Needs some help from my liberal friends

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I have access to 2 cspans but can't find the one we were promised showing the closed door hearings--
also can't find the .gov websitewe we were promised that is putting up all these bills 5 days in advance--

--or we been punked by The Grifter:talk: --again :0corn

 

[Chadman]

I don't know Wayne, but I think those are fair questions. I was thinking today, that I wonder where all the nitpicking and sensationalizing about the bills were from the other side. If they aren't posted for public view, I have a problem with that. Especially if promised. I don't remember all that, but I'm sure you have links, and stuff...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I'm in same boat as you Chad.

Isn't anyone that knows much about it as much has been done in secret--but my guess is (if it follows past 9 months) when they emerge-there will be 2000 plus pages and they to vote immediately on it.
I don't think anyone is against reforming healthcare--but to have vast changes immediately especially in these times is scarey.

I'd be all for it if they'd start with all these saving and cuts they have talked about--then maybe take a few more steps--if they prove to be successful they'll have 4 more years to work on the rest.

--my personal 1st cut would be-
GW's RX Medicare drug benefit--followed by cuts to medicaid.
Then add tort reform and a few others.

Biggest question I have is how are they going to make everyone participate in any program (unless it's free). If they don't get most to participate- there is no way that you can have no pre ex conditions with prices skyrocketing-its impossible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Irony--I just got this from BC BS in email of their projected increase on cost-with most of reform madates being implemented

Individual Market Case #2: 40-Year Old Family with 2 Children, Average Health Status in Louisville, KY​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Product:​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]Lumenos $3000 ded, 100% Coins[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Contract Type, Gender and Subscriber Age:[/FONT][/FONT]Family with 2 Children Age 40[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Underwriting Class:[/FONT][/FONT]20% Rate UpFamily Monthly Premium% Increase[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Current premium[/FONT][/FONT]$355 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Impact of guaranteed issue and no effective individual mandate, resulting in many waiting to purchase until services are needed$533 50%Limiting age discount to 3:1; eliminating gender rating$628 18%Eliminating health status discount$676 8%Requiring higher benefit level (70% actuarial value and required new benefits)$757 12%Health insurer $6.7B annual tax$779 3%Pharmaceutical tax and medical device tax[/FONT][/FONT]$787 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]1%[/FONT][/FONT]Total Impact$355 to $787122% ​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Notes:​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Methodology for each element presented in the Appendix.
Impact for guaranteed issue with no effective mandate expected to be in the range of 20% to 80%; the midpoint of 50% is shown.
Display reflects costs for new sales; to the extent that pre-reform benefits and rating rules are grandfathered, existing members will initially experience minimal impacts post-reform. However, new purchasers will face these pricing changes.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

New Costs due to ReformCurrent Costs$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800$900Monthly Premium​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Taxpayer Subsidy Offset​

The table above shows the underlying cost of the premium, which is representative of the cost charged to the insurance exchange. The following table shows the extent to which this individual may be eligible for premium assistance in the Exchange (which is available for individuals up to 400% of the federal poverty level).
[/FONT][/FONT]

Federal Poverty Level: Premium SubsidyReform Premium after SubsidyTotal Impact after Subsidy​

​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]100% - 150%: 93% subsidy$55 -84%150% - 200%: 82% subsidy$142 -60%200% - 250%: 67% subsidy$260 -27%250% - 300%: 48% subsidy$409 15%300% - 350%: 32% subsidy$535 51%350% - 400%: 22% subsidy$614 73%400%+: 0% subsidy$787 122% ​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Some proposals also include reinsurance that would subsidize a portion of the costs for high-risk individuals purchasing coverage. However, these proposals phase-out after three years and the total amount available amounts to $20B, which is less than 10% of the expected premium cost over this period.​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]3
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Spytheweb]

I like to know on what website is the republican's health care plan on.

I support single payer HR 676 that will cost 700 billion less than is being paid now and covers everyone.

 

[Spytheweb]

I'm in same boat as you Chad.

Isn't anyone that knows much about it as much has been done in secret--but my guess is (if it follows past 9 months) when they emerge-there will be 2000 plus pages and they to vote immediately on it.
I don't think anyone is against reforming healthcare--but to have vast changes immediately especially in these times is scarey.

I'd be all for it if they'd start with all these saving and cuts they have talked about--then maybe take a few more steps--if they prove to be successful they'll have 4 more years to work on the rest.

--my personal 1st cut would be-
GW's RX Medicare drug benefit--followed by cuts to medicaid.
Then add tort reform and a few others.

