Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

The GOP leadership has proposed a replacement for Obamacare. Their proposal is a fraud. In reality, it’s just another version of Obamacare.

The ACA was rammed through Congress by the likes of Nancy 'we have to pass it to see what's in it' Pelosi and her ilk over 6 years ago. 6 years has passed and the GOP has not had time to come up with a single good idea of what to do 'if' they should actually find themselves in a position to dismantle this anti-American abomination and finally, once and for all, 'fix' the US healthcare system. Of course, they grandstanded their intentions with numerous repeal bills that were, of course, duly vetoed by the same President whose name it bears. Interesting.

I don't think they were 'supposed' to get this opportunity. I think they were happy to go along with the Clinton coronation and then along came Donald Trump who, of course, was laughed out of town not only by Democrats but by his own party. I can hear it now: "Don't worry about Trump, we'll fix him with a whole string of negative polls. Once people get the idea that Trump is not a viable candidate, they'll stay home and Hillary gets her crown". Didn't work out that way, did it? They have no viable plan because repealing it wasn't even on their radar. It wasn't supposed to happen. Oops!

Like a white knight on his trusty steed, Senator Rand Paul rides in from the darkness with his repeal bill, and it's not half bad. At least someone has been working on it. It's long-winded and very dry, but considering the bill it's replacing, it probably has to be. Check it out:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/222/text

Somebody's been burning the midnight oil for a long time to put this together, it was not written on the back of a napkin, that's for sure. Here's another 'proposal' many patriotic Americans might be interested in:

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6a89b73599e68a4cdf6730e21&id=8ba1b36026&e=188e9ddd81

OK, that's my 2 cents worth. Have at it.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Any plan that keeps the profit extracting middleman (health INSURANCE corporations) in the US health CARE loop will not bring down the cost of medical care or ridiculous health INSURANCE premiums, co-pays and high deductibles or make affordable medical CARE available to EVERYONE.

As for tax credit and health savings, they are just a gift to the wealthy, poor families struggling to just make ends meet cannot save shit. And what the hell does lifting the $500,000 tax deduction limit on health INSURANCE executive compensation have to do with health CARE? NOT one goddamn thing!

HR676 (Improved and Expanded Medicare for ALL) is the answer. It would save 95% of taxpayers money and make quality health CARE available to every man, woman, and child in the US. The way it should be.

http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

Greedy Congress crooks must stop favoring big health INSURANCE and PHARMA corporations and start putting the interests of their constitutents FIRST. To do this lobbying (the ability of big money to buy the greedy bastards) must stop.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

I'm going to make an assumption here and say you don't recognize the rampant socialism inherent in this idea. There are several countries around the world who have implemented similar ideas for healthcare, many to their ultimate detriment. Just google 'socialized medical care' and read the horror stories that are still playing out to this day. That is definitely not the American way.

robmull Loc: florida

Health Care insurance WAS a State monopoly before the UCA - "Unaffordable Health Care"/ObamaCare, was shoved (D)own-our-throats by the Marx/Alinsky (D) administration, buffalo, but "WE" have to give the 3 to 5 stage method the conservative Congress has been working-on for about 8 years. "Repeal and replace," is a very tedious commodity, and the same "lefty" regime that jammed it (D)own-our-throats to begin-with, is waiting impatiently for the first chance they have to filibuster ANY action Republicans would be foolish enough to try to push through the cemented-together (D) Congress. ANY ACTION that CAN be filibustered by "lefty," WILL!!! No ifs ands or buts. And the secondary (D)emonrat plan is to (D)ivide "US," all-to-hell. "Either 'WE' all hang-together, or 'WE' will certainly all hang separately" {Benjamin Franklin}. The (D) Party is no-longer the Party of JFK, but the "Taqiyya" Party of "annihilation." There is an elite feeling of liberal progressive "Liberation {black Marxist} Theology," superiority, that considers conservative constitutionalist Americans, "sub-human," and no-longer cares to argue or D)ebate ANYTHING. Conservative politicians are now being monitored by the anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Trump, "shadow government/(D)EEP-STATE/OFA" {"Organizing For Action," 250 offices and DC headquarters}, and beaten-up or shouted-(D)own at any University or Town Hall or advertised Republican event. It has become obvious to me on OPP, that the "superior lefty," has no (D)esire to (D)iscuss or (D)ebate ANYTHING with "sub-humans," when "lefty," puts "US" on the "ignore" list. It's a "superiority" trip, and they have actually gone "Mussolini" on "US." "WE' BETTER hang-together...," while President Trump (R) "(D)RAINS THE SWAMP!!!"

buffalo Loc: Texas

I am going to make an even bigger assumption that you have no clue as to what "socialized medicine" really is. Improved and Expanded Medicare for All is NOT "socialized medicine" any more than the current Medicare program is. Don't confuse the financing of medical care with the delivery of medical care.

