GOP Alternative to Obamacare Gaining Support in House

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Well here is the GOP 'alternative' to ObamaCare.

How will Obama and Democrats take this ?

And it seems to be less than 200 pages !!

If they repeal ObamaCare, I wonder if people can keep the new ObamaCare plans ?

Apparently this has many of the Republican ideas that Obama refused to hear about.


A Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is gaining steam in the House but could still use some work before it becomes a truly viable replacement, experts say.

The Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) “American Health Care Reform Act,” introduced in September, currently has 108 cosponsors. The RSC plan repeals the ACA, commonly known as Obamacare, and replaces it with a system of tax deductions to help Americans purchase health insurance and federal support for state high-risk pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

It also cobbles together a number of GOP reform proposals from over the years to lower costs, including allowing people to buy health insurance products across state lines, permitting small businesses to pool together for better rates, capping non-economic damages in medical liability lawsuits, and making Medicare claims and payment data publicly available.




GOP Alternative to Obamacare Gaining Support in House


More confusion ? or is this a better mouse trap ?





posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Here is what I see...

"Give Americans something really really really bad... and then they will jump happily and accept with pleasure what they never would have allowed or voted for in the first place..."

So true... this "replacement" for obamacare... is still crap, its crap we never would have accepted a few years ago even... now they have us jumping through hoops to get it.

sad



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


The whole idea of "Obama care" and this bill is crap.

Alternative or not, none of this is what Americans want. I think the "Obama care" website and registry states that.

How many sheep signed up for it when it came out again? Right pretty much no one.

-SAP-



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Sounds a lot better than Obamacare.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
What do we, Americans, want? I honestly have no idea...I don't want the ACA...I don't know what that GOP alternative is, (I haven't read anything about it yet). But I frankly wouldn't know what to say if someone were to ask me what I think the best thing to do for healthcare would be instead of the ACA.

There's 2 things in ACA that I do like
1. Pre-Existing Condition clause.
2. Children allowed to stay on parent's insurance until they're 26.

The rest, from what I've read and seen...I don't like.

What would I want? Lower costs for sure. How to get that though? A "Tax break" is the same thing as a subsidy...you just don't give it up and then get it back first. So unless the tax breaks help more people than the ACA's subsidies do, I don't see how those are going to be more help...Yeah, I haven't read it yet. I guess I should do so first.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I do not like this consevative idea any better than the nazi one.

What I want to see is a system in wich companies can offer health care insurance at whatever price people are willing to afford. Then the costs of healthcare will follow suit.

It seems like now the more the government is trying to help, the higher the prices are getting. Thanks but no thanks.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



To be perfectly frank, if the Current Administration ever wanted this to really work they would have worked a compromise ACA in the first place to get Republican support. Almost every major piece of legislation on the scale of the ACA has been passed with BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. Look it up if you doubt me. There are a bunch of other ideas to lower medical costs and lower insurance premiums but they were ignored in the rush to push the ACA through before anyone read it.

When one side pushes through something without any ideas or VOTES from the other side.....this is the Cluster#$@# you get......

I would say the same if Republicans ramrodded things through without any Democrats voting for it. Just for those keeping score.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Ok I read this and it says:


Premiums in these state high risk pools will be capped at 200% of
the average premium in the state.


If I'm not mistaken, the ACA doesn't allow higher premiums for pre-existing condition patients. I understand that the higher risk patients in the pool means that costs go up...but do costs double? I mean, let's be honest, if the law says the insurance company can charge these people twice as much, you can bet that they will. I think that part might need some debate, because if costs to insurers is going to go down from, for instance, Title V in that article, those lower costs should...heh...trickle down to the consumers. What I'm saying is that if costs go down for the insurer, they can get by without charging 200% premiums to pre-existing condition patients and maintain their status quo profits. In theory at least. Again...I think that part of the bill could use some debate.

