No reply?
Still waiting to hear from anybody about the % of uncovered Americans and other important details in the GOP Healthcare Plan.
APP - Woopsie! Health bill recalculation
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
No reply?
Still waiting to hear from anybody about the % of uncovered Americans and other important details in the GOP Healthcare Plan.
CBO has scored coverage as 83-87% now, going to 94% in the Senate bill. Would you like to discuss the difference in terms of 20-30 million American human beings?
That said, the $830 billion costs 20%+ less than bush and the Republicans found for Iraq and yet they were able to cut taxes on top of it, however the criticism from that side only comes now that we're talking about something for human beings and not corporations or war. In addition, the bill reflects an $81 billion deficit reduction and triple that in the following 10 years. I don't see much to criticise there unless the "concern" from the other side is purely BS.
Supposedly all parties "say" the healthcare system needs change, if that is the case, please present the cost figures and coverage percentages of the GOP Healthcare Plan, as well as its effect on the deficit. If it betters the numbers presented above, I presume many Americans would support it, myself included.
Last edited:
What you just posted doesn't make it "better"...
It's like saying it's better now because we've only spent $699 per pack of gum rather than $700...
We can do better than this. $900 billion is too much to cover only 4% to 7% of the population, it is too much even to cover 15%. It is preposterous to attempt to get us to swallow this as a good deal for the taxpayer. Let alone stuff like only a $400 fine for not getting insurance for an employee... talk about directly attempting to force people into the "co-op" (read: public option). They don't even try to hide it.
The Baucus bill is even worse than HR 3200, and that one was bad enough to cause fits.
Sounds like the same tune the GOP/Healthcare industry was playing 15 years ago, only now it's worse. "We can do better" but the truth is they'd rather do nothing. Screw people when profits are so much more important. I prefer talking in terms of people, percentages are too easy on one's conscience.
We shouldn't have trusted either of them years ago, why should we trust them now?
Yes, anything is better than waiting for naysayer reactionaries to take action, just like everything else in their past. We learn by our mistakes, not by doing nothing.
Isn't it interesting that the same souls never complained about or had difficulty finding the money spent in Iraq yet scream loudly and have trouble finding virtually the same or less on something for the people?
By the way BCBS just tacked on 20+% this month on my wife's policy for the coming year. Social Security says there's no inflation. Which one is right?
Last edited:
Oh yes, can you give me the details in the alternative GOP plan?
There were several offered, but none allowed to hit the schedule for debate in committee so that you and I would have those details. Can you tell me why your party leaders are so afraid to even debate them?
The number one idea that needs to happen in order to create actual competition is to allow people to cross state lines in their purchase of health insurance. People need to be able to decide what level of insurance they are comfortable with. It needs to be decoupled from employers, instead the employee needs to get the extra money in their paycheck to pay for the insurance that they finally decide on. Let unions argue how much extra they get rather than argue that they be chained further to the employer with the chains of insurance that they "won" for us so long ago. All of what you spend on health care should be tax deductible, not just portions of it once you reach an incredibly high number.
That's just a start of the stuff that was in most of the bills presented by the Rs.
One thing that I know, I can point out the craptacular job the Ds did in writing legislation that would cover "everybody" and actually understanding what would make it worth it. Trillion dollar bills to cover 4 to 7 percent is absolutely horrendous.
I believe you're talking about amendments, not bills. At the Finance Comittee meeting today the GOP Senators had no complaints about their amendments not being heard, in fact it is my understanding several are included in the bill. Not a one mentioned any alternatives supplemental or total to the bill, merely rejection.
Since they have a bill, where can I go to find it? It must be on the RNC website no? How about Fox archives?
If the Dem bill is as bad as evidenced by your numbers above, what is the cost, effect on the deficit and how many additional people will be covered in the GOP "bill"?
Last edited:
No, I'm talking about bills, the Committee chair has the ability to put bills on the schedule, he refuses to put anything offered by Rs.
Again, why are the Ds so afraid to actually debate competing bills?
Nonsense. Name one Republcan-sponsored bill that the GOP leadership in either house of Congress actually supports. Sure, a smattering of Republicans have introduced various bills (as have a smattering of Democrats) but the Republicans have not produced an actual bill that they as a group support.
And, of course, as part of the amendment process in committee any Republican is more than free to introduce any bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute and debate whatever the hell they want to debate. They aren't doing that. I wonder why. Perhaps it is because the reality is that they have no plan that has support of Republicans generally. Maybe?
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Obviously, it would be budget positive because the spending won't kick in for 5 or 6 years. Clever ploy by the Democrats to deceive the voters.
"Obviously", you have no answer to the question. What are the details of the Health Plan offered by the GOP? When does it kick in, how much does it cost, how many are covered, how many are uncovered?
Simple questions for those who claim to also be onboard to improve the system. In their case it's no ploy at all clever or otherwise, apparently just noise since there appears to be no plan which the "Party of No" has to offer as an alternative to any plan, good or, in their eyes, bad.
Last edited:
"Again", where can I go to read these bills "offered by Rs"? If they were offered, certainly they must be on paper somewhere. All I ask is where can I go in order to evaluate them in comparison to the horrible Dem plan? I presume you made your judgement of the Dem plan based on what you found positive in the GOP alternative, I would like to have the same opportunity.
Could the problem be it's difficult to debate a competing bill that doesn't exist????
Last edited:
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
You love to try to trip people up don't you?
If you have a truthful answer, how can I trip you up? I'm only trying to point out the hypocrisy of the Republican "Party of No". If you want to defend them based on dogma but without evidence, that's your choice.
Again, you can read them when they are placed on the docket for debate in committee, as I asked, why do you think that not even one of them has been added to that docket? Nor are amendments seriously considered before they are voted down if they are offered by an R.
I placed a portion of those ideas that were offered both in legislation as well as amendments in a previous post, they weren't hidden or "secretly" placed there later or anything...
Rubbish. You seek a "single" piece of legislation, when a large part of what the republicans say about it is it doesn't need this dinosaur sized mess of an "overhaul" that costs so hugely to cover so little.
The Rs have offered many amendments, and they have been summarily rejected.
They are not on the docket because they don't exist. Do you really want us to believe that there are GOP bills out there that, having gone through normal channels, for some strange reason, still are not available anywhere to view? Please, even the Do Nothing Republicans aren't dumb enough to miss a PR ploy like that.
The GOP Senators, while they didn't support the bill, complimented Baucus for hard work and fairness with nary a word about the phanthom GOP Healthcare Plan or mistreatment. Oddly, their complaints weren't about the Baucus Bill, but what it might become in Conference which, of course, is totally disingenuous. As anybody who watched the committee hearings will attest, amendments WERE heard from both sides and some "R" amendments were adopted.
As for the imaginary Republican plan, I will wait patiently for someone to come up with a credible reply. How much does it cost, how is it paid for, how many are covered, how many are not covered, what is its effect on the budget? These are the questions being thrown out regarding the Dem plan, I am asking the same questions, for fairness, about the Republican "Plan".
Last edited:
1) You say the Republicans have a plan. That plan should be represented in a bill. Where is it? And, as I said, if they have this bill they can offer it up in the amendment process as an amendment in the nature of a substitute and can debate the hell out of it if they wish. They've not done that because there is no such bill.
2) Now we're back to amendments? Yes, the Rs have offered amendments and yes, many have been rejected. There have also been lots of Republican amendments that were accepted. That's how the system works. What seems to be the problem? That not all Republican amendments were accepted? Well, elections have consequences, remember?
And really, when the obvious reality is that no Republicans (save maybe one or two in the Senate) will vote for the final bill, why should their amendments be taken seriously?
You're just making shit up as you go along. First of all, the only bill being considered by the Finance Committee was the Baucus bill, a bill that Baucus drafted in the hopes of pleasing Chuck Grassley and other Republcians on the committee. They aren't considereing HR 3200. They aren't considering the bill approved by the Senate HELP Committee. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Sanders. They aren't considering the bill sponsored by Senator Coburn. They are considering one bill, the bill drafted by the chairman.
Of course, that does not mean that any senator on the committee cannot offer up one of the other bills as an amendment in the nature of a substitute as I have mentioned several times now. But, that would require an actual member of the finance committee offering up such an amendment. No one has done that because no one really supports any of those other bills.
It isn't some nefarious plot by the Democrats to prevent the Republicans from offering up an alternative. There just is no alternative that has anything more that a scintilla of support.
With respect to amendments, the Finance Committee members have submitted 564 amendments to the Baucus bill. Of those 564 amendments, many are Republican amendments. Many of the Republican amendments were rejected. Many Democratic amendments were rejected. That's the way the process works. What's the problem?