747tech 0
Recommended Posts
Stumpy 256
Thats a REALLY long winded way of saying "we got nuthin'"
Never try to eat more than you can lift
funjumper101The Republican Party, and right wing conservatives in general, adamantly oppose the ACA.
What exactly is the proposed alternative to the ACA?
No ACA which would be better except for people poor but not poor enough for Medicaid, or old/infirm but not enough for Medicare and with the old and infirm having neither veterans' benefits nor employer plans.
[QUOTE]
How about links to articles or opinion pieces that clearly outline the Republican/Conservative plans for providing the ~50 million people without health insurance some form of affordable health care?q
[/QUOTE]
Before the shenanigans I was paying $80/month for my adult son's plan not $155. While the old plan didn't cover as much preventative care, healthy young people won't use enough of that to account for $900 worth of difference.
[QUOTE]
In this case I am not deliberately being a dick. I really want to know what the proposed alternatives are.
[/QUOTE]
Most people had access to affordable insurance before ACA passed. Many decided they'd rather have big cable/satellite packages and pocket computers with internet access, and while unfortunate that wasn't costing the rest of us very much with only 5.9% of hospital costs going uncollected.
While helping those without access is a fine idea, the right approach would have been expanding existing not-for-profit government insurance and health care services like Medicare and the Veterans Affairs hospital system NOT requiring people to buy insurance from private for-profit companies allowed to markup everything they sell by 25% with no limit and providing help for those earning up to the 75% income level (assuming a family of 4) to spend more where similar government cash infusions and other market manipulations have caused eduction cost increases to quadruple inflation since 1980.
ACA was supposedly about helping people, not helping the health care industries profit more at our expense.
StumpyThats a REALLY long winded way of saying "we got nuthin'"
-----------------------------------------------
That's because obamacare in itself, currently is a whole lotta nuthin.
Are you proud of this?
"In this case I am not deliberately being a dick. I really want to know what the proposed alternatives are."
I don't think you're being a dick. Your question is asked in good faith but before you can get solutions from the Republicans…you have to remember the political calculus involved here with the added understanding that timing is a critical factor in politics.
What I'm about to posit may seem cynical but it's part of how the game is played under our system of government.
Why would the Republicans want to tip their hand now? The "Republican Brand" is still in the dumper despite the initial adverse effects the ACA is producing i.e. people either losing their policies or the prices are going through the roof. The thing the Republicans should do right now is NOTHING…let the ACA take full effect and if the projections play out i.e. 50 to 100 million Americans either lose their healthcare OR the price increases, that's when the $#!t and the kitchen sink will hit the fan and no Republican wants to be in the track of what is about to hit the Democrats. If the Republicans propose anything now, it takes the focus off of the debacle that is the ACA and gives the Democrats something to hang around the Republicans neck. With one law and opposing proposal in play, a debate results when the real strategy should be to let the Democrats hang and twist in the wind. Or to use another analogy…when your adversary is digging themselves into a hole, don't give them a shovel to let them get out. In fact, DO NOTHING…just let em' keep digging.
Even if the Senate flips to Republican control and the House stays in Republican control, it now becomes a numbers game…the number to override a presidential veto. The Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate and House voting separately on the vetoed bill for the bill to become law. Obama has said that as long as he's President, the ACA will stay as the law. For the ACA to be repealed therefore, you need a House and Senate that are both in opposition and veto proof. By my count, that means in the 2014 elections, the Republicans will have to increase their seats in the House and Senate to 292 Representatives and 67 Senators. Possible yes but quite a reach. if it were to happen, it would be a major political earthquake. But for the best chance of it to happen, the full pain and resulting electorate fury of the ACA just might to take effect.
If Boehner and McConnell are smart, they say little and propose nothing. Maybe after the pain of the ACA is inflicted to a degree that the electorate has had enough of Obamacare, then and only then will the Republican counterproposals get a listening audience.
I don't think you're being a dick. Your question is asked in good faith but before you can get solutions from the Republicans…you have to remember the political calculus involved here with the added understanding that timing is a critical factor in politics.
What I'm about to posit may seem cynical but it's part of how the game is played under our system of government.
Why would the Republicans want to tip their hand now? The "Republican Brand" is still in the dumper despite the initial adverse effects the ACA is producing i.e. people either losing their policies or the prices are going through the roof. The thing the Republicans should do right now is NOTHING…let the ACA take full effect and if the projections play out i.e. 50 to 100 million Americans either lose their healthcare OR the price increases, that's when the $#!t and the kitchen sink will hit the fan and no Republican wants to be in the track of what is about to hit the Democrats. If the Republicans propose anything now, it takes the focus off of the debacle that is the ACA and gives the Democrats something to hang around the Republicans neck. With one law and opposing proposal in play, a debate results when the real strategy should be to let the Democrats hang and twist in the wind. Or to use another analogy…when your adversary is digging themselves into a hole, don't give them a shovel to let them get out. In fact, DO NOTHING…just let em' keep digging.
