(03-07-2017 07:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Trump loves this stinking pile of ****.

Quote:"We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump told The Washington Post. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."

"[They] can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better,"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/trump-obamacare/

Yeah Donny...we T O T A L L Y believe you!

(03-07-2017 09:18 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Congressman Justin Amash:

Quote:The new Republican plan does not repeal/replace Obamacare; it repackages Obamacare. It's a political plan that signals retreat and will not reduce health care costs.

Obamacare is essentially a financing system to ensure that the insurance companies get paid to provide coverage to individuals who were previously deemed ineligible. The GOP proposal amends Obamacare and maintains its overall structure and general approach. It does not effectively address health care costs.
The states, independently or through multistate compacts, can more adequately tackle the particular health care needs of their residents. At a minimum, however, the starting point for congressional debate should be the Rand Paul/Mark Sanford legislation.

Ultimately, a sound and accessible health care system requires us to address the legal and institutional impediments that limit choice and competition, drive up the price of pharmaceuticals, and obscure costs through the third-party payer system. Because it will be substantially more affordable, such a system can provide a robust backstop for catastrophic situations and for the poor and vulnerable.

A few days ago, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee tweeted out identical messages saying that they're voting no on anything less than a full repeal and replace. If that's the case, this thing is DOA before you consider other Republicans who may break with the party. There's not much of a chance you get any Democrat on board besides Joe Manchin, unless you use the political tactics I've described on this board in the past.

Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

(03-08-2017 06:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can't wait for the CBO to score the monstrosity. It's a tax cut. Obamacare without a way to pay for it.

Quote:Trump budget director on @Morning_Joe: "The only question about the CBO score is, is it going to be really good or is it going to be great?"

(03-08-2017 06:33 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I've informed my representatives that I will not support them if they vote for this steaming pile of schit. I suggest everyone do the same.

Mine won't listen to me. He only listens to the Paul Ryan and the GOP.

Unless of course I happen to write him a big check.

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:18 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Congressman Justin Amash:

Quote:The new Republican plan does not repeal/replace Obamacare; it repackages Obamacare. It's a political plan that signals retreat and will not reduce health care costs.

Obamacare is essentially a financing system to ensure that the insurance companies get paid to provide coverage to individuals who were previously deemed ineligible. The GOP proposal amends Obamacare and maintains its overall structure and general approach. It does not effectively address health care costs.
The states, independently or through multistate compacts, can more adequately tackle the particular health care needs of their residents. At a minimum, however, the starting point for congressional debate should be the Rand Paul/Mark Sanford legislation.

Ultimately, a sound and accessible health care system requires us to address the legal and institutional impediments that limit choice and competition, drive up the price of pharmaceuticals, and obscure costs through the third-party payer system. Because it will be substantially more affordable, such a system can provide a robust backstop for catastrophic situations and for the poor and vulnerable.

A few days ago, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee tweeted out identical messages saying that they're voting no on anything less than a full repeal and replace. If that's the case, this thing is DOA before you consider other Republicans who may break with the party. There's not much of a chance you get any Democrat on board besides Joe Manchin, unless you use the political tactics I've described on this board in the past.

Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

#1) Control tort costs through something like the Worker's Comp system. At least make them more predictable.
#2) Make sure bad doctors are removed from the system.
#3) Cut the non-value added costs from insurers and make severe penalties for not paying legitimate claims.
#4) Figure out a way to get drugs to market quicker, reducing the costs and improving the cash flow for a new drug.
#5) Have more cost transparency, allowing more shopping by consumers.

How much they will actually do, I don't know. But the ideas are all out there.

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:18 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Congressman Justin Amash:

Quote:The new Republican plan does not repeal/replace Obamacare; it repackages Obamacare. It's a political plan that signals retreat and will not reduce health care costs.

Obamacare is essentially a financing system to ensure that the insurance companies get paid to provide coverage to individuals who were previously deemed ineligible. The GOP proposal amends Obamacare and maintains its overall structure and general approach. It does not effectively address health care costs.
The states, independently or through multistate compacts, can more adequately tackle the particular health care needs of their residents. At a minimum, however, the starting point for congressional debate should be the Rand Paul/Mark Sanford legislation.

Ultimately, a sound and accessible health care system requires us to address the legal and institutional impediments that limit choice and competition, drive up the price of pharmaceuticals, and obscure costs through the third-party payer system. Because it will be substantially more affordable, such a system can provide a robust backstop for catastrophic situations and for the poor and vulnerable.

A few days ago, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee tweeted out identical messages saying that they're voting no on anything less than a full repeal and replace. If that's the case, this thing is DOA before you consider other Republicans who may break with the party. There's not much of a chance you get any Democrat on board besides Joe Manchin, unless you use the political tactics I've described on this board in the past.

Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

Sure, get rid of a bunch of the regulations that are driving the price. It is not difficult. Reduce paperwork, allow for waivers, allow for doctors to test and research and develop their own processes, tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance, knock down barriers to entry, ease up requirements to practice medicine to increase supply and diversity of services offered, require commercial price lists for services so consumers know what their procedures will cost and be able to pick the provider on a best value evaluation criteria, etc. It isn't rocket science.

(03-08-2017 07:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bismarck health care, 15% consumption tax, 15% social security payroll tax with no ceiling, Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund set at 30% to offset consumption and payroll taxes, and 15% flat tax on all business and investment income, with no personal income tax, would balance the budget, provide a far more comprehensive welfare safety net than what we have now, eliminate the welfare trap that locks people into poverty, and make us more than tax competitive with the rest of the world for attracting future investment and jobs.

Owl, can you explain to me what the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund is exactly? I tried doing a couple google searches and a lot of the results direct me to something called the "The FairTax Book". I know I'm being lazy, but I'm at work and don't have the time to do an in depth search and I was hoping for a brief explanation.

I am familiar with the Bismarck healthcare model though.

(03-08-2017 10:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:18 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Congressman Justin Amash:

Quote:The new Republican plan does not repeal/replace Obamacare; it repackages Obamacare. It's a political plan that signals retreat and will not reduce health care costs.

Obamacare is essentially a financing system to ensure that the insurance companies get paid to provide coverage to individuals who were previously deemed ineligible. The GOP proposal amends Obamacare and maintains its overall structure and general approach. It does not effectively address health care costs.
The states, independently or through multistate compacts, can more adequately tackle the particular health care needs of their residents. At a minimum, however, the starting point for congressional debate should be the Rand Paul/Mark Sanford legislation.

Ultimately, a sound and accessible health care system requires us to address the legal and institutional impediments that limit choice and competition, drive up the price of pharmaceuticals, and obscure costs through the third-party payer system. Because it will be substantially more affordable, such a system can provide a robust backstop for catastrophic situations and for the poor and vulnerable.

A few days ago, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee tweeted out identical messages saying that they're voting no on anything less than a full repeal and replace. If that's the case, this thing is DOA before you consider other Republicans who may break with the party. There's not much of a chance you get any Democrat on board besides Joe Manchin, unless you use the political tactics I've described on this board in the past.

Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

Sure, get rid of a bunch of the regulations that are driving the price. It is not difficult. Reduce paperwork, allow for waivers, allow for doctors to test and research and develop their own processes, tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance, knock down barriers to entry, ease up requirements to practice medicine to increase supply and diversity of services offered, require commercial price lists for services so consumers know what their procedures will cost and be able to pick the provider on a best value evaluation criteria, etc. It isn't rocket science.

So you think big pharma and big insurance, out of the goodness of their heart, will reduce costs because they have less expenses?

Silly boy.

(03-08-2017 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:18 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Congressman Justin Amash:

Quote:The new Republican plan does not repeal/replace Obamacare; it repackages Obamacare. It's a political plan that signals retreat and will not reduce health care costs.

Obamacare is essentially a financing system to ensure that the insurance companies get paid to provide coverage to individuals who were previously deemed ineligible. The GOP proposal amends Obamacare and maintains its overall structure and general approach. It does not effectively address health care costs.
The states, independently or through multistate compacts, can more adequately tackle the particular health care needs of their residents. At a minimum, however, the starting point for congressional debate should be the Rand Paul/Mark Sanford legislation.

Ultimately, a sound and accessible health care system requires us to address the legal and institutional impediments that limit choice and competition, drive up the price of pharmaceuticals, and obscure costs through the third-party payer system. Because it will be substantially more affordable, such a system can provide a robust backstop for catastrophic situations and for the poor and vulnerable.

A few days ago, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee tweeted out identical messages saying that they're voting no on anything less than a full repeal and replace. If that's the case, this thing is DOA before you consider other Republicans who may break with the party. There's not much of a chance you get any Democrat on board besides Joe Manchin, unless you use the political tactics I've described on this board in the past.

Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

Sure, get rid of a bunch of the regulations that are driving the price. It is not difficult. Reduce paperwork, allow for waivers, allow for doctors to test and research and develop their own processes, tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance, knock down barriers to entry, ease up requirements to practice medicine to increase supply and diversity of services offered, require commercial price lists for services so consumers know what their procedures will cost and be able to pick the provider on a best value evaluation criteria, etc. It isn't rocket science.

So you think big pharma and big insurance, out of the goodness of their heart, will reduce costs because they have less expenses?

Silly boy.

It a basic law of economics. Create competition. Its something Obama's plan lacks.

(03-08-2017 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:18 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Congressman Justin Amash:


A few days ago, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee tweeted out identical messages saying that they're voting no on anything less than a full repeal and replace. If that's the case, this thing is DOA before you consider other Republicans who may break with the party. There's not much of a chance you get any Democrat on board besides Joe Manchin, unless you use the political tactics I've described on this board in the past.

Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

Sure, get rid of a bunch of the regulations that are driving the price. It is not difficult. Reduce paperwork, allow for waivers, allow for doctors to test and research and develop their own processes, tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance, knock down barriers to entry, ease up requirements to practice medicine to increase supply and diversity of services offered, require commercial price lists for services so consumers know what their procedures will cost and be able to pick the provider on a best value evaluation criteria, etc. It isn't rocket science.

So you think big pharma and big insurance, out of the goodness of their heart, will reduce costs because they have less expenses?

Silly boy.

It a basic law of economics. Create competition. Its something Obama's plan lacks.

Wrong. The ACA added millions to the health insurance rolls. They all bought insurance plans. This new plan will lower the amount of folks buying insurance equating to less competition.

(03-08-2017 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:18 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Congressman Justin Amash:

Quote:The new Republican plan does not repeal/replace Obamacare; it repackages Obamacare. It's a political plan that signals retreat and will not reduce health care costs.

Obamacare is essentially a financing system to ensure that the insurance companies get paid to provide coverage to individuals who were previously deemed ineligible. The GOP proposal amends Obamacare and maintains its overall structure and general approach. It does not effectively address health care costs.
The states, independently or through multistate compacts, can more adequately tackle the particular health care needs of their residents. At a minimum, however, the starting point for congressional debate should be the Rand Paul/Mark Sanford legislation.

Ultimately, a sound and accessible health care system requires us to address the legal and institutional impediments that limit choice and competition, drive up the price of pharmaceuticals, and obscure costs through the third-party payer system. Because it will be substantially more affordable, such a system can provide a robust backstop for catastrophic situations and for the poor and vulnerable.

A few days ago, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee tweeted out identical messages saying that they're voting no on anything less than a full repeal and replace. If that's the case, this thing is DOA before you consider other Republicans who may break with the party. There's not much of a chance you get any Democrat on board besides Joe Manchin, unless you use the political tactics I've described on this board in the past.

Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

Sure, get rid of a bunch of the regulations that are driving the price. It is not difficult. Reduce paperwork, allow for waivers, allow for doctors to test and research and develop their own processes, tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance, knock down barriers to entry, ease up requirements to practice medicine to increase supply and diversity of services offered, require commercial price lists for services so consumers know what their procedures will cost and be able to pick the provider on a best value evaluation criteria, etc. It isn't rocket science.

So you think big pharma and big insurance, out of the goodness of their heart, will reduce costs because they have less expenses?

Silly boy.

That's why I said reduce barriers to entry and break up the oligopoly. Make it small pharma and small insurance that has to compete and yes, they will have to reduce costs if they want to win contracts.

(03-08-2017 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  It a basic law of economics. Create competition. Its something Obama's plan lacks.

The competition is not between peer companies/groups: drug companies, hospitals etc. competing with similar drug companies, hospitals etc. It's between the provider and the customer, with the provider holding all of the cards (you can tell the hospital, "I'll show you, I'll walk away and die!" but it won't move them much). Real competition between providers simply reduces everyone's share of profit, and is therefore irrational.

A morally, economically and politically decent system levels the playing field between provider and patient.

Watch Shephard Smith wipe his *** with this bill live on Fox:

(03-08-2017 10:58 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  It a basic law of economics. Create competition. Its something Obama's plan lacks.

The competition is not between peer companies/groups: drug companies, hospitals etc. competing with similar drug companies, hospitals etc. It's between the provider and the customer, with the provider holding all of the cards (you can tell the hospital, "I'll show you, I'll walk away and die!" but it won't move them much). Real competition between providers simply reduces everyone's share of profit, and is therefore irrational.

A morally, economically and politically decent system levels the playing field between provider and patient.

WTF? Aren't big phama and big insurance "obscene" profits what you all on the left were blaming this crisis on when Obamacare itself was rammed through?

Do yourself a favor and Google 'obama insurance company profits'

(03-08-2017 11:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:58 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  It a basic law of economics. Create competition. Its something Obama's plan lacks.

The competition is not between peer companies/groups: drug companies, hospitals etc. competing with similar drug companies, hospitals etc. It's between the provider and the customer, with the provider holding all of the cards (you can tell the hospital, "I'll show you, I'll walk away and die!" but it won't move them much). Real competition between providers simply reduces everyone's share of profit, and is therefore irrational.

A morally, economically and politically decent system levels the playing field between provider and patient.

WTF? Aren't big phama and big insurance "obscene" profits what you all on the left were blaming this crisis on when Obamacare itself was rammed through?

Do yourself a favor and Google 'obama insurance company profits'

Thank you for letting me know what I think. I had remembered disliking Obamacare from the start but must have been mistaken.

Obamacare was never going to succeed in an era of historically low interest rates. Neither will Trumpcare, for the same reasons. In your omniscience, I'm sure you already know why.

(03-08-2017 09:40 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 07:58 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  So why can't out representatives present such a plan?

Fourth, Congress is a really great gig. You get your cell phone AND your health insurance paid for by someone else, plus you get a pension. And a gym and a really great dining hall (I've eaten there and it truly is spectacular). Who's going to give that up and challenge a powerful corrupt power center (without a more powerful one at your back)?

Excuse me, but I deleted all the BS from your post. What remains is probably the correct answer. There are a few members of congress willing to stand up and fight, but not enough to have an impact.

(03-08-2017 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is there any conservative here that thinks that the Republicans can come up with a bill that actually reduces health care costs but is still based on free market principles like you desire?

I'd love to see how they make that possible!

Sure, get rid of a bunch of the regulations that are driving the price. It is not difficult. Reduce paperwork, allow for waivers, allow for doctors to test and research and develop their own processes, tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance, knock down barriers to entry, ease up requirements to practice medicine to increase supply and diversity of services offered, require commercial price lists for services so consumers know what their procedures will cost and be able to pick the provider on a best value evaluation criteria, etc. It isn't rocket science.

So you think big pharma and big insurance, out of the goodness of their heart, will reduce costs because they have less expenses?

Silly boy.

It a basic law of economics. Create competition. Its something Obama's plan lacks.

Wrong. The ACA added millions to the health insurance rolls. They all bought insurance plans. This new plan will lower the amount of folks buying insurance equating to less competition.

That didn't create competition genius. It mandated that people buy a govt approved product which in some cases has lead to the absence of any and all competition.

Club For Growth has called the bill "RyanCare".

Heritage Action and the Chamber of Commerce are both also heavily against the bill.

The opposition is rallying.

(03-08-2017 10:38 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 07:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bismarck health care, 15% consumption tax, 15% social security payroll tax with no ceiling, Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund set at 30% to offset consumption and payroll taxes, and 15% flat tax on all business and investment income, with no personal income tax, would balance the budget, provide a far more comprehensive welfare safety net than what we have now, eliminate the welfare trap that locks people into poverty, and make us more than tax competitive with the rest of the world for attracting future investment and jobs.

Owl, can you explain to me what the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund is exactly? I tried doing a couple google searches and a lot of the results direct me to something called the "The FairTax Book". I know I'm being lazy, but I'm at work and don't have the time to do an in depth search and I was hoping for a brief explanation.
I am familiar with the Bismarck healthcare model though.

It's an adaptation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax to a consumption tax environment. I'd be happy with either approach, but since I'm going with a consumption tax, Boortz-Linder fits better.

Basically, everybody gets a government check, or electronic transfer, every month. The homeless guy living under the bridge gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it, everybody in between. It's based on the poverty income level. If the prefund/prebate rate is 30% and the poverty level is $30,000 for a family of four, then they get $9,000 a year, or a check for $750 every month. Bismarck health care at $2750/person (about where France is now) gets them up to $20,000/year, based on the way poverty statistics are kept. That keeps them alive. A full-time job at the current minimum wage puts them above the poverty line.

This works for two reasons:
1) There is no means testing to require an excessive gatekeeping function, so admin costs are much lower than under current welfare, and
2) It doesn't go away as your income increases, so there is every incentive to go get a job and none to stay on welfare.

It's bad for fat cat bureaucrats, and it's bad for real estate prices in northern Virginia and southern Maryland. When the three counties with the highest average household income in the US, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area, that's precisely to whom something bad needs to happen.

(03-08-2017 11:18 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 11:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:58 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  It a basic law of economics. Create competition. Its something Obama's plan lacks.

The competition is not between peer companies/groups: drug companies, hospitals etc. competing with similar drug companies, hospitals etc. It's between the provider and the customer, with the provider holding all of the cards (you can tell the hospital, "I'll show you, I'll walk away and die!" but it won't move them much). Real competition between providers simply reduces everyone's share of profit, and is therefore irrational.

A morally, economically and politically decent system levels the playing field between provider and patient.

WTF? Aren't big phama and big insurance "obscene" profits what you all on the left were blaming this crisis on when Obamacare itself was rammed through?

Do yourself a favor and Google 'obama insurance company profits'

Thank you for letting me know what I think. I had remembered disliking Obamacare from the start but must have been mistaken.

Obamacare was never going to succeed in an era of historically low interest rates. Neither will Trumpcare, for the same reasons. In your omniscience, I'm sure you already know why.

The piece of garbage bill in the house will not succeed. We do agree on that.