GOP on health care: Repeal quickly, replace slowly

DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Monday, June 18, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.

Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.

Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.

Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.

Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.

"We're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies," Obama said this spring at the annual meeting of The Associated Press. He expressed confidence the court would uphold the law, and neither he nor his aides have said what fallback plans are under discussion.

Among Republicans, aides to Speaker John Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other key lawmakers have convened a series of meetings in recent weeks to plan a post-ruling strategy.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected within the next two weeks on a challenge to the law, which has drawn fierce opposition among most Republicans for its requirement that most individuals carry health insurance.

While three big insurance companies announced plans this past week to retain certain protections for an estimated 40 percent of all individuals who receive their coverage through work, there has been no advance word from the drug industry on how prescription costs for older people might be affected by a finding that the law is unconstitutional.

Even so, Republicans say they have no plans for assuring continuity of a provision that reduces out-of-pocket costs for seniors with high drug expenses. This coverage gap is known as "doughnut hole."

"I don't think anybody intends to get involved" in the portion of Medicare that provides prescription drug coverage. The program is "working better than we designed it," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., referring to studies that show the program's cost is lower than was originally estimated.

The drug industry has yet to disclose its plans.

House Republicans have voted 30 times to eliminate, defund or scale back parts or all of the health law, most recently approving a measure to wipe out a tax on medical devices.

Senate Democrats have blocked nearly all of the previous attacks. Forcing another vote would allow Republicans to signal a continued commitment to supporters of repeal, while simultaneously requiring Democrats to take another stand on a measure that has failed to generate significant public support and might by then also have been found deficient by the Supreme Court.

"Democrats don't want to talk about health care between now and the election, especially Obamacare," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, referring to the law signed in 2010.

Many members of the GOP rank and file campaigned on a motto of "repeal and replace" in 2010 when it came to the law. But now, nearly two years later, they express no urgency to replace a law drafted by Democrats, and one they hope the court will kill, with a different one of their own.

"We're not going to repeat the mistakes made by the Democrats who run Washington when they passed a 2,700-page bill that no one had actually read," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, R-Ohio.

While Republicans say the recent insurance industry announcements eased the political pressure on them to act, some cited other reasons for moving carefully on replacement legislation.

With the party united around repeal of the existing law, they said they want to avoid an internal squabble over the details of any replacement legislation, at least until after the elections this fall.

In addition, they want to wait until they know whether GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney wins the White House in November.

Romney has provided few details about his plans for health care legislation. He supports repeal of the current law, in part citing a requirement for individuals to obtain coverage, even though as governor of Massachusetts he signed a law with a similar provision.

On one big-ticket item, Romney and House Republicans already have parted company.

Both criticize Obama and Democrats for cutting Medicare by $500 billion over the next decade as part of the health care law.

But Romney's aides say he wants to restore the money to Medicare, while the budget that the Republicans pushed through the House would instead put the money toward deficit reduction.

In interviews, several Republicans drew attention to recent announcement from a few insurers pledging to retain some recent changes regardless of a court ruling.

UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna said that regardless of the court's ruling, they will continue to cover preventive care such as immunizations and screenings without requiring a copayment. They also said children up to age 26 may be covered through their parents' insurance plans.

Additionally, UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Humana Inc. said they will not reimpose lifetime dollar limits on benefits, a provision most important for patients with cancer and other expensive-to-treat diseases.

The actions left in question the fate of other provisions in the health care law, including a requirement for new coverage for children up to age 19 with existing medical conditions.

Nor do the voluntary announcements cover everyone.

United Health and Humana said their announcements would affect customers with individual policies and those who receive small-group coverage through work.

Workers and families who receive coverage from large employers that pay their own medical claims are unaffected. Those employers will make their own decisions how to respond to the court's ruling.

Neither company provided an estimate of how many of their customers would be affected by their announcement.

The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 60 percent of covered workers are in plans that are self-funded by their employers.

AP Interactive:

Health care overhaul: High court hears case

More like this story

Littleinvestor 11 months, 1 week ago

Fine with me but stop the hospitals from slapping unpaid bills on to mine (about 30 percent of the cost is deadbeat's bills.) If someone has no way to pay, they should be allowed to die because they are irresponsible deadbeats. I'm sick and tired of paying 30 percent more for my health insurance and 30 percent more for health care in general because of people who don't have insurance, welfare, medicare or a big checking account who walk away from their hospital bills. Case.net is full of such bad bills the hospitals are trying to collect. Probably tens of millions of dollars in Mo alone. Let them die.

viktorkowski 11 months, 1 week ago

sounds like something you need to take up with the hospital. perhaps if medical industry wasn't allowed a 5000% markup in the united states this wouldn't be a problem. I asked for a itemized statement once and one charge on there was for a $50 tylenol.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

And there you have it, the choice in this election.

