will the united states ever have universal healthcare?

madarab405 · Aug 23, 2009, 10:29 PM

tomder55 · Oct 1, 2009, 06:36 PM

In fact ,the Republicans have offered more that 30 different plans just in the House of Representatives . But as it has often been pointed out here ,the 2006 and 2008 vote did count for at least one thing...the blocking of any attempt by the minority to get a hearing on their bills.
We were challenged to give specific legislations well here are some .

H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478.

HR3400 as an example specifically addresses the issue of the uninsured .
H.R. 3400 (Price) | Cover the Uninsured
But every one of these bills are Republican efforts to participate in the reform process.
For a long time now the Republicans have tried to address the issues of costs with tort reform ,and to increase competition by permitting Americans to shop for individual plans across state lines.

When this cro magnon subhuman lying sack of excrement Grayson compares our health care system to the holocaust ,I'm quite sure he must be talking about the multimillion babies that have been eliminated in our country since 1973 . Either that ,or ,Alan Grayson ....you lie!

edit Steve I did not see your posting #319 before submitting this . kudos ..you beat me to it .

asking · Oct 1, 2009, 10:11 PM

So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

Quote:

The bill would provide a tax deduction and an income-related refundable tax credit for health insurance purchased by individuals (i.e., outside the group insurance market). The tax credit would be available only to individuals living in states operating a high-risk health insurance pool; and federal grant funding would be provided to states for such pools. Incentives would be given for employers to offer employees the option of a contribution toward other health insurance coverage in lieu of the employer plan. State insurance laws would be overridden to permit the sale of individual health insurance across state lines. Federal rules would be established and application of state laws preempted for insurance provided through association health plans and individual membership associations. Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be prohibited for those with incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and restricted for those between 200% and 300% of FPL. States would be required to offer group coverage and other private coverage options under Medicaid and CHIP. Federal limits on medical liability claims would be established. Medicare physician payment would be modified. The bill would be financed through reduced discretionary spending, repeal of stimulus bill provisions and other provisions.

ETWolverine · Oct 2, 2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

ABSOLUTELY.

As I have posted elsewhere, part of the reason that medical insurance premiums being so high is because there are only a few companies competing in every state. In every state you only have about 3 or 4 choices of insurance companies, because insurance companies can only sell in states in which they have been "approved", and citizens can only by from insurance companies that are approved in that state. This limits competition and drives prices UP.

This change in law would mean that instead of 4 insurance companies to buy insurance from, we would now have roughly 1300 insurance companies to buy from... the full number of medical insurance companies operating in the USA. We would be able to choose any plan that those insurance companies offer, based on both price and quality. This would immediately increase competition between the insurance companies, driving prices down and quality of coverage up.

Competition is, in fact, one of the major free market solutions to driving insurance prices down. The concept is called "portability" in insurance jargon, and it is one of the centerpieces of conservative health care reform geared towards increasing affordability and accessibility.

Elliot

inthebox · Oct 3, 2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

Devil is in the details.
What is meant by LIMITS on malpractice? A hard dollar figure on non- economic damages, like $250,000 in some states?
What does modifed medicare payments? Up, down, or no change?
Certainly making national availability, and more competition among private insurance companies as well as letting people make their own purchasing is better than our current system.

G&P

asking · Oct 3, 2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

ABSOLUTELY.

As I have posted elsewhere, part of the reason that medical insurance premiums being so high is because there are only a few companies competing in every state. In every state you only have about 3 or 4 choices of insurance companies, because insurance companies can only sell in states in which they have been "approved", and citizens can only by from insurance companies that are approved in that state. This limits competition and drives prices UP.

This change in law would mean that instead of 4 insurance companies to buy insurance from, we would now have roughly 1300 insurance companies to buy from... the full number of medical insurance companies operating in the USA. We would be able to choose any plan that those insurance companies offer, based on both price and quality. This would immediately increase competition between the insurance companies, driving prices down and quality of coverage up.

Competition is, in fact, one of the major free market solutions to driving insurance prices down. The concept is called "portability" in insurance jargon, and it is one of the centerpieces of conservative health care reform geared towards increasing affordability and accessibility.

Elliot

I'm all for this. I'm also for decreasing incentives for providers to do expensive and unnecessary tests that don't actually help patients get better. That's not to say I don't think people should get tests when they need them.

ETWolverine · Oct 5, 2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

I'm all for this. I'm also for decreasing incentives for providers to do expensive and unnecessary tests that don't actually help patients get better. That's not to say I don't think people should get tests when they need them.

Of course people should get tests when they need them. And this would make such tests cheaper and more accessible due to increased competition.

But the need for such tests should be determined by the doctor and the patient based on medical need, not based on the doctor having to cover his a$$ with the medical malpractice attorneys.

speechlesstx · Oct 5, 2009, 07:18 AM

As further evidence of Obama's dedication to our senior citizens, nursing homes (which admittedly quite often suck) are facing a crisis which will only get bigger under Obamacare.

Cri$is ahead for nursing homes

Didn't he say there would be no cut in services for Medicare recipients? Yes, he did.

sGt HarDKorE · Oct 6, 2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As further evidence of Obama's dedication to our senior citizens, nursing homes (which admittedly quite often suck) are facing a crisis which will only get bigger under Obamacare.

Cri$is ahead for nursing homes

Didn't he say there would be no cut in services for Medicare recipients? Yes, he did.

Do you want the government to ensure health care or not?

ETWolverine · Oct 6, 2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE

Do you want the government to ensure health care or not?

NOT.

It's not the government's job.

The government can't do it properly or efficiently.

And the government can't do it without taking MY money to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S costs.

So... NO.

Elliot

NeedKarma · Oct 6, 2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And the government can't do it without taking MY money to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S costs.

Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.