Republicare -- What is the Republicans plan for fixing health care? Do they have one?

[Wreckem]

They do not want the coverage; It is being forced upon by someone else who thinks that they should have it.
And they should have it only because of the impact on others.

The government is driving the issue.
Not voluntarily for the person but forcing penalties if you do not do it their way. That is your financial incentive

How about this then. Instead of a penalty, how about we do this. You can opt not to have insurance but those that don't want insurance and opt out can no longer discharge medical debt through bankruptcy and any medical debt goes into auto garnishment of wages, no public benefits, etc until the debt is paid.

Its easy to say you don't want insurance because you are young and invincible but reality is plenty of people, young, healthy and invincible get struck down with random illnesses and accidents on a daily basis. If people knew they could no longer discharge medical debt through bankruptcy, very few people would be willing to take a chance forgoing insurance.

Not that insurance is the key to forcing down costs. But no one else is offering ideas. The only way to fix healthcare is to fix the underlying problem and that is runaway costs of procedures and medical care.

 

[BoberFett]

Not that insurance is the key to forcing down costs. But no one else is offering ideas. The only way to fix healthcare is to fix the underlying problem and that is runaway costs of procedures and medical care.

Very true. Unfortunately government healthcare in the US - which is where Obamacare is taking us - will result in it being yet another federal jobs program. Any future attempts to reel in costs will result in lost jobs. Cutting out profits and executive pay, the popular scapegoats of Democrats, will only go so far. At some point the costs of healthcare are due to the sheer number of middle class people involved in the healthcare industry. To cut costs means cutting jobs, which is why you'll never hear a Democrat propose anything that could cut costs. They'll simply continue to blame the rich, or corporations, or profits, and or of the other easy targets that get the base riled up.

 

[First]

Who said anything about take over? He said buy.

Yeah but it's entirely predicated on them selling out. What if hospitals say no? Seems like either the gov't forces them to sell or the whole plan would fall apart since his plan is (seemingly) predicated on tons of hospitals signing on.

There are laws regarding government competing with private businesses that would have to be sorted out.

Yup, not a lawyer but I imagine that's true.

 

[poofyhairguy]

What if hospitals say no?

The honest answer? The government would leverage the crap out of them.

"Oh you don't want to sell? Sure no problem, just be ready for Medicare audits next year, and the year after, and the year after. You know, it would fewer problems for you if you just sold."

The president's administration seems completely fine with these heavy handed Chicago politics tactics. Time to use that leverage for the correct things.

 

[First]

The honest answer? The government would leverage the crap out of them.

"Oh you don't want to sell? Sure no problem, just be ready for Medicare audits next year, and the year after, and the year after. You know, it would fewer problems for you if you just sold."

The president's administration seems completely fine with these heavy handed Chicago politics tactics. Time to use that leverage for the correct things.

Maybe, though not honestly sure that'll work or if it's legal.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So then why not develop a plan that gives care to those who deserve it and denies it to those that don't?

Why obsess with needing 100% access?

How would go about determining who is and who is not worthy of health care coverage? Would court hearings be convened?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Well, you'll forgive me for the lack of surprise that democrats sneer at it.

The point is there is an alternative. That talking point is laid to rest.

The issue isn't whether there is an alternative, but whether they can present a workable alternative that addresses the nation's health care problems.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

They do not want the coverage; It is being forced upon by someone else who thinks that they should have it.
And they should have it only because of the impact on others.

So you're saying that if someone in that category were shot by a stray bullet or hit by a car or came down with cancer or broke their arm that they would not want medical care?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Health care is not free. This Unaffordable fairy dust health care dream is causing people to lose their health care right and left. Then it penalizes people that don't have health care. How does that improve things?

Healthcare is not free--it's just much less expensive under socialized medicine as proven in every other first world nation (where they have 100% coverage and are spending far less than 17.6% of their GDP).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why?

What you have done is say that everyone has an equal right to healthcare regardless of the choices they make (such as say dropping out oh HS and having children with multiple drug dealers)...

Why should dropping out of high school disqualify someone? Not all jobs require a high school education and the sad fact of the matter is that our nation needs people to work jobs that do not utilize anything above elementary school and middle school educations. There simply aren't enough engineering, computer, nursing, and management jobs, etc., to go around, even if everyone did go to college. Someone has to flip the hamburgers and stock store shelves.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Except they don't, if they say they don't. It's wrong to force people to buy something they don't want or need.

I think you have a point. I would be willing to accept a plan that allows people to fully opt out of a socialized medicine plan. They would have to agree that care will be completely denied to them at government hospitals regardless of how they became injured or their immediate need for medical care. Some sort of a court proceeding should be required for someone to declare that. People should be able to opt back in, but would not have any coverage for pre-existing conditions. (The good capitalist can't conclude that he needs socialized medicine after he's diagnosed with cancer and can't pay for it under the free market system, etc.)

 

[sportage]

Why have the latest estimates and projections proven ACA costs lower than expected?
Over and over, as the facts come in and the trends become clear, costs for ACA are much lower than ever anticipated.
Why?
Competition.

Remember that term. Competition.
I'll say it again. Competition.
A term alien to the industry of healthcare for profit.

And that is why the naysayers on the right fear ACA.
Actually, a republican ideal at one time.
But suddenly a bad idea in their eyes.
The question to ask is, why that is?
You answer that, and you hit the core of those naysayer attempts to derail ACA.
Maybe if they crossed out the Obama in the term Obamacare, then they could rally around an idea originally put forth by Romney and embraced by republicans before the brain damage.

 

[trenchfoot]

I find it amazing that the Repubs up on the hill can fight the Dems at every level of gov't and still viciously fight amongst themselves at the same time.

They're looking more like Dems all the time....only a lot more louder and a lot more testy. lol

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why have the latest estimates and projections proven ACA costs lower than expected?
Over and over, as the facts come in and the trends become clear, costs for ACA are much lower than ever anticipated.
Why?
Competition.
Then why are insurance rates going up for the majority? Prev insured or not
Remember that term. Competition.
I'll say it again. Competition.
A term alien to the industry of healthcare for profit.
do you understand that heathcare is not addressed by the ACS. It is insurance coverage based on increase taxes. Health care was never addressed They are taxing health care to subsidize insurance coverage.

And that is why the naysayers on the right fear ACA.
Actually, a republican ideal at one time.
But suddenly a bad idea in their eyes.
The question to ask is, why that is? The fear is that it is not being implented correctly. It was sold wrong, taxes unfairly, creates another governmental layer, only address the visible problem, ignores the underlying issues, and has to many TBDs in the document to allow anyone to know, including the drafters what is going on.
You answer that, and you hit the core of those naysayer attempts to derail ACA.
Maybe if they crossed out the Obama in the term Obamacare, then they could rally around an idea originally put forth by Romney and embraced by republicans before the brain damage.

They could also solve the concerns by addressing the issues that drove the bill instead of papering over them