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  
•       •       •

4100 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 11:18:05 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?


Yes. If you want them, say yes. If you don't, tell her...then let her do what she wants.
 
2012-07-04 11:19:43 AM  
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

It's right over there, next to the proof of intelligent design.
 
2012-07-04 11:20:40 AM  
So their plan is to destroy Medicare. Great. I'll tell grandma that she can't have any more pain pills.
 
2012-07-04 11:21:06 AM  

Skleenar: 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.


I think we need a Sad button, to go along with Smart and Funny.
 
2012-07-04 11:28:38 AM  

spongeboob: 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.


I hadn't thought of that. Sadly, there probably are people like that in the world. Hopefully, most of these folks will experience some healing before they do to much damage to their families and communities.
 
2012-07-04 11:32:46 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?

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..


Of course they have a plan, just like the creators of Lost and Battlestar Galactica had a plan. You'll see.
 
2012-07-04 11:43:56 AM  

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


That provision is absolutely awesome. I'm still convinced they'll figure out some creative accounting to get around that.
 
2012-07-04 11:46:01 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: 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?


In 2009, the R's released "The Republican Road to Recovery," an alleged response to Obama's first budget. It was an 18-page booklet that, showing the bold and unconventional budget thinking that's the hallmark of today's Republicans, included no actual numbers but lots of slogans, buzzwords, and graphics. Needless to say, it was roundly mocked. Google "Republican Road to Recovery" and you can find the original document pretty easily.
 
2012-07-04 11:47:17 AM  
It's become pretty clear that republicans haven't the foggiest notion how to plan for things. I'm not sure they actually understand what a "plan" is. They seem to think that a series of vague goals amounts to a plan. It really seems they are incapable of planning anything more complex than ordering a pizza.

In my job when we release a new version of our system we create detailed release plans that list each and every specific action to be taken. Even for the simplest of routine releases we are careful to list every important detail. I think the republican version would look something like this:

Version X Release plan
1. Release the software
2. Do it good
3. Success!
 
2012-07-04 11:49:55 AM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: For those who do not want to give NewsBusters a click, here are some highlights from the "plan":


That's pretty hilarious. Thank you for your service.
 
2012-07-04 11:52:03 AM  

GentDirkly: The biggest thing that should be changed is the expectation that your employer should provide you with coverage. McCain was going to address that, and this "plan" Brooks writes about would seem to address that too.

However, Obamacare's main feature is that if you can afford insurance, you will be strongly encouraged through the tax code to buy it. If you can't afford it, you will receive assistance to buy it. No one's pre-existing conditions will be excluded, and all insurance must cover things like childbirth. The rest is details. Any Republican plan that "replaces" Obamacare will have the above features at its core, though it may differ in the details. The sooner Republicans/Tea Partiers come to terms with that, the sooner we can have a coherent political discussion about those details.


But Death Panels!
 
2012-07-04 11:53:53 AM  
While we do need to raise the retirement age (something politicians fear to do but it is still the correct thing to do to remain solvent), it seems the Republcian's plan is just as bad as Obamacare's - it continues to tweak insurance, and while insurance is certainly part of the problem, it's not the main problem (cost of care).
 
2012-07-04 11:54:09 AM  
My Take on this:

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."
So, If you dont make enough money to pay taxes, you get bupkis.

"Americans 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."
If your Insurance company goes out of business, gets merged with another company or just changes its name, suddenly you get bupkis.

"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. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."
If your not ready to pay for Medicaid Services you get bupkis.

"Replace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."
If youre not ready to pay for a Really Big "Donut Hole" you get bupkis.

"Any new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."
Insurance is guaranteed to go through the roof to make sure that no matter how long you work, you get bupkis.


TY Inquisitive Inquisitor
 
2012-07-04 11:55:31 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.


Also, don't eat the poo-poo.
 
2012-07-04 12:03:33 PM  
Republicans definition of Democrat controlled media = Anything not controlled by Murdoch.

Hail your Propagand Minister, Nazis!!
 
2012-07-04 12:05:10 PM  
I have a plan for poor people too. Tell them to get rich.

There, that should work out well. Everyone smell how rosy things are now?
 
mhd
2012-07-04 12:11:09 PM  

Heraclitus: So, If you dont make enough money to pay taxes, you get bupkis.


The proposal cited actually calls for a federal subsidy in that case, which gets reduced gradually when you earn taxes, until you can fully benefit from the lump tax credit. Allegedly this also helps against the "disincentivation of accepting higher-paying work" if your new health benefits would be worse than what's offered by medicaid.

Sounds neat enough, but again that's assuming that the basic plan is sufficient or that you can actually get insurance in the first place. Which, pessimistically speaking, doesn't seem likely without regulations. Never mind that the proposal seems to suggest some state-based help in addition to the federal core - and if that isn't really that high in the first place *and* your state decides to not coddle up to the unwashed masses, you might be out of luck again.
 
