Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Pretty hard to do when Harry won't let anything see the light of day. If you remember, the Affordable Dare Act was passed by Harry manipulating some old arcane rule. He virtually deemed it passed. He did that to avoid Scott Brown having an opportunity to vote. It was done with a 51% majority at midnight on Christmas Eve without a single republican in the house or senate voting in favor. If he was willing to pull a stunt like that, do you think he wouldn't do everything to prevent the republican voice from being heard? The willing press was certainly not investigating the merits of the plan because they were too busy cheer leading for Obama and everything and everything he stood for. Several alternate plans were suggested including by doctors and all were quickly shut down.[/quote]
Sounds similar to the current issue in the Senate, where we need 60 votes to pass anything, brought to you by Republicans. The house is an even bigger mess thanks to gerrymandered district lines.
What were these plans and who shut them down? I wonder what changes some of the doctors would have made, better payments to them? Were they credible? Do you have any examples of these plans that were proposed and evidence on who shut them down? What made them better than the current plan? I know my congressman loves the part about no pre-existing conditions and some of the other popular items in the plan, so why don't he and his fellow Republicans offer the fix the bad things in the ACA and keep the good ones? It is probably because to keep the popular items requires the unpopular items for it to work. Would being able to keep the old plans make the whole ACA workable? No one had answered that question yet, at least on this forum.
Not to say the Democrates are blameless, they could be doing a much better job as well.
Mel
Mel,
Example of shutdown healthcare plans, here: http://news.yahoo.com/why-individuals-losing-health-plans-under-obamacare-074800336.html
Examples of republican options, here: http://www.newsmax.com/US/scalise-repub ... /id/526541
and here, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08 ... ernatives/
All the above are easy to find but are not covered on the tube because Obama simply will not consider these options. As such these options do not see the light of day in the television news. The republicans have never had a seat at the table when the current healthcare bill (Obamacare) was conceived, considered, and decided upon. As a matter of fact, I believe the republicans were shut out of the building when Obamacare was in it planing and decision stages. Perhaps someone can clarify this.
Our president is simply lying when he says that he will consider the optioninal plans. How many times have you seen Obama say he will negotiate and consider any option? He says it continuously. Yet he has never considered the options let alone negotiated them. So when you say that you want the options debated, send that message to the White House.
Clay thanks for the links,
the first one seems to have conflicting opinions on what is better the ACA or some other options. Some opinions feel the ACA is better. I don't remember reading much of the republican's plans in that link. It does talk about why people are getting dropped from their current insurance, same as what I have been saying. As I have said, that is a discussion to have; the upgraded plans in theory will save money in the long run with its preventive care. But let's put the numbers out there in black and white for the discussion. If preventive care will decrease cost in the long run lets show it. I thought this one quote in that article does show basically what I have been saying.
For the last few weeks, I have seen a vast outpouring of conservative sympathy for young, healthy, prosperous people whose health plan premiums are going up.... But what about the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack health insurance and are about to get access to available, affordable coverage? Where is the conservative sympathy for people who would be worse off if the law doesn't go forward? Nowhere. Because for all the needless complexity of liberals' approach to improving health insurance and helping the sick, conservatives don't have one at all.In the second link, it is claimed that the ACA is a government run program, which is not true, unless it is their claim of the mandates. I can agree with them on the issue of 50 employee and 30 hour week as requirements for providing health care for employees of small business, although from most economic experts that is not really is happening. I agree with their take on creating competition, but I believe the health exchanges was trying to create the competition, yet it seems the insurance companies on either the exchanges and before the ACA were avoiding competition. Would selling across state lines create that competition? Can health care be set up similar to car and home insurance? I know our policies are based in other states. Here was the quote I thought was interesting.
The study group's plan would allow consumers to buy healthcare across state lines and to take a healthcare deduction on their taxes, while small businesses would be able to purchase healthcare through associations and enjoy the buying power of a large corporation. I can agree with the one suggestion that was made in that article, I do know I can take a tax deduction already on the premiums I pay for my family, (of course it also takes our other health care cost added to it to reach the 7% of our income to deduct it). I will say the second part was an issue in our area, a bunch of small business, (each under the 50 employee threshold) in SW MO had got together to create a buying alliance for health insurance for their employees, under the ACA, this was not allowable. I would love to see that changed.
Here is what I got out of the Fox news link. The part about your boss controlling your health care is true in my opinion, but this is what the health exchanges are changing, allowing you to choose the policy that fits your needs, and also allows flexibility, I don't have to choose a job because of the insurance. I can get my own insurance. Believe me, that is why I took my current position. It is true what is says about the current ACA, but I disagree when they say that government run health care leads to rationing. It isn't that way with Medicare, I know, I went through that with my mom. And it isn't that way with the ACA, it isn't government run, it is private insurance offered through an exchange, I see it as no different then what I currently have. Heck rationing was happening before the ACA in my opinion when people were getting dropped due to pre-existing conditions, lifetime maximums, and getting dropped when they become sick. Below is a quote from that article.
"If your boss controls your health care spending, your boss gets to choose your insurance. If the government gets to control your health care spending, then they get to ration care," he said. "If you control your own money, then you get more choice and more control over your health care dollars."
Price emphasizes that his and other alternatives would let consumers choose what kind of insurance they want, while ObamaCare requires consumers to buy insurance and sets guidelines for what will be offered on the market.
"We ought to be moving in the direction of patient-centered health care," Price said. "Which means patients and families and doctors making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C."Just a reminder, for the most part ACA as many call Obamacare really ought to be called Heritage care, since it comes from that what republicans had as I understand it had been proposing since Nixon.
Thanks Sandy for the concern, we appreciate it.
Thanks,
Mel