Biggest question I have is how are they going to make everyone participate in any program (unless it's free). If they don't get most to participate- there is no way that you can have no pre ex conditions with prices skyrocketing-its impossible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Irony--I just got this from BC BS in email of their projected increase on cost-with most of reform madates being implemented

Individual Market Case #2: 40-Year Old Family with 2 Children, Average Health Status in Louisville, KY​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Product:​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]Lumenos $3000 ded, 100% Coins[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Contract Type, Gender and Subscriber Age:[/FONT][/FONT]Family with 2 Children Age 40[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Underwriting Class:[/FONT][/FONT]20% Rate UpFamily Monthly Premium% Increase[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Current premium[/FONT][/FONT]$355 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Impact of guaranteed issue and no effective individual mandate, resulting in many waiting to purchase until services are needed$533 50%Limiting age discount to 3:1; eliminating gender rating$628 18%Eliminating health status discount$676 8%Requiring higher benefit level (70% actuarial value and required new benefits)$757 12%Health insurer $6.7B annual tax$779 3%Pharmaceutical tax and medical device tax[/FONT][/FONT]$787 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]1%[/FONT][/FONT]Total Impact$355 to $787122% ​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Notes:​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Methodology for each element presented in the Appendix.
Impact for guaranteed issue with no effective mandate expected to be in the range of 20% to 80%; the midpoint of 50% is shown.
Display reflects costs for new sales; to the extent that pre-reform benefits and rating rules are grandfathered, existing members will initially experience minimal impacts post-reform. However, new purchasers will face these pricing changes.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

New Costs due to ReformCurrent Costs$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800$900Monthly Premium​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Taxpayer Subsidy Offset​

The table above shows the underlying cost of the premium, which is representative of the cost charged to the insurance exchange. The following table shows the extent to which this individual may be eligible for premium assistance in the Exchange (which is available for individuals up to 400% of the federal poverty level).
[/FONT][/FONT]

Federal Poverty Level: Premium SubsidyReform Premium after SubsidyTotal Impact after Subsidy​

​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]100% - 150%: 93% subsidy$55 -84%150% - 200%: 82% subsidy$142 -60%200% - 250%: 67% subsidy$260 -27%250% - 300%: 48% subsidy$409 15%300% - 350%: 32% subsidy$535 51%350% - 400%: 22% subsidy$614 73%400%+: 0% subsidy$787 122% ​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Some proposals also include reinsurance that would subsidize a portion of the costs for high-risk individuals purchasing coverage. However, these proposals phase-out after three years and the total amount available amounts to $20B, which is less than 10% of the expected premium cost over this period.​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]3
[/FONT][/FONT]

Under single payer HR 676: Family of 4 making $56,200.00 would pay a payroll tax of $2700.00 a year, that's $225.00 a month for any illness even cancer covered 100%!

No co-pays or deductibles-- what's the catch? Will I actually pay less for health care?

There is no catch. Both families and employers will pay significantly less for health care.

Currently, the average family of four covered by an employer-provided health care plan spends roughly $4,225 on health care each year, including premiums, services, prescription drugs and supplies. This figure does not include the annual Medicare payroll tax, currently at 1.45%. Under the plan created by H.R. 676, a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. No deductibles, no co-pays, no worrying about catastrophic coverage.

Employers who provide health insurance currently pay, on average, 74% of employee health premiums. For a family of four, the average employer share is $8,510 per year. Under H.R. 676, the employer pays a 4.75% payroll tax, not a premium to health insurance companies. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 annually, the employer would pay roughly $2,700.

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676faq

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The link you requested Spy--
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

--and on your interpretations of plan--no one has a clue which plan will be voted on yet--

The logical thing to do is wait till they decide on one--

Then--hope like hell we get a few days to read it over before they rush it to a vote before it can be digested.

They should treat it like they do war in afgan--no hurry- we just had largest death toll of entire war with week to go--

Amazing what their priorities are--wouldn't you say?

 

[Spytheweb]

The link you requested Spy--
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

--and on your interpretations of plan--no one has a clue which plan will be voted on yet--

The logical thing to do is wait till they decide on one--

Then--hope like hell we get a few days to read it over before they rush it to a vote before it can be digested.

They should treat it like they do war in afgan--no hurry- we just had largest death toll of entire war with week to go--

Amazing what their priorities are--wouldn't you say?

Bush didn't take long to launch a war in Iraq, even thou he was suppose to go back to congress and get another vote on the war.

Do you think 63 years of feet dragging is slow enough?

" Before his death in 1945, Franklin Roosevelt came out in favor of universal health care and in November, 1945, Harry Truman asked the Congress to enact a national insurance program "to assure the right to adequate medical care and protection from the economic fears of sickness."

Sadly, Truman's plan was resisted by the AMA. Predictably, it was fought tooth and nail by the pharmaceutical industry. Pathologically, the corporate media and conservative politicians, mainly Republican but joined by Southern Democrats, denounced the plan as "socialistic." When Republicans took over Congress in 1946 it meant that national health insurance was once again declared dead. Since then, America has only been able to obtain the enactment of the Medicare/Medicaid programs, which only passed because they were richly sweetened with plums to the medical profession and the promise of huge guaranteed bounties to the pharmaceutical industry."

The reason i support single payer is there is no other bill, no bill, that covers 100% of the people and is more cost effective. Single payer beats them all hands down, no other plan even comes close.

Congress knows this and this is why they won't even talk about it. Google any single payer cost study, no other plan beats it no mater how they move the numbers around.

 

[Spytheweb]

Under HR 676 single payer:

(a) In general.?The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:

(1) Primary care and prevention.

(2) Inpatient care.

(3) Outpatient care.

(4) Emergency care.

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Durable medical equipment.

(7) Long term care.

(8) Mental health services.

(9) The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).

(10) Substance abuse treatment services.

(11) Chiropractic services.

(12) Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).

(13) Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.

(b) Portability.?Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.

(c) No cost-sharing.?No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Geez Spy
everyday I see a new post and think maybe someone will give me help on my intial questions--
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Needs some help from my liberal friends
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1d1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->I have access to 2 cspans but can't find the one we were promised showing the closed door hearings--
also can't find the .gov websitewe we were promised that is putting up all these bills 5 days in advance--

--or we been punked by The Grifter:talk: --again :0corn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but instead I get more rhetoric and new promises from same people that bit on same promises in question?

carry on--

<!-- / message -->

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, you yourself said above that there is no bill to discuss yet, or post. So, it will be coming. Have seen that there will be 72 hours minimum for study on it. I think there should be a lot more time, but I do agree that I doubt there is much point in taking more time, since the republicans other than one, perhaps, will be against the bill no matter what it contains.

It's not like the republicans plan on working on anything or trying to make something happen on this issue, after all...

 

[Chadman]

Ok, so I took a look at the bullet point "plan" that the Republicans are "putting out there," Wayne. Let's examine the "plan."

The American people have spoken. They oppose government-run health care. Republicans are on the side of the American people.

I know you can AT LEAST find polls that state both sides of this. From what I know, most of them show the public in favor of a public option (or whatever the republicans want to call it to sway opinion for poll-taking purposes). This includes doctors, by the way. So, the initial foray in the plan is essentially false.

"We do need medical liability reform, and it needs to be real reform. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care."

Not surprising, the main focus of the republicans is tort reform, which a majority of states already have on the books. I don't see any reform of any other kind that would address costs to people on the books, but this is the most important one to Republicans. More of the same? Of course it is, no real reform, nothing new, nothing that would change anything.

"Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance."

Love the idea. Many democrats have it, too, probably will be in the bill, I would guess. We'll see. The problem with that idea, though, is that the same big insurance companies will be controlling the pot and the options - as they control the vast majority of "plans" and "options" now, in all the states. So, this won't really affect much tangible change, will it?

"All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions."

Definitely a part of the democratic plan - and far more of a concern on that side, than on the republicans side.

"Individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do."

And a public option wouldn't address this? The only thing keeping this from happening now are the lack of organization of individuals, small businesses and other groups - and of course the insurance companies preventing it with no options for these groups or individuals. What does this republican plan do to address it? Forcing insurance companies to offer something? I seriously doubt that. And the republicans now think that the labor union way of providing insurance is a good thing, something to be strived for? Interesting.

"We can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor."

Really? How so? Public assistance for those with no insurance, who can't access a doctor? THIS is a part of the republican plan? I can only imagine how thorough and how big this part of the plan would be... :mj07:

"nsurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention ? something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they?d simply made healthier choices earlier in life."

Yes, they should be able to offer this. Question: who is stopping them from offering this? Who is preventing the insurance companies from offering incentives? Why aren't they offering any? How would you mandate them offering these mandates? Government mandates, oversight, regulations, what? I do believe this would be a part of the democratic plan, for sure - as Obama himself has made this a priority for any new legislation, as a way to cut costs for everyone.

Thanks for the republican plan Wayne. Looks like most of it is a joke, and the rest of it is covered quite nicely by the Democrats. And of course we all know that the only reason the republicans threw up these BS bullet points is because the Democrats acted and made it a priority.

Carry on...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wayne, you yourself said above that there is no bill to discuss yet, or post. So, it will be coming. Have seen that there will be 72 hours minimum for study on it. I think there should be a lot more time, but I do agree that I doubt there is much point in taking more time, since the republicans other than one, perhaps, will be against the bill no matter what it contains.

It's not like the republicans plan on working on anything or trying to make something happen on this issue, after all...

I Hope they they give a few days Chad--and don't do the rope a dope rush job again--seems he put deadlines on everything except -except Afgan--been over 60 days since he got recommendation.
Can't for the life of me figure why healthcare plan that won't be implemented for a year minimum is so urgent and war a very crucial time no big hurry--guess everyone has diff priorities,

 

[Chadman]

Any thoughts of my explanation of how the Republican "plan" is a joke, Wayne? And would you agree the only reason they came up with any so-called plan (I use the term jokingly, of course) is because the democrats pushed for the legislation, that would have never come about otherwise?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I agree with Reb points---

Let the Dems show us all these "cost saving measures" so far cutting medicare is it while at same time expanding medicaid.

Personally i would opt to take better care of the senior citizens that have busted their ass all their lives--then cut them off and pander to those spitting em out at a 70% illigit rate--residents of those sancuary cities the dems promoted (illegals) and the rest of Da Base.

I have no prob supporting our seniors who paid in all their lives but will do all within my power to see that the welfare whores-illegals-and other non productive elements of our society don't get a plug nickel.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I'm sick of all these politicians. DTB, do you really think the Republicans have your best interests in mind? Lets not even compare them to the democrats. Just looking at the Republicans, are you really proud of them?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I agree TU all politicians are for themselves and I've stated before I don't care for politicians in general.

When it comes to voting I vote for those that most closely mirror my conservative values.

Many votes are not so much much for rebs but against lack of values of liberals--

This healthcare bill primary example--
they have expanded food stamps and medicaid and want to cut medicare and ssn.

Classic redistibution of wealth from the productive to the deadbeats.

We each have those that we identify with--and vote to protect--pretty cler cut--I would say.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I agree TU all politicians are for themselves and I've stated before I don't care for politicians in general.

When it comes to voting I vote for those that most closely mirror my conservative values.

Many votes are not so much much for rebs but against lack of values of liberals--

This healthcare bill primary example--
they have expanded food stamps and medicaid and want to cut medicare and ssn.

Classic redistibution of wealth from the productive to the deadbeats.

We each have those that we identify with--and vote to protect--pretty cler cut--I would say.

Why aren't you voting for 3rd party candidates? The Republicans could really give a fuck about you.

 

[gardenweasel]

I agree TU all politicians are for themselves and I've stated before I don't care for politicians in general.

When it comes to voting I vote for those that most closely mirror my conservative values.

Many votes are not so much much for rebs but against lack of values of liberals--

This healthcare bill primary example--
they have expanded food stamps and medicaid and want to cut medicare and ssn.

Classic redistibution of wealth from the productive to the deadbeats.

We each have those that we identify with--and vote to protect--pretty cler cut--I would say.

...i say let`s split the country into two systems..... anyone democrat or leftist must be forced into the marxist system obama`s slowly instituting.....

let THEM bear the fruits of their own failed philosophy....

nothing wrong with that,right?...?confiscate 90% of THEIR wealth and redistribute it...force them into goverment rationed care, make them buy only only the crappy u.a.w. automobiles and stick their children in failing public schools....

lets give them what they want...make life so burdensome, so politically, socially and economically deadening for them.....

let em live under their own self-imposed slavery....tough love ...

/if onLy...

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

...i say let`s split the country into two systems..... anyone democrat or leftist must be forced into the marxist system obama`s slowly instituting.....

let THEM bear the fruits of their own failed philosophy....

nothing wrong with that,right?...?confiscate 90% of THEIR wealth and redistribute it...force them into goverment rationed care, make them buy only only the crappy u.a.w. automobiles and stick their children in failing public schools....

lets give them what they want...make life so burdensome, so politically, socially and economically deadening for them.....

let em live under their own self-imposed slavery....tough love ...

/if onLy...

Another right wing warhawk who now is all for splitting the country in half. Fucking hypocrite.

 

[gardenweasel]

Another right wing warhawk who now is all for splitting the country in half. Fucking hypocrite.

i just don`t feel like paying for your sloth....you want to give the majority of the fruits of your labor to some bureaucrats to divvy up?.......be my guest...