Rep. Grayson: "GOP Health Plan: Don't Get Sick. If You Get Sick, Die Quickly:"

[DennisS]

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confused. The GOP bill is 230 pages while the Democrat's proposal is 1990 pages long.
"WASHINGTON (AP)- After months spent criticizing Democrats' health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It's much shorter and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans.
A 230-page draft was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said changes were still being made before the bill would be finalized in time to offer as an alternative when Democrats begin floor debate on their bill, possibly at the end of this week."

Thanks for the correction.... 230 pages not 1990.

[Rruthie G]

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confused. The GOP bill is 230 pages while the Democrat's proposal is 1990 pages long.
"WASHINGTON (AP)- After months spent criticizing Democrats' health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It's much shorter and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans.
A 230-page draft was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said changes were still being made before the bill would be finalized in time to offer as an alternative when Democrats begin floor debate on their bill, possibly at the end of this week."

The Congressional Budget Office gave the Republicans' health care bill a failing grade: A package seemingly meant to address the problem of the uninsured that does almost nothing to expand insurance or lower premiums.

"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."

In the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO's estimates."

CBO says, "In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law."

So, if you spend $12,000 out of pocket every year for insurance on the individual market, the House bill could bring that burden down to a measly $11,040, and would do nothing to prevent you from going bankrupt if and when your policy gets canceled or you hit your annual or lifetime benefits cap.

Here's how the conservative Washington Examiner described it: "CBO: Republican health plan would reduce premiums, cut deficit."

Not false, but not exactly edifying, either. A more accurate headline might be: "CBO: Republican health plan proves that, for a very low price, you can insure almost nobody, and keep premiums sky high."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

[Really]

Seeking truth wrote:

Oh yeah, Congress controls the purse strings....
GOP 1994-2006. LOL

Hmmmm economy was pretty good until oh... say the end of 2006.... what occurred at that point.... let me see... oh yeah, now I remember... 2 houses of government became totally DEMOCRAT controlled.

What was that you were saying dumb dumb?

[Really]

Yep wrote:

<quoted text>
You have obviously forgotten who started those two wars.

So, lets see if I have your point shall we?

Since obama did not start the wars, it is just fine and dandy that he allows those soldiers involved in those wars to linger and die without support?

Glad we cleared up how you excuse any bad behavior that is perpetrated by obama.

[Mr Charlie]

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
So, lets see if I have your point shall we?
Since obama did not start the wars, it is just fine and dandy that he allows those soldiers involved in those wars to linger and die without support?
Glad we cleared up how you excuse any bad behavior that is perpetrated by obama.

It's also amazing how the dimwits forgot that it was the Islamic extremists that started the wars. Bush just brought the war to them. Of course, Bush also didn't stand up for the troops by tying their hands and not letting them fight to win. The Armed Forces committee also need to be held accountable on that one.

[Really]

Mr Charlie wrote:

<quoted text>
It's also amazing how the dimwits forgot that it was the Islamic extremists that started the wars. Bush just brought the war to them. Of course, Bush also didn't stand up for the troops by tying their hands and not letting them fight to win. The Armed Forces committee also need to be held accountable on that one.

So very true.

[okboston]

Go Don Go wrote:

<quoted text>
When President Nixon signed OSHA into law in 1976, it was inisioned that each state would have their own "OSHA" 26 states currently do, and they work wonderfully. If the others would develop theirs it would be no problem at all. Get out of your box. More federal government is not the answer to every question or problem.

Look a the model for health insurance (50+ agencies setting standards for each state/terratory) and tell me how well that works for consumers vs. the insurers and then apply that model to any other federal or multistate program (education?) and you will see the same problems.

I am standing up in my box so I can see out and look at things critically.

[okboston]

taxpayer wrote:

You are confusing the hard earned money of individuals for the government pocket. If I die before I collect my social security a stranger gets it. If my money is my money it becomes the property of my family.
Are you talking about the "lock box"? Where would a discussion about a lock box initiate if it hadn't been discovered that our government was taking liberties with the fund?
You recognize constraints and regulations on corporations and fail to recognize that our government is the single biggest corrupt entity in need of constraints.
<quoted text>

A stranger is getting the money you contribute in any case. Your collecting depends on the ability of the those following you in the workforce to pay.

Again, it is the funding that is the issue, not how efficiently SS operates. And I am not confusing whose dollar it is, there are no dollars except for ours.

[okboston]

taxpayer wrote:

I glossed over the other nations because education should not be competitive. I don't care what the other nations do. I am not all about a rich and powerful nation. That mercantile philosophy has gotten us into too many wars. Our public school system seeks to produce the highest and best income result.
I am all about free and happy people. A certain amount of education promotes self confidence and choices.
<quoted text>

Evidently, you are not interested in exporting or the impact of imports either.