Socialized medicine--think Great Britain, our own VA system, where the hospitals and other medical facilities are owned by the government and all the doctors and health care professionals work for the government. THAT is socialized medicine!

Is it socialized medicine to:

want health care to be available and affordable based on medical need, not ability to pay?

believe that all Americans should have free choice of physician and hospital wherever they live?

think that everyone should pay into the system based on a progressive tax system and ability to pay?

replace the wasteful multi-payer, for profit financing system with a simplified, not-for-profit single-payer system that will cost 95 percent of Americans less than they already pay for health insurance and actual care?

want the most efficient and least bureaucratic system possible?

want a large risk pool—our entire population—that most effectively shares risk for whatever health care all of us will need?

combat health care fraud by close oversight and stewardship of taxpayer dollars?

expect that health care services that are provided have been found to be effective and cost-effective by the best available scientific evidence?

accept health care as an essential human right, as most industrialized countries have long recognized, as well as the United Nations since 1948 and the World Health Organization in later years?

HR676 should be decided upon through a democratic process, instead of through the political power and lobbying of corporate stakeholders that benefit from maintaining the status quo. There is a majority support (58%) for single payer based on public surveys.

Ricko Loc: Florida

buffalo-I do not have any idea what Single Payer would cost but I believe it is time we find out. These plans are
probably no better than the ACA and it will take years to get full implementation since this is step one of four or five steps. I do not like what I am reading about it and I believe that , in their haste to get a plan passed, they are making a big mistake. The GOP could become overnight heroes if they went with Single Pay because all democrats would be on board. This could be a missed opportunity. Why should the taxpayer shore up the Insurance Industry?
America First !!!

buffalo Loc: Texas

Exactly! Not only would the dems be on board, the majority of Americans favor a single payer system. It is and has been the politicians being bought off by the powerful health INSURANCE and PHARMA corporations through lobbying that would be the losers in a single payer health system. The taxpayers (95%) would be the winners.

Have you ever wondered why Medicare and Medicaid exist? Because the elderly and the poor are not profitable to the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations. Health INSURANCE corporations only want to insure healthy people, hedge their bets with high deductibles and expect, no demand taxpayer subsidies for insuring the poor and elderly.

Annual savings from enacting H.R. 676 and eliminating the profit extracting middlemen have been estimated at $592 billion.

The argument that government should not be involved in health CARE is ludicrous. Government already pays for 64.3% of health spending ($1.9 TRILLION in 2013), more public dollars per capita than the citizens of other nations – including those with universal health programs. Estimated total U.S. health spending for 2013 was $9,267 per capita, with government’s share being $5,960. The difference of $3300 per capita is what enables private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations to extract $500 BILLION in profits from the US health CARE system. Government health spending in the United States exceeds total health spending (government plus private) in every other country except Switzerland.

That Americans pay the world’s highest health-related taxes conflicts with popular myth that the U.S. health care financing system is predominantly private. Direct government payments for such programs as Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration accounted for 47.8 percent of overall health spending. The rest is public employees private health INSURANCE coverage and tax subsidies to health care.

It is time to cut the profit extracting middleman out of the US health CARE system. The republican American Health Care Act is nothing but more corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the rich.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

OK, you got me. I don't think government funded healthcare is a good idea therefore I must want Granny to die a horrible death due to lack of healthcare. I know, I'm a truly despicable person who should not be depriving other living entities of valuable oxygen. I'm going to kill myself now. Goodbye, cruel world!

buffalo Loc: Texas

Government funded health CARE? Government (taxpayers) already pays for 64+% of health CARE costs in the US because the elderly (Medicare), poor (Medicaid), and the VA are not profitable to the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations. Lets throw in the veterans. They get lousy socialistic care anyway.

