, and likely saving Americans many times that in health costs.

The Democratic bill would funnel those without employer-provided insurance into government-run exchanges, where plans would look similar because the government would tell companies how they have to look; the Republican bill would keep alive and even expand the private market. The Democratic bill would perpetuate the federal government’s counter-productive limits on allowing private companies to offer lower premiums for healthier lifestyles; the Republican bill would welcome these Safeway-style cost-cutting efforts.

The Democratic bill would require younger Americans to subsidize the premiums of older Americans, banning private companies from offering plans to younger people at their true price; the Republican bill would not impose this heavy burden on young adults. The Democratic bill would limit the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), making it harder for people to control their own health-care dollars and forcing them to pay money to their insurance companies rather than directly to their doctors; the Republican bill would encourage HSAs, private control, and price-consciousness."

The Democratic bill would result in an additional 27 million Americans (29 million people) having insurance, at a cost of $31,000 per newly insured American; the Republican bill would result in about 15 million more Americans having insurance, at a cost of less than $15,000 per newly insured American. Otherwise stated, the Republican bill would newly insure about 15 million Americans per $200 billion spent, compared to fewer than 7 million per $200 billion under the Democratic bill.

The Democratic bill would siphon over $400 billion out of already-barely-solvent Medicare; the Republican bill wouldn’t touch Medicare (aside from the proposal regarding DSH payments). The Democratic bill says that it would cut doctors’ Medicare payments by 25 percent and never raise them back up — making it harder for Medicare patients to find doctors willing to see them; the Republican bill would leave doctors’ payments alone.

Finally, the Democratic bill would likely raise Americans’ insurance premiums substantially; the Republican bill would lower Americans’ insurance premiums significantly — according to the CBO.

The Republican bill would have no obvious weaknesses. Aside from inefficiently and expensively increasing the number of insured, the Democratic bill would have no obvious strengths."

That being said how about we skip both the bills and just have congress create a just society so that all of us can be as productive as possible and earn enough money to be proud of our accomplishments and afford our own care. They broke it and I don't trust either party to fix it. But I trust the Dems less.

You can roll a cow turd in powdered sugar but it's still Bull Sh!t... and that's EXACTLY what this non-plan is.

It still allows insurance companies to disallow for preexisting conditions.

It still allows insurance companies to cap treatment benefits.

And it doesn't insure the uninsured.


It's basically this: Cap judgments so that when some surgeon operates while under the influence of drugs, drunk or hung over or forgets to do an important presurgery test or cuts the wrong leg off the insurance companies only have to pay out a pittance. It basically gives the industry a little subsidy.

And it doesn't reduce the deficit nearly as much as the Democratic plan which insurse virtually everyone.

So here's what the two plans offer if it were a car deal:

DEMOCRATIC PLAN: Everyone gets to buy a nice safe car at a reasonable price. If you can't find a dealer to give you a fair price on a nice safe car you can go to the government lot and buy a nice safe car there.

REPUBLICANT NON-PLAN: Millions still can't get any car. Those with a job offering a discount coupon can get $200 off a car. The car may or may not be safe because the buyers recourse has been limited. On the whole the Republicant cars won't be as good or last as long so it will not save the buyer near as much as the Democratic car in the long run.

Now is the Republicant plan a little cheaper going in. Yes. So is walking compared to having a car. That's your whole point.:rolleyes:

No one is fooled by this type of Republicant malarkey!:eek:


Watch this my friends... the Republicants have used a lot of powdered sugar at your expense already.

 
you know if Republians want in on this? they had 8 years did nothing..and also could have worked with the new bills...but no they yelled death panals and screamed that it was going to tell our troops to kill themself, fund abortions for all, give full coverage to Illegals and we would pay for it...tried to add as many amendments as they could just to make it so you can't vote on it, and stalled as much as possible...

maybe next time they can try working with, not just yelling NO NO NO NO NO NO NO FACIST NAZI HITLER COMMUNIST!
 
you know if Republians want in on this? they had 8 years did nothing..and also could have worked with the new bills...but no they yelled death panals and screamed that it was going to tell our troops to kill themself, fund abortions for all, give full coverage to Illegals and we would pay for it...tried to add as many amendments as they could just to make it so you can't vote on it, and stalled as much as possible...

maybe next time they can try working with, not just yelling NO NO NO NO NO NO NO FACIST NAZI HITLER COMMUNIST!

That is a good point.

As a conservative I don't want any of their solutions because I know that both the pubs and the dems will just make things worse. So I am glad that the pubs did not do much during their time.
 
It still allows insurance companies to disallow for preexisting conditions.

The purpose of insurance is to pay a small premium now on the chance that one will have an unexpected expense later. If one insures conditions that one expects with 100% certainty because one already has it then it stops being insurance. Buy an empty lot that once had a house burn down on it and see if you can get insurance to cover the cinder-house should it burn down.
It still allows insurance companies to cap treatment benefits.

When a person buys a policy they only pay so much. They get what they pay for. You cant have limited premiums and unlimited payouts. Try going to wal mart and asking if you can buy an unlimited number of carts full of stuff for the price of just one cart.
And it doesn't insure the uninsured.


If they are uninsured then insurance would not cover them. Kind of obvious. But this bill does provide them a means of becoming insured for less than the dem plan.

I would say that your three objections are some of the stupidest things I have ever seen in print. You may be very intelligent but those three things deserve a prize.
 
Health Care Coverage in this country will never be good it will always be bad whether its the government selling it or the private health insurance companies. We don't care and we never will. I don't know why Obama is even bothering with it. If Americans like getting screwed around with their health care then so be it. All were doing is beating a dead horse with this.
 
