-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/09/rep-grayson-d-fl-unveils-gop-health.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Not like we saw Grassley after the voting down of Schumer's amendment right after Rockefeller's, who then took a moment to check his Twitter feed and issue a retort against people who were knocking him for using "skool" in his tweets.
He could have said the GOP:
>Wants to make health care plans portable (like 401k's) so coverage is not lost when we change jobs.
>Wants to protect consumers by stopping insurance companies from cutting benefits when they get sick or refusing coverage for preconditions.
> Wants to stop corrupt state governments that restrict health insurance companies from competing accross state lines so consumers have more choices.
> Wants to provide a safety net for the 15% of citizens that cannot afford health care and health coverage--especially catastophic healthe coverage.
>Will not affect any--meaning none--current or future medicare benefits. The GOP will not cut medicare, period.
Above all, the GOP wants to preserve the quality of our current system and expand slowly --we can cover basic needs but if we flood the system with "gold style coverage" for everyone without increasing the supply of medical personnel, quality will erode and quality is everything.
And one more thing, you won't have to wait unitl 2013 (Sarh Palin's first term) for the GOP health care to take affect -- it will take affect right away and we can debate it as long as you want--take all the time you need.
Which means if you don't get another job, the Republican death panel says you don't deserve health care.
>Wants to protect consumers by stopping insurance companies from cutting benefits when they get sick or refusing coverage for preconditions.
Which means Republicans are a little late to the party, but agree with Democrats; until they are afraid something might pass, in which case they will make new demands.
> Wants to stop corrupt state governments that restrict health insurance companies from competing accross state lines so consumers have more choices.
They want health insurance run like credit card companies; insurance will all be run out of the states with the least regulation; your state will have no power to demand insurance continue to offer even the quality they did offer or intervene when they refuse to pay for services your doctor recommends.
> Wants to provide a safety net for the 15% of citizens that cannot afford health care and health coverage--especially catastophic healthe coverage.
In other words offer a poor plan for poor people. For the people who can't afford to pay the premiums, sickness will mean the first $5,000 or $10,000 will be out of pocket. The Republican death panel has determined that 15% of citizens should only be covered after their condition is so bad they are near death anyway. In other words, as Rep. Grayson put it, don't get sick, but if you must, die quickly.
>Will not affect any--meaning none--current or future medicare benefits. The GOP will not cut medicare, period.
We all know the Republicans set out to bankrupt Medicare durring the last administration by adding prescription coverage without the funding to support it; and when Medicare needs new funding in less than a decade, Republicans will try to eliminate the program; I mean it's just old people, it's not like any corporate profits are at stake.
Above all, the GOP wants to preserve the quality of our current system and expand slowly --we can cover basic needs but if we flood the system with "gold style coverage" for everyone without increasing the supply of medical personnel, quality will erode and quality is everything.
Of course there is no plan to ever increase the supply of medical personnel, that would cost money, and no coverage at all is preferable to less than perfect coverage, so those who are not covered will remain without coverage until some mythical day when doctors rain from the sky and hospitals grow from seeds like eggplants.
And one more thing, you won't have to wait unitl 2013 (Sarh Palin's first term) for the GOP health care to take affect -- it will take affect right away and we can debate it as long as you want--take all the time you need.
Yes, when you change nothing, it does technically take effect immediately; unlike when you have a coherent plan.
And thankyou, Sarah Palin as the GOP candidate will insure that President Obama remains in office for a full 8 years.
And by the way, who really wrote Sarah's new book? Same ghostwriter she used for that opinion piece she "wrote" a few months ago?
> I have already conceded that repubs are "late to the party".
> Implies we use federal regulations, regulators and standards as enforcment against insurance companies. Fed can do a good job protecing conumers in this role--better than states.
> The drug plan was bi-partisan legislation--if you think this was a plot to break medicare then Sara Palin really does have a shot in 2012--I was actually joking about that.
>If you jam 30million into the system without increasing medical personnel service will suffer--this is an easy point to make and it's why dems will not get the seniors vote in 2010 or 2012--and you will need it to stay in power.
>I have never heard of a $5000 to $10000 deductable and I don't think you have either--we can come up with a decent plan to cover the indigent and those that are down but not out. Just like we do a good job of feeding the needy--we can't serve lobster and prime rib to everybody but we can prevent suffering. We can do the same in health care.
Do not know who wrote Sarah's book but I'll bet it wasn't Bill Ayers--he's probably busy with you know who's next book. Isn't it something of a stretch to believe setting Obama care to take effect in 2013 is not politically motived.
If it were me responding to you instead of vice versa I would say "so what, get over it".
Must of been thinking of "Lew Al Frankin" , my former dentist, he was a real jerk but he had a great sense of humor.
The Republican plan does absolutely nothing to curb costs.
The Republicans spent years trying to dismantle Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. Why the sudden change in heart?
The talking points, which are good, are just that ... talking points. I am not even sure where you got them, since they are not the official stance (http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare). And it would appear that Republicans do not even have 1 stance, but many, as do the Democrats. When it comes down to it, are they really pushing any of these points? Absolutely not. Look at what the Republicans offered as amendments. It looks like protection of the Insurance industry.
I heard one of the Senate Republicans say tonight that the Democrats do not want to help the Insurance companies become better. Excuse me, but I thought Republicans believed in the free market.
Restricting competition is not a state rights issue. Most states are dominated by a handfull of big companies -- night as well lift the barriers and let them compete nationally, the companies that cannot cut it will be bought out--it happend in my industry and it can be a good thing.
And that nutcase, Mika, actually said it was like Joe Wilson screaming YOU LIE during the president's speech.
You know, everything is equal -- the GOP does something, the Dems do something. (Not that this was anywhere near equal -- one was truth, the other a lie. But that is always the case.))
I hope Grayson doesn't back down and apologize.
...and a Democrat no less...
Taibbi had a video of him grilling some lawyer a few days ago about the government gaming Wall Street--it was classic. This guy is a pit bull for the facts.
Bravo, Representative Grayson. When you have the truth on your side their is no need for apologies. Wish some of your quivering Democratic colleagues in Congress would understand that.
Oh, wait! He did read it. 1300 pages in less than a day before he voted on it. He must have taken the super advanced speed reading course!