Let's Discuss the GOP Health Plan!!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
November 7, 2009 6:08pm CST
To sum it up rather briefly, the House Republicans' idea of "health care reform" will actually leave more people uninsured after 10 years than we have now, will cut the deficit far less than the Democrats' plan will and will do NOTHING about people being denied insurance due to preexisting conditions. There is also no public option and no subsidies at all for those who can't afford to purchase insurance or to pay for their own care.
In other words, it DOES NOTHING which I'd say is pretty much what we'd have expected from a DO NOTHING PARTY OF NO!!
Read it for yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
Read more about it here: http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2009/11/4/house-republicans-roll-out-alternative-to-democratic-reform-plan.aspx
Can anyone tell me who this would help and HOW?
Annie
2 people like this
7 responses
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
8 Nov 09
Your link for the bill is for HR3692, the House bill sponsored by the Democrats. The second link didn't work.
According to the CBO, the GOP plan will cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.
"The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans."
Who would it help? The CBO found it would help small businesses who would be able to more cheaply afford to give their employees health insurance. They also reported that it would decrease premium costs by seven to 10 percent for small businesses, and by five to eight percent for the individual market. That's going to help people get insurance for less money. Isn't that one of the goals?
People with pre-existing conditions or who have trouble getting insurance would go into high risk pools. Basically that means there will be subsidies for companies to write them policies and they will get assigned to insurance companies. This method is one that is used for auto insurance in many states and we all know that Obama thinks auto insurance and health insurance are the same, so this should make even him happy. These people will get insurance under this plan.
The CBO did NOT find that this plan would leave more people uninsured, it found that it would increase the number of insured by about 3 million and that over ten years the number of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83%. That means the number of uninsured would also remain constant at 17%, or at least that's how my math works it out.
Who would it help? All of us, the taxpayers, those who have pre-existing conditions and working men and women who need lower premiums. It would help reducing medical costs through reform of the malpractice laws.
What it won't do is force you to buy insurance at $15,000 per year or go to jail. It takes someone like Nancy Pelosi to threaten to imprison US citizens if they don't agree that the government has the right to force them to purchase a product. Of course, the Pelosi bill assumes that lots of people will pay the fine, that's how they plan to pay for it.
And they wonder why people compare them to Nazis?
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Nov 09
CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.
But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.
In addition, most individuals who have insurance right now would not see a noticeable drop in their costs. For 15% of the people who have insurance right now, premiums would be reduced by an estimated 7-10%. But for "nearly 80 percent of total private premiums," average insurance premiums would be reduced by only 0-3% by 2016.
Read more here, let's hope this link works: http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/cbo-scores-house-republicans-health-care-bill
Also, here is the correct link for the GOP plan with my apologies for the mistake: http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
There is nothing there about preexisting conditions. Of course, seeing something in a bill that isn't there is nothing new these days, is it?
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Nov 09
Rollo, I forgot to mention that I REALLY take exception to your comment, "And they wonder why people compare them to Nazis?"
Anyone has the right to agree to disagree with any bill being discussed or voted on. It's to be expected there will sometimes be HUGE disagreements like there is with health care reform. However, when people in high levels of our government make comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust or when they compare health care proposals with al Qaeda I think that's WAY over the line and is indefensible! That absolutely offensive sign held up at the rally in Washington the other day, the one with the picture of corpses piled up during the Holocaust, should have been condemned by every House member who saw it.
Before you or someone else gives me that argument about equally despicable signs and pictures displayed by people against the Bush Administration let me assure you of this - IF anyone can show me evidence that at any time the Democratic leadership condoned or ignored anything even remotely comparable to the picture I mentioned above I'll say the same thing! I'm well aware and not at all proud of the fact there are and have been liberals who have done disgusting things but in this case the GOP House leadership was present and had in fact been the ones to organize the event, which is fine but they should have made it clear to the participants that this was NOT what they had in mind.
Annie
1 person likes this

@valentinesdiner (1214)
• United States
8 Nov 09
Gotta give some applause to Rep Stupak for the abortion amendment he is proposing.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Nov 09
This amendment had been discussed and defeated before. I have a question; what about those who already have insurance coverage that does cover abortions that they're paying for themselves? Is it right for them to no longer be able to do that? I know many people are opposed to abortion but it's STILL a legal procedure. Let's be honest, no woman would ever plan or expect to one day need an abortion which means nobody would choose to purchase a separate rider for that coverage "just in case"!
Annie
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
8 Nov 09
"what about those who already have insurance coverage that does cover abortions that they're paying for themselves? Is it right for them to no longer be able to do that?"
Are you saying these people would have to give up the coverage they have in the first place? Whats the problem if there are still private plans around that pay for this?
2 people like this