Alber

To substitute Obamacare. It is necessary to find a new way for health care, because it is important for everybody. In a certain way health care must be taken from the hands of politicians making its functions more close to the interest of the people. Neither right nor left, non political and non profit associations regulated by the law, taking on account the reasonable interest of those profesionals and workers that labor on the field of health, procuring the goodwill of the enterprises that make the medicines.
We must study the systems of other countries (The United Kingdom, Italy, France and Spain). To study do not means to copy, but learn of others experience. There is to much red tape to get a good attention with something like Obamacare and even you do not received proper attention, because if you need a specialist, this specialist has to be under payment by the insurance company you are paying, besides what you pay for insurance you must pay for every visit or treatment and for the medicine. In those countries you pay a tax but you do not have to pay when you need medical attention or other treatment and the medicine is subsidize. I think that it could be created a universal health system of mutual help without any intermediary (insurance companies) affordable for everybody, taking on account the person of low income. The USA is the first country in the world and it is a shame that it is the number 37 in this field as says the UN, ranking with Cuba that is number 39, a country where its inhabitants have a miserable life.
We could create non-profit associations of mutual help in every county with the participation of the State and Federal Gov., with a budget of the state and national gov. taking on account a annual quota per capita for the number of associates at the begining of each year, with the payment of a monthly quota by each associate, equal for all associates including children. If wanted to have competition among this associations it could be aprove two or three in each county. This associations would have hospitals and dispensarys for external attention under their control with dental care and other services not included in the insurance actually and the medicine could be subsidize. This associations would be under controlment by an Agency in every State and a Federal Agency in the nation that will have the supervision of all the functions, technical and of the economy. There was an experience of this mutual system in Cuba before the comunist took all de hospitals and dispensarys of this associations and the system was taken in account by the Constitution of this country of 1940, one of the most advanced in the world in that moment. It is the same that Trump want to do with the education, a budget for each student, so a budget for each person's health. In this moment Obamacere pays to Florida Blue for a man 74 years old 770 USD monthly and if this man needs the service of a specialist or of the family doctor he has to pay for the visit or for any treatment prescribed and for the medicine. The USA has 320 million of inhabitants, if for each inhabitant this program received a part of the minimun salary stablished for one day of work as a monthly quota and the Federal and States Gov. contribute with an annual quota per person, there will be more than one thrillion of USD

buffalo Loc: Texas

Read and familiarize yourself with HR676 (Improved and Expanded Medicare for All). It is the only common sense solution to the US health CARE dilemma. I agree that greedy bought and paid for politicians should NOT be making health CARE policy based on the dictates and best intersts of private, for profit health INSURANCE and big PHARMA corporations instead of for the best interests of their constituents. A matter like health CARE should be decided democratically by the people.

Health CARE and health INSURANCE are NOT the same thing.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

That's right, they're not the same thing. Two totally different worlds. Socialism is, however, still socialism. HR676 follows a socialist agenda.

I've been trying to stay out of this but here's my 2 cents for what it's worth. Want to 'fix' healthcare? You have to 'fix' a whole swath of other things at the same time. Anyway, here's how you do it:

Start by getting the Federal government out of the way! The nine words you never want to hear in a crisis: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". They can help by getting out of the way.

Begin with an audit of the Federal Reserve System and associated US Treasury holdings at Ft. Knox. This will provide an indication of the state of the current US monetary system (hint- it's not good). Knowing how much fiat money is in circulation and how much gold / silver is in the treasury will provide a baseline exchange ratio. This will be needed when:

Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and associated legal tender laws. Return to an honest money standard based on fungible goods. In essence, cut up Congress' credit cards and make them approach budgeting and spending from an honest viewpoint. Printing money is inflation and inflation is a tax, a hidden and very cruel tax. If congress needs to spend more than it collects, let them ask for it honestly from the people who pay taxes, not steal it from earners and savers.

Fire the IRS. Without a Federal Reserve, it has no function anyway. The only purpose of the IRS is to collect payments for the Federal Reserve System. As an aside, the Federal Reserve is just about as 'Federal' as Federal Express. It is not, and never has been, a part of the US government. It is a privately owned banking cartel operating for profit with a license to print money. They are answerable to no-one. Ditto for the Internal Revenue Service, which is a private corporation incorporated in the state of Maryland in, you guessed it, 1913.

Revoke every Presidential Executive Order going back to George Washington's first and start all over again. This is a good first step to resetting the Federal regulatory system. It might be wise to review all 11,000+ EO's and 'cherry-pick' the ones to keep but the vast majority could be revoked without even raising an eyebrow outside government offices.

