Why Republicans Are Truly Against the Healthcare Bill

Originally posted by fraterormus

However, the Republican Party has been steadfast against the Healthcare Bill currently before Congress. Other than it being sponsored by the Democrats and not wanting them to get all the credit, there hasn't been any good reasons why they would be against it.

So then how do you explain those of us who are not Republicans and are against the health care bill? Is actually reading the bill a good enough reason to be against it?

reply to post by Jenna


Jenna, I'm curious as to what sections of the Bill you found problems with.

Can you point them out for me?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Xtinguish
Has anyone here for this particular health care bill actually read it?

I suppose page 22 on the HC bill which MANDATES the govt will audit the books of ALL employers that self insure isn't a cause for concern?

That they are running a survey to see the cost difference of large insured companies and self insured companies all over the country? *gasp* the horrors?

This is one of the lies the right is propagating.

What about page 24 section on 116 which limits private health insurance prices? No concern there?

(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan 6 that uses a provider network for items and services shall 7 meet such standards respecting provider networks as the 8 Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of 9 such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items 10 and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differen11 tials between in-network coverage and out-of-network cov12 erage.

So that insurance companies can't limit the in network provider so they can rake people over the coals when they can't see an in-network provider? Or the few choices they have are not reasonable.

People who live in big cities with lots of providers forget that many Americans live in areas that have few options.

And considering that the number of PCP or general practitioners are declining(because of private health insurance demanding much but paying little) those options are getting slimmer.

I have known women who have had to drive to another state to see an ob/gyn because their areas didn't have any.

Is this American health care? If so where's the restriction on illegal immigrants, or is America's wealthy suppose to pay for them too?

No, you have to be a legal citizen to get the healthcare.

SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.

‘‘(6) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.— Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a plan for the implementation and enforcement, by not later than 5 years after such date of enactment, of the standards under this section. Such plan shall include—

‘‘(E) an estimate of total funds needed to ensure timely completion of the implementation plan; and

With this bill Congress has NO CLUE what electronic medical records will cost. Yeah, that's something smart to leave out in an downward economy.

I think they have a pretty good idea condiering that is what part of the HIPAA act was about.

Why do groups like ACORN and Americorp get to work on signing people up for govt health care? Is there actually people out here who trust these organizations?

Again, another lie propagated. You must of read the the right wing smear phamplet.

THE BILL SAYS "APPROPRIATE ENTITIES" WILL HELP WITH ENROLLMENT. DOESN'T MENTION ACORN OR AMERICORPS.

Why does the bill protect govt health care and not private? Why does the bill protect the govt from any judicial action from price fixing? So they can price fix private insurance right out of the market?

No judicial review of gov't rate negotiations. But gov't won't be a monopoly, and this only pertains to the public plan, which is completely voluntary. Doctors can choose to not contract with a public plan.

So you see there is much concern with this bill rather then simply wanting to screw the children. It's a bill designed to wipe out private health care insurance.

But if public insurance is so horrible and can't run insurance or anything else for that matter, how could they be so sauve? And, if they are that bad, then that will drive customers to the private sector.

The new America: Gimme what I want and have someone else pay for it.

I wonder how many people who say this supported the war in Iraq. "to thwart terrorism and keep us safe."

But since when should we have to pay to keep others safe?

Everyone will be paying. I fail to see how people won't pay for it.

The old America: Let a for profit company inflate prices at will, keep it unafforadable for many, and not even gaurentee services despite people being insured.

Damn the republicans, damn them to hell.... The democrats too.

It's too bad for the extreme left Washington elite and the Obama administration that they seem to believe that only the "republicans" are against THEIR health care reform bill... Because republican opposition is entirely irrelevant.

People from all walks of life, all economic status, races, and even political parties have had time to read the bill, and educate themselves despite the state run media lies, distortions and propaganda... The true agenda has been and is being exposed, the AMERICAN people are waking up!

Bottom line, it doesn't matter why the republicans are against THEIR health care reform bill.

It does matter why so many American citizens are against it, in time the Washington elite and the Obama administration will learn just how important this overlooked factor really is.

Originally posted by Rams59lb
reply to post by fraterormus

 

Both GOP and DNC are in the pockets of the Big Pharma and Insurance Companies! It's all again calling Healthcare reform when it is all a distraction period. It's not reform, it's rebuilding it all together. Both parties suck, we do need real reform but neither party will do anything to fix it.

Well there was this,
Obama's health care plan helped by drug industry
srnnews.townhall.com...

Then there was this,
Obama Reverses Stand on Drug Industry Deal
www.nytimes.com...

Which end is up?



[edit on 023131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I haven't made it all the way through yet, 1000 pages is quite a read, but there are several things already in the first 50 pages that I have concerns about. Redhatty started a thread here with the goal of going through the specific sections of the bill that Peter Fleckenstein has been making claims about and posting those sections to determine the validity of his claims without all the political name-calling and sniping that's happening in other threads on the subject. You're more than welcome I'm sure to come comb through the bill as well since people on both sides of the issue were requested to help with the research.

