If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsBusters)   Despite what the Democrat contro... I mean the Main Stream Media has told you, there is a GOP plan to replace Obamacare. and it's a solid rational plan that benefits poor people and no new taxes   (newsbusters.org) divider line 163
    More: Obvious, Democrat Party, obamacare, GOP, Republican, United States House Committee on Ways and Means, poor people, National Affairs, tax exemption  
•       •       •

4090 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jul 2012 at 9:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-04 09:44:03 AM
The Republican party is not going to "abolish" "Obamacare" at all. They're simply going to rename it something like the "Patriotic We Love Jesus Healthcare Act", and it will be exactly the same, and the morons in the Tea Party will love it, because it wasn't proposed by a blah person.
 
2012-07-04 09:45:57 AM
From what I can see, Obamacare is far from perfect but holy shiat it's a START, people!

It'll need some tweaking (there will be companies that find ways to garner the system, people who try to take advantage, etc) but look at the facts as they stand now:

You're the richest nation on the planet Earth, and yet you have a health care system that bankrupts entire families while maintaining the highest health costs AND the lowest results in all industrialized nations.

So maybe this will push you from the ABSOLUTE WORST to 45th worst. Nobody is going to enact a law that fixes everything immediately, it'll need to be done step-by-step and this is that first step.
 
2012-07-04 09:46:49 AM
Which plan lowers my taxes? Because that's the best one.
 
2012-07-04 09:48:50 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Without reading the article or the thread, I'm guessing it's "Cut taxes for the rich so that they can create more jobs for poor people so that they can buy health insurance." Am I close?


Okay, I was wrong. It's actually:

"Privatize Medicare, make the base-level coverage pay for almost nothing, encourage insurance companies to institute their own 'death panels,' raise retirement age, and cut all other social programs.

Oh, and tax cuts."
 
2012-07-04 09:49:14 AM

Skleenar: Which plan lowers my taxes? Because that's the best one.


If you have individual health insurance, the Republican plan will lower your taxes. If you do not have any coverage but can afford coverage, the Democrats' plan will raise your taxes. If you make over $200k in a year, the Democrats' plan will raise your taxes. If none of those are true of you, then neither plan is likely to affect your taxes.
 
2012-07-04 09:49:55 AM
David Brooks is so adorably naive. He's like a seventh grader that's been allowed to mingle with the adults.
 
2012-07-04 09:50:03 AM

Weaver95: Martian_Astronomer: Without reading the article or the thread, I'm guessing it's "Cut taxes for the rich so that they can create more jobs for poor people so that they can buy health insurance." Am I close?

well...kinda. the GOP plan apparently involves making everyone pay for their own health care, letting corporations off the hook for covering health care costs and pushing everyone off social security and out into the marketplace to fend for themselves. there's also something in there about 'no whining' and 'STFU you puking maggots'.


Yeah, I see now I wasn't entirely correct. Still, you can't blame me for that guess.
 
2012-07-04 09:50:19 AM

jakomo002:
So maybe this will push you from the ABSOLUTE WORST to 45th worst. Nobody is going to enact a law that fixes everything immediately, it'll need to be done step-by-step and this is that first step.


yeah, but the weird thing is that the GOP seems to believe that unless a health care plan completely solves the problem right out of the gate and is perfect in each and every respect...then it's not worth doing. that's actually kind of insane, not to mention impossible. Not to mention that the Republicans don't apply this insane 'perfect plan' requirement to anything THEY propose. so on top of requiring a perfect plan, they've got a double standard working as well.

Not that any of this matters. Obamacare is now law of the land. The GOP can't get rid of it, they can't stop it and it absolutely will not stop...EVER!
 
2012-07-04 09:50:26 AM

Inquisitive Inquisitor: Instead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens.


If it were this easy, private insurance would have done it ages ago. Reality shows they want nothing to do with poor people. FAIL.
 
2012-07-04 09:51:35 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Martian_Astronomer: Without reading the article or the thread, I'm guessing it's "Cut taxes for the rich so that they can create more jobs for poor people so that they can buy health insurance." Am I close?

Okay, I was wrong. It's actually:

"Privatize Medicare, make the base-level coverage pay for almost nothing, encourage insurance companies to institute their own 'death panels,' raise retirement age, and cut all other social programs.

Oh, and tax cuts."


Right, they believe that making people pay the first dollar of their care will make them only buy care that they need. This might be true. But it also could undermine the concept of prevention and maintenance, leaving us again with too many people going to emergency rooms for preventable things.
 
2012-07-04 09:52:18 AM

sammyk: rohar: Bloody William: See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost.

We don't want to address the cost of boobies. I swear I've spent more on them than health care in my life.