[okboston]

taxpayer wrote:

I could rethink my position along these lines. The only thing missing is prohibiting special interests from holding events and/or advertising in the support of, but independent of, a political campaign too.
<quoted text>

3. The only advertising or "free speech" allowed that does not eminate from the actual campaign is to be "issue" based and can not reference a particular candidate or party. Further, it must be 100% factual, truthful and not misrespresent or distort in any way.

[okboston]

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmm economy was pretty good until oh... say the end of 2006.... what occurred at that point.... let me see... oh yeah, now I remember... 2 houses of government became totally DEMOCRAT controlled.
What was that you were saying dumb dumb?

Tech Bubble? No job growth. Average income increased while median decreased? Housing bubble?

Do you even read what you type?

[okboston]

Mr Charlie wrote:

<quoted text>
It's also amazing how the dimwits forgot that it was the Islamic extremists that started the wars. Bush just brought the war to them. Of course, Bush also didn't stand up for the troops by tying their hands and not letting them fight to win. The Armed Forces committee also need to be held accountable on that one.

Actually, the Islamic Extremists started one war. bush chose to start the one in Iraq.

And while bush did not tie their hands, he did not willingly armor those hands either.

[Go Don Go]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Look a the model for health insurance (50+ agencies setting standards for each state/terratory) and tell me how well that works for consumers vs. the insurers and then apply that model to any other federal or multistate program (education?) and you will see the same problems.
I am standing up in my box so I can see out and look at things critically.

I was responding to your statement on OSHA, not health insurance, but since you keep jumping around. I feel it should be portable and wish the state governments would inact cross border insurance, but I am not sure that the fed allows that, but they very well have that blocked at a federal level so as not to allow states to set up cross border, regional or other type relationships which could result in lower costs for the service. This all has nothing to do with health care or costs of health care, only insurance. They will not lower the costs of healthcare with this, but to the contrary it will increase the costs with the extra taxes being added. This is a revenue generating machine for the government and a control measure.
They are paying back to get others that would not qualify. For instance someone overweight, alcoholic, who smokes, turns 50, never had health insurance and has a heartache, goes to his doctor and finds out he is ready to have a heart attack and needs a bypass. He calls up the local health insurance company and says, hey, I need insurance, no, he does not need insurance, he is just looking for someone to pay for his condition. If he had insurance since he was 20 and it happened, that would be different and I would be speaking out against an insurance company disqualifying him, if it was covered in the policy he was paying for. That is the problem with pre-existing conditions that people don't understand, it is not insurance they are after, just someone to pay for it. Why should I take a meal away from baby to pay for something he could have possibly prevented by living healthier, and also by taking out insurance in case he were to develope a condition?
Happy to see you mention education, the federal government Department of Education should be closed. The quality of our educational system under their governance is disgraceful.

Put a little ladder on your box bud....

[okboston]

Go Don Go wrote:

<quoted text>
I was responding to your statement on OSHA, not health insurance, but since you keep jumping around. I feel it should be portable and wish the state governments would inact cross border insurance, but I am not sure that the fed allows that, but they very well have that blocked at a federal level so as not to allow states to set up cross border, regional or other type relationships which could result in lower costs for the service. This all has nothing to do with health care or costs of health care, only insurance. They will not lower the costs of healthcare with this, but to the contrary it will increase the costs with the extra taxes being added. This is a revenue generating machine for the government and a control measure.
They are paying back to get others that would not qualify. For instance someone overweight, alcoholic, who smokes, turns 50, never had health insurance and has a heartache, goes to his doctor and finds out he is ready to have a heart attack and needs a bypass. He calls up the local health insurance company and says, hey, I need insurance, no, he does not need insurance, he is just looking for someone to pay for his condition. If he had insurance since he was 20 and it happened, that would be different and I would be speaking out against an insurance company disqualifying him, if it was covered in the policy he was paying for. That is the problem with pre-existing conditions that people don't understand, it is not insurance they are after, just someone to pay for it. Why should I take a meal away from baby to pay for something he could have possibly prevented by living healthier, and also by taking out insurance in case he were to develope a condition?
Happy to see you mention education, the federal government Department of Education should be closed. The quality of our educational system under their governance is disgraceful.
Put a little ladder on your box bud....

Not trying to jump around, but what would make OSHA successful when 50 different states manage it differently (imagine a corporation in several states) but you can see the problem with insurance? And what about corporations who factor in "friendly" OSHA regulations in a state? Sacrifice the workers for jobs?

On education, you have to go back to before there was a federal education office and find out why it was established in the first place. On that level it has been successful, though not as well as it could be. You cuold have been the best student in the worst state and the worst district in that state and have absolutely no way to find it out.

