CBO: Republican health plan would reduce premiums, cut deficit

It doesn't take care of the biggest part of our healthcare issue: the huge number of uninsured people.

 

Not interested, thanks.

 

If the only objective is cut cost, why not do away with medicare medicaid? That should save a lot of money right?

 

saves money by not covering any new people....


hum......

 

Here's our amazing plan that will take the non-insured percentage of Americans from 17 percent to an amazing 17 percent!!!

NSFW Language:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RjtnRmy0H-U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RjtnRmy0H-U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

actually it costs almost the same amount but with less coverage as the other bill. It's like the same bill but just doesn't have any of the health care stuff in it. What a great idea!

In fact the Democratic bill would reduce the deficit by 110 billion and the GOP bill would only reduce it by 68 billion. Add that to the fact that it doesn't help the uninsured, and it's a huge loser.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes....-monitor-questions-impact-of-gop-health-bill/

 

But the CBO's numbers for the Democrat bill are lies. They only speak the truth for the Republican bill.

 

A swing and a miss...

 

Basso, is the Congressional Budget Office a credible body who bases their findings on facts?

 

Actually, I think this is a good move by Republicans.

The Democratic priorities were to slow the rising health care costs, cover more people, and get rid of some of the insurance company policies that prevent people from getting coverage they need. The Republican priorities for health care reform seem to only be the first part, slowing the rise of health care costs.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that. And they feel that it isn't worth the risk to spend so much more money and make the changes that the other priorities require. So they crafted this alternative that meets those goals. It seems like a perfectly valid alternative.

Now, my personal opinion is that insuring more people and getting rid of the pre-existing condition loophole and ability to deny coverage are important enough to make the necessary changes, so I support the democratic proposals more. But perhaps unlike some other Republican alternatives on other issues I think this provides a legitimate choice that differs from the ones coming together in the house and senate.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html

 

fixed

 

A couple of other points should get bolded there-

 

I don't think its a bad plan if the goal was a marginal improvement in regard to health care. What I am wondering about though if the Republicans had this idea why didn't they enact something like this when they were in charge or for that matter campaign on it?

 

more,

from Think Progress --

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the overwhelming majority of Americans would remain uninsured and continue paying higher premiums under the Republicans’ health care alternative. In fact, it’s unlikely that any of the members of the Republican House Leadership would be able to find affordable insurance under their own proposal, should they chose to give up their government-sponsored plans. The six men and one woman in the Republican House leadership have an average age of 52 and, as a group, are more susceptible to cardiovascular disease, different cancers, high blood pressure, and a host of other chronic diseases. The Republican health alternative would allow insurers to discriminate against these conditions and price the Republican leaders out of the market. Igor Volsky explains why Republicans wouldn’t find coverage under their own health plan.

 

This is basically the plan for America! Thanks Alan Grayson for having the balls to say it.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-usmvYOPfco&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-usmvYOPfco&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I'm in the middle

but i don't see why people should have to pay for other people's health care

sorry and i never will

 

Do you have health insurance?

If you do have health insurance, you are subsidizing others' health care.

Unless you use it a lot - in which case you are forcing others to subsidize yours.

That's the point of having insurance.

 

I'm just saying i pay for my own health care insurance

i def pay more on insurance than what i use

i just would never want a normal individual to pay for my necessities

nor do i want to pay for theirs!

but thats life i guess!