@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
8 Nov 09
I am a selfish old lady who wants nothing more than to get our of Medicare what I have already paid in taxes for and am still am paying for out of of my Social Security check. I want to keep the supplementary insurance I currently have and I want to still be in control of my own heath care. I do not want to pay for illegals getting health care - they have not paid any taxes into the Medicare system
. I still agree that abortions should be paid for ONLY as a result of rape, incest or if the life of mother or child's life is in danger. I do not want my tax dollars to pay for abortions for any other reason.
No links no lying quotes from greedy self centered politicians just my own honest opinion. Like it or lump it I really do not care because however it turns out I am very sure I am going to get screwed.
. I still agree that abortions should be paid for ONLY as a result of rape, incest or if the life of mother or child's life is in danger. I do not want my tax dollars to pay for abortions for any other reason.
No links no lying quotes from greedy self centered politicians just my own honest opinion. Like it or lump it I really do not care because however it turns out I am very sure I am going to get screwed.
1 person likes this

@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
8 Nov 09
I hope you are correct. As I am already 70 years old I am not too sure if I will live long enough to see what happens in 10 or 20 years. If I do live (or should I say be allowed to live) to be very old I probably will not have all my "marbles" so I'll not know or care what is happening!! 



1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Nov 09
No, you're not a "selfish old lady" at all, you have every right to want and to EXPECT those things. The bills being discussed and hopefully voted on before the turn of the next century won't take your Medicare away nor will they cover illegal immigrants or pay for abortions out of public funds. I hope you realize that even if we're on the opposite side of this issue I most definitely DON'T want you to "get screwed"!
One thing that will continue to happen if there isn't a compromise made allowing illegal immigrants to PAY FOR insurance is they'll continue to go to ERs and get treatment which WE will all continue to pay for one way or another if they can't or won't! No matter which "side" any of us are on regarding illegal immigration one thing is clear - they're not going to all get kicked out of the US en masse anytime soon. What is the common sense to this problem in the meantime? We're not about to literally throw deathly sick people out into the hospital parking lots and I don't think anyone would WANT to do that. I say, if we're going to have to treat them anyway, let's allow them to BUY insurance with their OWN MONEY that they've earned from CROOKED EMPLOYERS so the care they do receive won't be the most expensive possible and will be covered.
Annie
Annie

@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
8 Nov 09
The first link didn't do anything for me, the page was just white but the second link worked. I started reading and thought hmmm that sounds like John McCain's plan. Then I got to the part where it says something about offering the states incentives to reduce costs, but my favor was the "Increase incentives for people to use health savings accounts", those Republicans should have to turn in their great health insurance and use a health savings account. Then the public can see what those ba$stards have to say about HSA's. I swear the next time I hear one of those idiots claim this is the greatest nation in the world I will want to punch them and make them actually read the stories about people dying of curable illnesses because they don't have health insurance.
1 person likes this

@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Nov 09
Piasa, people with insurance here die waiting for treatment, people with insurance here die because the insurers deny payment or rescind their policies for some trumped up reason and 45,000 people here die every year because they have no insurance.
Annie
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
8 Nov 09
People die in other countries and they DO have health insurance. They just die waiting for treatment.
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
8 Nov 09
That may be true but I know a lot of people here on mylot that have a NHS and they do like the treatment that they get for such a small fee. And you're right, I had one member here complaining that she has to wait 2 weeks for her crown when he tooth broke. When my tooth broke I shelled out $700 and had to wait 4 weeks, I just can't see what there is to complain about other than a bunch of ignorant people fearing the worst but, then again we are talking about those same ignorant people that supported Bush's Patriot Act and then were pissed when Obama continued it, makes no sense.
1 person likes this

@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
8 Nov 09
I agree with you 100%, this isn't a plan by the GOP, it is a plan by the insurance industry. They had years to reform health care, and they did nothing.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
9 Nov 09
That's one thing that is hardly ever mentioned! They claim they're not against reform but they have "better ideas" than the Democrats yet when they had the majority and a minority that was afraid to disagree with them for fear of being labeled "un-American" they did nothing!
Annie
@BlueGoblin (1829)
• United States
8 Nov 09
Who cares about Democrats and Republicans?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
9 Nov 09
Good question but I think another good question would be "who do the Democrats and Republicans care about?". The Republicans care about obstructing anything the Democrats want to do, the insurance lobby, obstructing anything the Democrats want to do, their far-right base, obstructing anything the Democrats want to do, the rich and did I mention obstructing anything the Democrats want to do?
On the other hand, the Democrats care about their base (for some), the pharmaceutical companies and the trial lawyers, their constituents and sucking up to the few moderate Republicans there are, which is ONE, namely Olympic Snowe and the most conservative members of their own party, in no particular order.
Annie
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
10 Nov 09
Just the fact that the Democrat's bill forces me to take what I don't want makes me favor the Republican's plan over the Democrat's.

@anniepa (27955)
• United States
11 Nov 09
You didn't answer my question as to WHAT IF. Again, I don't know what your personal situation is, whether or not you have any dependents - a spouse or children - or if you're responsible only for yourself.
Also, what would you suggest should happen to those who haven't been given the same "gift" you have?
Annie
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
13 Nov 09
As I said before, I have health assurance which means the WHAT IF isn't a concern of mine. My healing comes from Jesus not from doctors. This "gift" is available for everyone; but for the most part the church no longer proclaims this truth, so most people put their dependency or faith in doctors and medicine. Since I want my dependency to be on God and not medical professionals and certainly not on the government, I have a real problem with being forced to carry health insurance. The other members of my immediate family have health insurance.