Repeal each and every act of Congress going back to the first one and start all over again. This will further remove the dead weight of outdated and unrealistic legal requirements currently borne by individuals and industry. Once again, it might be wise to review all 20,000+ since 1789 and 'cherry-pick' the ones to keep but the vast majority could be repealed without any secondary actions.

Cut Federal government agencies either completely or down to a manageable size. According to the Federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM), as of 2014, the latest date for which government figures are available, there were 4,185,000 Federal Government employees. This number excludes any State or local government employees which, when added in, would bring the total to nearly 22,000,000 in 2012, again, the latest date for which government figures are available. I would consider a government employing a very small percentage of it's current payroll to be large enough to fulfill it's constitutional mandate. As an added bonus, reducing the Federal government will have the knock-on effect of reducing the size of the federal and local governments as regulations and mandates are no longer in force. And as yet another positive side effect, the reduction of oversize government intervention into every nook and cranny of every life would free people to produce and interact in ways not seen since 1789.

In short, I see no good way to overhaul the national health system without a massive overhaul of many other aspects of government at the same time. Of course, that's why we have 'experts' in congress, to make things like this work, right?

Now, knowing what you and all the rest of us know about how our federal government is just falling over themselves to reduce their scope and power, how likely do you suppose it is that any of these ideas would get so much as an airing in the halls of Congress? What do you suppose the reaction would be if I were to show up in my Congressman's office and ask that he offer these suggestions to his colleagues in the House, or Senate? Even on the very slight (no way!) chance that he took my most excellent sales pitch and actually offered this stuff to the others he works with, how long would it be before some 'scandal' or other caused his summary removal from office? A day? A week?

buffalo Loc: Texas

Webster’s online dictionary defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Medicare itself, while publicly financed (meaning paid for with taxpayer money), uses private contractors to administer the benefits, and the doctors, labs and other facilities are private businesses.

In the US, there are a few pockets of socialism, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs health system, in which doctors and others are employed by the VA (government), and the government owns the hospitals.

HR676 (Improved and Expanded Medicare for All) is NOT socialized health CARE!

It would eliminate the need, the spending and the administrative costs for myriad federal and state health programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The act also “provides for the eventual integration of the health programs” of the VA and Indian Health Services. And it could replace Medicaid to cover long-term nursing care. The act is opposed by the for profit health INSURANCE lobby as well as most free-market republicans, because it would be government-run and prohibit insurance companies from selling health insurance that duplicates the law’s benefits.

"Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

Friedman said the savings would come from slashing the administrative waste associated with today’s private health insurance industry ($476 billion) and using the new, public system’s bargaining muscle to negotiate pharmaceutical drug prices down to European levels ($116 billion).

“These savings would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to our health system, including the achievement of truly universal coverage, improved benefits, and the elimination of premiums, co-payments and deductibles, which are major barriers to people seeking care,” he said.

“Paradoxically, by expanding Medicare to everyone we’d end up saving billions of dollars annually,” he said. “We’d be safeguarding Medicare’s fiscal integrity while enhancing the nation’s health for the long term.”

Friedman said the plan would be funded by maintaining current federal revenues for health care and imposing new, modest tax increases on very high income earners. It would also be funded by a small increase in payroll taxes on employers, who would no longer pay health insurance premiums, and a new, very small tax on stock and bond transactions.

“Such a financing scheme would vastly simplify how the nation pays for care, restore free choice of physician, guarantee all necessary medical care, improve patient health and, because it would be financed by a program of progressive taxation, result in 95 percent of all U.S. households saving money,” Friedman said."

http://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/medicare-for-all-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year/

Obamacare is a sick example of how crony capitalism rewards the corporations that are the cause of the health care crisis. And how can a major, “historic” reform to the health care system that still leaves thirty million uninsured even be called a “major” reform? As if it weren’t possible to cover everyone!

There is an alternative to Obamacare: a single-payer system. The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, HR 676, is a single-payer bill that eliminates the insurance industry, puts the government in charge of paying medical bills, and guarantees health care to all from birth to death. There are no eligibility requirements, enrollment is automatic, and there are no co-pays or deductibles. The foundation of a single-payer system is the belief that health care is a human right, not a commodity. It is the opposite of Obamacare

http://isreview.org/issue/94/affordable-care-act