[okboston]

Go Don Go wrote:

<quoted text>
I was responding to your statement on OSHA, not health insurance, but since you keep jumping around. I feel it should be portable and wish the state governments would inact cross border insurance, but I am not sure that the fed allows that, but they very well have that blocked at a federal level so as not to allow states to set up cross border, regional or other type relationships which could result in lower costs for the service. This all has nothing to do with health care or costs of health care, only insurance. They will not lower the costs of healthcare with this, but to the contrary it will increase the costs with the extra taxes being added. This is a revenue generating machine for the government and a control measure.
They are paying back to get others that would not qualify. For instance someone overweight, alcoholic, who smokes, turns 50, never had health insurance and has a heartache, goes to his doctor and finds out he is ready to have a heart attack and needs a bypass. He calls up the local health insurance company and says, hey, I need insurance, no, he does not need insurance, he is just looking for someone to pay for his condition. If he had insurance since he was 20 and it happened, that would be different and I would be speaking out against an insurance company disqualifying him, if it was covered in the policy he was paying for. That is the problem with pre-existing conditions that people don't understand, it is not insurance they are after, just someone to pay for it. Why should I take a meal away from baby to pay for something he could have possibly prevented by living healthier, and also by taking out insurance in case he were to develope a condition?
Happy to see you mention education, the federal government Department of Education should be closed. The quality of our educational system under their governance is disgraceful.
Put a little ladder on your box bud....

Just as a side not on insurance. My company operates in many states and as far as I know only has one insurance offering. If this is true, I wonder how they do it.

[Laurissa]

Go Don Go wrote:

<quoted text>
I was responding to your statement on OSHA, not health insurance, but since you keep jumping around. I feel it should be portable and wish the state governments would inact cross border insurance, but I am not sure that the fed allows that, but they very well have that blocked at a federal level so as not to allow states to set up cross border, regional or other type relationships which could result in lower costs for the service. This all has nothing to do with health care or costs of health care, only insurance. They will not lower the costs of healthcare with this, but to the contrary it will increase the costs with the extra taxes being added. This is a revenue generating machine for the government and a control measure.
They are paying back to get others that would not qualify. For instance someone overweight, alcoholic, who smokes, turns 50, never had health insurance and has a heartache, goes to his doctor and finds out he is ready to have a heart attack and needs a bypass. He calls up the local health insurance company and says, hey, I need insurance, no, he does not need insurance, he is just looking for someone to pay for his condition. If he had insurance since he was 20 and it happened, that would be different and I would be speaking out against an insurance company disqualifying him, if it was covered in the policy he was paying for. That is the problem with pre-existing conditions that people don't understand, it is not insurance they are after, just someone to pay for it. Why should I take a meal away from baby to pay for something he could have possibly prevented by living healthier, and also by taking out insurance in case he were to develope a condition?
Happy to see you mention education, the federal government Department of Education should be closed. The quality of our educational system under their governance is disgraceful.
Put a little ladder on your box bud....

If public education were not around when you grew up you would not be where you are today and that applies to most people living in the USA. Of course no public education would have taken care of the unskilled labor problem. Corporations would not have had to move out of the country for cheap labor and we wouldn't have undereducated Mexicans crowding into this country for jobs we Americans think we are too educated for.

[sigrid]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Just as a side not on insurance. My company operates in many states and as far as I know only has one insurance offering. If this is true, I wonder how they do it.

Many very large companies are self insured so they are not subject to every individual state law. So far they have followed what state laws are dictating, but they don't have to.

[okboston]

sigrid wrote:

<quoted text>
Many very large companies are self insured so they are not subject to every individual state law. So far they have followed what state laws are dictating, but they don't have to.

Yeah, but I was talking health insurance which few self insure for.

[Really]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Tech Bubble? No job growth. Average income increased while median decreased? Housing bubble?
Do you even read what you type?

Shocking... a lib who will not address a post.

But instead you go with the lib tried and true tactic of deflection when you can't refute a post.

Now it is late... time for you to put on your tin hat... tuned for fact deflection.... be sure to drink your lemming-aide.

Tonight's fare: deflection and lies as the fall back when you are unable to debunk a post.

[Go Don Go]

Laurissa wrote:

<quoted text>
If public education were not around when you grew up you would not be where you are today and that applies to most people living in the USA. Of course no public education would have taken care of the unskilled labor problem. Corporations would not have had to move out of the country for cheap labor and we wouldn't have undereducated Mexicans crowding into this country for jobs we Americans think we are too educated for.

Federal government's Department of Education has been anything but a drain on the US education system. I am all for public education, but it should be handled on a state and local level and not by the feds, they can't handle it. They have dumbed down American children to 39th, if that is the number the dim libs are using today. This cannot fail a student so they don't get their feelings hurt, our schools are more like prisons and gang lands. Get the feds out, put the locals back in charge and hold them accountable to educate our children. The feds can only tax and spend, it doesn't take any education to raise taxes or to creat government jobs.