The purpose of insurance is to pay a small premium now on the chance that one will have an unexpected expense later. If one insures conditions that one expects with 100% certainty because one already has it then it stops being insurance. Buy an empty lot that once had a house burn down on it and see if you can get insurance to cover the cinder-house should it burn down.

You point out the need very well and I'm sure you don't even see it.

Health... living... shouldn't be a playing the odds in some insurance company risk pool game. THESE ARE PEOPLE! You would have them loose everything, their homes, their family out on the street poor because they were born with a medical condition or grew ill.

That is why you cannot prevail.

WHATEVER YOU DID UNTO ONE OF THE LEAST,
YOU DID UNTO ME

Jesus


When a person buys a policy they only pay so much. They get what they pay for. You cant have limited premiums and unlimited payouts. Try going to wal mart and asking if you can buy an unlimited number of carts full of stuff for the price of just one cart.

And again you prove why the system we have now is set up on the wrong model. Appreciate it.

If they are uninsured then insurance would not cover them. Kind of obvious. But this bill does provide them a means of becoming insured for less than the dem plan.

Look Mr. Copperfield it's BS...:rolleyes: the Republicant nonbill is not really doing squat and you know it. That's why you're pushing it. You want as close to status quo as possible.

The Democratic Bill is REAL Health Insurance Reform. It's been blocked a little by the Obstructionist Party from it's best and least expensive form of pure single payer but it will show the benefits of a public option and that will make the case for later down the road.


I would say that your three objections are some of the stupidest things I have ever seen in print. You may be very intelligent but those three things deserve a prize.

You mean me thinking that we need to find a way to offer health insurance to every American, not push Americans with preexisting conditions out or limit the payments on treatments?

And not going for an your & the insurance companies dog & pony show?

Their BIG REFORM limiting the amounts a family can be awarded by a jury of their peers when some surgeon doesn't look at their patients cart and gives a lethal doze of anesthetic or cuts off the wrong leg on my grandmother (which by the way is only one third of one percent of healthcare costs). One that allows people to buy insurance across state lines but still allows the collusion between those companies to price fix anywhere in the country.

THAT'S STUPID!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

Or may it's this... Your dog won't hunt.:)



 
You point out the need very well and I'm sure you don't even see it. [/B][/COLOR]

Health... living... shouldn't be a playing the odds in some insurance company risk pool game. THESE ARE PEOPLE! You would have them loose everything, their homes, their family out on the street poor because they were born with a medical condition or grew ill.

People will always be playing the odds that they will get sick or not - no one can control that.

People will always be subject to economics, either an insurance company or their own resources will run out of cash or the government will run out of cash. But we should be better off free and out of cash than enslaved and out of cash.

Do you see that you are no longer arguing that lives need to be saved (because everyone has health care) and you are now arguing that assets need to be saved (because that is what this has always been about)?

We should also note that under the present system when people fall ill to an expensive condition they may lose assets but their families do not end up on the streets. They move to apartments. There is simply no justification for forcing all americans to pay taxes so that some don't have to move to apartments.
 
People will always be playing the odds that they will get sick or not - no one can control that.

People will always be subject to economics, either an insurance company or their own resources will run out of cash or the government will run out of cash. But we should be better off free and out of cash than enslaved and out of cash.

Do you see that you are no longer arguing that lives need to be saved (because everyone has health care) and you are now arguing that assets need to be saved (because that is what this has always been about)?

We should also note that under the present system when people fall ill to an expensive condition they may lose assets but their families do not end up on the streets. They move to apartments. There is simply no justification for forcing all americans to pay taxes so that some don't have to move to apartments.

The goal is to take the odds away.

If people and business is penalized if they don't follow the Health Insurance Reform rules then they will pay one way or another. Might as well play by the rules.

And I haven't changed arguing a single point the same way I always have. People DIE do to lack of health insurance. And millions more just have a much lower quality of life do to their medical conditions without ongoing quality treatment. These are just facts... you can talk it to death but they won't change.

As far as families loosing everthing they have & their homes due to medical bills and how that's such a no big deal " just apartment" thing. You won't know how significant that really is until it happens to you.

God have mercy on your soul.



 
The goal is to take the odds away.[/B]

Then the best thing to do is to make it so that we have a productive economy in which the most people can afford insurance if they want it.

If people and business is penalized if they don't follow the Health Insurance Reform rules then they will pay one way or another. Might as well play by the rules.

For all you readers: "Do what the gov says or be punished"
And I haven't changed arguing a single point the same way I always have. People DIE do to lack of health insurance. And millions more just have a much lower quality of life do to their medical conditions without ongoing quality treatment. These are just facts... you can talk it to death but they won't change.

Your study is fatally flawed. People don;t die to to lack of private insurance they die because they don't access health care in a timely way even though they could have. And all people can have access to public insurance called public aid. They cannot logically die due to lack of insurance if there is a free option available. They can logically die if they don't take advantage of the free insurance.

As far as families loosing everthing they have & their homes due to medical bills and how that's such a no big deal " just apartment" thing. You won't know how significant that really is until it happens to you.

It could happen to me and it could happen to you and it could happen to anyone. But it is not the responsiblity of the US gov to provide homes for people.
God have mercy on your soul. [/COLOR]

You are attempting to make me look like a bad person because I recognize that the role of gov is not to provide homes for people. I have never once said that people should not be helped to have homes. But when have you helped anyone get a home? (I would add that I have personally helped people to get homes in several different ways)
 
Werbung:

It is illogical to try to make an argument based on the strength of the authority who claims it rather than on the basis of the argument itself.

It is equally illogical to try to refute an argument for the same reason.


The facts and conclusions are true or false regardless of who said them.

Try refuting the facts rather than the national Review. Also realize that if you are going to refute the source that the original source was the CBO. The NR just copied and added commentary.
 
Back
Top