Boehner to announce "GOP alternative to Obamacare" "soon"--

I'm talking about applying different laws to insurers attempting to sell in the same marketplace. Different rating rules, different benefit mandates, different rules around issuance of new policies (relying on each state to police its on own rules in other states).

The federal government giving each insurer permission to ignore the rules governing 49 of 50 markets they may be operating in (and likewise allowing up to 50 different sets of ground rules to govern insurers selling in a given marketplace) would create incoherent markets everywhere in the country.

 

It wouldn't happen overnight, but ultimately the states and insurance companies would work out all of the kinks. The monopolistic power of state-mandated coverage would be broken and the costs would dive as insurance companies realize larger pools of customers and those customers could tailor their plans to what they really need. Companies wishing to keep their prices high would either be forced to adapt or disappear.

 

Taxcutter says:
You want a "warm, wonderful caring attitude" from a large group of people whose role is that of a cash cow? You don't think there is a resentment to be expected from those who have to pay much more and get much less?

Prior to 2009, most of the people had some sort of health insurance. The rest for their own reasons did not. Now the latter group will have lavish health care and won't (for the most part) pay a dime. The former group has to pay MORE for what health care they can get and we can be sure the quality of what they can get will be diminished from what it was in 2008.

The time frame is different but it's the same thing we see with SNAP, Section Eight Housing, energy assistance and EIC. One group gets substantial benefits because they are poor. There seems to be no time limits on these benefits, so you cannot sell them as a "hand up." Being of unlimited duration they are unquestionably a handout."

The major problem is that the recipients are beginning to rival the taxpayers in number.

Rome had bread and circuses.
America has free stuff and TV.

 

spoken like a man that actually has no clue what the facts are.

Despite the availability of all kinds of data that readily and decisively rejects your anecdotally based generalizations, you insist on maintaining your position.

Your characterization of Obamacare not only ridiculously inaccurate and rather superficial in its extent.
Your characterization of welfare/social assistence programs is even more inaccurate.

Regrettably, there are too many people who also share this intransigent ignorance. Its you perogative to do so, of course, but when "faith" or in this case "partisanship" rejects facts and explodes miniscule minorities into massive generalizations, there can be no other label except intellectual dishonesty.

I repeat.

I just don't understand a political perspective that is so misanthropic, unaware of the big picture, full of agressive distain and that believes in "letting em eat cake" all so some individual can have a couple hundred bucks more a year in after tax income. Better that you should have a steak dinner than a couple of kids going hungry in the ghetto.

Pride that requires denigration of others isn't pride at all, its merely arrogant conceit.

 

Taxcutter asks:
From the Hussein Obama administration? Only a Democrat partisan believes the cooked data this administration puts out so easily.

I, for one, resent your "taxpayers be damned" attitude.


"...so some individual can have a couple hundred bucks more a year in after tax income."

Taxcutter says:
He/she worked for that money. Why should they not have it?

 

I think you miss a key part of the GOP thinking, they want a Federal takeover of health insurance regulation, get the states out of it, one rate for everyone, set by Walmart......

 

I give credit for the Left for wanting to provide health care to everyone. But this plan will bankrupt the country. The insurance companies aren't worried. If they lose money, the government will make most, or all of the lose up. People aren't going to be able to afford Obama care. On the cheapest plans, the deductible is so high, you'll need a major health problem before the insurance ever pays a dime of coverage. Lets be honest, you can go bankrupt trying to pay $12,000.00 bill. as well as you can with a $120,000.00 bill. The monthly premium will be a struggle for many.

I know the Left will say lets go to the single payer plan. But you have 47% of the country not paying taxes. Where is all that money coming from with single payer? Are you going to bankrupt the other 53% by hiking their taxes up?

 

He is such a wuss.

 

It was foreseeable hundreds of years ago.

Of course the conservative movement has become polarized. When people are able of sustaining themselves without accountability or responsibility... of course society will go that direction.