My wife is asking for a set of boltons. Any advice?


You've got a wife, you're already paying a fortune for the boobies you got. Why would you pay for a second set?
 
mhd
2012-07-04 09:53:03 AM

GentDirkly: The biggest thing that should be changed is the expectation that your employer should provide you with coverage.


By itself that's not saying a lot, at least for the employees. The plan cited by the article cited by this blog post wants to introduce a fixed tax credit instead. This looks a bit troublesome. You'd find lots of people with the minimal insured plan, where there's no additional premiums to pay. Now this might be enough for a healthy, young individual, it's probably not enough for a family of four with some serious chronic health issues. I seriously doubt that the invisible hand will create enough competition in this subsector to provide for that.

Sure, easily alleviated by some mandatory minimum standards, where the base plan has to cover certain things at this fixed price, but how big are the chances that a GOP-led plan would include such federal regulations?
 
2012-07-04 09:54:28 AM

GentDirkly: Skleenar: Which plan lowers my taxes? Because that's the best one.

If you have individual health insurance, the Republican plan will lower your taxes. If you do not have any coverage but can afford coverage, the Democrats' plan will raise your taxes. If you make over $200k in a year, the Democrats' plan will raise your taxes. If none of those are true of you, then neither plan is likely to affect your taxes.


Obviously the Republicans have thought this through much more carefully than the Democrats.
 
2012-07-04 09:54:46 AM

GentDirkly: Right, they believe that making people pay the first dollar of their care will make them only buy care that they need. This might be true. But it also could undermine the concept of prevention and maintenance, leaving us again with too many people going to emergency rooms for preventable things.


This plan is also going to do approximately nothing to help with the whole "Going to the emergency room and skipping out on the bill" thing that is driving costs up to begin with.
 
2012-07-04 09:56:31 AM

mhd: GentDirkly: The biggest thing that should be changed is the expectation that your employer should provide you with coverage.

By itself that's not saying a lot, at least for the employees. The plan cited by the article cited by this blog post wants to introduce a fixed tax credit instead. This looks a bit troublesome. You'd find lots of people with the minimal insured plan, where there's no additional premiums to pay. Now this might be enough for a healthy, young individual, it's probably not enough for a family of four with some serious chronic health issues. I seriously doubt that the invisible hand will create enough competition in this subsector to provide for that.

Sure, easily alleviated by some mandatory minimum standards, where the base plan has to cover certain things at this fixed price, but how big are the chances that a GOP-led plan would include such federal regulations?


Right, the goal of making sure the chronic conditions are covered in the base plan often conflicts with the GOP goal having people choose when to seek treatment based on the actual cost of that treatment.
 
2012-07-04 09:56:54 AM
The best part is this is not even a bill from by congress but an opinion piece by some think tank. In News Busters mind a vague opinion piece is the same thing as detailed legislation.
 
2012-07-04 09:56:58 AM
GOP Plan: A cheaply constructed pistol with a single bullet given to each American with "PULL TRIGGER IN CASE OF EMERGENCY" stenciled onto it.
 
2012-07-04 09:57:17 AM

Edsel: Robots are Strong: " on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 6:50pm.

The problem with Obamatax, it has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with controlling insurance. The reason insurance keeps going up is because the cost of health care keeps going up. Does Obamatax prevent hospitals from charging $3 per tylenol, when you can buy a bottle of 250 for $12? Does it stop a hospital from charging $1000 a day for a bed, when you can rent a 3 bedroom house for a month for that much? Does it stop a cardiologist from charging $100 for an EKG on a machine that cost him $300, and was paid for with just the patients on the first day he received it? It also doesn't stop pharmacy companies from charging us $150 per month for a pill they sell in the rest of the world for $30 a month. Why do pills cost so much? Because they spend millions of dollars on tv ads trying to convince us to demand our doctors give us that new pill, whose side effect are usually 5 times as bad as what the pill is preventing."

Why the hell so you think those costs are what they are you farking retard? Also, of course they have a plan. Their plan was developed by conservative think tanks and first implemented by a republican governer. It's now commonly known as "Obamacare".

As retarded as that poster's comment was, I have to admit a certain glee at the fact that they've lost control of the word "Obamacare" and now have had to try and re-christen it "Obamatax" because they know they're eventually going to lose the narrative on this one.


While the more realistic members of the party realize the error of naming a soon-to-be-incredibly-popular piece of legislation after their enemy, i'm willing to bet that this individual hasn't thought that far ahead.

I can't wait for the protests during the single payer fight that we have coming in a few decades, with randtards marching around DC with their hand painted signs proudly declaring, "keep your hands off of our obamacare!"
 
