|
|
Topic started on 3-11-2009 @ 01:21 PM by jibeho
|
Now this is more like it. 230 pages, though not perfect, it is certainly readable and contains some very logical provisions. If anything, this could
act as a spring board to a successful solution without 111 new bureaucracies.
After months spent criticizing Democrats' health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It's much shorter
and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans.
A 230-page draft was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said changes were still being
made before the bill would be finalized in time to offer as an alternative when Democrats begin floor debate on their bill, possibly at the end of
this week.
The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their
employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health
conditions, as Democrats would do.
Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice
cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across
state lines.
The Democratic reply reads as a rather typical response.
Democrats immediately dismissed the Republican plan as insubstantial.
The GOP alternative "does little to provide security and stability to all Americans, doesn't provide insurance availability for all Americans, does
little to expand access to coverage," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters.
"Ours is vastly superior and we think the American public will think that," Hoyer said.
If by insubstantial, they mean less than 500 pages, they would be correct.
www.breitbart.com...
[edit on 3-11-2009 by jibeho]
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Breaking Political News topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 01:48 PM by ProfEmeritus
|
reply to post by jibeho
It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.
I would say that the above makes this bill DEAD on arrival. It makes me wonder how serious the Republicans are about health care reform.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 01:56 PM by HotSauce
|
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
I am pretty sure the reason insurance complanies or any bill that wll bring down the cost of healthcare would not want to cover pre-existing
conditions is that it creates the very unfair situation where you can go without coverage until you get a major illness and then jump on the insurance
bandwagon then. That will just cause the cost of insurance to sky rocket.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 01:58 PM by sos37
|
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
Conservatism means staying the hell out of private business. Therefore, you won't see any bill from a real conservative imposing regulations on
private business. Insurance is a business, sorry to say.
I'm hoping what they would do was dissolve the requirement that private insurance had to be bought in one's own state. So when an insurance company
denies coverage for a pre-existing condition, a customer can say "Fine, I've lots of other companies to check out" and will do just that, giving
the finger to the first insurance company.
Besides, if the Democrats' plan succeeds and they tell insurance companies that they can no longer deny coverage to people, what do you think is
going to happen? Those insurance companies aren't just going to eat that cost - they're going to find other ways to make it up. The most likely way
is to raise all policy holder's premiums.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:19 PM by ProfEmeritus
|
I'm not concerned with parties, conservatism or liberalism when it comes to health care. People need to be able to have access to affordable health
care, regardless of other considerations.
Notice I didn't say that they need access to insurance. What the 2 previous posts have pointed out is that putting band aids on the current health
INSURANCE system does nothing to provide that care to everyone. Furthermore, providing tax credits does nothing for those that don't pay any taxes,
unless you make them refundable tax credits. This "proposal" by the Republicans can't be taken seriously, and I'm someone who used to call myself
a Republican.
Look, the entire system is broken- government, health care, foreign policy, the courts, you name it. The patient, the United States, is on a
respirator, and they're trying to cure it with band aids.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:23 PM by HotSauce
|
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
Well I see your point kind of...but it seems the Republicans are using bandaids to help and the Progressive Dems are using a bat to the skull to put
the patient (the USA) out of its misery.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:25 PM by Eurisko2012
|
reply to post by jibeho
Looks good to me.
All we need is control of the House and the Senate.
Steny Hoyer needs to check Rasmussen. 
Only 42% approve of PelosiCare. 
------------------------------------------------
Lets see how much the GOP Health Plan costs.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:28 PM by JohnnyCanuck
|
reply to post by jibeho
Guys, you have no idea how alien this discussion sounds to the rest of the civilised world. Like, no offence or smarminess meant, but really!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:29 PM by ProfEmeritus
|
reply to post by HotSauce
Well I see your point kind of...but it seems the Republicans are using bandaids to help and the Progressive Dems are using a bat to the skull to put
the patient (the USA) out of its misery.
Either way, the patient dies.
Personally, I don't think that you can fix health care without fixing all of the other problems that have evolved over the years. It's like trying
to look at one small piece of a large jigsaw puzzle, and trying to fit it in place, when we have hundreds of other pieces that don't fit into the
overall puzzle either.
Sometimes, things are so badly damaged, that they can't be FIXED. They need to be replaced.
I think it's Humpty Dumpty all over again.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:31 PM by ProfEmeritus
|
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Guys, you have no idea how alien this discussion sounds to the rest of the civilised world. Like, no offence or smarminess meant, but really!
So your solution is....?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:32 PM by HotSauce
|
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
I agree. The think they seem to not understand is that until we fix the foundation the building will just crumble faster the more crap we pile on top
of it.
They should focus on the foundation.
The economy
Imports of oil and products are out of contol
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Overtaxation
Over regulation
THE DEFICIT
As Bill Clinton said...It is the economy, stupid.
[edit on 3-11-2009 by HotSauce]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:44 PM by JohnnyCanuck
|
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Guys, you have no idea how alien this discussion sounds to the rest of the civilised world. Like, no offence or smarminess meant, but really!
So your solution is....?
Frankly, our system works well for us...it is by no means perfect, but it works well, and I see no reason the US couldn't adopt a similar one. I am
not looking to re-open debate on the subject, but simply making the observation.
It's like watching a debate over whether or not to send kids to school.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 02:51 PM by ProfEmeritus
|
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Frankly, our system works well for us...it is by no means perfect, but it works well, and I see no reason the US couldn't adopt a similar one. I am
not looking to re-open debate on the subject, but simply making the observation.
The question isn't whether everyone should have access to health care, at least in my mind. I made it very clear that must be done. The question is
how to PAY for it, when the country has a national debt equal to it GDP.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:00 PM by JohnnyCanuck
|
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Frankly, our system works well for us...it is by no means perfect, but it works well, and I see no reason the US couldn't adopt a similar one. I am
not looking to re-open debate on the subject, but simply making the observation.
The question isn't whether everyone should have access to health care, at least in my mind. I made it very clear that must be done. The question is
how to PAY for it, when the country has a national debt equal to it GDP.
I don't see where the two wars are helping you out much...and as I have told my MP, our medical system could be better served if we got out of
Afghanistan. It's a start...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:06 PM by LordBaskettIV
|
Originally, in america, if you got sick you would call the doctor. He would come to your house and treat you. If it was real bad you might go to his
office for surgery ect.
Then, health insurance companies took over and all medical expences went through the roof. Doctors no longer make house calls, and they charge more
money than what its worth.
More "state" helthcare will further drive up costs. Good health is a "want" not a "right".
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:07 PM by HotSauce
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:07 PM by ProfEmeritus
|
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
I don't see where the two wars are helping you out much...and as I have told my MP, our medical system could be better served if we got out of
Afghanistan. It's a start...
I don't disagree with that. However, there is a gathering storm in Canada regarding the debt to GDP ratio. The latest figures show your debt to GDP
ratio at 72%, and rising quickly:
The PM may brag about comparisons to G7 nations where Canada is third out of seven. However, when compared to the 30 nations of the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Canada ranks 22nd. According to the Intelligence Unit at The Economist magazine Canada's total public
debt for 2009 approaches $1.1 trillion and is climbing. Total debt levels stand at 72% of GDP. This amounts to approximately $33,000 of public debt
for each man woman and child in Canada.
www.stratfordbeaconherald.com...
As that number rises, you'll be in the same situation as the US is in now, although, if we enact the current House health care bill, our numbers will
get even worse.
I take no solace in your numbers, believe me. I just don't think that enough light has been shed upon the Canadian situation. Like it or not, our two
economies are tightly bound, and what affects one, affects both.
Peace.
[edit on 3-11-2009 by ProfEmeritus]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:14 PM by JohnnyCanuck
|
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
However, there is a gathering storm in Canada regarding the debt to GDP ratio. The latest figures show your debt to GDP ratio at 72%, and rising
quickly:
As that number rises, you'll be in the same situation as the US is in now, although, if we enact the current House health care bill, our numbers will
get even worse.
I take no solace in your numbers, believe me. I just don't think that enough light has been shed upon the Canadian situation. Like it or not, our two
economies are tightly bound, and what affects one, affects both.
Peace.
I understand what you are saying. Our only solace (good word, that) is in the differences in our banking regulations. Had our big banks pulled off the
shenanigans that yours did, we would have been in a worse state. Not that they didn't want to play...but the previous government wouldn't let
them.
But the fact is that there always seem to be taxpayer dollars for overseas adventures...n'est-ce pas?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:19 PM by centurion1211
|
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by jibeho
Guys, you have no idea how alien this discussion sounds to the rest of the civilised world. Like, no offence or smarminess meant, but really!
Do you care how your internal debates look to the rest of the world? Does the UK, or France, or Russia, or China, etc. etc. etc.?
Real news for you, we don't care. Now go back and fix all that's wrong with Canada first, then maybe we can talk ....
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 03:40 PM by LordBaskettIV
|
For those not in the USA, here is how most people view this.
Tax is a form of extortion
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or
property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18 The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property
from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18
U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
This is what a government does to collect tax, as we are threatened imprisonment,confiscation of money or property,ect. The thing is, our own damn
government does not have the right to go around playing "The Sopranos". While Canada and Europe may not have a problem with kissing the feet of
their rulers, or more accurately, mob boss'....we in America do. We have a huge problem infact. Liberty allows us, the people to say no, even when we
are a minority. There is no form of extortion that does not trounce upon or rights and liberty's as a human being. If got sick, and went to my
neighbors and FORCED them to pay for my recovery, that's extortion. This is what Democrats wish to do, but on a grand scale. Sorry, but not where I
live. That's why we formed this country, to get away from people who can't even grasp the concept of liberty.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