This is also why Greece, the EU, and many states in the USA are flat broke. But hey, so long as all those broke people are able to vote themselves more... then that must be the correct answer. Right?

If me being on the polarized side of the debate means that I am on the side in favor of personal liberty and accountability, then so be it.

 

So when confronted by independent facts that are readily available that trash your misanthropic, I/ME/MINE fantasies, you insist in blaming "hussein obama". Okay man, I get exactly where you are coming from.

And if I were you, which happily I am not, I would resent my attitude too.

For instance I can't stand intransigent ignorance reinforced by blind ideological partisanship and abject hatred.
I'm absolutely certain that those with such attitudes did not build the richest most powerful nation on the planet, they were obstacles to be run over.

So resent away.

 

the EU isn't flat broke by any means. Greece screwed their own pooch, weaseled into the EU with the help of Chase/Morgan (unethical practices, but it seems no illegal) and then cried to be bailed out.

But of course you oversimplify to the point of logical fallacy.

Individual liberty has always had constraints, both legally, culturally and politically.
Accountability for one's actions or inactions is also a general societal characteristic.

OTOH, in a minority of the minority of cases where accountability is ignored due to their acceptance of an unearned economic base line from social programs is a given. No system is perfect, but conservatives seem determined to throw the baby out with the bath water for some inexplicable reason that defies the actual performance results of those programs.

This mantra of "personal liberty" and "accountability" of the conservatives looks great on a bumpersticker, but is so vague as to be meaningless as anything more than a rallying cry. It possesses emotionally appealing content to some, but absolutely no intellectual content to anyone.

 

Here is an issue lets say roughly 35 of the states expand Medicaid down the road and say 25 GOP states opt out. And the low income relocate to Medicaid expansion states? There goes House seats and Electoral votes out of hold outs.

 

Actually, the Republicans have offered numerous plans in the past--one authored by Rep. Paul Ryan--which the left simply found unacceptable. Speaker Boehner's recent words merely reflect an attempt to codify the language into a single, well-known bill.

But those who would prefer a statist approach (as regarding which, ObamaCare is emblematic) will surely continue to mock any free-market alternative...

 

"A lot of people" meaning a handful compared to 280 million who were doing ok without ObamaCare.

Now millions will suffer because a few hapless Obama voters failed to take care of themselves.

 

Ryan's plan was acceptable enough that much of it was rolled into the ACA and became law: state-based insurance exchanges with guaranteed issue rules and benefit standards, advanceable/refundable tax credits to help people afford coverage, a national prevention strategy, accountable care organizations, tort reform grants to states, greater transparency in quality and pricing information.

Even his bill's strategy of putting Medicaid-eligible people into commercial insurance plans via direct assistance is becoming a reality in some states (certain red states that asked for and got permission to go that route) under the ACA's Medicaid expansion.

 

Taxcutter says:
Somebody has to speak for the taxpayers. You clearly do not.

 

It's so glaring obvious that you didn't actually present any single fact that proves his statements false, but instead played some cheap slanderous response simply rejecting and dismissing his point.

You can't actually debate his part because it was 100% spot on.

 

And why should the state-mandated coverage be broken? That would allow scam plans and designer plans to be sold in states that do not want them.

Why do you want to overturn states' rights on this particular issue? You argue about states' rights to oppose other issues but throw them out when you want to.

The problem with designer plans is that people want to selfishly ignore their obligation to society.

 

Yes, many people speak for the taxpayers, including themselves, but that role does not necessitate intransigent ignorance. It does not necessitate rejecting actual facts in order to make fatuous arguments.

Want to speak up about government waste? Okay.
Want to speak up about government spending priorities? Okay
Want to speak up about the ridiculous tax code? Okay

Want to ideologically reject any tax increases and wrongfully denigrate and mischaracterize tens of millions of your fellow citizens? Not okay.

