PDA

View Full Version : No ideas from Republicans???



pooltchr
10-30-2009, 10:02 AM
I wonder why this bill hasn't moved forward. Certainly, it couldn't be because Nancy didn't write it, or that someone from the dark side actually had a workable plan.


of HR 3713, the American Health Care Solutions Act.


This bill, drafted by Rep. Mike Rogers (MI-08), would lower the cost of health insurance and allow more Americans to buy quality coverage.



Key provisions of the American Health Care Solutions Act include:

· Preventing insurance companies from denying care based on pre-existing conditions or becoming sick
· Expanding federal block grants for state high-risk pools that accept all patients
· Creating association and small business health plans
· Allowing families to purchase insurance across state lines
· Enacting comprehensive medical liability reform
· Expanding and improving health savings accounts
· Allowing employers to offer discounts for healthy behaviour through wellness and prevention programs
· Strengthening penalties for Medicare and Medicaid fraud, and expanding funding for federal anti-fraud monitoring
· Establishing “transparency portals” in each state to provide families more information about health plans and providers


But we all know that the Republicans don't want healthcare reform, and just want to let everyone die. We are, after all, the party of "NO".

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

LWW
10-30-2009, 10:07 AM
That has not moved forward because it does not further empower the state.

It is not an idea because it is not dearest leader's idea.

Therefore, the republikooks have no ideas.

How else can an overwhelming consensu of opinion be maintained other than by disregarding all dissent?

Why do you keep publishing such racist things?

LWW

pooltchr
10-30-2009, 10:52 AM
I already told you. I'm a white southern male. I have no choice!

Steve

LWW
10-30-2009, 11:20 AM
Why can't you be more like Robert Byrd and George Wallace?

LWW

Chopstick
10-30-2009, 12:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We are, after all, the party of "NO".

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">No we aren't</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
10-30-2009, 02:09 PM
Myself ... I'm glad there is a party of no.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to the TARP idiocy.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to PORKULUS.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to cap and tax.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to strong arming secured creditors in the auto BK's.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to the UAW bailout.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to ACORN.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to the car system.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to the takeover of the financial industry.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to the state being turned against the power of free press.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to the power of the state being used against private citizens.

- More in congress should have said <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NO!</u></span></span> to using union goons as state enforcers.

LWW

Kerbouchard
10-30-2009, 06:14 PM
An honest questions for Republicans...I am definitely not on the left side of the political spectrum, but I have an issue from the original post.

Why should health insurance companies not be allowed to take preexisting conditions in to account? From a business model, it makes no sense what so ever to provide an insurance policy to somebody you know is predisposed to cost you money.

Why should a business make that decision, and would you invest in a business who decided to? I wouldn't, but that is what our government is asking us to do; to fund a health care insurance policy for people we know are high risk and have no ability to pay for what they receive. The entire scenario is ridiculous; from a private model to a government model. Neither one is sustainable.

Kerbouchard
10-30-2009, 06:19 PM
In short, why do politicians want to force companies to do things that they know cannot be sustained and are not feasible from a standard business model?

LWW
10-31-2009, 05:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An honest questions for Republicans...I am definitely not on the left side of the political spectrum, but I have an issue from the original post.

Why should health insurance companies not be allowed to take preexisting conditions in to account? From a business model, it makes no sense what so ever to provide an insurance policy to somebody you know is predisposed to cost you money.

Why should a business make that decision, and would you invest in a business who decided to? I wouldn't, but that is what our government is asking us to do; to fund a health care insurance policy for people we know are high risk and have no ability to pay for what they receive. The entire scenario is ridiculous; from a private model to a government model. Neither one is sustainable. </div></div>

If you aren't aware of my political history ... I'm a former Marxist, early member of Greenpeace, trained in the tactics of Saul Alinsky, hardcore Jimmuh Cahtuh and demokook campaigner, discoverer of the fraud involved in the far left leadership, converted to a Reagan conservative, former hardcore republichicken campaigner, disgusted with the republichicken's once they gained all 3 houses of congress and abandoned principle, strict constructionist patriot.

Now ... that all being said there are 2 leftist beliefs that I support in principle.

1 - Clean air and water. The environmental movement has done great good for the world, but in the last 25 years has morphed into a perversion of it's former self.

Although I support a clean environment I do it for sane reasons and have come to the enlightened conclusion that a prosperous capitalist state, with an involved and educated populace, is the planet's best friend. Prosperous western nations are the ones that have made all the strides in the ecological movement. The far left "PEOPLE'S PARADISE" nations such as Communist China, Cuba, USSR, Viet Nam and others are eco-shiite holes. Poor nations can barely afford to survive. Clean air and water are a luxury a starving people cannot afford.

Also, the idea that humanity is the cause of global warming is snake oil sold by the anti capitalists to the ignorant ... and nothing more.

2 - Health care reform. In principle, I agree with your point on pre existing items ... this however is a person's life and not a surcharge for a traffic ticket.

Now, don't take that to mean that I support the idiocy being pimped by the demokooks because I don't.

I think a far and reasonable reform would be that insurers come up with a series of coverage plans that the consumer can choose from ... ranging from catastrophic coverage to full blown see the doc every time you sneeze plans.

Then, ban surcharging for genetic disorders that the citizen cannot control. At the same time ... surcharges for tobacco use, drug use, DUI convictions, excessive body weight, et cetera should be allowed as those are all things which ARE within the citizen's control.

Pre existing issues should be covered so long as people sign into the program from the beginning. If you choose not to enroll and then need it down the road ... you were stupid, sorry.

Now, the hard choices. The libertarian in me says that it is wrong to force someone to insure their medical care no matter how much sense it makes ... so a legal requirement shouldn't be there IMHO.

Also, the humanitarian in me says that is immoral to deprive someone in need of medical care simply because they were stupid.

The tough love part of me says that if you need medical care and have not set up for it in a responsible manner ... the care should still be provided. As part of the deal however, the irresponsible party now has incurred a debt to society.

That debt should be pursued with at least as much vigor as a child support debt, or a bad tax debt, or a defaulted student loan.

Methods of collection should include ... at a minimum ... the keeping of any tax refunds due, liens against personal property, confiscation of assets, garnishment of wages, and jail time for refusing to comply.

LWW