Why "I" Hate the Mainstream Republicans

[stebo0728]

Ok so GOP bashing seems to be the theme this week, as I can imagine it will be early and often for the next 2 years. I just wanted to chime in on what irritates me about the GOP.

1) Im tired of them wearing the mantle of fiscal responsibility only long enough to win elections. Im crossing my fingers that this time will be different, but I doubt it will

2) Im sick to death of the GOP wearing this abortion mantle, its embarassing, its distracting, and it only erodes their moderate support. The hardcore fundies that adhere to that issue would vote GOP regardless of their stance. The only position that should even remotely touch this issue is the president, as he can appoint judges that might actually be able to do something about Roe-v-Wade. Legislators certainly have no place messing with it. This of course does not include partial birth, that sick humanless method of murder I hope never gets condoned by our society.

[telcoman]

Ok so GOP bashing seems to be the theme this week, as I can imagine it will be early and often for the next 2 years. I just wanted to chime in on what irritates me about the GOP.

1) Im tired of them wearing the mantle of fiscal responsibility only long enough to win elections. Im crossing my fingers that this time will be different, but I doubt it will

2) Im sick to death of the GOP wearing this abortion mantle, its embarassing, its distracting, and it only erodes their moderate support. The hardcore fundies that adhere to that issue would vote GOP regardless of their stance. The only position that should even remotely touch this issue is the president, as he can appoint judges that might actually be able to do something about Roe-v-Wade. Legislators certainly have no place messing with it. This of course does not include partial birth, that sick humanless method of murder I hope never gets condoned by our society.

With all of their blather about the job killing healthcare bill they have no plan.
Not one of the republicans can state what would be in their version of a replacement bill.
What they should be doing is offering how to make the current healthcare bill better to cover more people.
Why haven't they the republicans given up their congressional heathcare if government provided healthcare is so bad?
Now that Americans are finding out all the pluses in the current bill the percentage of approvals will continue to grow.
What voter that has children in college or family with pre existing medical conditions is going to vote for anyone who voted for repeal?
I sure as hell won't!

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

With all of their blather about the job killing healthcare bill they have no plan.
Not one of the republicans can state what would be in their version of a replacement bill.
What they should be doing is offering how to make the current healthcare bill better to cover more people.
Why haven't they the republicans given up their congressional heathcare if government provided healthcare is so bad?
Now that Americans are finding out all the pluses in the current bill the percentage of approvals will continue to grow.
What voter that has children in college or family with pre existing medical conditions is going to vote for anyone who voted for repeal?
I sure as hell won't!

Telcoman

Very strong private sector objectives exist, why the GOP has yet to adopt them and formulate a bill is beyond me.

The current bill is garbage, Im not so sure a replacement bill is necessary, and if stinks anything like this one I dont want it either.

How many republicans have you asked?

Why does the healthcare plan need to cover more? You still sticking to that healthcare is a right bit? Old habits die hard i suppose...

If the congressional plan was the same as what they are pedaling on us, thered be no need to change, just add 40 million people ot the policy and call it a day. No the plan they push our way is garbage..

I fail to see your pluses, 1099 crap alone would cripple corporate america, again all just measures of control, control the government has no business possessing over the private sector. This bill is all about control, control that needs not change hands to the government.

People with lack of rational thinking skills, those are the ones likely to vote against repealers. No insurer should ever be forced to take on a client and have to pay for damages that existed pre-policy inception. Not for a car, not for a home, not for a healthplan either. I can see forcing an agency to keep a client once they have accepted them, barring any fraud on the clients part, but government forcing any party to enter a contract is an out of place power.

Furthermore, the mandate, its no business of the government to force anyone to purchase a product, at least not unconditionally. Yes we require license plates, but you dont HAVE to own a care. You sorta HAVE to exist, and in existing you must have healthcare coverage? Sorry, again nothing the government should be in the business of forcing.

[IBCoupe]

Telco,
In the defense of Republicans, they've offered a great number of lip-service plans over the years, but, to my knowledge, it hasn't been since Nixon has a Republican shown that they really care about the issue.

Stebo,
Health insurance coverage speaks to equal opportunity. If hospital bills are enough to bankrupt the uninsured, and good health is not necessarily something you can be sure you'll always have, then a fundamental issue of fairness dictates that we need to make sure that people aren't ruined by things that most everybody else has.

Unfortunately, it's never been politically expedient to go out and fight for 10% of the population.

