Hey, Harley, if you and your GOP buddies had supported single-payer (i.e., Medicare for all), we’d have saved money, made our healthcare more efficient, and probably improved the overall health of this nation — which correlates with productivity. Romneycare is the only thing the Democrats could get past the GOP.
More like the Democrats acting like the Captain of the Titanic telling everyone “We ran into a small problem but things are completely under control and will get much better if you just wait a few days!”
Our medical care system costs twice that of other developed countries and by most measures does not deliver the best care. The cost keeps going up faster than inflation and the quality keeps declining. The insurance companies keep building bigger and better corporate campuses and the CEOs are living large. At least ACA is an attempt to make things better.
Let’s be fair. Republicans did not vote against Obamacare for any reason relating to whether it was a good idea or not (they didn’t read it either, just like no Congressman has read any legislation for probably decades).
They voted against it because it came from Mr. Obama.
Essentially, they voted to continue a failing system whose costs would continue to go up exponentially while at the same time providing less and less coverage.
Again, if Republicans want to look like they care, they will have to come up with a better idea. And there are certainly better ideas out there.
But it’s so much more fun to blow spitballs from the back of the room.
It was, and it does. I live in Massachusetts.What made it a Republican idea — out of the Heritage Foundation, no less — is 1) the insistence on an individual mandate, to make people pay; 2) the use of existing insurance companies instead of a government intermediary. It was praised as the GOP answer to the Democratic all for universal healthcare. Then Obama took it as his THIRD choice. First was single-payer (Canada’s approach; very successful, much cheaper, much more efficient); second was the nonprofit government-sponsored (but NOT taxpayer-funded — it was intended to break even) insurance company. The so-called champions of free trade nixed that; might force for-profit insurance companies to spend some profit!All that was left was Romneycare. But it works fine in Massachusetts, despite its obvious flaws. I would still prefer single-payer.
“The Republicans have had many ideas. but the dear leader would not have any of it.”
You want to talk about a “tired line”. As a health care practitioner, I’ve been following details more closely than most people, and I have yet to see a Republican idea other than the one proposed by Romney/Ryan, which I have proven on these pages would bankrupt the country faster than Obamacare could even HOPE to do.
Provide examples, please, and I will be more than willing to change my tune. The idea of choosing to repeal Obamacare and replace it with nothing is not a viable option. Otherwise, have at it. And if you can’t provide another Republican-proposed option, please stop saying that they proposed any. And I recommend you watch who you call a “liar”, and under what conditions.
Dimbulb Limbaugh this morning was telling the dittoheads that next year over 160 million folks with health insurance (68%) will lose their policies. Meanwhile, the TV shows are loaded with insurance companies telling folks to “come on down” and buy your cheaper, better, policies from them! Yeah, Rush, right.
“That doesn’t make sense since they would rather the cost be lower so they payout less money.”
Your assertion is logical, but I’m afraid logic does not enter into the equation. Reason #1: it makes sense that if you add layer upon layer of paper-pushers, none of which keep you healthy, costs will go up. The fact that insurance exists makes health care more expensive.Second, your post assumes that insurance actually pays for health care. It does not. It pays whatever pittance it wants, and buries the patient in co-pays and deductibles and “out-of-pocket expenses”. Insurance companies don’t care how high the cost, because they start by saying that they aren’t going to pay what anyone wants, regardless of whether they cover the service or not.
I do a lot of work with people with keratoconus, which is a condition where the cornea thins, bulges, and therefore distorts vision. There are only two recognized treatments at this time: transplant and hard contact lenses. Some insurance companies pay only what they would pay for cosmetic contact lenses, which are much cheaper and easier to fit. Actually, these companies pay less for the TOTAL of my services and materials than what the lab charges me for materials. This means that I pay out of my own pocket to make sure my patient can function in life, because I’m the only doc in the area crazy enough to care more for the patient than to at least cover my costs. One company, after I appealed, told me that although they agreed that the treatment was medically necessary, and although they agreed that my fees were in line, they just didn’t want to pay, so they aren’t going to.
No doubt that care is expensive. A lot of that goes towards continuingly expanding technical capabilities requiring astoundingly expensive equipment. Some of that is a result of over-use of the system: too many people feel entitled to intentionally ruin their health, and do not take the responsibility to reduce health risks.
So, while I can agree that healthcare costs are rising and contributing to out-of-control billings, insurance companies can contribute to the problem without any responsibility to do anything about it, other than to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals. I submit that insulting the cook before he makes your meal is not the most reliable way to guarantee a nutritious meal.
This is the last time I will respond to you when you call me a liar. The fact that I do not hate Mr. Obama with every fiber of my being does not mean that I worship the ground he walks on.
I am not saying he did not lie. All politicians lie. I did not. I have not. I will not. And I will not have you say that I did.
I followed your link. I saw a small summary and no details.
If we allow insurance to offer plans across state lines, we will have to go to almost every state legislature to change state laws to allow standardization. States have gone out of their way (partly as a result of Congress’ unwillingness to deal with what is a national problem) to create a crazy-quilt of what should and should not be allowed for insurance law. While I agree that there should not be restrictions based on something as arbitrary as a state boundary, I’m telling you it won’t be nearly as neat and easy as this page tells you it will be.
I have no issue with HSA’s but the language on that site is not specific. I can say, for example, “I’m for education. I want better and cheaper education.” That does not make it so.
The fact that there are very few insurance companies which are not nationwide or regional in nature makes me wonder whether the “free-market” will keep prices down. So far, the free market has not done that; I see no reason to expect the rules to magically change. We can say the same about pre-existing conditions. Saying and doing are often polar opposites. And the last thing about ensuring the feds don’t fund abortions is a strawman. The feds don’t, can’t, and haven’t. At least you apologize when you call me a liar. I propose you go one step further and stop using the term. That way, you won’t need to apologize so often.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Doc McConnell, or is that Coburn?
ConserveGov over 10 years ago
What a childish toon.
Motivemagus over 10 years ago
Hey, Harley, if you and your GOP buddies had supported single-payer (i.e., Medicare for all), we’d have saved money, made our healthcare more efficient, and probably improved the overall health of this nation — which correlates with productivity. Romneycare is the only thing the Democrats could get past the GOP.
Enoki over 10 years ago
More like the Democrats acting like the Captain of the Titanic telling everyone “We ran into a small problem but things are completely under control and will get much better if you just wait a few days!”
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 10 years ago
Our medical care system costs twice that of other developed countries and by most measures does not deliver the best care. The cost keeps going up faster than inflation and the quality keeps declining. The insurance companies keep building bigger and better corporate campuses and the CEOs are living large. At least ACA is an attempt to make things better.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
Let’s be fair. Republicans did not vote against Obamacare for any reason relating to whether it was a good idea or not (they didn’t read it either, just like no Congressman has read any legislation for probably decades).
They voted against it because it came from Mr. Obama.
Essentially, they voted to continue a failing system whose costs would continue to go up exponentially while at the same time providing less and less coverage.
Again, if Republicans want to look like they care, they will have to come up with a better idea. And there are certainly better ideas out there.
But it’s so much more fun to blow spitballs from the back of the room.
Motivemagus over 10 years ago
It was, and it does. I live in Massachusetts.What made it a Republican idea — out of the Heritage Foundation, no less — is 1) the insistence on an individual mandate, to make people pay; 2) the use of existing insurance companies instead of a government intermediary. It was praised as the GOP answer to the Democratic all for universal healthcare. Then Obama took it as his THIRD choice. First was single-payer (Canada’s approach; very successful, much cheaper, much more efficient); second was the nonprofit government-sponsored (but NOT taxpayer-funded — it was intended to break even) insurance company. The so-called champions of free trade nixed that; might force for-profit insurance companies to spend some profit!All that was left was Romneycare. But it works fine in Massachusetts, despite its obvious flaws. I would still prefer single-payer.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
“The Republicans have had many ideas. but the dear leader would not have any of it.”