2012-07-04 09:57:31 AM
"Obamacare" was the solid, rational GOP plan to replace "Hillarycare". Make up your minds, already.
 
2012-07-04 09:58:05 AM

Martian_Astronomer: This plan is also going to do approximately nothing to help with the whole "Going to the emergency room and skipping out on the bill" thing that is driving costs up to begin with.


That would happen less if we simply checked voter registration at the emergency room.
 
2012-07-04 09:58:58 AM

GentDirkly:
Right, the goal of making sure the chronic conditions are covered in the base plan often conflicts with the GOP goal having people choose when to seek treatment based on the actual cost of that treatment.


I don't think the GOP plan goes even that far....
 
2012-07-04 10:00:12 AM
 
2012-07-04 10:02:37 AM
If the Republicans have a plan why doesn't the Presumed Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney explain it when asked repeatedly what he will replace Obamacare with?

One of the qualties of leadership is communication skills, this article proves that no current Republican on the national stage, and especially Mitt Romney, should be leading.

Or it could be a lie that the Republicans have a plan.


My favorite part slowly raise the retirement age, so eventually the Republicans do want everyone working from cradle to grave.
 
2012-07-04 10:06:58 AM

mikemoto: Zimbabwe had the correct health care proposal a few years back: They merely urged people not to get sick in the first place. Problem solved.



Well, that is basically the basis of the best healthcare. Stop minor niggles becoming full-blown medical problems, by funding proper preventative care.
 
2012-07-04 10:07:16 AM

GentDirkly: The biggest thing that should be changed is the expectation that your employer should provide you with coverage.


Thank you, Progressive tax code.
 
2012-07-04 10:08:05 AM

Weaver95: Wyalt Derp: Half the problem with this thing is that the Narcissist-in-Chief chose to name it after himself.

actually, that's what the Republicans started calling it.


I think you need more coffee.

And I'm really curious about what the reps will call this new plan? I'm thinking FREEDOMCARE!!!
 
mhd
2012-07-04 10:08:23 AM

GentDirkly: Right, the goal of making sure the chronic conditions are covered in the base plan often conflicts with the GOP goal having people choose when to seek treatment based on the actual cost of that treatment.


Health care recipients shouldn't need to make that choice, at least for the things covered in a basic plan (We're not talking about lasik or high-falutin' dental accessories here). Quite likely that any cost-saving measures here merely postpone or even exacerbate such conditions.
 
2012-07-04 10:10:45 AM

Karac: 1: Replace 'tax exemption' in Obamacare with 'tax credit'.
2: Ask people very nicely to please buy insurance.
3: Keep the pre-existing condition ban from ObamacareAmericans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/03/brooks#ixzz1zf9H gSga.
4: Privatize medicaid; because the poorest people will of course be able to afford private insurance.
5: Never, ever, ever increase the amount of money spent on medicare; presumably cutting funding would be OK. Somehow this will not lead to lower medicare funding per person as the elderly population increases.

So rebrand the parts of Obamacare they like, and screw grandma and the poor right in the pooper while calling it a free colonoscopy.


Number three is not keeping the nondenial for previous conditions, it is saying that the insurance company can't raise your rates for a major disease, I posted the exact quote from the article, it says nothing about forcing insurance companies to offer you coverage. The Republicans think it is okay to deny coverage if you lose your insurance and try to get new insurance, see Mitt Romney for example.
 
2012-07-04 10:11:53 AM
If the "plan" had recommended eliminating employer-based plans, that might have raised my eyebrow. As it's laid out, scaffolding my level of care & forcing me to retire later isn't even close to rational.
 
2012-07-04 10:13:23 AM
Funny. They could have passed that in 2001-2006. Or honestly, 1995-2000 (I feel Clinton likely would have signed it). If not passed it, at least brought it up for a floor vote.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what I don't recall happening. Too busy invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and all.
 
2012-07-04 10:13:53 AM

spongeboob: If the Republicans have a plan why doesn't the Presumed Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney explain it when asked repeatedly what he will replace Obamacare with?



Romney doesn't like giving detailed answers. That would only lead to him being accountable for something and, apparently, that's not very bootstrappy.
 
2012-07-04 10:15:09 AM
subby:

1-media-cdn.foolz.us

>believing republicans
>2012
 
2012-07-04 10:19:27 AM
I'm surprised there wasn't a cry for selling insurance over state lines. Sounds great in theory, but it doesn't really work. No real change in the number of people insured and the consumer gets screwed. Again.

Link
 
2012-07-04 10:25:33 AM

sammyk: rohar: Bloody William: See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost.

We don't want to address the cost of boobies. I swear I've spent more on them than health care in my life.

My wife is asking for a set of boltons. Any advice?


img195.imageshack.usimg507.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-04 10:30:15 AM
Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....
 
2012-07-04 10:32:44 AM
t3.gstatic.com

Pictured: The Republican Party and the Right Wing.
 
2012-07-04 10:33:12 AM
News Busters? Does the plan involve making pies?
 
2012-07-04 10:38:55 AM

salvador.hardin: News Busters? Does the plan involve making pies?


next thing you know, we'll be taking advice on genealogy from World Nut Daily.
 
2012-07-04 10:39:47 AM

Giltric: Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....


There is that price pressure, yes. That's a cost associated with any plan that increases access to care. The question is, "are the benefits worth it?"

There is a very good chance that the benefit of increasing coverage will be better disease management and fewer people ending up in emergency rooms. Most people think that this will more than cancel out the inflationary effect you describe. Plus, even if it didn't save us money, perhaps it is worth it if our fellow man is in better health, maybe he will be a better worker.

Very similar to the reason we guarantee college loans. Yes it makes college cost more, but it also puts more people in college, and we think there's a benefit to the average worker having more education. We think the benefit outweighs the cost, especially for math/science/engineering/accounting degrees.
 
2012-07-04 10:42:45 AM

timswar: I actually clicked on the link. Those bullet points effectively translate to "lower taxes via a tax credit and send out a memo recommending that people buy health care.

It wasn't worth clicking, and I'm blaming my lack of sleep.


The last bullet point included cutting costs. So, yeah, that should work.
 
2012-07-04 10:49:47 AM

NewportBarGuy: "nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."



So, rather than being almost fully covered, we'll give you a voucher for $5k and you can figure out how to pay the other $15k? Wow, that sounds like a good deal. Again, you provide no f*cking numbers. Do you idiots not understand how you are supposed to offer a proposal? You have to give examples and sh*t. F- you fail the presentation.


My husband and I have had insurance through his company since before we had kids. One of my sisters, who was once a single Mom, has, at times, had her kids on medicaid and/or the state subsidized program that I believe is called Peachcare. Over the years, depending on what the company stuck my husband with, her kids have had, at times, access to care that was superior to that my kids had access to via private health insurance.

I believe Republicans constantly repeat that programs like Medicaid are substandard in the hopes of brain washing the less informed, who are themselves dependent upon these programs, to cry out for the destruction of their own safety net.
 
2012-07-04 10:50:04 AM

Weaver95: Not that any of this matters. Obamacare is now law of the land. The GOP can't get rid of it, they can't stop it and it absolutely will not stop...EVER!


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-07-04 10:58:31 AM

Giltric: Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....


Shouldn't we be seeing that in Massachusetts then? Why haven't we?
 
2012-07-04 10:59:10 AM
What about the idea that ANY such plan is socialism and is unamerican?
 
2012-07-04 10:59:35 AM

Giltric: Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....


I don't think so. It took years for college tuition to increase at that pace. I think states will start turning to single-payer before costs get too far out of control.
 
2012-07-04 11:02:02 AM

sinanju: We've seen it in full, glorious detail.

[ericcantor.us image 308x444]


Is that something they actually put out? Is there a link to where this came from?
 
2012-07-04 11:09:25 AM

Giltric: Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....


Universities aren't regulated such that 85% of their budget has to be spend on actual education.

This is the case for insurance companies.

Very, very different.
 
2012-07-04 11:13:17 AM

Weaver95: Wyalt Derp: Half the problem with this thing is that the Narcissist-in-Chief chose to name it after himself.

actually, that's what the Republicans started calling it.


He knows that. He's teasing. That's okay though; I almost fell for it also.
 
2012-07-04 11:13:25 AM

Lunaville: I believe Republicans constantly repeat that programs like Medicaid are substandard in the hopes of brain washing the less informed, who are themselves dependent upon these programs, to cry out for the destruction of their own safety net


Don't forget that a portion of the population, and I feel that the skew more Republican, want for the programs like Medicaid to not be as good as their insurance. Why should those freeloaders be paid to have more kids.
 
2012-07-04 11:13:43 AM

Bloody William: animal color: Mods,

WND and Newsbusters are not credible sources of information or opinion. They are derp factories. They don't provide a counterbalance to newspapers and television stations. They are the pooh-flinging apes of the media world, and pretending they represent the logical opposite to Maureen Dowd or David Brooks makes you look like you fling pooh too.

Geebus. There aren't two sides to every issue. There are a million facets. You present two of them, diametrically opposed, so you can claim you are fair. Your predictable selection of stories for troll-tastic inspiration and artificial balance makes you no better than the news organizations you mock.


But....but.....Fair and BalancedTM.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report