Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Griff]

The problem to be solved was covering people who could not afford coverage. Forcing people to buy coverage with money they don't have doesn't really address that. They should have gone for a full-blown single-payer system financed through a national sales tax. As it is the system will get a lot worse and the Dems will lose power before the government option can be grown into a useful replacement. This plays into the GOP's core value of forcing people to pay connected private industry for services they don't think they need. Health care should be either an actual free market or a government program as all half measures will be more expensive, more coercive, and less useful than either alone.

Originally Posted by Griff

The problem to be solved was covering people who could not afford coverage. Forcing people to buy coverage with money they don't have doesn't really address that. They should have gone for a full-blown single-payer system financed through a national sales tax. As it is the system will get a lot worse and the Dems will lose power before the government option can be grown into a useful replacement. This plays into the GOP's core value of forcing people to pay connected private industry for services they don't think they need. Health care should be either an actual free market or a government program as all half measures will be more expensive, more coercive, and less useful than either alone.

In the long term, I agree that a single payer system provides the best system.

But with 200+ million currently covered through employer-based plans, we cant get there from here....and the bills provide signficant cost containment and coverage guarantees for those as well as providing affordable coverage for those currently uninsured.

I think it is a big step forward.

[Griff]

I see a major failure that will leave the GOP's actual national socialist program in control.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

The problem to be solved was covering people who could not afford coverage. Forcing people to buy coverage with money they don't have doesn't really address that. They should have gone for a full-blown single-payer system financed through a national sales tax. As it is the system will get a lot worse and the Dems will lose power before the government option can be grown into a useful replacement. This plays into the GOP's core value of forcing people to pay connected private industry for services they don't think they need. Health care should be either an actual free market or a government program as all half measures will be more expensive, more coercive, and less useful than either alone.

I have to agree. I think they should have gone all in or nothing and used a VAT or something similar to pay for it.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have to agree. I think they should have gone all in or nothing and used a VAT or something similar to pay for it.

Your team demonized that.

You are spreading misinformation about physician organizations...misinformation about the Insurance Exchange...and misinformation about Medicare cuts?

Dont you feel at all dirty and slimy covered in all that bullshit?

Whats next, dude?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You are spreading misinformation about physician organizations...misinformation about the Insurance Exchange...and misinformation about Medicare cuts?

Dont you feel at all dirty and slimy covered in all that bullshit?

Whats next, dude?

Someone has to rebut your misinformation about physician organizations...misinformation about the Insurance Exchange...and misinformation about Medicare cuts and expose your dirty and slimy bullshit.

[TheMercenary]

Demoncratic smoke and mirrors. Factcheck states:

The Senate Finance Committee bill proposes to cut subsidies to Medicare Advantage companies, and it’s possible that seniors would lose such plans if companies dropped out because of the extra cost.

[TheMercenary]

House health care bill pays for itself over the long run, CBO says

Not completely true says Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...over-long-run/

The public option could pay for unsubsidized abortion
Partly true.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ized-abortion/

[TheMercenary]

And now let's debunk the Demoncratic talking point over the health insurance exchanges. Very few people will be able to use them:

Sen. Claire McCaskill discussed health care reform on This Week with George Stephanopolous, mentioning her support for a public option on a proposed health insurance exchange. The measure isn't a government takeover of health insurance, she said.

"Keep in mind, not everybody can even go to this exchange and buy insurance with any kind of subsidy. This is going to be a fairly limited number of people — 25 million to 30 million are the estimates — that would even be on this insurance exchange," she said. "By and large, most of this country is going to continue to get their health insurance through their employer."

And this keeps us at the trough of big insurance companies and passing costs on to those who have jobs.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...alth-exchange/

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And now let's debunk the Demoncratic talking point over the health insurance exchanges. Very few people will be able to use them:

The Democrats have never said the Insurance Exchanges are for those currently covered by employer-based plans.

In fact, they have repeatedly said that if you currently have insurance, you can keep it.....the plan simply offers more protections.

It was your industry whore, Betsy McHaughey who is spreading the bullshit that if you are currently insured, you will be forced into the Exchange.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Democrats have never said the Insurance Exchanges are for those currently covered by employer-based plans.

In fact, they have repeatedly said that if you currently have insurance, you can keep it.....the plan simply offers more protections.

It was your industry whore, Betsy McHaughey who is spreading the bullshit that if you are currently insured, you will be forced into the Exchange.

No you idiot. You are the Demoncratic Mouth.

You said it.

Originally Posted by Redux

In 2016, if you currently get your insurance at work, your employer MAY (not WILL), if they chose, "shop" on the Exchange for a new plan or additional plans to offer employees, providing more options, with different levels of coverage (and priced respectively) to employees than most companies currently provide.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No you idiot. You are the Demoncratic Mouth.

You said it.

Right...starting in 2016, if you have an employer-based plan, you (and your employer) MAY have the opportunity for more options than currently provided.

Employers will not be forced into the Exchange as McHaughey implied

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Right...starting in 2016, if you have an employer-based plan, you (and your employer) MAY have the opportunity for more options than currently provided. Employers will not be forced into the Exchange as McHaughey implied.

Most people can't just go to the Fantasy Insurance Exchange as you implied. That is false and misleading. People will be stuck with what ever their employer foist on them and stuck with the bill that the insurance companies force people to pay for substandard plans with high deductables. Again the bill does not fix what is wrong with costs of health care.



Now there's a fix! In 7 years.

For those 200+ million currently covered through an employer-based plan, the bill will::

a) end the practice of insurance companies denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions.

b) prevent insurance companies from raising rates or dropping coverage for those who suddenly face a serious illness.

c) cap annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces significant unanticipated expenses or goes bankrupt as a result of a medical crisis.

d) drop all copays for preventive care.

e) ends any existing lifetime caps on what insurance companies will currently pay.