A few examples so far (quoted text is the claim, external is from the bill):

PG 22 MANDATES the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

(2) REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable agencies a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1). Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers

Not only will they be auditing the books of every employer who self-insures, they'll also be making sure those employers have no incentive to do so.

PG 30 Line 123 THERE WILL BE A Government COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

The text from this one is too long to quote here as well, but it can be found here. Based on the text of the bill, this one is true.

Like I said, I haven't made it through the entire bill yet. These two things alone give me reason to pause though.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Jenna]

A worthwhile read:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

(emphasis mine)

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform

reply to post by nixie_nox


Nixie thanks for pointing those things out!



reply to post by Jenna



Jenna thanks for the invite... I'll step on over there for a read. I'd love to contribute where I can.


reply to post by schrodingers dog


SD, as usual, top shelf contributions!


[edit on 8-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

As you know the United States is the only developed nation in the world without a healthcare system.

It is not a matter of political ideology it is a simple matter of human priorities.

Not to mention how fast a "personal responsibility" libertarian would run for assistance if he or his loved ones got gravely ill without insurance.

And no thanks, but this American citizen does not wish to move to Cuba or anywhere else.
Doing the right thing right here will be just fine.

And if every other country was performing euthanasia, then we should as well?


Want reform? Get the government out of health care. Plain and simple. They created the mess.


The less government does, the better. Period. Let's do the right thing, yes. That involves kicking the government out of everything. Let the people handle it.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
A worthwhile read:

. . .

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform

Apparently our Representatives aren't the only ones who do not like to read

Originally posted by nixie_nox

That they are running a survey to see the cost difference of large insured companies and self insured companies all over the country? *gasp* the horrors?

SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES (b) STUDY AND REPORTS.—

(1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:

(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.

Where's the detail on the information they can go after? There is none, it leaves the door wide open FOR ANYTHING. What's to stop the information from being required by the IRS or SEC?

Originally posted by nixie_nox

So that insurance companies can't limit the in network provider so they can rake people over the coals when they can't see an in-network provider? Or the few choices they have are not reasonable.

People who live in big cities with lots of providers forget that many Americans live in areas that have few options.

And considering that the number of PCP or general practitioners are declining(because of private health insurance demanding much but paying little) those options are getting slimmer.

I have known women who have had to drive to another state to see an ob/gyn because their areas didn't have any.

Page 2 Sec. 116 - Ensuring value and lower premiums, requires qualified plans to meet a specified medical loss ratio as defined by the Health Choices Commissioner. If plans exceed that limit, rebates to enrollees are required.

What's to stop a regulation of high required loss ratio could limiting how much participating private plans could charge?

Originally posted by nixie_nox

No, you have to be a legal citizen to get the healthcare.

THE BILL: SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

Where's the specific exemption to bar illegals from U.S. health care? Find it for me.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

THE BILL SAYS "APPROPRIATE ENTITIES" WILL HELP WITH ENROLLMENT. DOESN'T MENTION ACORN OR AMERICORPS.

It doesn't specify any group! ACORN is already providing our census services. Give me one reason why we should think they wouldn't be used in this manner as well?

Originally posted by nixie_nox

But if public insurance is so horrible and can't run insurance or anything else for that matter, how could they be so sauve? And, if they are that bad, then that will drive customers to the private sector.

Not if the private insurance is unaffordable.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

I wonder how many people who say this supported the war in Iraq. "to thwart terrorism and keep us safe."

But since when should we have to pay to keep others safe?

Everyone will be paying. I fail to see how people won't pay for it.

The old America: Let a for profit company inflate prices at will, keep it unafforadable for many, and not even gaurentee services despite people being insured.

A study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation finds that the 5.4% surtax on top wage-earners proposed by House Democrats to help fund health care reform would push top tax rates over 50% in 39 states.

"That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest top tax rate would be about 47% --and that's in the nine states that don't tax wages."

The proposal imposes a new surtax of 1 percent on married couples who earn between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000). Couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000) would have a 1.5 percent surtax imposes. Couples who make more than $1 million, and singles who make more than $800,000, would face a 5.4% surtax.

Are you giving half your wages to taxes?





[edit on 8-8-2009 by Xtinguish]

reply to post by fraterormus


Uh, no. We're against the health care bill because it's a bureaucracy. And insurance companies have no difference to government bureaucracies other than an insurance company has to keep some level of decency or you'll leave.

The only way it can work is with a bowl of money available to pay doctors for whatever they need to do. Nothing more, nothing less. No legislature, no bureaucracy, no anything. Just a small checks and balance to prevent extortion and corruption. But that alone is unsustainable for now. So a food stamp system in transition would do until we get there.

Form Physchic Intuitive: www.youtube.com...

It is suggested here that Obama will attempt to represent the everyday American instead of just filling the pockets of corporate executives and befriending the special interest groups that have overrun Washington.