Look, a big hospital bill could happen to anyone, even you, Little.

If you are diagnosed with cancer, you will lose your job.

If you lose your job, you lose your health insurance.

If you lose your health insurance, you will not be able to get new insurance because you have a pre-existing condition. The ACA (Obamacare) takes a swing at this element of the problem.

This can happen to any one of us, even those of us with a good job.

As far as the Republican party is concerned, this is not a problem. Let us all die or, if we're lucky, bankrupt our whole family. And, as Little points out, it costs all of us.

The Democrats aren't perfect, but at least they are trying to deal with a real problem that affects many, many Americans, and constitutes a big problem spending problem, at great political cost to their party. It's hard and not pretty, but at least they are trying.

Therefore, Democrats win this issue, in my view.

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

Competition is what you will have Grace. Competition among the insurance companies for all the people who will be required to carry insurance. Of all people, I thought you would have thought that one through. This is about as capitalistic as you can get. I hope you avoid getting sick with a catastrophic illness that your family can't afford then you will know what others are facing and you won't be making heartless statements like you make.

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

How do you know I'm a liberal Graceful? Just because I want fairness? Is that being a liberal?

Littleinvestor 11 months, 1 week ago

I have health insurance I pay for. I have savings I can draw on (and did earlier this year for a $57,000 bill after an injury.) I am responsible. No one has to pay my bill and I am tired of paying for the deadbeats.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

If you need treatment for cancer, you will not have a job to pay those premiums, and your savings won't last long. Cancer treatment is a lot more than a $57,000 bill. Cancer treatment costs millions, and YOU CAN'T WORK. How will you pay for that insurance then?

Speaking of deadbeats, why don't you support the ACA? IT FORCES DEADBEATS TO PAY FOR THEIR INSURANCE! Isn't that what you want? I'm confused. Or do you just want deadbeats, well... dead?

Graceful, I love how you always say I don't understand what the problem is, then you don't say what you think the problem is.

Health care costs are bankrupting the nation FOR THE SAME REASON that they are bankrupting families: Costs have inflated because, with third-party insurance, there is no incentive for either the health care provider or the health care consumer to keep costs down. Neither party cares what the cost is, because insurance pays for it. So doctors over-prescribe and charge whatever they feel like, and customers over-buy. The "enemy," as usual, is plain old human nature.

But, if you think expensive health care is bad for the economy, unregulated health care with no alternative for the poor is much more expensive. People who are sick and can't work don't pay taxes. Do you want poor people to get sick and avoid treatment? Remember who makes your food...

The family is the building block of our nation. Conservatives need to step up and protect families. I'm sorry I even have to make that point to a fellow conservative.

If the Republicans really had an idea for this, they would have done it during Bush. Instead we got the invasion of Iraq. If we elect another Republican, we won't get a replacement for ACA. We'll get an invasion of Iran.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

What regulations and mandates caused health care costs to go up? Not the ACA... health care costs were going way up before that. So... what? If regulations are the source of the cost problem, why do more-regulated European nations have lower health care costs than the U.S.?

JCLifer 11 months, 1 week ago

Autism is not an illness. It is an education issue.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago

Education? You want to educate someone who grunts and bangs his head agaqinst the wall rythmically? The entire medical profession disagrees with you about that. The standard reference system is DSM-IV and if you do a google search on that term you will get a list of fifty-some books on the topic. You are welcome, and have a very nice day.

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

"IT FORCES DEADBEATS TO PAY FOR THEIR INSURANCE!" -- That is a lie. Besides, even if it were true, why would you want all the "deadbeats" to be fined or jailed for not paying? What do you have against "deadbeats", poor people, welfare queens, hundred dollar millionaires, democrat voting base, etc..?

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

The ACA requires people to buy insurance, which seems like a good alternative to the status quo, which is "wait and go to the ER on the taxpayer's dime," which, incidentally, is what had Littleinvestor all worked up in the first place.

The ACA does not jail people. I think they pay a fine.

The ACA just requires people to pay for the healthcare we all know they are going to use. I've always failed to see what is so controversial (or liberal) about that. The whole opposition by Republicans is contrived anyway, because the ACA was actually Bob Dole's rebuttal to the Clinton plan.

The Republican opposition is based on their pledge that their main goal is making Obama a one-term president, which just means bash and obstruct.

Vote out the obstructionists. They're the ones we need to "let die," metaphorically speaking.

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

That's right Grace, because rich people never get sick and die. Everyone knows that rich people have the cure for cancer and won't share it with the poor. Gawl!!!!!!!

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

You think low income people get the same medical treatment that people that have money or good insurance get?

Gabrielle 11 months, 1 week ago

yes.

MO4LIFE 11 months, 1 week ago

I have two daughters that both had a child one is on medicaid and in one is on Humana. Medicaid my daughter had her baby on Tues and was released Wed. My daughter with Human Had her baby on a Monday and was released Thursday. Petunia you are so wrong and it is obvious that you have never been poor or not had insurance. They do not ge the same treatment, service, nothing. Oh and by the way they both had my grandbabies at the same hospital just different insurance and no problems with either birth.!!!!!!!!

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

"I think they pay a fine." --That's not what the SG argued to the SCOTUS. He called it a tax. So, you're for taxing the poor?

MO4LIFE 10 months, 3 weeks ago

File your taxes late and you will pay the IRS a penalty but guess what it is in the tax code so it is a penalty tax.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

Here's an interesting post related to this issue.

andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/what-the-wapo-wont-run.html

The Washington Post declined to run a story about how rural, working-class people would benefit from the ACA... because the editors thought it was too supportive of "Obamacare."

Liberal media my eye! Sounds like they're scared of being called "liberal." It's a shame that the Washington Post are cowards.

Only in a place utterly disconnected with reality and the real history of authoritarianism could the ACA (passed by a democratically elected congress and a democratically elected president who campaigned on the issue) be called "tyranny." Obama won the election.

It's true. I have no qualms forcing people to pay for the services they consume. We're already paying astronimically for them to go to the E.R.

The commerce clause doesn't make any distinction between buying or not buying. It just says Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The fact that the ACA regulates that by requiring people to pay for the services they consume (buy something) is not relevant in my mind.

The reason the legislature doesn't force people to buy broccoli is because that would be silly, and they'd get voted out. Buying insurance is different, in my mind.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

If conservatives have a problem with "forcing people to buy something," why did Republicans put forward the idea of the mandate during the Clinton years? Are you saying Republicans in the 1990s supported tyranny?

Remember, people: The ACA is a Republican plan from the 90s.

Gabrielle 11 months, 1 week ago

what part of the ACA was proposed by Republicans in the 90's?

Littleinvestor 11 months, 1 week ago

Re-read my post. I'm talking about the few people who are not covered by welfare (medicaid), medicare, insurance or who are self-insured and actually pay their bills. A large portion of those people could have health insurance but gamble on not having it because they want to trade cars every couple of years, have a huge house, take fantastic vacations and generally fritter their money away rather than pay for insurance. If they faced death, they would buy the insurance. There will be a few souls who fall through the cracks but if I want to take care of them, I'll give to a charity. Why should a hospital be allowed to fund its "charity" by padding my bill?

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

How will they buy any kind insurance coverage if they have a pre-existing condition? I can't get a certain level of life insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

And that's what the ACA solves. It forces those people to pay for insurance before they are facing death.

I guess, based on your comments, I can't see why you oppose ACA. It aims at the problem of feeloaders you're complaining about.

Littleinvestor 11 months, 1 week ago

There is a state pool and we are not talking about life insurance. I'm 60 years old and have no trouble getting health insurance but do have to take a high deductible policy to keep costs down. But because I have saved and invested all my working life, I can, and did cover, the deductible this year. If I had been unable, I would have paid the bill off no matter how long it took. I feel a moral responsibility to pay my bills and support myself. Period.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

If your bill was over a million dollars (which is what you'd pay for cancer treatment), rather than $57,000 (which is peanuts compared to the cost of treatment for a serious illness) and you're now 60, there is no way you would have "paid off the bill no matter how long it took." Period.

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

You have zero proof to back up your speculative accusation. Next...

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

He could bring one of his medical bills to you spelchek. Would that do? One of my surgery's was 14000 and that was minor. Plus all of the doctors visits was another 3000. Like I said I had a minor illness. You and Grace remind me of a Mac Davis song. "Oh Lord its hard to be humble, when your perfect in every way"

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

He said he has to take a high deductible to keep costs down. That's not proof, but it is evidence to back up my speculation that, if he were hit with a million dollar bill at 60, he wouldn't have enough money to pay that off in his lifetime. If he wants to give more details about his finances on a public forum, we can conduct a full investigation.

I have evidence. You have nothing but an ill-advised desire to argue with me.

Next.

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

Objection! Speculation!!! You have no clue if this person is sitting on a mountain of wealth that they could use to cover themselves in the event of something like cancer. I do not either, but I am not the one making outlandish claims about somebody elses life I know nothing about. You are speculating which holds no water in an argument. Speculation is not evidence and is ill-advised to use in winning an argument.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

The fact that he has to take a high deductible to keep costs down is not speculation. He said that. It is evidence that supports the INFERENCE that he couldn't pay down a $1 million debt. You see, I do have a clue. Just a clue. But it IS a clue.

I made an inference based on circumstantial evidence. Not a speculation.

Here's the difference:

Speculation: It might be raining outside.

Inference based on circumstantial evidence: You see someone walk inside and shake rain off their umbrella. That's evidence. From that, you infer, it might be raining outside. You haven't actually SEEN it raining outside, but you have circumstantial evidence to support the inference.

Next.

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

"The fact that he has to take a high deductible to keep costs down is not speculation. He said that. It is evidence that supports the INFERENCE that he couldn't pay down a $1 million debt." -- You still have no idea who this person is or what background they have. You have no idea if they have a rich relative, or are a super miser, or have buried 1 million dollars in their backyard that you don't know about from robbing a bank years ago and never got caught. You are basing your argument off assumption and speculation. The fact you don't know this person at all and are assuming their financial situation is speculation enough. Tell you what, I'm rich but I still draw welfare. Infer on that for a while.

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

Too bad there aren't more people like you in the world. People who feel like it is their responsibility to pay for their own way. I would have trouble sleeping at night too but some people don't have the options that we have. They lose their jobs because of an illness or injury and they don't have the funds to pay their bills then they are in trouble.

Granted these things happen to a minor percentage of the population but it happens.

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

"The rest of the developed world is looking at us in abject confusion." -- Agreed. They must be puzzled why our POTUS is wanting to mold the US after them.

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

Sequoia I am curious where you are getting your facts at. I no of no cancer treatment that costs a million dollars. Besides I also know several people involved with cancer treatments and they still work. If you want to compare the rest of the world to us in the way of health care then you need to look at everything. If everywhere else is so great then why are so many people high up in the food chain in other countries coming here for healthcare? Why is the waiting list in most countries so long to see a doctor? As for the reason healthcare cost are so high- there are many. 1) over 75% of all hospitalized patients are on Medicare and Medicaid. Both of these policies pay approx. 18 cents on the dollar for healthcare. That really adds up to tons of money being made by doctors and hospitals doesn't it( especially since most patients feel and act like the staff are there own servants to be treated anyway they want to treat them). 2) the unpaid debt. I am talking about the patients that " oh I don't make enough so can you write off my bill"?( but hey they can still buy their beer and cigarettes).3)The deadbeats that just decide I am not gonna pay, try to collect. these 3 items listed above account for 50+% of the routine medical patients. The majority of Medicaid patients go to ER's because " It is more convenient . I get seen when I want. I don't have to wait for a Dr.'s appt". I see it and live it on a daily basis. The ACA is not going to change anything. The ones that fit into the above list are just gonna cry to Obama that they want vouchers to get free health care insurance. So the only ones that will actually be paying will still be the few honest people that make money and don't expect hand outs.That is why the individual mandate is so important. They make the healthy and the employed that do not want insurance pay high premiums so the rest of the world can get more handouts.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

I personally know of a cancer treatment that cost over a million dollars. That's all I'm going to say about that. I found some support for that figure online, which you can search for if you're interested.

Your point about "higher ups" in other countries... I don't know what they do. But we're really not talking about getting poor people "the best of the best healthcare." The "people high up in the food chain" will ALWAYS be able to afford stuff that's better than the rest of us. I'm okay with that. I'm interested in how to spread the costs and benefits of health care over the widest possible group.

As for you, I guess I'd ask the same question: Where'd you get your facts, starting with "The ones that fit into the above list..." You say the ACA won't work because people will just want free health care next? They'll still have to buy insurance under the ACA mandate, though, so why would what they want from Obama have anything to do with that? They'd still pay.

The thing is, ER treatment is not a "handout." It has a huge cost. People who are taking advantage of that need to pay something. That's what the ACA does. It helps prevent hospitals from having to collect on a huge unpaid bill at the end, because those people would now have insurance.

I'm not saying the ACA is perfect, or that it will immediately solve all healthcare related problems. BUT, I support the idea that everyone should pay something into the healthcare system now, instead of waiting and going to the ER later. That costs all of us and we can save that money.

I'm no expert on health care, that's for sure. Some of these points about shortcomings of the ACA and cost control may be well made. I just don't know.

My whole point is, at least Obama took a step in the right direction. I would have been just as happy if Republicans had done something. Instead, we got Iraq War.

If you think Republicans are going to do ANYTHING to help us with health care costs, you're a sucker. That's all.

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

AS for how I know- I don't have to get information online to back what I know, I live it first hand. 21 years in health care is my backing of information. I see the bills, the patients and get the responses. I have worked in some of the top hospitals in the state and the country. The average run of 8 week chemo and radiation costs any where from $8k to $30k. No chemo treatment runs you a million dollars unless in is a non approved experiment. then you are just being a lab rat. As for ER visits- that is the problem with medicaid patients- the majority of them treat the er as a free clinic because they never have a dime taken out of their pockets. I am curious if you have read the entire healthcare bill or just bits and pieces. I have read all 7000+ pages twice. very boring to read but I want to make sure I understand things that will affect me directly in life and my job. Under the ACA if you are currently on medicare or medicaid or uninsured because you cannot afford insurance you will be able to get a voucher to get free health insurance. That is why the individual mandate is so important. They will make(force) the people that do not need to carry insurance buy it at high premiums that will still be very high so that the people that are getting hand outs now will still be getting hand outs. Tell me how is that making everybody buy insurance? You will still have a few paying for healthcare of the many.Medicaid patients will still get their free healthcare on the backs of people like me. I would be all for it if the individual mandate was not there and everybody was forced to buy their own insurance- no handouts. IF the choice is between cigarettes or medicine- most people will pick beer because they can get the meds off the backs of somebody else. I will agree with you that the Repubs( and Dems) need to step forward- stop worrying about what their base will think and do something to fix the system. preexisting is a big problems but that can be fixed without adding to other problems. As for the poor getting the best of the best- Everybody gets the same healthcare in the USA. Medicine, procedures, staffing to care for and training for the staff costs money. you are wanting something for free and that is not going to happen. Read the patients rites- all patients are stabilized and if the facility is unable to provide care needed, the patient is transported to a facility that can.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

Well, if you need something like, say, a bone marrow transplant, that costs a lot more than 30k.

I've held a bill for cancer treatment in my hand, too.

Anyway, it sounds like we kinda agree: ACA isn't perfect, but somebody needs to step forward and address costs.

And I'll bet you a sandwich it won't be Republicans.

We have two choices in this election: 1) Yes we can... keep trying, or 2) Screw it, invade Iran.

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

I'm all for keep trying- but I'm not for just pass something so i can get votes. And I am voting for Romney because there is not one good thing Obama has done. HE passed the ACA when the majority did not know what it was about so he could make a select group happy. All Obama is about is spending money and making a select group happy to get elected. Now I admit Romney basically falls under the same category on the Repub side. But Like people said in 2008 it fits here- anything is better than the what we have right now. Or in this case He is way better than Obama. It fit well with Bush and it fits well with Obama. Just keeping with the trend.Neither party is going to stand up and say hey we need to make major changes. They are only going to do what their party base wants them to do. Until both side decide to say the heck with the party and lets sit down and actually compromise( that does not mean one side makes demands and the other side gives in to keep the people happy) we are all doomed.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

But, given the fact that not even all Democrats supported the ACA in the face of Republican attacks, AND given the fact that Obama actually disappointed a lot of his "base" by giving up not only single-payer health care AND the public option before the negotiations even began, I guess my view is that Obama has, on a lot of issues, said to heck with his base and his party, and he HAS tried to sit down and compromise with the Republicans (remember the 10-1 cuts to spending offer the GOP rejected?).

Finally, I just think Obama is more careful and conservative than Romney. I'm honestly afraid that if Romney gets into office, he is just going to cut and slash all over the place, and invade Iran to give away the store, just like Bush gave away our tax surplus in no-bid defense contracts. I don't think Romney has met a corporate giveaway he didn't like, and I'm afraid Romney is going to do something drastic, and that's just not what we need right now.

I guess I don't support making major changes just for the sake of major changes. Generally, I think slow and steady change is best for a society. I want someone who will think things out and try to do the best he can by the most people.

I know Obama hasn't been the miracle that some people thought he would be, but he has been steady, and he hasn't done anything too crazy. Romney's too much of a wild card for me.

And remember, health care reform was a major part of Obama's campaign. He didn't pass it to get votes! HE PASSED IT AFTER HE GOT ELECTED! And with other Dems running away scared!

He went for it because he promised the people he would, and they voted for him. Is that majority that voted for him the "select group" he was trying to make happy? The people who didn't vote for him didn't like it, but, well... he won, after all. That's democracy.

But seriously, you think he's sitting there now thinking "Oh yeah, the ACA's got this election in the BAG for me."? Please.

Certainly, if you don't like it, vote him out. (But, I have to say, relying on judicial activism to overturn a democratically supported initiative like ACA is kinda sneaking into the liberal playbook, eh?)

I don't think "anything" is better than Obama. Remember Herman Cain?

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

"a democratically supported initiative " -- Yep, the democrats supported it so much they passed it so they could see what was in it!

JCNYer 11 months, 1 week ago

First of all, what's wrong with Herman Cain? The allegations were not proved to be true or false, and even if they were, I have 2 words: Bill Clinton. Secondly, he didn't get elected because of the heath care issue, it's just that no one really wanted to see Sarah Palin as VP. (Not like Joe Biden is much better) And like the illegal immigrant act he is forcing on us, not one citizen had a say on Obamacare. Because if it was put up to a vote, 70 % of Americans would've shot it down. Kind of like the reason it's in front of the Supreme Court right now. A word that describes Obama's reign as kin... sorry, I mean president....... unconstitutional.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

Herman Cain had waaaay more problems in my mind besides women. Like, basic ignorance and incompetence.

Look, Obama campaigned on health care, and people voted for him. You may not like the ACA, but it is not illegitimate in any way, judicial activism notwithstanding.

Mark, I appreciate your willingness to engage in actual, substantive arguments about the merits of the ACA, instead of reflexive hysteria about tyranny and socialsim.

I just don't know enough to get in the policy weeds of the ACA. We probably disagree on how likely Republicans are to take this issue seriously if they get in power.

If our choice is handouts to the poor and sick or handouts to defense contractors during an invasion of Iran, well...

John 11 months, 1 week ago

You are not truly silly enough to believe that OSB was killed by/because of POTUS, are you? The search for OBL was started long before the present POTUS was elected. You BHO supporters will say ANYTHING to justify voting for him. . . .

John 11 months, 1 week ago

Actually, using your method of establishing fact, yes, we can.

I wrote "the SEARCH" was started LONG BEFORE BHO became president. Actually, a SAILOR popped him while BHO and Clinton sat back an watched in their civies. Oh yeah, NEITHER of them ever wore a uniform, except maybe a band uniform.

spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago

"1) Yes we can... keep trying," -- LOL!!!!!!!!!!! With 8.2% unemployment I wish he'd stop.

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

hkchas nobody ever said meds were not exspensive. I will be the first to admit to that. but that is a private industry. The way you fix that problem is by being involved in your healthcare and telling your doctor I don't want the medicine that cost so much. There are more than one med to treat all types of cancer- research and approach your doctors about which meds you are interested in. That is what we call patient involvement. People that get involved in their own/family health care save thousands of dollars a year

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

no Morus what I posted is called patient's rights and patient activism. Actually do some research for once morus. Most doctors prescribe a specific med, not because it is best for the patient, but because after they write a certain amount of scripts for that med they get an under the table kick back. if you research and find out what meds work for your type of treatment it is very easy to find out average costs. you then go to your doctor and tell them this is the med you want not that one. IF your doctor doesn't like it then find one that will and make sure to let everybody know not to use the doctor that didn't want to listen to you. You can even go as far as posting reports on the internet( we all know you love to do that). So if you think it is ludicrous to be involved in your health care that's your problem not mine

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

I guess I still don't understand what you're talking about "vouchers." Do you mean this voucher plan that has been repealed for a year now?

mesirowfinancial.com/elements/pdfs/insurance/free_choice_voucher_repealed_041811.pdf

Or are you talking about something else? I looked here: pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/03/health-care-reform-you-asked-we-found-answers.html

... and couldn't find anything about a "voucher."

Are you saying Medicare and Medicaid are "handouts" that should be stopped? What do you mean, if the mandate were gone, and everybody was forced to buy insurance-no handouts? Isn't that what the mandate does... force people to buy insurance? What is the "handout"? I'm seriously not contesting this point. I just don't understand.

I'm not wanting something for free! I'm wanting everybody to pay in! Geesh.

And I don't think real health care professionals use the term "lab rats" to talk about patients.

Maybe if you can give me a cite in the legislation to the thing about the vouchers that I'm confused on? Since you read it two times and all!

I know, I'm kind of a jerk. Good discussion though!

Gabrielle 11 months, 1 week ago

Who EXACTLY is QUALIFIED? Who gets to determine who is qualified? Secretaries and nurses can certainly contribute to the discussion AND resolving the matter - as can the hospital janitoral staff. ..... and quantitative analysis? what does this have to do with anything? What qualifications do you have to be posting here on national health care????

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

Morus the way you post in here you also have no business posting anything. As for dealing with the numbers-anybody that deals directly with patients are the best to talk about the national health care. you want number/specifics I could give them to you but then I would be breaking a little federal law called HIPAA. you want to talk numbers- I can talk numbers all day long with you but I have better things to do. your right I wish ly only job was to worry about keeping people alive but in this day an age everybody in healthcare can talk the numbers because as they go down it could mean the difference between a job and unemployment- which means less people to keep you alive. So as I said anybody in healthcare can talk the talk and walk the walk-If you have no idea about healthcare other than your bill in your hand- you really have no business attacking anybody because like I've said before the only person you are worried about is what you can get out of it.

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

Sequoia I need to clarify what i posted- under ACA middle and lower class will be able to buy into the state plan or part of the medicaid extention. No wunder the current medicaid my ? to you is do they pay anything now-no. So that will not change under the extention. they have increased the % above the poverty level to allow more people to be accepted into this program. I am all for helping people at the/under the poverty level but rewriting the numbers does nothing but make the problem bigger. Also If you "cannot afford health insurance" Under the ACA you will get a large tax credit to " help you pay for it". WHy is everybody not getting that tax credit? The tax credit will basically equal either a large portion of/if not all of what you pay into your premium. I agree that everybody should pay in- no free rides. As for stopping medicare and medicaid- absolutely not. Medicare is for the elderly and chronically ill- it is our job as a society to help them-especially the elderly. As for Medicaid- I think it needs to be rewritten to make it tighter if you will have it. I think Medicaid patients should have a co pay when they go to an ER. That would 1) get more of them into doctor offices and would 2) make them decide do I need to go to the ER right now or what till the clinic/urgent care opens in the morning. both would cut costs. I am not talking about big copays- I pay $150 every time I have to walk into an ER under my insurance- Charge the $25. Not a lot, but enough for them to decide if 1) it is neccessary and 2)(for the ones that fall under this one) DO I need to get seen or is more alcohol/cigs more important.Under my insurance well visits/preventive visits are covered 100%. Offer that plus other accentives to medicaid patients.Right now they don't care about preventive because everything is free to them.

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

gee HK what part of what I said above gives you that Idea? but how you define poor and how I define poor may be 2 differing things. Stop trying to put words into other people's mouths that you cannot defend. IF you can defend that question show me where I said it.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 1 week ago

How many of you all plan to use MediCare? Rob

Gabrielle 11 months, 1 week ago

We are very fortunate to have the health care system we have in the USA. Sadly, ACA is not going to do the good and wonderful things people believe it will do. Consider this: at this time, hemophiliacs receive a synthetic medication as treatment here in the USA. In Canada, they recieve the actual blood product. How safe is that? Where do you suppose someone with hemophilia would like to receive treatment?

We really do have a wonderful system here. The biggest problem is people knowing how to access the health care system to receive care. Addressing this problem, for example, will make a big difference and does not require revamping the whole system.

About costs. Grace is right. Regulation is the problem. Allow for interstate competition and it'll be like magic - costs drop..

The best thing we can do is repeal the ACA.

JCNYer 11 months, 1 week ago

Then Democrats must be the party of do a lot, who care what Americans think, they're too stupid anyway.

JCNYer 11 months, 1 week ago

Yeah, tries to do what he says. Doesn't matter if it is constitutional or not. And when Obamacare is found to be unconstitutional, then he has violated the oath that he swore back in '09. And for that, it should be an automatic impeachment and barring from ever running for president again. He's got to remember, well ALL politicians have to remember, is that they work for us, we hire em, we fire em.

Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago

If Republicans now think the mandate is unconstitutional, why did they propose it? Remember, the mandate is a Republican idea! You can't get around that.

So, they must not really think it is unconstitutional. Remember, Justice Scalia found that medical marijuana could be regulated under the interstate commerce clause in 2006. Now, just a few years later, Scalia says that the 1940s Wickard v. Filburn case he RELIED on to uphold federal regulation of medicinal marijuana was wrongly decided. What? He relied on Wickard to regulate pot, now he doesn't like Wickard because he wants to follow his party on the healthcare issue. He's a phony.

These unelected judges want to use the Constitution to strike down a majority-passed law they disagree with on policy reasons, even thought it would fly in the face of decisions they made just a few years ago.

That's judicial activism. You have to admit that, right?

I guess we can look on the bright side. If ACA goes down, maybe the potheads can use the decision to overturn Gonzalez v. Raich. Then, in about ten years, we'll get single-payer healthcare instead of the private mandate. Won't that be a peach!

So, careful what you wish for, guys.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 1 week ago

What if the Tea Party succeeds, Ryan wants to put me on Medicare vouchers? Rand Paul proposed to end Medicare this past May and 16 US senators voted for it. Mitt becomes the rubberstamp boy. I would like to know how many of you all are expecting to use Medicare. Rob

Littleinvestor 11 months, 1 week ago

I'm a mean person. I like to throw verbal bombs and then let people roll with them. Actually I favor something like the ACA but what got passed was a mess. I don't really want people to die for lack of care but the hidden taxation on those of us who do pay needs to end and the GOP has to admit there is secret taxation going on, taxation never voted on by the people or their elected representatives but slapped onto medical bills by accountants. We have the most expensive health care in the world but some other countries have better outcomes for less money. We need to know why, and Congress should have found out why instead of playing politics. For now, I can pay my bills and at my age I'd probably forgo any treatment for cancer because everyone I know who has ever gotten cancer has been tortured by the medical community and died anyway. I'd just as soon skip the torture.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 1 week ago

Thanks morus, I will keep this up for along time, because they want to rant and rave but have no solution. Rob

sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago

Rob read some of the prior postings. I have presented several solutions that would help. none of them involved Medicare but a lot did involve Medicaid. You keep asking about Medicare.If you are so for everything try arguing Medicaid for once. The elderly do need our help. The poor need our help but don't need it as much.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months ago

Sick and tired, I agree with you, alot of the cost is covering the doctors, hospitals biutt. alot of the testing is redundant, I have seen this with my mother? If information could be transferred per a chip or flash drive? I too ran into a problem with blood testing with multiple doctors, I take my results to them now my regular doctor gives me my results, this stemmed from an insurance payments for services problem. I was diagnosed Mitro valve prolaspe in 90, something with an EKG, employment ended, needed insurance, $2000. a quarter? Back in 91? New doctor says they called everything mitro valve prolaspe, EKG is fine? I have a good employer, and have good insurance now. I have good health due to having insurance, kinda like preventive maitenance. I am proactive in my health care, I am my own advocate, I ask the questions. Medicare, Social security, Insurance they are all connected to retirement, and end of life decisions. I wish to retire with out this worry the Tea party and Republicans seem to be projecting for all. I and most have paid into these programs for years, cut the waste, build these programs up, we cannot allow these people to tear what so many are on, or will be on. These are not entitlements these programs have that been paid into for many years. We do need to take care of those in need. If Romeny is elected we will continue with what the Republicans have offererd since the 80s, nothing for me. or anyone on this page. Again I ask how many of youall are planning to use Social security, or Medicare? Rob

eileen10 11 months ago

From a personal stand point I approve pres.Obama's health care.I have had many forms of cancer in the past ten years,some being rare due to a condition called muir torre.Muir torre is in fact very rare.Due to the chemo,an antibiotic that I had a reaction to not to mention all the after effects of cancer itself I am unable to work.I worked as a nurse. I had insurance but once I was unable to work the insurance stopped. I used my savings to pay medical bills and was forced to file for ss disability and went on medicare.I will be plagued with cancer for how ever long I have left on the face of this earth and it's not because of anything I did.It's because of muir torre. Things got better due to Obama's health care.Not that I'll ever be free of medical bills. I won't. But their less costly and some procedures are free. Do I* deserve to die?I think not.I have fought this for a long time because I have family I love. I'd like to see my grandchildren get married and to be a great grandma. I love the sun rise. I enjoy life and I do all I can to help others who are in need.I have to keep my sense of humor and on those rare occasions when I feel like I'm useless because I can't work I tell myself I'm here for a reason and God knows whats best.I've done some research of the health care bill. It may not be perfect but much of it,in my opinion, is good.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID