[tomder55]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Synnen]

Actually, I'm insulted that I'm being considered a neo-con because I don't want to pay for something where the price determines the level of care you get.

Socialize water. Socialize the freaking telephone system, or internet service.

Do NOT socialize something where the time and resources of the field are going to be completely taken up with people who would not be able to use the services if it were not socialized. Waiting longer for an appointment, for shoddier care, with fewer doctors in the field sounds like crap to me.

I can tell you this: As someone who has a MONTHLY doctor's appointment, do you REALLY think I'd get that kind of care if the welfare mom down the street could afford fertility treatments too?

[speechlesstx]

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

So libs and moderates don't think about the government confiscating their money to use for someone else? Right.

By the way, here's a nice little story on how much Obamacare would take out of our pockets, along with the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

[ETWolverine]

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

Perhaps they ought to. Then they wouldn't have to come HERE for their health care.

[paraclete]

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

This is true some nations take a responsibility for the individual as an asset

[Synnen]

And some countries (like Iraq, Russia, Sri Lanka, Poland and Chile, to name a few) are so corporate controlled--but by UNITED STATES based corporations--that there is practically nothing provided by the government for the average person. Ask the millions of people in those countries how much their US Aid has helped the average person, and how much the aid has helped major corporations.

I'll look at UHC when the government stops outsourcing the REST of its functions--including that of the military.

[paraclete]

Actually, I'm insulted that I'm being considered a neo-con because I don't want to pay for something where the price determines the level of care you get.


Do NOT socialize something where the time and resources of the field are going to be completely taken up with people who would not be able to use the services if it were not socialized. Waiting longer for an appointment, for shoddier care, with fewer doctors in the field sounds like crap to me.

What this says to me is you think you are so important! So important that you should not be inconvenienced by that sick person who just happens to have less income than you. You need to get over yourself indulgent self and realise that medicine is for the sick, not the socialite who just wants to have a chat to her doctor

[tomder55]

Who is John Galt ?
Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

The President's photo-ops with docs in white lab coats cannot mask the truth .

[Synnen]

What this says to me is you think you are so important! So important that you should not be inconvenienced by that sick person who just happens to have less income than you. You need to get over your self indulgent self and realise that medicine is for the sick, not the socialite who just wants to have a chat to her doctor

No... if I were so important, I'd say close public schools (I don't have kids), outsource public transportation (I NEVER use it). I'd say let people who can't afford it not EAT--get rid of welfare (I've never used it, even when I qualified for it).

If I were THAT important, I'd say screw people living on the streets--they don't deserve shelters! (Never used one). I'd say that people who can't afford to take care of their kids should be sterlized, and their kids given to those of us who are infertile (I placed a child for adoption--WILLINGLY--and I know how hard that is).

Seriously--my problem is that for the most part, if you have a JOB in the US, then you have health care. It may not cover EVERYTHING for the same price someone else pays (if you have a pre-existing condition compared to someone who does not), but you still can get basic coverage.

Even if you do NOT have health care, most doctor's offices are willing to work with you (I paid off a $15k dental bill over 10 years, from a time that I was unemployed and needed dental work)

If you live in the US, you have access to health care. Period. You just have to decide whether it's more important to have cable TV (or a TV at all!) than go to the doctor.

PS... Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

[asking]

PS...Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

So I don't get it. How can you not see how vulnerable you are? What if your employer outsourced your work to another country, let you and 3/4 of your colleagues go all at once, you could not get another job, and you were still SCARED To DEATH. But now you can't even go to the doctor because it's that or lose your house? Instead of worrying about welfare mothers on fertility treatments--a boogeyman if ever I heard one--why not worry about someone basically just like you? Even the insured in this country are often one job away from disaster. You would be amazed how fast if can happen.

Let's say you have to have surgery and it goes a bit wrong and you are away from work for 7 weeks. Your boss says, "Gosh, we love you, Synnen, but we had to replace you and we really don't need two people, plus the new person is younger, cheaper and not sick. Good luck!"

Suddenly you are jobless--which can last for a year or more. The loss of income means can't pay your mortgage, so you have to move and sell at a loss. The disruption damages your marriage and other relationships. That and the illness trigger mild depression, which makes it harder to find work. Plus if you go to a doctor about the depression you'll have a SECOND preexisting condition...

[asking]

And then there are people like me who have been self employed for the last 15 years. I have worked hard and supported myself and my kids. I worked at home so I could be there for my kids and I don't regret that.

But since 2003 my insurance premium has gone from $270 a month to $1400 every month. I need that money to pay for food, real estate taxes, house insurance, and gasoline so I can drive my son to school every day. It's not extra. AND work has become harder to find, so my income has dropped. I cannot afford it; I don't have a plan. I am soooo lucky, too, because I own my house outright. I paid off the mortgage when times were flush. Even so, I'm SCARED. Why do I have to choose between basic health care and paying my real estate taxes and home and car insurance? Besides food and electricity, those are my major expenses. (I don't HAVE cable. I don't have a new car. I wouldn't know what to do with a ski pole and I've never been to Club Med. And don't even ask what I think about the fertility industry.)

A couple weeks ago, I bought some new clothes--some pants and two sweaters-- for the first time in 2 years because I got some work and needed to not look like a street person. My spendable income is all going to Health Net. More like Health Noose.

I've never been on welfare and wouldn't be eligible anyway because I still have a house and a small income. I am ineligible for unemployment because I have been self employed. Just because people don't work for Microsoft or Coco Cola doesn't make them not human. I haven't done anything "bad" to deserve this situation.

And tell me to take a full time job with benefits. I am thinking about it (if I could even get one). But I would have to move away from the town I live in, and either turn my kids over to my abusive ex or tear my son away from his friends and his father, who he has a relationship with, abusive or not. Needless to say, there'd be a legal battle... Oh, is that expensive?

People here tell me things like, "ask Major Pharmaceutical Company" to give you free medicine, which sounds cool, except it has to be the right medicine and you have to fill out 10 forms for just that one medicine and prove you don't have any assets, which (shame on me) I still do. Plus, how do you pay the doctor, for tests, etc? (The costs are insane and I agree we need to bring those down.)

I am eligible for zip because I've been self employed and I'm not destitute (yet). If I spent all my time scraping together bits and pieces of health care from this free source or that, even if it covered everything, which I seriously doubt, I would not have time to work and contribute. How does that benefit anybody?