The alternative Republican Healthcare Plan

[KCJoe]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

as well as 2/3 of the voting public who oppose Obamacare (of course, depending on the poll, this ratio fluctuates from 50/50 to 75/25 opposed).

Just curious, where did you find this polling information? The highest I could find was 58% opposed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...plan-1130.html

[Cheaper2buyit]

I think if people read the mail they get from the insurance company then they would see the benefits like no limites or kids on for 26 or new meds covered l
For autisim or to help stop smoking then you would feel better. Why us it right for them to make me have car house or mortgage insurance.

[Cheaper2buyit]

On yeah city government can tell you cut your grass or fine you tell you what colour you can't paint your house. How tall your fence can be or many other things so who really in your biz. Hell i pay 3 state fees on power bill

[ladylover4ever]

I believe we should get both the Government and our employers out of the Health Care Business. If our employers just gave us a fixed amount of money per month for the purposes of securing our own health care, and if the government not tax the portion of that money we get from our employer, and then we can shop for our own policies just like car insurance. If you cannot afford even the smallest of policies, then maybe the government steps in and provides you an aspirin and a tourniquet.
If you keep yourself in shape, you get a better policy. If your 50 lbs overweight and chain smoke, take the government bandaid policy or pay the piper.

This would give businesses a fixed expense that they can budget and then they could get back to making things and hiring people.

[Longermonger]

As expected, this thread did not produce a Republican alternative healthcare plan. With a few exceptions it turned into a conservative circle jerk about; big government, tax rates, union bashing, etc. And whoa...all of the wrongheaded ideas. I've always been baffled how people can function in society when their whole world view is just plain wrong. I guess it's like religion; if you trick millions of people to believe in an imaginary god, then everything works fine.

[N2SEX46]

Longer, my first reply stayed totally on subject (sorry, but I got windy during my second input). The GOP health care plan? DON'T GET SICK. (Addendum: unless you're rich or have great health insurance already).

[lacrew_2000]

"As expected, this thread did not produce a Republican alternative healthcare plan"

Why does the framework of the conversation have to include a government sponsored 'health care plan' at all?

Around 85% in this nation have coverage. Of the remaining 15%, its an even split between a) too poor, and b) young and invincible and don't want to pay for it

I'm all for a safety net program for those who are too poor. That plan would take around two minutes to draft, on a single sheet of paper. Why this 2,000 page monster (which the SOTH admitted to not even reading)? Does anyone honestly believe that more than 5% of the 'plan' is really about 'healthcare'?

[deacon]

obama care is great..thats why congress and obama and several unions are exempt from it.

[deacon]

http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles...d_11-04-09.pdf

[deacon]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

[KCMasseur]

Originally Posted by thorough9

Just out of curiosity, exactly why do individuals disagree with obama's health care plan, or are people just sticking to their "party line"?

Disclaimer: Having not read that replies that followed, please note that I'm not responding to or taken note of any retorts that were made from this point in the thread)

As a conservative affiliated with the Republican party who is in disagreement with parts of the healthcare plan that was, more specifically, formulated by the Democratic congress and ultimately signed approvingly by Obama:

*First there are fundamental Constitutional disagreement on the legitamacy of the plan. While I understand the desire for people to want to provide for people's health and well being, if we place plans that ignore the Constitution that sets up the framework of what the federal government is empowered to do and has no power to do legitimately, then no law can be unconstitutional and anything may be passed. There were questions of whether the Bush administration was violating the Constitution and subsequent laws that further defined the right to privacy in the tapping into of communications by Americans to people outside of the United States. If those actions make the reader inflamed by the Bush actions are cool and collected by the healthcare law, they are most likely to be the type that are blindly-loyal to the Democrats or liberal stance and cannot see their own hypocracy at anytime. In both situations, its a very grey area of trying to do good while questioning if it is legitmate.
In healthcare, it violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment to reserved powers to the State and individual liberties. The federal government is not empowered to regulate, control, or provide healthcare. That's why healthcare laws vary state to state. Other methods than the current system needs to be developed (up and including a Constitutional amendment) that will allow for portablility of healthcare and individual carried healthcare insurance than employment-dependent(essentially) healthcare insurance system.
*The federal government cannot 'force' an individual to buy something they do not want. The analogy normally is that the States 'make' you buy car insurance, so why can't it make you buy health insurance. States making you buy car insurance is because you choose to have a car; if you do not buy a car and walk, bicycle, ride the bus, you do not have to buy insurance; and most states only require that you buy liability insurance, so the person YOU hurt if you cause an accident will be taken care of, not you.
*The healthcare law will bring about nationalized government healthcare insurance because the insurance companies which manage risk by measuring how much money will need to be accummulated to pay out any claim and still turn a profit (since it cannot print its own money like the federal government). If nationalized healthcare was run perfectly, yes, it would be a great thing. However, what are the chances that it will be run perfectly like any public or private organization? When a local government runs a school, there is some opportunity to move to another school district that is performing (yes, i'm simplifying for THIS discussion's sake); but if nationalized government healthcare is provided, there is no other game in the nation; you leave the United States (though again, maybe it would also be moving because it may no longer be a land built on freedom and liberty to choose).
*Government healthcare becomes political football. Each election, each Congress, how and what healthcare will be provided will be based on the elected officials and the influence of special interest groups. While currently having a healthcare system that is employer-purchased-oriented system is not completely thoughtful of the employee that exercises the insurance, it is not dependent on which party is in power. How children are taught is currently heavily influenced (in generaly) by the elected officials to the school board. How medicaid dollars will be provided to states is heavily influenced by the party in power and the laws and executive orders they make. Whether abortion will be covered or not covered for the federal-funded program or that federal-funded program is based on party in power. It is unwise having politicians (even when some are good and mean well) in control of an individual's healthcare needs.