Even if the Senate flips to Republican control and the House stays in Republican control, it now becomes a numbers game…the number to override a presidential veto. The Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate and House voting separately on the vetoed bill for the bill to become law. Obama has said that as long as he's President, the ACA will stay as the law. For the ACA to be repealed therefore, you need a House and Senate that are both in opposition and veto proof. By my count, that means in the 2014 elections, the Republicans will have to increase their seats in the House and Senate to 292 Representatives and 67 Senators. Possible yes but quite a reach. if it were to happen, it would be a major political earthquake. But for the best chance of it to happen, the full pain and resulting electorate fury of the ACA just might to take effect.
If Boehner and McConnell are smart, they say little and propose nothing. Maybe after the pain of the ACA is inflicted to a degree that the electorate has had enough of Obamacare, then and only then will the Republican counterproposals get a listening audience.
Stumpy 256
regulator***Thats a REALLY long winded way of saying "we got nuthin'"
-----------------------------------------------
That's because obamacare in itself, currently is a whole lotta nuthin.
Are you proud of this?
In which case - why are you whining so much?
Never try to eat more than you can lift
davjohns 1
You started out by subsuming the Republican Party within a larger group you labeled Right Wing Conservatives. That alone indicates you have made your mind up and don't need facts.
But then you went further and demanded that someone provide you a solution without explaining that there was a problem.
Illegal aliens were getting free healthcare. Anyone who reported to a County Hospital got free healthcare. Illegal aliens were getting Medicaid...free prescriptions, free doctor visits, etc.
So, first we needed to identify and define a problem. The problem wasn't that people couldn't get healthcare. But you have now used health insurance and health care in one sentence as if they are synonymous. So maybe we need to start with a dictionary and define common terms?
I'm sorry, but your question started out with non-sequiturs and reversals of logic. It then confused terms and demanded evidence of a better solution to an undefined problem. That's not much of an argument for ACA.
I'm not necessarily against a universal health system. This one just doesn't seem to have been thought out, cooperatively imposed, wanted by the American People...a whole bunch of problems. Arguing that your opponents weren't working hard enough to give you what you want just doesn't justify all the mitsakes, lies, and wasted money.
But then you went further and demanded that someone provide you a solution without explaining that there was a problem.
Illegal aliens were getting free healthcare. Anyone who reported to a County Hospital got free healthcare. Illegal aliens were getting Medicaid...free prescriptions, free doctor visits, etc.
So, first we needed to identify and define a problem. The problem wasn't that people couldn't get healthcare. But you have now used health insurance and health care in one sentence as if they are synonymous. So maybe we need to start with a dictionary and define common terms?
I'm sorry, but your question started out with non-sequiturs and reversals of logic. It then confused terms and demanded evidence of a better solution to an undefined problem. That's not much of an argument for ACA.
I'm not necessarily against a universal health system. This one just doesn't seem to have been thought out, cooperatively imposed, wanted by the American People...a whole bunch of problems. Arguing that your opponents weren't working hard enough to give you what you want just doesn't justify all the mitsakes, lies, and wasted money.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
tkhayes 126
The Republican platform is available on their website and it is a whole lot of nothing. They do not want govt. That is their mandate.
Fine, but most of the country wants to solve problems, not create them. having hundreds of thousands of poor and sick people in your country is one of the 'problems' that those 'commie socialistic progressives' would like to fix, as would many Republicans.
The right wing solution is to do nothing. Individuals should be personally responsible. Fine as an ideology, does not work in real life. The progressive solution (in part) is to mandate some sort of protections to help people from being sick and poor.
We mandate a lot of things to better the health and welfare of society as a whole, not necessarily the individual as 'one'.
Fine, but most of the country wants to solve problems, not create them. having hundreds of thousands of poor and sick people in your country is one of the 'problems' that those 'commie socialistic progressives' would like to fix, as would many Republicans.
The right wing solution is to do nothing. Individuals should be personally responsible. Fine as an ideology, does not work in real life. The progressive solution (in part) is to mandate some sort of protections to help people from being sick and poor.
We mandate a lot of things to better the health and welfare of society as a whole, not necessarily the individual as 'one'.
TIETZE 0
HR1321
[url]http://scalise.house.gov/bill/american-health-care-reform-act
•Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs.
•Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.
•Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.
•Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.
•Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.
•Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.
•Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.
[url]http://scalise.house.gov/bill/american-health-care-reform-act
•Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs.
•Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.
•Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.
•Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.
•Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.
•Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.
•Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.
davjohns 1
I think you're falling into a classic over-statement. I don't imagine there are many Republicans who are truly anarchists. Personally, I want minimal government, but a certain amount is necessary.
I'm pretty sure most everyone in the country wants to solve problems and not create them. The others are often called terrorists and criminals.
For sick people, we have a pretty good healthcare system. People come here from the rest of the world to partake in it.
As to poor...well...I doubt many people WANT poor people to exist. The problem is that some people are perfectly happy at a standard of living that you and I would never embrace. There are some people who just want a hand out and will not work to improve their status. That's just a fact of life. There are others who want a hand up and would be glad to work to improve their status. Some people are milking the system and some are not getting what they need and should get. The problem is how to make the system more efficient; not pumping in more or less money to the system. I don't hear anyone talking about that because making things work doesn't pit people against each other and get them out to vote.
You seem to lean toward that, "Evil Republicans want to step on the little guy, keep people down, etc." Others lean toward the, "commie socialistic progressives" side. Personally, I think those are both constructs to allow parties to manipulate voter bases.
Very few people who vote Democrat want to eliminate all national defense, throw open the borders, castrate people for making good money, abort all babies, etc. Very few Republicans are actually heartless when it comes to poor, immigration, healthcare, etc. There is some disagreement on how to fix things and where to draw lines. I really think those things could be figured out if it weren't for all the Conservitard vs Libertard rhetoric.
I'm pretty sure most everyone in the country wants to solve problems and not create them. The others are often called terrorists and criminals.
For sick people, we have a pretty good healthcare system. People come here from the rest of the world to partake in it.
As to poor...well...I doubt many people WANT poor people to exist. The problem is that some people are perfectly happy at a standard of living that you and I would never embrace. There are some people who just want a hand out and will not work to improve their status. That's just a fact of life. There are others who want a hand up and would be glad to work to improve their status. Some people are milking the system and some are not getting what they need and should get. The problem is how to make the system more efficient; not pumping in more or less money to the system. I don't hear anyone talking about that because making things work doesn't pit people against each other and get them out to vote.
You seem to lean toward that, "Evil Republicans want to step on the little guy, keep people down, etc." Others lean toward the, "commie socialistic progressives" side. Personally, I think those are both constructs to allow parties to manipulate voter bases.
Very few people who vote Democrat want to eliminate all national defense, throw open the borders, castrate people for making good money, abort all babies, etc. Very few Republicans are actually heartless when it comes to poor, immigration, healthcare, etc. There is some disagreement on how to fix things and where to draw lines. I really think those things could be figured out if it weren't for all the Conservitard vs Libertard rhetoric.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
kallend 1,628
lawrocket[Reply]How about links to articles or opinion pieces that clearly outline the Republican/Conservative plans for providing the ~50 million people without health insurance some form of affordable health care?
Why must there be a plan on how to deal with it?
Because of things like this:
www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/health/as-hospital-costs-soar-single-stitch-tops-500.html?_r=0
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,628
TIETZEHR1321
http://scalise.house.gov/bill/american-health-care-reform-act
•Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,628
davjohns
ForsickRICH people, we have a pretty good healthcare system. People come here from the rest of the world to partake in it.
As to poor...well...
FIFY
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Stumpy******Thats a REALLY long winded way of saying "we got nuthin'"
-----------------------------------------------
That's because obamacare in itself, currently is a whole lotta nuthin.
Are you proud of this?
In which case - why are you whining so much?
At which point in me pointing out to you that obamacare is a trainwreck does that sound like me whining? You must be so used to being associated with a policial side that does nothing but whine it must be second nature to you. Your lame political attempt at subterfuge has no effect on me. Try harder...much harder.
wmw999 2,123
BTW folks, the NY Times article is very good, with data as well as anecdotes.
What we had before is whacked. What we have with Obamacare might be less whacked, but at least it will provide a second data point.
Wendy P.
What we had before is whacked. What we have with Obamacare might be less whacked, but at least it will provide a second data point.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
kallend 1,628
wmw999BTW folks, the NY Times article is very good, with data as well as anecdotes.
What we had before is whacked. What we have with Obamacare might be less whacked, but at least it will provide a second data point.
Wendy P.
Where we should be is on or above this line instead of far below and to the right of it. Maybe ACA will move us closer. Certainly NOTHING the GOP has proposed will move us closer.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend***[Reply]How about links to articles or opinion pieces that clearly outline the Republican/Conservative plans for providing the ~50 million people without health insurance some form of affordable health care?
Why must there be a plan on how to deal with it?
Because of things like this:
www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/health/as-hospital-costs-soar-single-stitch-tops-500.html?_r=0
And what is the underlying reason for that?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,628
lawrocket******[Reply]How about links to articles or opinion pieces that clearly outline the Republican/Conservative plans for providing the ~50 million people without health insurance some form of affordable health care?
