advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

THE GOP HAS A PLAN

By
Neal Boortz
@ November 4, 2009 8:40 AM Permalink | Comments (58) | TrackBacks (0)

So the Republicans have come up with a 230-page healthcare alternative. It took the Democrats 1,990 pages. Wonder why it took so much more. Could it be perhaps because the Democrat plan grossly expands the federal government and bureaucracy?

What does the Republican alternative include? Glad you asked. Some of the highlights are:

  • Increasing incentives for people to use health savings accounts
  • Capping non-economic awards in medical malpractices cases
  • Incentives for states to drive down premium costs
  • Allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines

What does the Republican plan NOT include?

  • No employer mandate
  • No individual health insurance mandate
  • It doesn't require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions
  • Probably some abortion stuff that I could care less about

As the Republicans introduced their bill the Democrats were passing around a binder with a cover page reading "Republican Health Care Plan." Inside you would only find blank pages. Very cute ... the Republicans introduce a 233 page plan, and the Democrat Socialist Party refuses to acknowledge its very existence.

There is, though, something wrong with the GOP bill. They posted it online in a non-searchable format. This is particularly vexing to reporters like Jamie Dupree. If you follow him on Twitter [@jamiedupree] you can share his pain. There is, as I see it, only one reason to post your legislation in this manner ... and that's to make it more difficult for snoopy reporters and voters to get into that bill and look for specific little goodies. We expect this from Democrats. Republicans need to correct this.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: THE GOP HAS A PLAN.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/49614

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • 100+ new bureaucracies
    111, actually, but comments are in Arial font. Consider the PAYROLL of a new jumbo collection of bureaucracies that will basically be an "ACORN to Well-paid Real Jobs" program; guess who pays? Big Gov't has an identity crisis when it specifies gov't spending. (Literally, the old saying applies: It takes money to make money. Sadly, the gov't doesn't make money, but only spends us further into debt.)

    BUT... no more getting fired for not hooking 20 suckers a day for the months leading up to an election or getting fired before lunch if you fall behind.

    Sorry, libs, but you may as well be fish as far as my concern goes for your "skip the debate and jump to the name-calling" powers of "logical reasoning." (Uh, you can't hear fish talking nor read their attempts at writing; you can check at a pet store or Wal-Mart, whatever. If you can hear the fish or they text msg you, try to act like you're not stoned.) God bless!
    By WJ @ 11/06/09 04:05:03 PMreport abuse
  • Republican "Plan" = S.O.S.
    More of the same; and to little too late. This "plan" is like putting a single band-aid on platoon of amputees.

    And as for capping medical malpractice awards, that's the mantra of the insurance industry. Trial lawyers have been the whipping boys of insurance companies for decades. Why should we restrict our 6th amendment right to a jury trial, including the jury's verdict? "Runaway Juries", "Jackpot Justice", et al have been screamed so long and loudly (and based solely on a FEW anecdotal cases - clearly the exceptions and very uncommon) by the insurance industry to justify ridiculous malpractice premiums and manipulate and pervert Constitutional Law that we have come to think there is substance to the accusations.

    I do understand that attempting to make these points to a closed minded ego maniac and his minions is futile; but I shall continue to express my opinion, even to the ignorant.
    By Frank @ 11/05/09 08:04:59 PMreport abuse
  • damn it!! stop it!!!!!! just stop it!!!!!!!!!
    you dumbasses are gonna make me mad!!!!

    you insist on using the damn constitution as an argument......annnnd another stoopid thing to say is "common sense".....it went down the drain with the parchment.......

    niether of those things are in d.c. or any other gubmint buildin'.....so knock it off!!!!
    By butt neckid @ 11/04/09 03:55:25 PMreport abuse
  • snark
    I guess you skipped right over "INCLUDING PROHIBITION OF RESCISSION"

    And just in case, cause you really are a little off today (feeling ok?):

    –noun the act of rescinding.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Origin:
    1605–15; ss) + -iôn- -ion

    The panel only comes into play after the fact, but they really should NOT be rescinding anyway.