2012-07-04 12:30:45 PM  
If the republicans actually had a coherent plan they would describe it when asked point blank questions about that plan. The fact is that they evade answering those questions. There is no plan.
 
2012-07-04 12:41:45 PM  

Pharque-it: Republicans definition of Democrat controlled media = Anything not controlled by Murdoch.

Hail your Propagand Minister, Nazis!!


My question is where does Bloomberg News fit in?
 
2012-07-04 12:46:50 PM  
As far as I can tell, about 650 of the 700 comments on the original article rip the author a new asshole.

That makes me happy.
 
2012-07-04 12:55:54 PM  
Based on what I've seen, it all translates to "Die soon."
 
2012-07-04 01:02:18 PM  
nothing but tax breaks and encouragement
 
2012-07-04 01:08:18 PM  
It's funny how Republicans were the ones who came up with Obamacare in the first place, but when their archenemy in the White House approved of it they immediately began attacking it for all they're worth.

If the GOP developed something that required an operation to remove it or they would die, and Obama pledged his support to help them, the GOP would tell him to screw off and then die from the condition just to spite Obama.
 
2012-07-04 01:09:25 PM  

red5ish: If the republicans actually had a coherent plan they would describe it when asked point blank questions about that plan. The fact is that they evade answering those questions. There is no plan.


This is not true. The truth is that their plan would turn off a lot of their own base, because it will be somewhat similar to Obama's plan. So they don't really talk about it. Just as Democrats discovered in 2010, a nonspecific plan for "change" is a lot more popular these days than a firm set of policy proposals.
 
2012-07-04 01:19:40 PM  
Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood.

...

the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens.


Wow, that's some airtight policy suggestions there. It's a real shocker Romney isn't touting this plan on the campaign trail.
 
2012-07-04 01:33:08 PM  
It's amazing how quickly you can determine that the headline is full of shiat just by seeing the Newsbusters link.
 
2012-07-04 01:48:36 PM  
I love this comment from the site:

"It doesn't need to be "replaced" it needs to be repealed, decapitated, burnt, and buried with a steak through it's heart. Healthcare and health insurance ARE NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DAMNED BUSINESS. The sooner people realize that and get the government out of the equation altogether, the quicker the costs will come down.

Once again we're reminded that the GOP is just another wing of the republicrat party."

This is what right-wing nutjobs actually believe. (Until they get cancer or rejected for a preexisting condition - then oh sh*t yeah they need government healthcare.)
 
2012-07-04 01:51:59 PM  

GentDirkly: red5ish: If the republicans actually had a coherent plan they would describe it when asked point blank questions about that plan. The fact is that they evade answering those questions. There is no plan.

This is not true. The truth is that their plan would turn off a lot of their own base, because it will be somewhat similar to Obama's plan. So they don't really talk about it. Just as Democrats discovered in 2010, a nonspecific plan for "change" is a lot more popular these days than a firm set of policy proposals.


So, what they have is a "secret" plan. I see. Is it like the secret health care plan George W. Bush had during his two terms? Because that was an extraordinarilly well-kept secret.
If it's the plan to dismantal social services and issue vouchers for a fraction of the cost of healthcare while cutting taxes for the very wealthy then that is not a secret plan.
What I think they probably have is a plan to not do anything to improve the healthcare situation in this country and they're keeping that plan secret by saying they have a plan.
 
2012-07-04 01:53:59 PM  
The GOP plan to let the poor people die?
 
2012-07-04 01:54:51 PM  
As long as there are tax cuts for the wealthy 1 percent then I'm all for it!!!

/Not really.
 
2012-07-04 02:01:43 PM  

spongeboob: My question is where does Bloomberg News fit in?


Actually, they are one of the few news organizations I trust. Mayor Dickcheese over there really established a great company. It helps if you like business news, but their straight reporting is pretty good as well.
 
2012-07-04 02:07:18 PM  
In all seriousness I'm sure the irony escapes these people that Obamacare WAS the GOP plan back in the 90s and their opposition is more out of spite than anything else.
 
2012-07-04 02:19:17 PM  

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

[ericcantor.us image 308x444]


stinky-dog.com
 
2012-07-04 02:31:33 PM  
"Americans 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."

That's a fine plan there GOP. But isn't that exactly what the individual mandate is doing?
 
2012-07-04 02:36:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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?


You haven't looked?

Costs are projected to go up 10-12%, double the national average, next year.
 
2012-07-04 02:45:38 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: 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?

You haven't looked?

Costs are projected to go up 10-12%, double the national average, next year.


So the argument is basically "if people who were previously uninsurable get health insurance then costs will go up so we should not do anything to help them get health insurance"?
 
2012-07-04 02:57:38 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: 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?

You haven't looked?

Costs are projected to go up 10-12%, double the national average, next year.


Where is that cited? The only articles I've found state that they are well within initial projections.
 
2012-07-04 02:58:31 PM  

Pincy: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: 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?

You haven't looked?

Costs are projected to go up 10-12%, double the national average, next year.

So the argument is basically "if people who were previously uninsurable get health insurance then costs will go up so we should not do anything to help them get health insurance"?


Converting the uninsurable into insurables needs less legislation then what they did.

Government basically just changed the light bulb by holding the lighbulb and rotating the house.
 
2012-07-04 03:15:46 PM  

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.


Well, the problem isn't people skipping out on their E.R. copay so much as not having insurance when they go to the E.R. in the first place.

First of all the highest estimates I've seen are that this sort of thing accounts for approximately 8% of the cost of health care. A big enough chunk to address but not "night and day."

More importantly, Obama's plan works to address the issue by making it more likely that a person who goes to the E.R. has health insurance.
 
2012-07-04 03:18:31 PM  
Can we just give conservative republicans their own independent state to try out all their ideas in - like Texas or Utah? I'm sick of their fail getting in the way of the business of the United States.
 
2012-07-04 03:22:19 PM  

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".


Obamacare did not address any of this because the the political climate would not allow it to address these issues. If liberals controlled 80 senate seats and 70% of the House, is there any doubt we'd have a single payer system in place. In that case, your health care is covered just like all the other Western countries.

$3 Tylenol and $1000 hospital beds disappear, not because the hospitals would suddenly be feeling generous, but because the hospitals would not have to bill everyone else to cover the billions they lose- to the uninsured who can't pay their bill, and the Insurance companies who pay only $125 a day for that $1000 bed because their contract says that's what they get to pay.
 
2012-07-04 03:24:51 PM  

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?


musica.culturamix.com
upload.wikimedia.org

What a pair of boltons may look like. My advice is no.
 
2012-07-04 03:30:21 PM  
newsbusters.orgi14.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-04 03:49:47 PM  
I say we privatize everything since the private sector never farks up anything.
 
2012-07-04 04:28:18 PM  

Pincy: "Americans 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."

That's a fine plan there GOP. But isn't that exactly what the individual mandate is doing?


Seeing as how President Romney is looking less and less likely, now they're laying the foundation for stealing credit for ObamaRepublicare.
 
2012-07-04 04:29:57 PM  

xnecron: Yeah, it's "exactly the same", except without the provisions to pay for the proposed spending, along with gutting Medicare, and raising the retirement age on Social Security.


It's also exactly the same except for the part where it's gone through the circus of congressional approval, signed by the president and OK'd by the supreme court.
 
2012-07-04 04:35:28 PM  

nyseattitude: I have a plan for poor people too. Tell them to get rich.

There, that should work out well. Everyone smell how rosy things are now?


Well, being able to care for themselves and their family is a good start. You'd be surprised at how many people utterly fail at that task.
 
2012-07-04 04:59:04 PM  

whitman00: $3 Tylenol and $1000 hospital beds disappear, not because the hospitals would suddenly be feeling generous, but because the hospitals would not have to bill everyone else to cover the billions they lose


I get that rates could go down as a result. I see little reason that they would though. Hospitals don't really compete in a meaningful sense in most of the country. I don't live in the smallest town in the country (~80k). There is one hospital within 25 miles of me. If my insurer really wanted to cut down on their rates, what leverage do they have to do so? They could threaten to take them out of network. And my employer, like most people in town, would switch insurers, because not being able to go to the one hospital in town isn't workable.

And, of course, the insurer isn't necessarily that keen on reducing costs. If they're limited by medical-loss-ratio, 20% permissible overhead on $3 Tylenol and $1000 beds is a lot more than 20% permissible overhead on 20c acetaminophen and $150 beds.
 
2012-07-04 05:02:38 PM  

James F. Campbell: Click-to-post ratio is going down. Troll harder.


I think they've reached maximum derp.
 
2012-07-04 06:32:02 PM  
Having read the five bullet points, they are not a coherent policy, and given the Republicans being against the expansion of medicaid, combined with McConnell saying that the 30m uninsured Americans are "not an issue"... I'm just not buying into this... if you want to change Obamacare, change away, but I'm not giving up the progress that's been made only to watch Republicans change their mind and do nothing for another decade... I learned better from HillaryCare, Republicans said they had a clear plan, the plan included universal coverage, individual mandates, and the like... then they did absolutely jack shiat for a decade and complained to the farking moon when someone else implemented their original plan.
 
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