[stebo0728]

... make sure that people aren't ruined by things that most everybody else has ...

... is not the proper facility of government.

You said equal opportunity, where is the opportunity disparity now?

No, the issue is control, and who has it....the heart tugging issue of life and death is simply the avenue ...

[IBCoupe]

The disparity is where one group of people (the vast majority of us, it turns out) can afford to be sick and one group (the small minority) cannot. I thought I explained that.

Two people get identical illnesses. One has insurance, and one does not. Who's got more opportunities for employment?

[stebo0728]

No one can really afford to be sick right now anyway, what rock are you under, for God's sake Tariq just got finished telling us last week the average medical hotel room costs 3500 a night. Health insurance is a near must, but its a responsibility of the individual or the individuals guardian (in which case guardian of the state children would qualify for government assitance) but anyone else has to watch out for their own butts or they're just stupid. And you cant fix stupid, perhaps its better stupid gets out of the (microevolutionary) gene pool. So why should anyone else be on the gun enforced hook for anyone else? Thats just the problem these days, NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and you can legislate that into existence, but you can sure legislate it OUT of existence, as we've done with every entitlement we've passed.

I simply reject any notion that states one person has a "right" to a portion of any other persons life or property, and to label healthcare a "right" does just that. Healthcare can only be guaranteed as an opportunity, but an opportunity for one's own provision, not from the nanny state.

[IBCoupe]

I'm sorry, Stebo, we do not live in an anarchistic society, if you can call anarchy a society.

You probably didn't mean to go there, but when you run off the hilt about the basic function of taxes, that's the position you, perhaps unknowingly, embrace. We have a civilization, Stebo, and as I was quoted on NPR recently as writing (nerd glee-squeal!), it has to be paid for.

[stebo0728]

How many threads have we disagreed about this on? Lord I've lost count, one day I'll just remember that it'll get nowhere, we sit on opposite sides of this fence. As anyone, I like to think my position more logical, as Im sure you do of your own. Bottom line, no government does NOT have to pay for society, at least not a society built upon personal responsibility. Will people hit hard times? Sure, its inevitable. Will charity be there to help them? Most likely, thought admittedly not absolutely, but thats life, we live in an environment of limited resource, you simply CANNOT give everyone an equal amount of stuff and maintain life sustaining supplies.

[IBCoupe]

We've done it enough that I knew what you meant. Still decided to give you a hard time, and that you know I don't mean to give everyone everything so that everyone's equal.

You want the market to sort itself out, and I don't think it can without some nudging from society.

[stebo0728]

But see I can at least partially agree with that, only we dont agree in how to nudge. Private sector, market driven solutions are always my "A" game.

1. Looser terms for policy pooling. Let corporations in the same industry pool for better plans, let them pool across state lines.

2. Let people buy policies ACROSS state lines period, wherever they like, mr. Florida man can buy from Alaska if he likes.

3. Lobby reform is a must - no thats not a private sector matter entirely - but its necessary

4. I think I lose you here usually - but Tort reform is a must - again not entirely a private sector matter there either - but very necessary

5. This ones a toughy but we've got to figure out a way to keep juries from awarding plaintiff's in sh*tty cases, just cause the corporation's insurance policy will foot the bill, that gets back to Tort reform, but still needed mentioning

6. Stop requiring that EVERY LAST DAMN POLICY WRITTEN MUST under no circumstances, be WITHOUT pregnancy, drug addiction, and rehab coverage. Let the market decide what must be covered, if people skate by on the minimum, as they often do, then thats their bag, not the tax payers.

7. Make care providers get competitive for elective procedures, make prices widely available, and let a person shop around, watch the prices drop on elective procedures, you'll be amazed at the "2 free nights with every gall bladder-ectomy" offers you see surfacing. Force non emergency stuff to get competitive, and believe me, it will get competitive

8. Why in God's green earth do I have to pay 6 or 8 times more "out of pocket" for something that the smuttiest of insurance agencies has to pay?

9. This is a big one - and it goes back to my theme "personal responsibility". Preventative care is a big thing, find whats wrong while 3 shots will cure it, long before invasive surgery is required. More money, more risk. But even more to the point, here is how insurance SHOULD work, and it relies on getting the prices down, which the market can do when left unfettered. Anytime you need a routine check up, out of pocket, a sore throat, out of pocket, hair replacement, out of pocket, gastric bypass, out of pocket, emergency apendectomy, insurance kicks in, car wreck and lost both legs, insurance kicks in, vasectomy, out of pocket. You get the theme here, routine, out of pocket, catastrophic, insurance. Pregnancy - MOST DEFINITELY out of pocket, if you can afford the hospital bills, you can afford the child.

[IBCoupe]

But see I can at least partially agree with that, only we dont agree in how to nudge. Private sector, market driven solutions are always my "A" game.

1. Looser terms for policy pooling. Let corporations in the same industry pool for better plans, let them pool across state lines.

2. Let people buy policies ACROSS state lines period, wherever they like, mr. Florida man can buy from Alaska if he likes.

3. Lobby reform is a must - no thats not a private sector matter entirely - but its necessary

4. I think I lose you here usually - but Tort reform is a must - again not entirely a private sector matter there either - but very necessary

5. This ones a toughy but we've got to figure out a way to keep juries from awarding plaintiff's in sh*tty cases, just cause the corporation's insurance policy will foot the bill, that gets back to Tort reform, but still needed mentioning

6. Stop requiring that EVERY LAST DAMN POLICY WRITTEN MUST under no circumstances, be WITHOUT pregnancy, drug addiction, and rehab coverage. Let the market decide what must be covered, if people skate by on the minimum, as they often do, then thats their bag, not the tax payers.

7. Make care providers get competitive for elective procedures, make prices widely available, and let a person shop around, watch the prices drop on elective procedures, you'll be amazed at the "2 free nights with every gall bladder-ectomy" offers you see surfacing. Force non emergency stuff to get competitive, and believe me, it will get competitive

8. Why in God's green earth do I have to pay 6 or 8 times more "out of pocket" for something that the smuttiest of insurance agencies has to pay?

9. This is a big one - and it goes back to my theme "personal responsibility". Preventative care is a big thing, find whats wrong while 3 shots will cure it, long before invasive surgery is required. More money, more risk. But even more to the point, here is how insurance SHOULD work, and it relies on getting the prices down, which the market can do when left unfettered. Anytime you need a routine check up, out of pocket, a sore throat, out of pocket, hair replacement, out of pocket, gastric bypass, out of pocket, emergency apendectomy, insurance kicks in, car wreck and lost both legs, insurance kicks in, vasectomy, out of pocket. You get the theme here, routine, out of pocket, catastrophic, insurance. Pregnancy - MOST DEFINITELY out of pocket, if you can afford the hospital bills, you can afford the child.

1. I'm okay with that, except for the part where it completely takes the States out of the picture. Not sure that's where you want to head with it.

2. See above.

3. Okay.

4. The Affordable Care Act contains tort reform measures, and, yes, there are issues with medical malpractice claims, which could be easily wiped away with a malpractice insurance scheme, similar to worker's compensation - where no fault is assigned, simply a pool of cash all doctors pay into and which pays out to injured people. That's the New Zealand method, it's the nuclear option, and I've advocated for it on these forums before. That said, there's room for agreement, but I think you greatly overestimate the amount that undue medical malpractice claims add to the cost of medicine. Medical malpractice itself is far more influential in that regard - if doctors stop screwing up and hurting people in the process, there won't be a need for the MedMal legal community.

5. We already have a pretty good system in place for that: contingency-fee arrangements. Lawyers eat the bill if the jury doesn't buy it, so they're far less likely to take on a s*** case.

6. Not gonna get with that. Those are basic things that can be covered, and each seeks to maintain a person's ability to get their life back on track after a major event. There's plenty else for the market to decide.

7. People who need a new gall bladder probably aren't going to want to do it on the cheap when they're given the choice. Telling people the prices when they need the procedure doesn't help them make a better choice in advance when choosing a carrier. In fact, that kind of shopping around is exactly what we don't want to encourage. That's the reason that we have an individual mandate attached to the preexisting condition requirement.

8. I don't know, but I don't think that's Government's fault. Let's figure out how to fix that, too.

9. That's more a matter for individual policy choices, don't you think? There are all kinds of ways an employer and an insurance company can team up to incentivize better behavior - "$100/year off your premium for getting your blood pressure down and keeping it down!" Those are still available under the Affordable Care Act, and I see no reason not to leave it up to insurance companies to get their customers to minimize risk. It's in everybody's interest that they do.

[stebo0728]

1. Glad we can agree on something, Im not at odds with at least allowing the States to have some control, but federal mandates need not exist.

4. Thats great, again though, except when a jury decides malpractice where there clearly was none, all in the interest of the "poor pitiful" plaintiff, all because the malpractice money is already there, may as well let them have some, it wont hurt the doctor anyway right? Rubbish. But other than that niche, sounds ok, if we leave the funds privately controlled, and only dolled out at the findings of judge or jury.

5. You may know better than I about that, maybe not, im still for a COMPLETE loser pays system. Even when taking on Coca Cola, if you lose, you pay, yours and theirs.

6. You assume at some point everyone is going to need those services, thats a bit bleak of an outlook, but let me shed some examples. Elderly couple, no more children in sight, pipes dont work, why should their policy be factored in for OB care? Instead, make a baseline insurance premium chart, premiums that only cover for necessities, ER visits, and the like. THEN have a tier system allowing other members on the policy to buy into perhaps OB care if they are a young couple with stars in their eyes, or perhaps rehab coverage if they know they are irresponsible with substances and may need it. I would never pay for rehab coverage, given the option, but then I'm 99.9% sure I'll never need it, and on the .1% chance I do, well then its my bag, not Joe Taxpayers bag.

7. You really underestimate competition and the free market. But pricing alone would not be enough. There would also need to be some sort of procedure for facility rating. Perhaps "hospitals.com" or "NURSBITZ.com" I dunno the market will create the filters it needs.

8. Quite true, the governement is not the blame here, neither is it the answer, but lets do figure out how to fix that.

9. Wow you said individual, did that hurt? I kid I kid .... but ya its an individual choice, but its an idea and a notion that should bear educating. Thats one thing the government CAN do to help things, educate the masses. Just like the abortion issue, I abhor the practice, but instead of titty tatting about whether a girl gets one, when shes already gonna do it, legally and safely, or illegally and riskily, instead lets EDUCATE, try not to get the girl knocked up in the first place. If the government wants to do anything productive to help the issue, unfetter the market, and educate the masses. That will go alot farther than creating mandates, sacking business with luncatic requirements for bookkeeping.

[IBCoupe]

1. Glad we can agree on something, Im not at odds with at least allowing the States to have some control, but federal mandates need not exist.

4. Thats great, again though, except when a jury decides malpractice where there clearly was none, all in the interest of the "poor pitiful" plaintiff, all because the malpractice money is already there, may as well let them have some, it wont hurt the doctor anyway right? Rubbish. But other than that niche, sounds ok, if we leave the funds privately controlled, and only dolled out at the findings of judge or jury.

5. You may know better than I about that, maybe not, im still for a COMPLETE loser pays system. Even when taking on Coca Cola, if you lose, you pay, yours and theirs.

6. You assume at some point everyone is going to need those services, thats a bit bleak of an outlook, but let me shed some examples. Elderly couple, no more children in sight, pipes dont work, why should their policy be factored in for OB care? Instead, make a baseline insurance premium chart, premiums that only cover for necessities, ER visits, and the like. THEN have a tier system allowing other members on the policy to buy into perhaps OB care if they are a young couple with stars in their eyes, or perhaps rehab coverage if they know they are irresponsible with substances and may need it. I would never pay for rehab coverage, given the option, but then I'm 99.9% sure I'll never need it, and on the .1% chance I do, well then its my bag, not Joe Taxpayers bag.

7. You really underestimate competition and the free market. But pricing alone would not be enough. There would also need to be some sort of procedure for facility rating. Perhaps "hospitals.com" or "NURSBITZ.com" I dunno the market will create the filters it needs.

8. Quite true, the governement is not the blame here, neither is it the answer, but lets do figure out how to fix that.

9. Wow you said individual, did that hurt? I kid I kid .... but ya its an individual choice, but its an idea and a notion that should bear educating. Thats one thing the government CAN do to help things, educate the masses. Just like the abortion issue, I abhor the practice, but instead of titty tatting about whether a girl gets one, when shes already gonna do it, legally and safely, or illegally and riskily, instead lets EDUCATE, try not to get the girl knocked up in the first place. If the government wants to do anything productive to help the issue, unfetter the market, and educate the masses. That will go alot farther than creating mandates, sacking business with luncatic requirements for bookkeeping.

1. That's effectively all you would have, Stebo: A federal mandate that anybody can buy any insurance in any State, but that would inevitably lead to the downfall of certain state plans. Some states would seek to regulate the kind of health insurance coverage its citizens should have, but if a State's citizens can go elsewhere, why bother? There's nothing that says a health insurance company can't pull out of a certain state. You're simply letting insurance companies have more control over what people can buy, and you're limiting State rights by letting the market be conquered by whatever mandates a few States put out over the others.

4. That's a function of the American justice system. Judges have the ability to overrule a clearly erroneous jury verdict, I don't know what you want to do, aside from creating a panel of pro-doctor advocates to sit in on trials and weigh in when they think the jury's nuts... which defeats the purpose of a jury trial at all.

5. Then nobody would ever, ever sue Coca-Cola for anything. All a reckless company needs to do is post a sign that says "Our defense lawyers charge $8,200/hour. You sure you want to try this?" I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's a f*** stupid plan. You'll never get me to go along with it.

6. And there's nothing in the Affordable Care Act that prevents them from altering their coverage choices for the various stages of life.

7. No, I underestimate the desire of sick people to want their bodies touched by the lowest bidder. They get insurance so they can afford medication that they wouldn't otherwise be able to. There's nothing accomplished by shopping around for medicine. Showing people how much it costs might dissuade them from getting marginally beneficial procedures, but it's not going to get them to pick a cheaper doctor, if for no other reason than the fear this guy might be out there, somewhere, waiting to work on you for free:


8. It might be the answer. How would you know?

9. Would it surprise you to know that you and President Obama have identical views on abortion? It was a thoughtful answer like yours that he gave in a seven-way debate that led me to like him the most out of the Democratic candidates. I don't think unfettering the market is the answer, because there's nothing about the market being fettered that prevents Insurance companies from creating those incentives.

[seang]

I think people need to start setting themselves up holistically so that they will require less care. Since people feel so entitled to healthcare, why don't they entitle themselves to caring for their own health by making healthy choices? Either they are: brainwashed, cowardly, too busy making babies, don't feel like it is possible to break from their unhealthy American habits, don't know any better, or just that gullible to think that simple things can't make a big difference.

[audtatious]

2. Let people buy policies ACROSS state lines period, wherever they like, mr. Florida man can buy from Alaska if he likes.

Part of the issue with this is that states have different requirements for insurance companies which makes this difficult.

[stebo0728]

2. Let people buy policies ACROSS state lines period, wherever they like, mr. Florida man can buy from Alaska if he likes.

Part of the issue with this is that states have different requirements for insurance companies which makes this difficult.

I understand this, but what requirements are we talking about? We arent talking about requirements placed on the individual, we are talking about requirements placed on the insurer in order to do business. Allowing inusance policies across state lines will give a market effect to these requirements. As more citizens start to seek more favorable policies in other states, more favorable because requirements allow it in that state, then their home state will wake up, and craft their requirements to follow suite. Part of one of my other points, was create a baseline MUST have set of standards, that any policy MUST cover, and they MUST be items that are universal. Say, doctors visits, perscriptions perhaps, ER visits, hospital stays, and the like. But the baseline should NOT include things like childbirthing, rehab coverage, and other niche items. Those can be added as tier coverage lines on policies as needed, but NOT part of the baseline. Its a bit more complicated than auto insurance, i understand, but think of auto insurance. Most, if not all, states require you to carry auto insurance to drive on public throughfares, and coverage limits are established. Many people ONLY get that baseline policy to stay legal, where as many upgrade their policy to adequately cover them in the event of a loss. Im not using that example as support of the mandate, but to say that a baseline can be established, maybe it will differ by state, but market forces will soon bring most, if not all, states well within tolerance levels from each other. There will be hardly any difference from one state to another once the system balances.

[audtatious]

It's just another challenge. From an insurance perspective it must be a biach to keep up with all the ever-changing state regulations along with Fed regulations. The key is drawing a line as to coverage and cost and holding true, something that will never happen.

[96Qowner]

As far as the topic goes, I agree completely.

1) Republican legislators had better stop this "Democrat Lite" crap. Smaller tax and spending increases aren't gonna cut it with me much longer. The government is ridiculously bloated - a disgusting fat pig.

2) Enough already with the abortion stuff. This all came about because Karl Rove identified a neglected constituency of a few million voters for whom Faith is a primary motivator. Since then, Reps have been playing the abortion card, no matter how stale it gets. It was strictly a Bush constituency. Bush is gone. Enough!

[audtatious]

I agree. Fed Gov should be streamlined and things that should be covered via individual states should be ripped away. As far as abortions, I don't care. I'd actually prefer return visitors to have their ovaries removed as part of a second procedure....no, that would cause hormone issues....how about tubes cut/tied/burnt?