    This may not be a perfect plan, but it's a heck of a lot better than Nancy or Harry's. Unless you really do like the idea of a big new government bureaucracy which I think you do.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 03:48:23 PMreport abuse
  • Joyce -- You are Right; I be Wrong
    Joyce -- I reviewed the proposed legislation, and you are correct. It says the maximum premium for those with pre-existing conditions would be 150% of the standard preminum. So, I stand corrected.

    Of course, the devil is in the details, but it seems like a pretty good start for a Republican bill.
    By TruthSeeker @ 11/04/09 03:24:17 PMreport abuse
  • Snarky is right
    Snarkybird is right!! It's time for us to let the government reign in the very freedoms that make us all look so stupid on a regular basis. The very fact that you all speak out against Obama and Communism shows that we need to put a halt on freedom of speech. Snarkybird was also correct in eluding to the fact that America sux and we need to finally just give all of this over to Obama and the Chinese.
    By Snarkybird's #1 Fan @ 11/04/09 03:13:08 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    OK OK, to be fair.. you wouldnt be left to die.

    You'd have a govt appointed panel decide whether you'd be able to keep your existing insurance or go on the govt insurance plan.

    whereas with the dem plan - you would just be allowed to keep your insurance. albeit you may pay more. Or, you could opt out into a public plan (we hope)

    So, uh... educate me again here. The GOP plan caps the high risk pool at a very low rate...who picks up the rest of that tab? And why is it fair to on the one hand force insurance companies to take these risks but then make the pool they are in small, and then subsidize those costs through tax dollars?

    the whole idea of insurance is to INCREASE the size of the pool.

    as I see it the dem approach is to change the rules so insurance comp cant drop you, offer a low cost plan, and increase the overall pool through mandates to help insurance companies cover the extra costs while ensuring everyone is covered one way or another.

    the GOP plan says "don't buy insurance if you don't want to, govt will pick up that tab" and "we'll determine who can be dropped but, if you are, the govt will still pick up the tab"

    I mean, I understand why you'd support no mandates in terms of free market but, why do you support tax payers just paying for this as they do now?
    By snarkybird @ 11/04/09 03:01:25 PMreport abuse
  • @Tshirt
    liberty and freedom has got it's ugly side, doesn't it?
    i guess you are to decide who gets liberty and freedom and who doesn't get liberty and freedom.

    that means you are against liberty and freedoms that turns your stomach.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/04/09 01:02:57 PM


    Huh?? Hey Schizo, what on earth are you referring to??
    By Club-a-Liberal @ 11/04/09 02:44:14 PMreport abuse
  • You KNOW better than that Doc
    re-Joyce
    i forgot.you are one of the masses who think the politicians actually care what you think. :O)

    i guess the bailout, which was not supported by any of the people, whether democrat or republican, was the final straw for me. we know who our representatives were listening to them.

    i hope you succeed, but i won't hold my breath.
    By tshirt-doctor.com

    But they do care about getting re-elected and if they don't then we'll get someone who will.

    At least you "hope" for success.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 02:41:03 PMreport abuse
  • snarky
    that's all you got out of that? sheesh, you really off your game today
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 02:39:20 PMreport abuse
  • re-Joyce
    i forgot.you are one of the masses who think the politicians actually care what you think. :O)

    i guess the bailout, which was not supported by any of the people, whether democrat or republican, was the final straw for me. we know who our representatives were listening to them.

    i hope you succeed, but i won't hold my breath.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/04/09 02:07:06 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    LOL!

    OK, so the appointment of a third party by the secretary to review rejections is the answer?

    so a govt appointed panel will review whether or not you get to keep insurance or lose it and die.

    there's a name for that too....what was it again??
    By snarkybird @ 11/04/09 02:06:35 PMreport abuse
  • Truthignorer
    We understand the current system just fine, but I think we have a better handle on reading than you obviously do.

    "The problem with the "high risk pools," is that the insurance companies would charge such high premiums that nobody could afford it."

    In the "High Risk Pool" they can only go up to 150%. I believe in your buddies version, they can go up to 400%.

