Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woo hoo, the GOP plan may suck less

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 8 months ago

User Journal 16

Not that this is necessarily what the GOP would try to enact: http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm
As with ObamaCare, this idea still leaves too much power in the hands of bureaucratic pencil-necks. I, for one, don't want to see any bogus 'Hey, we're going to fanny about with the tax code' ideas. I want the existing tax code melted down, like the iron rod of oppression that it is, and turned into someNot that this is necessarily what the GOP would try to enact: http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm
As with ObamaCare, this idea still leaves too much power in the hands of bureaucratic pencil-necks. I, for one, don't want to see any bogus 'Hey, we're going to fanny about with the tax code' ideas. I want the existing tax code melted down, like the iron rod of oppression that it is, and turned into some tasteful park furniture.
However, anyone burying their head in the sand about how jacked up ObamaCare is for starters, and how further jacked up BHO's "Oh, we'll just selectively enforce laws" approach is for dealing with it really is utterly mad and deserves to be ignored.

cancel ×

16 comments

How does this do anything? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45432807)

I'm glad to see that someone is at least proposing something to congress, so it can be discussed. I'm tired of seeing links to blog posts, brietbart articles, and other such crap that has no bearing on actual Washington activity. However, this bill doesn't actually do much. From their page:

Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs.

First of all, the 2010 bill does not bring in "billions in taxes". It is budget neutral, and several nonpartisan reviews have shown that. Furthermore several reviews have shown that an immediate full repeal would be very costly in terms of taxes and federal spending. This suggests that they are trying to propose a feel-good partisan measure that isn't actually interested in improving the situation for the consumer but rather intended as a vehicle for political grandstanding.

Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.

The "across state lines" argument simply doesn't work. In fact there are quite nearly zero laws prohibiting it right now - at least at the federal level. Each state is currently entitled to set their own regulations on what policies can be sold in their state, if you buy a non-compliant policy from a different state then that is your issue to deal with in regards to the state you live in.

Even more important though is the fact that this can actually drive UP the cost of care. As it is, the state regulations reduce the total number of plans that any given office or hospital needs to be able to handle. If you open the floodgates now you are expecting your doctor's office to be knowledgeable on coverage and billing for a great number more plans. This will necessitate offices to hire more office workers to handle this work, or take practitioners away from their work to learn the policies that they may encounter. This doesn't help anyone for reducing the costs of care. An additional failure of such an idea is that people can end up buying plans that are not accepted anywhere in their geographic area, and then they end up with no care at all and no way to change the situation because they are locked in to that plan.

Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.

Malpractice is actually a very, very, small cost of practicing medicine. This is why physicians have malpractice insurance. The only useful thing this will accomplish is that more doctors will go into specialties with high malpractice costs (Ob/Gyn and neuro are two good examples) but that won't help get more internists into practice.

Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.

This is probably the most useful part of the proposal, although the ACA gives tax benefits to families as well. However if the idea is to reduce the complexity of the tax code, then this doesn't help, does it?

Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.

That is actually a really good idea. Of course the devil is in the details, and it matters how the accounts are managed, by whom, etc. It can end up hurting a lot of people if it is not managed well (a lot of FSA / HSA accounts now for example have vanishing balances, with the consumer losing any remainder completely at the end of the fiscal year).

Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.

So they still want state run exchanges then? I thought the conservatives wanted to get government out of the matter and have the customers fend for themselves.

Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.

This has NOTHING to do with reducing the cost or improving access to health care. Beyond the fact that the federal government funds very very very few abortions anyways, this seems like a "gotcha" clause that the conservatives are inserting just to score points with their own constituents.

BAH! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45435147)

Medicare for all is the only way. Let's give the insurance industry some real competition. Question to you is why do you think that anybody here is for Obamacare? Only the people who voted for him want it, and I know didn't.

Re:BAH! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45435511)

Medicare for all is the only way. Let's give the insurance industry some real competition. Question to you is why do you think that anybody here is for Obamacare? Only the people who voted for him want it, and I know didn't.

And a lot of people who did vote for him don't want it; myself included. I have been calling for a single payer option for many years prior to the origin of Senator Obama. Now President Lawnchair gives us some silly window dressings on the lousy system that we've had for decades.

Re:BAH! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45436011)

You can shitcan the "President Lawnchair" crap. He didn't fold. He lied (yes, he did, like everybody before him). He never intended on anything better than what was signed into law. If you want to win the presidency, or gain any real power, you have to lie, or quite simply, you will lose. To the better liar go the spoils time and time again. This trolling against the republicans is no different than his trolling against democrats. Ying and yang. Neither faction wants a lopsided election where blame can be clearly pinpointed. Splitting down the exact middle is key to victory. There is but one team that has 98% of the *hearts and minds*, offense and defense, good cop bad cop. You have picked your side, just like he has to protect your own interests, so excuse me if I can't/don't empathize.

Re:BAH! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 8 months ago | (#45436255)

President boasted he was "really good at killing people". [yahoo.com] It's true. He's better at this, by far, than the reviled shrub.

What makes you think that ACA is not just another of his methods?

Re:BAH! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45437797)

What makes you think that ACA is not just another of his methods?

It's not. He's just along for the ride, following the script he was given with his flashy thingy. Shake the trees, and coconuts fall on your head.

Re:BAH! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45437825)

Oh damn! I misread. You're right!

Re:BAH! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45440625)

You can shitcan the "President Lawnchair" crap. He didn't fold. He lied (yes, he did, like everybody before him). He never intended on anything better than what was signed into law.

So are you going to say then that his entire presidential campaign was one lie after another, simply to draw in votes? You are free to hold that belief if you want, but if you view all politicians through that lens then there really isn't much to vote for, ever. I prefer to hold the belief that the politicians do actually believe in what they say, but are often too cowardly to actually push for that agenda.

If you want to win the presidency, or gain any real power, you have to lie, or quite simply, you will lose. To the better liar go the spoils time and time again.

I'm not convinced of that. From my vantage point, as much as I view GWB as probably the worst president in the history of our country and more or less a total failure of a leader, he did actually live up to a lot of his campaign promises. He didn't really promise anything of value for the middle and lower classes and he delivered on that. While they might be evil, they have at times been honest in their intention to destroy the country and accelerate class warfare. However that is not nearly enough to win my vote.

To the better liar go the spoils time and time again.

It seems to me that the politicians who willingly call themselves "conservative" - as opposed to those who try to call themselves something else while being the part - are actually lying less if you compare their actions to their promises. Or at least, they aren't promising anything explicitly to anyone who isn't in the top 1% when they are on camera.

Re:BAH! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45441477)

*Sucker born every minute*

Keep on believin'

Re:BAH! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45442341)

The only choices we had in 2008 were between someone who was promising to keep the country going in the same direction, and someone who claimed they would change the direction (though has ultimately not changed anything). There was no viable alternative for the presidency, and even if there was that person would likely not have been able to get any legislation through congress to their desk if elected. I had to make a choice between two candidates so I chose the one who said they would change things - and hopefully would be less toxic to my career.

So again, you can choose the most cynical option and assert that they are all lying, all the time. For now I will hold to my belief that they are honestly projecting what they want to do, and just not always getting there. Your choice leads eventually to total voter apathy and non-participation under the "screw it" philosophy. I instead choose to believe that there is a reason to vote, even if the election brings about no change in observable time.

Re:BAH! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45443539)

Change will not happen until you demand it. And you are not. You only consider what is being spoon fed. The apathy is on your shoulders.

There was no viable alternative for the presidency... I had to make a choice between two candidates so I chose the one who said they would change things - and hopefully would be less toxic to my career.

Like I said earlier. You are very useful to those in power with your totally defeatist and chickenshit, and actually very selfish attitude about "viability" and "your career". What, are we expected to vote for a guy just to protect "your career"? Sorry, bub, I put human rights above "your career". You're just voting for more trickle down for the rest of us. It is all of you that keep things the way they are. My complaint isn't with the politicians, or even the corporations that finance them. It is you who blindly follow them for a piece of the pie that is the problem. You are good servants. Keep on keepin' on, and you can keep this going indefinitely. The vote for the "lesser evil" is still evil. You are simply part of a more nuanced, only slightly more charismatic tea party.

What you are illustrating is the failure of majority rule. Like Romney, you don't care about the "lesser" 47 percent. It's the epitome of *I got mine - screw the rest*. Don't take it personal. It applies to the entire 98 percent of you that only vote for "viable" candidates. Everything I ever posted to Smitty applies equally to you and pudge and all the rest who don't want to rock the boat for fear of losing their personal little fiefdoms. The real corruption lies with the voters.

Re:BAH! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45444089)

What, are we expected to vote for a guy just to protect "your career"?

No. You are not expected to care about my career. I don't care about yours, either. If you want me to be unemployed, or to leave the country to pursue a career, you are free to make that choice. I, however, will vote with my career in mind as one candidate is very clearly in favor of seeing me lose my job while the other is marginally in favor of my continued employment (even if only in words and not in actions).

Like Romney, you don't care about the "lesser" 47 percent.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I in no way brushed anyone else off.

It applies to the entire 98 percent of you that only vote for "viable" candidates.

The importance, to me, in voting for viable candidates is that there are viable candidates who want to put me out of work. If my choice is between a viable candidate who even might extend my career and allowing the progression of a candidate who wants to put me out of work, I will choose the former every time.

Re:BAH! (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 8 months ago | (#45453031)

Don't fall for guilt bait. So what if you vote to keep food in your belly? Maslow's Hierarchy and all that places the needs of the 47% somewhere below my own personal needs.

Re:BAH! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45441245)

He never intended on anything better than what was signed into law.

Of course he did: he intended on not having an individual mandate.

Re:BAH! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45441471)

He only said so... He said many things he had no intention of doing. He's no different than anybody else. He wants to win an election. And it worked. He was a better bullshitter than McCain and Romney. Elections are won on bullshit. It means nothing when the opposite happens. If he was against it, he would have fought it. It was always there. The industry demanded it, And there's no way they would let him keep the job if it wasn't put in. The industry would have just financed another candidate to replace him... at the very least. They could have just as easily set him up for a real scandal. No matter who is president, the mandate would have been imposed, or conversely, companies would have a much easier time of reneging on contracts and raising prices even more. The voters have handed the government over to big business. Essentially it is already privatized. DC is a proxy and a conduit for Wall Street. The money the government takes from us goes to them. It is not "conservative" or "liberal". It is strictly business. Pure sociopathic business, by cunning, charismatic sociopaths (as if there is any other kind).

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...