You want to talk about a “tired line”. As a health care practitioner, I’ve been following details more closely than most people, and I have yet to see a Republican idea other than the one proposed by Romney/Ryan, which I have proven on these pages would bankrupt the country faster than Obamacare could even HOPE to do.
Provide examples, please, and I will be more than willing to change my tune. The idea of choosing to repeal Obamacare and replace it with nothing is not a viable option. Otherwise, have at it. And if you can’t provide another Republican-proposed option, please stop saying that they proposed any. And I recommend you watch who you call a “liar”, and under what conditions.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Dimbulb Limbaugh this morning was telling the dittoheads that next year over 160 million folks with health insurance (68%) will lose their policies. Meanwhile, the TV shows are loaded with insurance companies telling folks to “come on down” and buy your cheaper, better, policies from them! Yeah, Rush, right.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
“That doesn’t make sense since they would rather the cost be lower so they payout less money.”
Your assertion is logical, but I’m afraid logic does not enter into the equation. Reason #1: it makes sense that if you add layer upon layer of paper-pushers, none of which keep you healthy, costs will go up. The fact that insurance exists makes health care more expensive.Second, your post assumes that insurance actually pays for health care. It does not. It pays whatever pittance it wants, and buries the patient in co-pays and deductibles and “out-of-pocket expenses”. Insurance companies don’t care how high the cost, because they start by saying that they aren’t going to pay what anyone wants, regardless of whether they cover the service or not.
I do a lot of work with people with keratoconus, which is a condition where the cornea thins, bulges, and therefore distorts vision. There are only two recognized treatments at this time: transplant and hard contact lenses. Some insurance companies pay only what they would pay for cosmetic contact lenses, which are much cheaper and easier to fit. Actually, these companies pay less for the TOTAL of my services and materials than what the lab charges me for materials. This means that I pay out of my own pocket to make sure my patient can function in life, because I’m the only doc in the area crazy enough to care more for the patient than to at least cover my costs. One company, after I appealed, told me that although they agreed that the treatment was medically necessary, and although they agreed that my fees were in line, they just didn’t want to pay, so they aren’t going to.
No doubt that care is expensive. A lot of that goes towards continuingly expanding technical capabilities requiring astoundingly expensive equipment. Some of that is a result of over-use of the system: too many people feel entitled to intentionally ruin their health, and do not take the responsibility to reduce health risks.
So, while I can agree that healthcare costs are rising and contributing to out-of-control billings, insurance companies can contribute to the problem without any responsibility to do anything about it, other than to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals. I submit that insulting the cook before he makes your meal is not the most reliable way to guarantee a nutritious meal.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
This is the last time I will respond to you when you call me a liar. The fact that I do not hate Mr. Obama with every fiber of my being does not mean that I worship the ground he walks on.
I am not saying he did not lie. All politicians lie. I did not. I have not. I will not. And I will not have you say that I did.
I followed your link. I saw a small summary and no details.
If we allow insurance to offer plans across state lines, we will have to go to almost every state legislature to change state laws to allow standardization. States have gone out of their way (partly as a result of Congress’ unwillingness to deal with what is a national problem) to create a crazy-quilt of what should and should not be allowed for insurance law. While I agree that there should not be restrictions based on something as arbitrary as a state boundary, I’m telling you it won’t be nearly as neat and easy as this page tells you it will be.
I have no issue with HSA’s but the language on that site is not specific. I can say, for example, “I’m for education. I want better and cheaper education.” That does not make it so.
The fact that there are very few insurance companies which are not nationwide or regional in nature makes me wonder whether the “free-market” will keep prices down. So far, the free market has not done that; I see no reason to expect the rules to magically change. We can say the same about pre-existing conditions. Saying and doing are often polar opposites. And the last thing about ensuring the feds don’t fund abortions is a strawman. The feds don’t, can’t, and haven’t. At least you apologize when you call me a liar. I propose you go one step further and stop using the term. That way, you won’t need to apologize so often.
mbraun over 10 years ago
They want the young, healthy and DUMB to enroll.