    Spin again.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 01:12:18 PMreport abuse
  • Dont be silly Doc.
    Gain ground with the Blue Dogs, voters calling their reps, pushing for support.....

    Or it might just serve to expose the monstrosity for what it really is, just another way to gain control.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 01:10:33 PMreport abuse
  • Did you read it snark
    So insurance companies can dump people like they do now and the taxpayers will foot the bill as they do now...

    yeah, that's radical. Govt subsidized insurance offering...There's a name for that...what's that called again?
    By snarkybird

    Or are you just spouting off like TruthIgnorer without reading first?

    Sec. 104. Preventing unjust cancellation of insurance coverage.

    Go read that and then get back to us.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 01:08:22 PMreport abuse
  • Club-a-Liberal
    liberty and freedom has got it's ugly side, doesn't it?
    i guess you are to decide who gets liberty and freedom and who doesn't get liberty and freedom.

    that means you are against liberty and freedoms that turns your stomach.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/04/09 01:02:57 PMreport abuse
  • So according to the dumbocraps
    The people that should have bought flood insurance in Austell, but didn't, should now be able to buy flood insurance AFTER their houses got flooded, and everything paid for? That what you libtards are saying? SO under the dumbocrap plan, I will refuse to buy their "insurance", pay the penalty which is far less that the premiums. Then if I get sick they have to pay for me? SWEET!
    By Fred @ 11/04/09 01:02:19 PMreport abuse
  • Why Pre-Existing Conditions Should Be Covered
    Dale -- I appreciate the fact that you are trying to address the problem of pre-existing conditions, even if I don't necessarily agree with your proposal.

    To the Other Naysayers -- You apparently don't understand how our current private insuance system works. If you work for a company that offers group coverage, the BY LAW the coverage must cover pre-existing conditions.

    On the other hand, if you are self-employed or work for a company that doesn't offer a group policy, then most states don't require insurance compaines to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions. Hence, they don't.

    The problem with the "high risk pools," is that the insurance companies would charge such high premiums that nobody could afford it.

    If you're saying that individuals should not be able to buy affordable policies to cover pre-existing conditions, then at least be consistent. Let's do away with the laws that require group policies or Medicare to cover pre-existing conditions. Then we'll really have a free market system, or, which many of us would call, a lottery of death. If you draw the black bean, you die (or, at least, go bankrupt). But -- hey -- that's apparently what some on this board want.
    By TruthSeeker @ 11/04/09 12:38:01 PMreport abuse
  • Best Searchable Linkable site for bills
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3962
    By Searchable @ 11/04/09 12:31:57 PMreport abuse
  • TruthIgnorer
    Look, if all you pre-existing people want to pool together you ought to be able to, just don't FORCE others to pay for you. To use the power of the government to force you into our pools is theft plain and simple.

    We've all heard a million sad pre-existing stories and you'd have to be a real cold hearted SOB if you didn't feel sorry for these people, but that still doesn't make it ok to steal from others.
    By Rullivan @ 11/04/09 12:13:17 PMreport abuse
  • re-Joyce
    gain ground with who? the democrats?

    you're deluding yourself.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/04/09 11:52:05 AMreport abuse
  • The A-word again
    There is Neal getting in his daily jab on abortion.

    Maybe Neal needs to read the Fox News headline from yesterday about how a Planned Parenthood Director quit after witnessing an abortion on the ultrasound. She said that she saw the baby "crumble" and the parts be sucked away by a vacuum. Those are her words, not mine.

    “I could actually see it was a 13 week old baby and I could actually see the side profile of the baby on the ultrasound,” she said. ” And I could see the cannula going into the uterus. And I could see the baby moving away from the cannula trying to get away from the probe.” Then the vacuum hose sucked away the torn parts.

    Now, Neal, you still have the gall and stupidity to say how this about "the woman's reproductive rights." You are an idiot.
    By Club-a-Liberal @ 11/04/09 11:36:13 AMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    You said 'BUT it does set up a group plan for those turned down, read it before you spout off nonsense."

    yes, please tell us how it does this?

    I read that section and it sounds like it creates State Govt plans to cover these people and have it funded through the states with fed assistance if they meet the requirements.

