Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mike Rogers...what a dope. He notes that cancer survival rates are (slightly) lower in Canada, which is true for a variety of reasons. He then tries to claim that if the current health care bill is passed, cancer survival rates will somehow decline here. How will that happen? He doesn't say. And the reason that he doesn't say is that there isn't the first reason to suspect that it would be the case. It's another empty example of using scare tactics, which is about all the freaking Republicans have to offer on any topic these days...
The Republican alternative is unsurprisingly a very different approach to health care reform. Several of the features that are included in various Democratic bills and appear to be very popular with the public - including no denial of health care insurance due to pre-existing conditions - are not part of the Republican alternative bill.
In addition, the CBO estimate states: "By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share." And that means the number of uninsured basically would not change.
It's true that the numbers included in the CBO estimate are better than for the plans advanced by Congressional Democrats, but it seems to me that the primary reason the numbers are better is that the Republican alternate does less for significantly fewer people.
the democratic plan just denies medical care to the older generation, so which is better balance the healthcare on the backs of the eldery by medical boards that tell you what type of care you are entitled to.
the democratic plan just denies medical care to the older generation, so which is better balance the healthcare on the backs of the eldery by medical boards that tell you what type of care you are entitled to.
Silver, the democratic plan may pass as it is or it may fail. At this point, though, I am least confident that if it fails it will be for some other reason than paranoiac thoughts that a "death panel" is being created. It is true that there are proposals to try and come up with the most effective treatment regimens for different diseases and medical conditions. The idea is that some regimens are better than others and involve the use of more economical treatments. This isn't a death panel, its common sense.
If you are deadset against the democratic plan than come up with some real reasons for being against it.
the democratic plan just denies medical care to the older generation, so which is better balance the healthcare on the backs of the eldery by medical boards that tell you what type of care you are entitled to.
SilverOne, you leave out a very important point. If it wasn't for the government stepping in private insurers 40 years ago would have "insured" (pardon the pun i spelled it with an i on purpose) the elderly did not receive care. Actually let me preface that differently. The private sector would have ensured that most older individuals who do not reside in the top 1% would have been denied care.
You argument about government and the elderly is invalid. They have no right to more health care on tax payers dollars than younger individuals.
I have yet to see anyone argue out of this logic. What entitles elderly individuals to 1 Billion Dollars worth of subsidized Health Coverage on the backs of much younger healthier workers?
It's just a generational transfer of wealth, that directly goes from younger tax payers to the medical industry.
We spend 2.2 billion and the government alone Spends 50% of this cost on medical coverage for the Elderly.
Now, it is all of a sudden wrong, that they'll actually have to share the risk pool with the very individuals funding their subsidy?
Do you have a more comprehensive survey you'd like to present?
Exactly so. The fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people are happy with their health insurance and medical care is INDEED one of the reasons health care reform could fail.
You're happy with your insurance costs going up 50%/yr?
You're happy with your insurance costs going up 50%/yr?
Huh? They're not going up 50%/yr.
Oh, wait... you're talking about what will happen to insurance premiums if the Dems pass their version of health care reform. You know, the premium increases the CBO projected...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
Earlier this week, the CBO estimated that in 2016 the “average of the three lowest-cost basic plans” under the House Democrats’ bill would be $15,000 for a family. Today, CBO estimated that the Republican bill would lower premiums in the individual market up to 8 percent, the small group markets by up to 10 percent, and the large group market by up to 3 percent. According to CBO average health care premiums in the individual market would be $11,000 in 2016 under current law. An 8 percent reduction in those costs would mean a premium of $10,120 – nearly $5,000 less expensive than the cheapest Democrat plan, which CBO says is unlikely to attract many families, meaning average premiums would be even higher in the Democrats' exchange.
Are you eager to pony right on up there and pay another $5,000 a year to those 'evil' insurance companies just so the Democrats can pass their horrendously misguided health care bill?
It sounds like you are not concerned about anyone but yourself.
(don't use my tax money to help someone else)
Seemingly without realizing that you are likely already paying for those less fortunate by way of increases to your premiums.
With the added advantage of having thousands of americans die every year due to a lack of insurance.
I don't see any possible way for someone to defend your position.
Lets focus on the lackluster republican bill in this thread.
You can spread your lack of knowledge about the budget in other threads.
Somewhere right now Saul Alinski is beaming with pride.
Since when has anything the federal government done been anything but a self-serving bait and switch scam?
Let me get this strait, we're going to insure an additional 36 million people, cover people with pre-existing conditions, not raise taxes and not ration care. Dude, that only happens in magic unicorn land.
How long have you been paying into that Social Security Ponzi scheme?
I bet not as long as I have. Guess what? Niether one of us will get the benefits we payed for because it's going to be insolvent long before we retire. Get it? It's a frickin' scam!
Now I don't care about anyone but myself because I don't want the same people who raided the SS trust fund, leaving behind the cutest little IOU, to take over health care and pay for it with half a trillion in Medicare cuts and big tax increases?
When your bill doesn't throw granny under the bus get back to me about being selfish.
Somewhere right now Saul Alinski is beaming with pride.
Since when has anything the federal government done been anything but a self-serving bait and switch scam?
Sounds like you hate America - our government, our constitution set us apart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Links