...it is his destiny ...to be... the sacrificial lamb. Disturbingly, this is suggesting that Obama will not live through his first term, and is a prediction of sorts. However... some predictions made in DTM's have come true whilst others have not.

The above link is to a interesting 6 minute video.

This was a deep trance meditation session by Douglas James Cottrell who like Edgar Cayce claims to have access to the akashic records.

If my understanding is correct in this video he also says that Obama should be careful and less trusting as the people who have in the past been in power and have money will possibly attempt to assassinate him.

Another video addresses "Who killed JFK" and "Dulce NM".

reply to post by Gorman91


My husband works for the government and even though he is "top management" he must sign in and sign out in front of his staff when he arrives and leaves just like everybody else. He is held very accountable for every single penny. He has a company car (5 years old and must log in every single mile and penny he spends / he can only use his company car to go to and from work and to check on other properties). He cannot use the car for going to the store, vet, etc.

Now, I work for a Private Corporation and our managers come and go as they please, have company cars, talk on the phone planning their two hour lunches............etc

The top manager in our department makes 120,000 per year. My husband (same position/Government) 90,000. a year

Why? Corporations are not regulated. Why do you think so many Americans are losing their homes?

Could it be no jobs because the private corporations have been allowed to outsource to India and China?

Could it be that if you are unemployed or your insurance company decides your "medical issue" isn't coverable you are stuck with a 100,000 bill and have to foreclose to pay a doctor that is just in medicine for the money?

People wake up - if everyone doesn't start caring about each other and stop only thinking of themselves EVERYONE but a handful of the richest MFS are going to go down together.

My niece lived in France for four years. They have wonderful government regulated healthcare.

Wake the heck up will you.

Either the folks that poo poo a uniform health care reform or stupid and can't see how they are being screwed by the way things are currently going or these posters are part of the elite (CEO's, etc) that don't want to see the common man having health care without losing their homes.

Think it can't happen to you. Don't care. Well have one medical issue that your insurance doesn't cover or lose your job and you will find your sorry arse out on the street.

The USA already has "national healthcare," we've had it for decades: Can you say MediCare and Medicaid?

I don't know why Republicans oppose "the president's plan" (ha), and I don't know why Democrats oppose it.

And I don't care why they oppose it.

I do know why I oppose it — because it's a nightmarish mess of defective bureaucratic garbage, hobbled together in haste, nobody knows what's in it, nobody can explain it, and the President DESPERATELY wants to sign it into law before the end of the year.

Do you remember all the stupid liberal bellyaching when George Bush contemplated for 18 months the prospect of invading Iraq? Liberals said Bush was rushing to war. RUSHING to war. 18 months. Rushing.

But here we have a liberal president and Congress who are railroading a crappy, half-baked piece of dog turd, TRILLION DOLLAR excuse for a Universal Healthcare Package through the legislative process, but nobody thinks they're moving too fast, do they?

People, ask the right questions. Why do they need to ram this P.O.S. healthcare bill through Congress, when it won't even take effect until 2013?

THINK

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by ofhumandescent

www.nchc.org...

Who are Who are the uninsured?


Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 (GWB President) and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000

The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.

The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults.

The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006. (Bush)

Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.

Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.

The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 2007. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.

In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member.

In 2007, 37 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.

The number of uninsured children in 2007 was 8.1 million – or 10.7 percent of all children in the U.S.

Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2007 – 28.1 percent of this group did not have health insurance.

The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and 15 million in 2007.

Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.1 A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers.

Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?


Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2007.

Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees.7 It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.

Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.

Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 120 percent between 2000 and 2006.

Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage – not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance – the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.

Coverage is unstable during life’s transitions. A person’s link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce.

Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.

Now come on people it's time for change.

Go Barack Obama!

[edit on 9-8-2009 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


*They don't care about the children*.

You see, I actually believe this. It makes me (literally) nauseated to believe it, but I do.

Cold and uncaring. Not very bright. Greedy to the point it's scary.

Sad. I wish something would happen to cause me to change my mind. I really do. I don't want to believe it. But I can't help myself.

If the shoe fits........

reply to post by Doc Velocity

The USA already has "national healthcare," we've had it for decades: Can you say MediCare and Medicaid?

Medicare is for old people.

Medicaid is for poor people.

Both work fine why can't the middle class have something too?

My husband has Medicare works fine and there are no insurance bureaucrats being paid to stop you from getting medical care.

Everyone deserves to have good medical care. Everyone.

Wake up

It's time for change.

GO OBAMA!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


That is not entirely true. John Adams was actually quite poor, and he was the most active and involved out of all of them.
Abigail had to struggle quit a bit to make ends meet, even taking in borders.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


That war was foisted on the American People through lies, lies and more lies.

With the blood money that war has cost us we could have fed, clothe and given excellent medical care to every single man, woman and child in this country.

Live by the sword - Die by the sword.

Love is the anwer and everything else is an illusion.

on your post - no star for you.