    So, the govt will offer reduced cost insurance through the states to those who cannot get coverage due to pre-existing conditions and it will be subsidized with tax dollars.

    So insurance companies can dump people like they do now and the taxpayers will foot the bill as they do now...

    yeah, that's radical. Govt subsidized insurance offering...There's a name for that...what's that called again?
    By snarkybird @ 11/04/09 11:29:12 AMreport abuse
  • Pre-existing conditions
    The subject of pre-existing conditions is a pretty tough nut to crack, but I think there may be a solution to the problem. If the insurance industry formed a pool that would write policies for pre-existing conditions and accept individuals in a lottery type situation, the cost of adding these higher risks could be mitigated somewhat by tax incentives, direct payments from the gubmint for the premium delta, of a similar patient without any pre-existing condition, where the premium would be negotiated with all parties concerned. This would allow a method of addressing the problem without inflicting a severe burden on all the parties involved.
    By Dale in NJ @ 11/04/09 11:20:22 AMreport abuse
  • Moron TruthIgnorer
    The GOP Non-Plan
    From the article:

    "Unlike in the Democratic bills, the Republican draft would permit insurers to continue denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions."

    This just shows Rep. Grayson was right! The Republican non-plan is for people to die.
    By TruthSeeker

    BUT it does set up a group plan for those turned down, read it before you spout off nonsense.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 11:09:02 AMreport abuse
  • Hypocrates
    "... the Democrats were passing around a binder ... Inside you would only find blank pages." Nice. The green "save the environment" crowd has found another way to waste paper at YOUR expense.
    By Walt @ 11/04/09 11:08:59 AMreport abuse
  • Doc
    I don't think they are wasting their time! There is already talk that the abortion issue may sideline the "BIG" bills, so this has time to gain ground.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 11:07:16 AMreport abuse
  • @Truth Ignorer
    It is not the government's place to tell businesses how they should be run. By your riciculous reasoning you are letting millions of people die yourself, since you are not paying for their pre-existing conditions, either. Maybe we should pass a law forcing you to do that, you cold-hearted weasel you.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/04/09 10:56:43 AMreport abuse
  • @Pavel
    "The pre-existing denial is a big one... some companies are really douchey with it, so would country-wide competition eliminate it?"

    If by "douchey" you mean good companies that aren't in the business of throwing tons of money away for a loss, then sure.

    And no, increased competition does not turn companies into charities, so no, it wouldn't help with pre-existing conditions.

    That is not the problem of insurance companies, or anyone else. What you are looking for is a charity.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/04/09 10:52:13 AMreport abuse
  • All of you folks who insist that insurors cover pre-existing conditions ...
    Would you folks purchase yesterday's lottery tickets at full price, already secure in the knowledge that it's not the winning ticket?

    Do you belly up to the roulette wheel and lay down your money on "black" AFTER the wheel has stopped and the little ball is sitting on "red"?

    No, huh?

    Insurance is gambling. You are betting a small (fsvo "small") amount of money that you're gonna get "bad sick" and the insuror is betting a large amount of money that you won't. That's the transaction - simple, isn't it?

    Now, the insuror gets to set the "odds" - the "small amount" you're gonna wager against the "jackpot" (somehow, "winning" payment of "beaucoup" medical bills doesn't seem to be much of a win, all things considered). And those "odds" (your price) are jacked up by government mandates on what does/doesn't need to be covered, and by government mandates that the Emergency Room has to treat everybody (so the ER charges include $'s to pay for the folks who don't pay).

    Guess what - all the costs are there, the bill must be paid. Shuffling them around only changes who's pocket gets picked to pay them.
    By Jubilation T Cornpone @ 11/04/09 10:51:14 AMreport abuse
  • The GOP has a plan, it's logical it makes sense and it improves the system while avoiding unlimited governmental power.
    Common sense, logic and freedom – these things are despised by the Statist Democrats, its like Dracula recoiling from a crucifix.
    By ACE @ 11/04/09 10:37:45 AMreport abuse
  • House Healthcare Bill
    I did a little analysis of the PelosiCare Bill. The words tax or taxes are used over 640 times; the words fee or fees over 100. The words public or government are used over 700 times; private just over 100. So typical...yeah sure, this will be inexpensive and efficient...
    By K.C. @ 11/04/09 10:33:22 AMreport abuse
  • Easily searchable
    I was able to search this with NO problem:
    http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf

    'Abortion' appears 14 times.
    By Marc Macenko @ 11/04/09 10:26:47 AMreport abuse
  • Mandates
    Something that needs to be addressed are the state mandates on insurance policies. This is another key driver in rising premiums. Each state has over 50 or so mandates. I read a study that breaks it down by state and what is mandated. I'll see if I can find the link.

    Why should I have to have a policy that covers me for alcoholism, drug use, mental disease, and in vitro to name a few. I am not an alcoholic, a drug user, a liberal, or plan to have any more kids.

    Allow consumers to choose or opt out of these mandates. if you think about it, these mandates are not even necesary for the health of a person. These are all lifestyle things that have nothing to do with actual health.

    It would be the equivalent of govt mandating that your auto insurance covers your car detailing and wax jobs, offers seat replacement when your cloth seats become too filled with beer farts, etc.

    Get govt out!! Why are Lasik and botox treatments going down in price over the years? That is run more like the free market, that is why.

    One final thing, premiums are greatly affected by Medicare payments to insurers. Everytime govt decreases payments to insurers, individual's premiums go up. A recent study estimated that this amounts to at least $1,400 for your HC plan, as the insurer increases your costs to offset the loss in payments from Medicare.
    By Club-a-Liberal @ 11/04/09 10:20:45 AMreport abuse
  • Ecclesiastes 6:11
    Do scholars agree on a small date range for when these words were penned?

    http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/6-11.htm

    It is interesting that many commentaries regarding Ecclesiastes 6:11 discuss vanity!

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+narcissistic+personality+disorder&aq=0&oq=obama+narcissistic+p&aqi=g3
    By ed davis @ 11/04/09 10:20:17 AMreport abuse
  • re-Joyce
    i'm not trash talking the republicans. would you waste time working on a bill that you know will not get enacted? that's smart, if you ask me.

    i was trash talking neal, who is a myrmidon for the republican party.

    you are you looking it up and want to search it? it's not going to get voted on. you're just wasting your time.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/04/09 10:16:34 AMreport abuse
  • pet peeve
    Also a pet peeve of mine,your statement..."Probably some abortion stuff that I could care less about".
    .
    What you want to say is that you "could NOT care less".If you could care less then you probably would.
    By mailman @ 11/04/09 10:13:39 AMreport abuse
  • Tidewater Libertarian Party plan
    Though the GOP plan shares some features, our plan is better or at least more complete

    http://wp.me/paM4C-dx
    By William Tabor @ 11/04/09 10:12:24 AMreport abuse
  • 200+ pages is not enough?
    So I guess the Constitution isn't even a single though, ehh? This is crazy. Only lawyers would pick a bill, and decide whether it "feels like a C-" based on the weight.
    By Greg @ 11/04/09 10:09:24 AMreport abuse
  • The GOP Non-Plan
    From the article:

    "Unlike in the Democratic bills, the Republican draft would permit insurers to continue denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions."

    This just shows Rep. Grayson was right! The Republican non-plan is for people to die.
    By TruthSeeker @ 11/04/09 09:51:06 AMreport abuse
  • Post It Online
    Post It Online
    By Post It Online @ 11/04/09 09:49:44 AMreport abuse
  • Post It Online
    They need to post it online and let the surge begin!!!
    By Whatever @ 11/04/09 09:47:38 AMreport abuse
  • search
    Um-copy it to word and it becomes a pretty simple job to search it...
    By wingnut @ 11/04/09 09:46:06 AMreport abuse
  • Doc & Brian/Jimmy
    I think you might want to hold off on the trash talk till you read the comments or you would have noticed there is a link to a searchable file...
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 09:44:50 AMreport abuse
  • Pet Peeve
    It's "I couldn't care less" not "I could care less" !

    If you could care even less, then what's your point?
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/04/09 09:43:55 AMreport abuse
  • Goes into effect much sooner!
    No collecting of taxes for years before any individual sees any benefit as in the House & Senate bill!!! Jan 1, 2010 in the Repub bill.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 09:43:01 AMreport abuse
  • Mark, they do discuss pre-existing
    TITLE I—ENSURING COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PREEXISTING
    CONDITIONS AND MULTIPLE HEALTH CARE NEEDS
    Sec. 101. Establish universal access programs to improve high risk pools and
    reinsurance markets.
    Sec. 102. Elimination of certain requirements for guaranteed availability in individual
    market.
    Sec. 103. No annual or lifetime spending caps.
    Sec. 104. Preventing unjust cancellation of insurance coverage.
    ----------------------------------
    not sure what that universal access program is yet
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 09:38:36 AMreport abuse
  • Dumbest thing ever
    Why would you expect this more from dems than conservatives? Did you never hear about Bush and Cheney's shadiness w/ secrecy?
    By Brian Fantana @ 11/04/09 09:36:32 AMreport abuse
  • Thanks Grant & LOL @Randy
    Some people just have a problem with pdf's!!!
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 09:35:42 AMreport abuse
  • I don't know.
    Maybe they would rather you read the entire bill rather than search for specific words.

    At least Jamie can read the Republican's entire bill. It might take a day or two, but at least it's not 1,900 pages.

    But Neal's right, they should make it searchable.
    By Ben Dover @ 11/04/09 09:35:09 AMreport abuse
  • the republicans aren't stupid
    and that's the reason why their plan is only 230 pages long. why should they waste their time with a real plan, which would be longer, when they don't have the votes to see it enacted? they want to spend their time fighting the democrat bill and planning their huge loss in 2010.

    but i thank you, neal, for putting a pro-republican slant on this news item.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/04/09 09:31:41 AMreport abuse
  • Oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!
    I can't wait to see what Alan 'I'm Nuttier Than Squirrel Sh*t' Grayson has to say about this!!
    By Randy @ 11/04/09 09:20:47 AMreport abuse
  • Pre-existing
    The pre-existing denial is a big one... some companies are really douchey with it, so would country-wide competition eliminate it?
    By Pavel @ 11/04/09 09:13:47 AMreport abuse
  • Not Searchable?
    If this is what you're referring to Neal (http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf) then its not at all unsearchable. For instance, I just popped in everyone's favorite hot button issue (abortion) and found it on Page 173, Section 602.
    By Grant @ 11/04/09 09:13:09 AMreport abuse
  • If we're going to do anything
    This is the way to do it. Step by step. Get the costs down so more people can pay for their own. See how that works, then find a SIMPLE approach to handling the uncovered few.

    All WITHOUT creating a giant government bureaucracy! Isn't that common sense?
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/04/09 09:01:48 AMreport abuse
  • Not bad
    Not bad, but I DO think that those with preexisting conditions should be offered insurance; they would just have to pay a higher premium. If you look at it from a risk level, and people will pay it,what's the problem?
    By Mark @ 11/04/09 09:00:49 AMreport abuse
  • HSA's should be obsolete and unnecessary
    I get it about the health savings accounts. But here's the thing the GOP is missing - and independants as well. HSA's are only valuable (and are risky at least) because of the income tax model. WHAT'S UP WITH NOT PUSHING THE FAIRTAX MODEL ?! Really ?!?!
    Even the FairTax organization is missing the point on this one. I get emails all the time asking for contributions to promote it.
    Here's a clue: The FairTax would eliminate the need for HSA's (and other tax sheltered investments). The GOP knows about it (Let's not kidd ourselves), and yet they seem to have very little interest in beating the drum for it - unlike the Dems who do are very adept at doing that for things they belive in.
    The GOP and indies could take a lesson.
    By MikeH @ 11/04/09 08:55:03 AMreport abuse
  • Why do dems ALWAYS lie?
    Because they hate America and are trying to destroy her.
    By Fred @ 11/04/09 08:46:50 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement