Republican counter-proposal to Obamacare

That was on the table. Opposition from 40 Republicans + Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson killed it.

 

Of course for those who are uninsured survivability becomes a crap shoot. First they are less likely to get screened so when they are diagnosed they are much sicker, and then they find they cannot afford the treatments, so they either bankrupt their families trying to get the treatments or they choose to die.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/hea...ly-to-die-from-cancer-following-diagnosis.htm

 

Don't like it. We need a public healthcare option. This stinks as much as the ACA.

 

And after they watch this video I've been floating around on this forum, they never will; http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=40A79B602E4BFD95D85D40A79B602E4BFD95D85D

 

Wow, coming up with some vague ideas, three years after debate ended...

BTW, you can't cover pre-existing conditions without a mandate, that doesn't work, that would just make the selectivity problem worse and bring about the collapse of the system even sooner than it would have collapsed.
The ACA works.

 

This is the key to lower health care costs. The AMA has been privileged to introduce regulation which creates artificial scarcity of health care providers. Artificial scarcity is the goal, because it means higher wages for those who comply or are grandfathered in. This is a conflict of interests, because the doctors who make the regulations will receive higher wages if the regulations are restrictive to competition.

At this stage in the game, my solution would be for the government to give the AMA the middle finger. In order to make up for the scarcity of providers which the AMA has caused, the government should open enough new medical schools, and do whatever it takes to get enough students trained to the point where doctors are as cheap to hire as a plumber. When the supply of trained doctors is high enough that they can (on average) only command the pay of a skilled tradesman, then health care will once again be affordable and health insurance will no longer be necessary.

A greater supply of health care providers would put an end to this health insurance scandal and many of the health insurance companies would go broke … and I say good riddance. The medical industry and insurance industry are at or near the top of the list of those who spend the most on lobbying government for favorable regulations, as long as this continues health care will never be affordable again.

 

Officially give them the finger too, I want congress to vote on it like the founders intended.

I woul even go further. I would let RNs do regular family practice and prescribe basic prescriptions like approved antibiotics an the like. High school grads to check vitals and take weight. We have nurses doing what they did 60 years ago but they are more knowledgeable then doctors at that time.

 

That's not unreasonable at all, but it seems that many are offering survivability rates in the US, compared to countries with socialized medicine, as evidence that the private medical insurance/providers system in the US is better.

That is both an unsupported gross generalization, and an oversimplified anti Obama talking point.

It may be completely possible that a socialized system in the US could be better than private medical insurance/providers system we have, or maybe not.

Socializing medicine in the US could make it more like the DMV. But the system is degrading by the year anyway. Hospitals and private practice doctors now hire low paid graduates from medical assistant "mills" turning well rounded and educated providers into apathetic compartmentalized bureaucracies...all the while costs increase. Insurance companies are cutting wages and staffs, and taking what used to be middle class jobs into $15/hour, and $13/hour temp jobs.

Something has to give, and I suspect when it does, whatever we'll have to do, will not be something we can chose.

 

Of course Republicans would oppose it. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been a zero cost to the taxpayers plan like mine was though. Dems don't think that way.

 

Republicans are desperate to sabotage the Affordable Care Act any way they can because they know once it's in place they'll never get rid of it.

 

And what's even worse, is with all the accusations, lies, and misinformation with ads and exaggerated hyperbole rants, all that will be exposed for what it is. The republican word after that, will never be taken to heart as it once was. They will have proved the true brand of the republican party. That they are self serving, and that they will do and say anything to maintain the power.

 

Hows about we let the free market and competition work? You know, like real Americans.

 

Na. Ill go with the universal healthcare option paid for by taxes. After all, being poor shouldnt be a death penalty when it comes to treatable illness's. We will always have the poor, and the working poor. After all. Someone has to be the janitor right?

 

Those of us not blinded by jingoistic ignorance and arrogance can name dozens of countries that offer better healthcare.
I live in both the US and in the UK and, without a doubt, I prefer the UK approach to healthcare over the US healthcare system.
The same goes for most European countries with a national health service.

 

In other words: do nothing.

 

Name one with better recovery rates. Just one. I don't need a narrative about what you like about lefterism, I just want one that has better recovery rates then we do. Just a name please and don't pick The UK. Your are as likely to recover from cancer there as you are in Estonia or Belarus. Horrible rates, and they just spent a fortune trying to improve them via central planning.

- - - Updated - - -

Why must you do things to people all the time?

 

Republicans have become so accustomed to spreading disinformation that they can't possibly get through the day without numerous distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

 

What are you talking about? Surviving an injury or a condition is why you use medical care. Why would any other metric matter? That is like saying, "these are both cars, the subsidized one breaks down more often but the more reliable reliable privatized car is more expensive", and then responding "the cars are exactly the same, one is just more expensive. " except there is no AAA for the dead. If you can find a country whose survivor rates wouldn't cost is more lives then the war on terror I would like to see that country. Can be as homogenous, tiny and as rich as you want.

 

What do you like best about the obamacare taxes an why do you think they will lower the cost of medicine?

 

I hear this day in and day out Surf.

A super huge high tech company is a client of our medical insurance company, so they have lot's of ex pat's working there from countries with socialized medicine, and they HATE our system without exception

 

If by casting doubts about your unsupported conclusions I've blown your mind, I apologize, but this response is simply begging the question, and pretty deflective.

My point is simply we don't have another country with socialized medicine similar enough to the US to even begin to judge how much better or worse socialized medicine would be if implemented in the US.

Furthermore...Obamacare isn't socialized medicine, nor is medicare.

 

Well if by universal healthcare option paid for by taxes, you mean Obamacare you got it!

 

Yeah. It is already the best health care in the world. Why do you think leftist despots from other countries come here for health care instead of staying in their own countries with their failed socialized medicine. Free market entreupenuers will always provided better and more inovative care than government employees.

 

So, you can't find any country on earth that has better medical care then us? That all the Richest countries except us have socialized health care doesn't matter to you though right?

So what is your argument again? Why should we change to the model you advocate?

 

As the current reform bill - passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, and determined to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court - begins to be applied in major respects, the token "alternative", being contrived is one more feeble, diversionary device by GOP berserkers who fear the success of nationalized WillardCare.

Some think the Affordable Care Act does not go far enough, others loathe to give it a chance. Let's first see how the law of the land works. If it needs to be amended or repealed, it will be - based upon experience and empirical results, not effusive encomiums nor vapid badmouthing.

My expectation is that ethical values and cost effectiveness will dictate the eventual adoption of an approach along the lines of advanced nations rather than some ideological pipe dream with no paradigm in the real world.

The $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy that sustains the privileged covered by group insurance needs to be eliminated despite those folks regarding it as their entitlement.