Why must there be a plan on how to deal with it?
Because of things like this:
www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/health/as-hospital-costs-soar-single-stitch-tops-500.html?_r=0
And what is the underlying reason for that?
No system in place to prevent it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
RonD1120 58
funjumper101The Republican Party, and right wing conservatives in general, adamantly oppose the ACA.
What exactly is the proposed alternative to the ACA?
Can anyone provide links to the bills that have been introduced in the Senate, or the House, that are the alternatives to the ACA?
How about links to articles or opinion pieces that clearly outline the Republican/Conservative plans for providing the ~50 million people without health insurance some form of affordable health care?
In this case I am not deliberately being a dick. I really want to know what the proposed alternatives are.
Surely there has to be something, somewhere that the "liberal media" has refused to publicize.
In your question, Republicans and right wing conservatives cannot be considered synonymous.
Right wing conservatives, in general, believe folks should be responsible for themselves and provide accordingly. In my RWC community those having difficulty receive assistance from the community and local churches. We have several doctors and medical professionals providing "free clinic" service. That is, no insurance acceptable, cash or trade only.
The median age here is 51 and there are a lot of folks in my age group and older that are living healthy. I find this longevity outstanding since about 25% of the adults here are obese.
When SHTF finally occurs, this community will probably consider it a shame for other folks.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
turtlespeed 212
StumpyThats a REALLY long winded way of saying "we got nuthin'"
Google is your friend . . .
Try "Republican alternative to ACA"
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
rushmc 18
turtlespeed***Thats a REALLY long winded way of saying "we got nuthin'"
Google is your friend . . .
Try "Republican alternative to ACA"
To me
I do not uderstand why an alternative is needed to something that was not needed in the firest place
So, what was not needed needs to be removed
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
funjumper101 15
rushmc******Thats a REALLY long winded way of saying "we got nuthin'"
Google is your friend . . .
Try "Republican alternative to ACA"
To me
I do not uderstand why an alternative is needed to something that was not needed in the firest place
So, what was not needed needs to be removed
Not needed? Really? Could you please elaborate on this line of reasoning?
I would be very interested to hear an explanation of how denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is of benefit to any citizen of the USA.
I would be very interested to hear an explanation of how having a lifetime cap on medical insurance payouts is of benefit to any citizen of the USA.
I would be very interested to hear how having medical bills be the proximate cause of ~75% of bankruptcy filings is of benefit to any citizen of the USA..
Based on the responses in this thread so far, the "we got nuthin" statement is dead nuts accurate.
Explain how a government forcing the youth of america to foot the bill for those with pre existing conditions is a workable solution. Explain to me why a healthy 23 year old would want to take away part of their possibly meager income for something they probably wont need. Obamacare is a joke in itself.
Why must there be a plan on how to deal with it? Here's my plan: scrap EMTALA. Then, leave it to the individual states.
Want public health care? Move to Massachusetts. That's what the federal system allows. Other states can do what Massachusetts does. And if a person in Massachusetts doesn't like it then that person can go someplace else.
On the same note, what is the Democrats' proposal for the tens of millions who will lose plans that they like? What are the Democrats' plans for the millions of people who will be unisured 30 days from now? What are the Democrats' proposals for lowering the cost of healthcare in the US?
I ask this because the Democrats have just created a shitload of new problems in their effort to fix a problem that was created in significant part by government fixes to problems.
Fundamentally, your post recognizes that the ACA is a broken law with deeply flawed execution. Kinda what those of us opposed to it said it would be.
About what the liberal media hasn't uncovered; "If you like it you can keep it.". That was shown to be false. So the President decided on another policy to make it so that if you like it you can still keep it. Until September, 2015 at the latest. So you can't keep it. Nope. Not gonna happen unless the President decides again to delay implementation of this law.
There are, indeed, big problems with this law. Some believe that the problems are worse than what it set out to fix. Others disagree.
Your question is like, "has any lineral proposed an alternative to the problem of having a strong military?" Or, "has any civil libertarian addressed how we can be secure from terrorism without NSA snooping and warrantless wiretaps?"
It's an indication that the value system itself is the issue. A civil libertarian says, "danger is the cost of freedom." The other side is that "security is worthy to sacrifice liberty."
You believe that the millions of uninsured are a bigger problem than government commanding everybody to purchase something or be fined. I disagree - I think that a command economy is an inherent evil, even if I already have the product.
Those viewpoints cannot be reconciled. I could ask, "What plan to the Democrats have to prevent the economic damage caused by forcing people to pay for insurance or get fined?" Many Democrats don't see that as a problem so much as an intended consequence.
+1
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites