Please share what these plans would do to offer affordable health care insurance for pre-existing condition... I know its a single component of ACA and there are other components of importance, but selfishly no plan is as good as ACA unless it addresses pre-existing conditions.
Do you know how the house and senate work? Do you know who controls what bills get voted on? I feel like if you did then you wouldn't have to ask this question. When the president is trying to get Obamacare passed, do you REALLY think the leaders in the house and senate would allow a Republican healthcare bill to be voted on? Even if it was, would Democrats have supported an alternative to Obamacare and given the president that kind of black eye over the issue? You know better, I'm sure of it.
Yet another load of bullsh!t spread by Bobby. The Democrats bent over backwards to include the GOP in the process. It was the GOP who refused to contribute anything meaningful, not the Democrats shutting them out. Bullsh!t and more bullsh!t. There wasn't any input from Republicans to shoot down, they absolutely refused to participate in the process, except to oppose anything and everything proposed by Democrats, as they planned to do even before Obama was in office. This is the only thing in this statement that holds water. And yet you try over and over to do just that.
I agree with most of this (tort reform doesn't help to reduce costs in the least and there should definitely be liability for poor medical practices). My wife worked as a hospice nurse for almost a year and the difference in a quality end of life between hospice care and trying every treatment in the book is stark.
Bullsh!t, bullsh!t, and more bullsh!t. Here is but one clip where not just one, but many Republicans were invited to the table. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2rK0DInQ
Trying to rewrite history by smearing the record with bull****. Part two... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EzIK_b4aA
You're the one spinning. I just posted video evidence of Republicans at the table being very nearly begged for their input, and the only response, to a man, was "clean sheet of paper." That isn't input. The Republicans refused, they weren't shut out.
You realize that the prohibition on denying people with preexisting conditions doesn't just apply to companies selling plans on the exchanges, right? That rule applies to all insurance companies and all plans. Of course, there is no such thing as an insurance plan that is "Obamacare," at all. If you don't have a plan to replace it, repeal of the ACA is a non-starter. Try again when someone you support has an actual plan.
I am sorry if you can't see the forest through the trees. As I have asked, what's stopping the GOP from campaigning on a healthcare alternative at any point past 2012? Are they not allowed to have press conferences to unveil a plan and show us Americans why this is a better alternative to ACA? .... think maybe they'd have a better chance at winning the presidency with an actual plan? Probably wouldn't have Trump if the GOP could come up with something. Don't need an alternative when at the table, use parts of ACA as a framework.I am truly confused at what exactly in ACA that Republicans find so un-Conservative that ACA can't even be on the table. Funny considering Mitt Romney was the nominee in 2012.... Perhaps we should ask Mike Pence, governor of Indiana and republican vice presidential nominee, about how the Obama administration approved his own state medicaid expansion plan.
They were offered a chance to show up and go along with the program, once they realized that none of their input was considered and that the legislation was "pre-ordained" quoting one of those Republicans "at the table", they left. Trying to have a token at the table that you can ignore and claim bipartisanship isn't "bending over backwards", I'm sorry if you can't see that. There was never any Republican input allowed or considered. Lie about it and attempt to rewrite history all you like, it wasn't that long ago, people remember.
Affordable health insurance for pre-existing conditions is asking other people to pay for your health care. In no sense is it actually insurance. You can't buy car insurance for a pre-wrecked car or homeowner's insurance for a house that already burned down.
Under my proposed plan there would be a system of government free clinics that would be taxpayer funded that anyone could use. These clinics would provide some mandatory minimum level of care. People would also be free to use other health care resources, but they would be responsible for purchasing insurance for themselves according to freely negotiated deals (no government mandates on coverage or price controls) or out of pocket. I don't think a private entity should be required to provide guaranteed loss "insurance" to someone. Insurance is a hedge against risk of loss. An insurer takes guaranteed money in the form of premiums against a risk that the insured will make a claim that requires a higher payout. The premiums are based on the amount of the payout expected and the chance that the payout will occur. Pre-existing conditions make the chance of payout 100% and thus the premium would have to be more than out of pocket healthcare costs in order for the policy to be worthwhile to the insurer.
If that is the case then maybe private insurance cannot handle medical insurance, public option or single payer looks like the answer.
Say what? A series of free clinics where my daughter would have echocardiagrams, EKGs under stress, and other highly specialized cardiology examinations to ensure her good health is continuing? Mandatory minimum level of care? Are you serious? And high risk pools? That's what Texas offered prior to ACA. $500 a month for basic care, just for my daughter. Sorry... your plan isn't even close to being a replacement to ACA.
Well the ACA is in the process of collapsing entirely, so at some point we'll have to get back to being realistic about something that can actually last.