This is why I am against the healthcare law that passed in 2010. It does not mean there is nothing 'good' in the law; there are many parts Republicans and Democrats agreed on that came into effect almostly immediately because they were agreeable all around (such as not rejecting coverage of pre-existing conditions of minors, which yes could or could not be covered by the federal government's right to 'regulate interstate commerce').

So that is my 'non-haterade', principled disagreement with the so-called 'Obamacare'.

[KCMasseur]

[quote=Longermonger;1009157]As expected, this thread did not produce a Republican alternative healthcare plan. [quote]

Sorry, Longermonger. This is your post and I should direct an answer to you question. (The wway you started this threat did not make for a very good 'invite' for a question 'nothing'; but i digress).

There are 'stated' Republican and conservative proposals (as with Democrats and liberals, a Republican proposal isn't always a conservative idea). However, I concede that the Republicans do not articulate their proposals for health care insurance reform more affordable. Either because the solutions do not sound 'appitizing' to the public because it requires personal responsibility to some degree (like telling someone they have to shovel their own driveway of snow rather than having someone do it for them), but in actuality is far more effective cost wise than having someone do it for them.

Also, there is health care (getting the service, medicine, etc that will provide treatment or remedy for the health issue) and there is health insurance (the insurance that provides health care when certain health conditions that have a measured likelihood of occuring actually do occur).

Providing lower-cost health insurance that is more responsive to the individual needs is to not nationalize the way health care is managed, but increase the empowerment of the individual. Currently, it is namely provided through the employer, and people have a MAJOR fear to move or lose their job for this very reason! Both nationalizing (the Obama plan) and individualizing health care (Republican alternative plan) would remove this particular fear.

People NEED food. While we have programs at State and local levels to provide for the poor and hungry, price of food is relatively cheap and driven by the market of individual Americans. It is not price controlled and directed by a soviet-style government controlled system. Yet, food is not outrageously overpriced and out of the range of most Americans to afford to pay for and still have luxeries. The conservative and Republican positions are generally to provided healthcare through individual choice that will bring down the cost of health care, rather than taking power away that increases costs.

There are plans that are taken seriously by conservatives and Republicans. Now, if you just regard what I said as 'nothing', then anything that is not liberal or Democrat is going to be considered 'nothing'. If you regard the plan as a bad for reasons you can articulate, then I would say intially that you are not being closed minded, but simply have a different set of values, experiences, and interpretation of how government does or should work.

[lakecat]

I have a question I've been curious about for a long time. Insurance is coverage we pay premiums for to reimburse us in case some sort of negative event happens, for example if our house burns down or we get in a car accident. If insurance companies will be required to cover pre-existing health conditions (in other word the event has already occurred BEFORE you purchase the policy), is that really insurance? Normal insurance practice establishes premiums based on the statistical probability that an event will happen. How can you price a policy to pay for something that has already happened? I assume the answer is you don't, you just spread the cost to your entire client base so the people without pre-existing conditions will subsidize those who do by paying higher premiums than they normally would. It would seem to follow that health care insurance costs will increase for the majority of people that don't have pre-existing conditions, not go down as we've been told. Am I wrong?

[KCMasseur]

Originally Posted by lakecat

f insurance companies will be required to cover pre-existing health conditions (in other word the event has already occurred BEFORE you purchase the policy), is that really insurance? Normal insurance practice establishes premiums based on the statistical probability that an event will happen. How can you price a policy to pay for something that has already happened? I assume the answer is you don't, you just spread the cost to your entire client base so the people without pre-existing conditions will subsidize those who do by paying higher premiums than they normally would. It would seem to follow that health care insurance costs will increase for the majority of people that don't have pre-existing conditions, not go down as we've been told. Am I wrong?

A) What you say is true; you are not wrong
B) By requiring all insurance companies to agree to cover pre-existing conditions (most specifically minors that will grow into the new system), the law of averages will generally cause the expense of such mandates to be spread out by the companies. Furthermore, the insurance industry, as it does now, will very likely purchase re-insurance against pre-existing conditions. That is, multiple insurance companies pay one company to cover say autism if one of their policyholders have autism. So all the companies pay a little to manage the overall risk of the likelihood they will be the company that gets the policyholder with autism. So, this can be done while still keep basic capitalistic market forces in place. This is why both Republican and Democrat party was able to reach agreement on this issue and was NOT an item either party wanted to remove from health care reform.

[Longermonger]

[quote=KCMasseur;1011850]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

The conservative and Republican positions are generally to provided healthcare through individual choice that will bring down the cost of health care, rather than taking power away that increases costs.

There's your problem right there. Can you see it? I'll give you a hint: profit.

The right wing approach is to let the market forces (profit motive) work it's magic and drive cost down. That sounds great on paper...just like Communism did. The profit motive demands that profits must be maximized. In this case, insurance company middlemen are siphoning money out of the loop. Profit doesn't pay for hospital beds, nurses, doctors, operations, bandages, medicine, etc...it just POOF! goes away. To make matters worse, health insurance companies can, and do, deny coverage to the people who've been paying for insurance all along. That increases...wait for it...PROFIT, and decreases HEALTH. So wouldn't it be a better deal for American citizens and American healthcare consumers (everyone) to maximize HEALTH instead of maximizing PROFIT?

Right now, health insurance companies have to "pay out" less than Las Vegas casinos.

For the comparison to states requiring motorists to purchase car insurance...not everyone drives a car, but everyone uses healthcare eventually. Except me. I'm never going to get sick or die.