Other than that, I liked the rest...its hard to get a firm grasp of it from that overview, but it seems ok...so far.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfHart
 


I said what parts of it I don't like...what parts do you not like? I'm asking because I may not have noticed something big there.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 


It seems reasonable and I am generally anti-GOP. Under the GOP plan premiums should be lower because high risk and pre existing conditions would be in a separate pool. I'm not sure what their cost savings initiatives consist of. If they include negotiating prices for drugs and medical devices I would be all for it.

Maybe a more reasonable idea would be an across the board medical facility tax(5%), where the government pretty much provides the vast majority of the equipment needed to provide care to hospitals and doctors offices. Then leases/lend them out to the private doctors who actually provide the care. Insurance under the program would be voluntary, but the tax would not be. The private insurers would basically just be providing the labor and expertise and the government everything else, so premiums on top of the tax should be fairly low. Cap margins that the private insurers can make and reward the caregivers with bonuses on top on standard industry salaries for providing excellent care. A fully private system could coexist alongside the proposed system for those who don't want the government involved in their healthcare in any fashion.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


So sort of like giving the current free clinics...usually poorly equipped and staffed...a boost, while also allowing the regular private medical industry to exist alongside? If that's what you mean, I think as long as government doesn't run the private practices out of business by being able to massively undercut the costs, it would be healthy competition. Private facilities and public facilities would have to compete for patients by providing the best value.

Again, as long as the government didn't run private medical industry out of town by being able to fund the public facilities with massive infusions of federal/state money, it would be good. IMHO.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Every one is entitled to Health Care.

It should be a non profit industry with no shareholders expecting dividends. I have no problem paying doctors, nurses, etc. fair salaries, but why should anyone profit from someone else's misery?

Because of the for profit crap, 80% of medicare costs are incurred in end of life care, last 60 days. I am sorry folks, we start dieing the day we are born, but the costs of just keeping folks alive, with no quality of life is what is killing the system.

I cared for my grandfather, the last 6 months of his life. He spent some time in the hospital, some time in a nursing home for rehab, and we brought him home, and as a family cared for him. We had some help from Hospice, they are wonderful, but the burden of his day to day care fell to the family. I miss him, but we had him for 95 years.

I am going to throw in tort reform here too, it needs to happen. If a Dr. is found grossly negligent, he needs to pay, but the frivolous BS needs to stop. If a Doc is grossly negligent three times, his license is pulled, and he is no longer allowed to practice medicine in this country.

No drug patents, hell the govt is paying for a lot of the research anyway, why are the drug companies allowed to make insane profits on something the taxpayers paid for?

I don't work in healthcare, and in fact mine is supplied by VA, kudos to those folks, they have done well by me. That being said, I have a boatload of ideas, but I am not educated, don't scream loud, and am a centerist and can't attract nut jobs to my side.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
The whole pre-existing issue is a red herring.

Facts:
Private coverage accounts for ~64% of total insurance policies

Of these:

Group plans account for about ~55% of total insurance polices (employer based)

Individual plans account for about ~10% of total insurance policies

The numbers are a bit confusing due to the separation of those with one policy vs. multiple polices, but we are in the basic ballpark here.

Census

Here is the kicker:

PRE-EXISITING CONDITIONS ARE COVERED IN GROUP PLANS AND HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.

90% of the policies insurance companies issue have been exempt from pre-existing conditions long before the AMA.

In reality all the AMA has done in this regard, is eliminate pre-existing conditions for about the 10% of policies that are bought as individual vs. group.

Just wanted to throw that out there, it seems to me that the pre-existing clause for the 10% of policies is going to be used as a bargaining chip more then anything.

Added Note: I am one of those that cannot get individual insurance, no matter how much I am willing to pay.
My dire illness: Sleep apnea that is well controlled. The treatment is a CPAP that costs about $300 and lasts around 5 years.

Masks and other supplies are around $100 a year, but most people just buy them outright because of the hassle involved in reimbursement.
edit on 22-11-2013 by Dreamwatcher because: (no reason given)





 
8

log in

join