 

Do you have any proof or just right wing propaganda? I have the CBO. And with the trend of more healthy individuals joining through ACA, it is still too early to tell if there will be a problem with ACA. If there is, we can fix it. We are way pass the time to go back to 2008 situation and try again.

ACA is here and those people who THINK there is a problem should offer changes to ACA.

You do not have 47% not paying health insurance premiums and not paying for Medicare. Single Payer just changes premiums to taxes just like Medicare tax. Do I want it more progressive under Single Payer? Sure but you can have Single Payer savings even without a progressive taxation.

 

You've read and disliked my posts, Captain, but I'll surprise you this time. Even though I'm the arch-Conservative in all things relating to economy, I think the time is NOW for Single-Payer Health Insurance. And I'm not being sarcastic, either.

It would make American citizens the biggest customer bloc for health insurance, by far! It would produce the greatest competition among all health insurance companies, and insure the best care feature at the lowest prices. It would cover all the United States, with no state borders for individual companies to set up little exclusive market kingdoms in. So what's the catch...? What's the part that liberal Democrats wouldn't like...?

In a Conservative vision of Single-Payer, only those who PAY would participate! All the welfare moochers and leeches, and anybody else who would not pay to be a part of the system would be enrolled in Medicaid -- period! There would be no "subsidies"! What there would be are millions and millions of Americans who are willing to pay a very attractively low price for the best healthcare that can be provided in the world.

Oh, don't look for Boehner to suggest Single-Payer as I have described it. He's too busy giving T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) Party people a public ass-chewing to even think about anything that will really help the nation's health care situation. (*Sigh!*)... Democrats and RINO's -- a perfect storm for the continued downfall of the United States....

 

Can't the same thing be said about the people demanding that they can opt out of their societal responsibilities?

Every bit of that is because people demand things without paying for it. The GOP started that trend on the national level and now claim that the U S is broke. Even in Blue States, many people want without paying for it. In the Red States, they do not want to help their citizens. The citizens in these states don't want to pay for it so they do not do it.

It is all about whether people are willing to do the right thing AND pay for it.

I really don't care what you think of the poor. You degrade them to ease your conscious.

 

Nonsense.

The wipe-every-nose nanny state is a liberal, democrat invention that began with LBJ and the failed war on poverty.

It's the bleeding hearts on the left who are making promises to lazy Obama voters that we cannot pay for.

 

To add to that, three great government spending programs did more to create the richest, most powerful nation on the planet: WW2, GI bill and interstate highway system.

 

So you too admit to intransigent ignorance. I realize its an ideological infectious disease.

The characterization of how good the insurance marketplace prior to ACA is yet another "good ol' days" conservative propaganda turd that is totally divorced from reality. Americans pay the highest prices for the most average of outcomes, be it in such disparate industries as healthcare, education, communications etc. etc. etc. and yet the status quo is good and meaningful reform is bad.


Characterization of the impoverished, the working poor, the young, the disabled and the elderly as "cash cow moochers" can readily and easily be shown to be a gross generalization based on anecdotal evidence. IOW the facts do not substantiate the accusation. It is an ideological position that is emotionally not factually derived and propagated.

Apparently once infected, the partisan no longer has any desire to acquire actual facts or obtain any additional knowledge since they are comfortable in not knowing what they don't know and not actually thinking about what they think they know.

I make no slanderous allusions. I make accurate observation. Why don't you do a little research on your own and find out what % of TANF recipients recieve benefits for more than 5 years? What is the average time on food stamps and what are the demographics of those recipients (e.g. how many of them actually work for not quite a living).

Nah, the right just wants to mischaracterize them all as welfare queens quacking away on their "obamaphones" (might what to look up that little gross right wing distortion too).

But I suppose the ideologues that depend almost exclusively on getting their "information" from such partisan sources as FOX or MSNBC or Rush or Shultz or even from their social circle are the kind of people who will believe whatever nonsense satisfies or reinforces their own notions. Seems most partisans can't find a "grain of salt".