Repeal - but what about replace?

[RobDownSouth]

Birth control pills are really dangerous tho... they aren't OTC because even being off slightly can cause blood clots, strokes, and death, not because of price. They redistribute your entire hormonal balance- they don't really... yeah, that's not something that should be OTC. A lot of people are on hormone therapy for endometreosis or to prevent cancer or because they've HAD cancer and no longer have ovaries to produce estrogen... that's... has there been a committee of doctors asked about this? Because it seems like the kind of thing you should see a doctor for.

I disagree, and most of the experts back me.

Anything you put in your system, even aspirin, can be technically "dangerous". Low dosage BC pills, used by the vast majority of women, carry virtually no risk. High dosage BC pills carry minimal risk.

Let me give you a similar example. Aleve, Motrin and Advil are all NSAID drugs. They are all low-dosage, available over the counter and most people recognize there is virtually no risk involved in taking them.

Celebrex, Anaprox and Clinoril are very high dosage NSAID drugs, very popular (for treating arthritis) and carry minimal risk (but higher than the OTC stuff). They are only available by prescription.

I see no reason why the two-channel approach used on NSAIDs cannot be applied to BC pills.

 

[CandiCame]

I disagree, and most of the experts back me.

Anything you put in your system, even aspirin, can be technically "dangerous". Low dosage BC pills, used by the vast majority of women, carry virtually no risk. High dosage BC pills carry minimal risk.

Let me give you a similar example. Aleve, Motrin and Advil are all NSAID drugs. They are all low-dosage, available over the counter and most people recognize there is virtually no risk involved in taking them.

Celebrex, Anaprox and Clinoril are very high dosage NSAID drugs, very popular (for treating arthritis) and carry minimal risk (but higher than the OTC stuff). They are only available by prescription.

I see no reason why the two-channel approach used on NSAIDs cannot be applied to BC pills.

Fair enough. That's why I asked if doctors were consulted. Every woman in my family is on hormone therapy not to die. Cervical, ovarian, etc cancers all run in my family. Almost everyone has to have surgery, and it almost killed my mom twice during the times I've lived with her on and off- once because she got it in her uterus and had to have that out, but she left one non-cancerous ovary so she wouldn't have to be on the hormones for the rest of her life- then /it/ got cancerous, and, fun fact, that surgery was hell because apparently it wasn't attached to anything and was just floating around in her innerds, bumping it's tumory goodness into other organs, being a bitch. Like a tiny, tiny Deadpool.

So every time I've ever talked to a doctor about this shit it's been like, "You will literally die if you fuck these up." Even my gf's they were like, "You might get a stroke if you fuck these up. Your heart might stop. If you fuck up too bad you need to just let your body readjust."

And I'm over here like, "". I don't have a huge pool of experience. It's why I asked. I must only be familiar with the high dosage ones.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fair enough. That's why I asked if doctors were consulted. Every woman in my family is on hormone therapy not to die. Cervical, ovarian, etc cancers all run in my family. Almost everyone has to have surgery, and it almost killed my mom twice during the times I've lived with her on and off- once because she got it in her uterus and had to have that out, but she left one non-cancerous ovary so she wouldn't have to be on the hormones for the rest of her life- then /it/ got cancerous, and, fun fact, that surgery was hell because apparently it wasn't attached to anything and was just floating around in her innerds, bumping it's tumory goodness into other organs, being a bitch. Like a tiny, tiny Deadpool.

So every time I've ever talked to a doctor about this shit it's been like, "You will literally die if you fuck these up." Even my gf's they were like, "You might get a stroke if you fuck these up. Your heart might stop. If you fuck up too bad you need to just let your body readjust."

And I'm over here like, "". I don't have a huge pool of experience. It's why I asked. I must only be familiar with the high dosage ones.

I understand. Funny how personal experience sometimes colors your position. My mom once worked with a woman who had a freak one-in-a-hundred-million hormonal reaction to BC that caused her to have a massive stroke, she insists to this day that BC pills are "life threatening".

 

[CandiCame]

I understand. Funny how personal experience sometimes colors your position. My mom once worked with a woman who had a freak one-in-a-hundred-million hormonal reaction to BC that caused her to have a massive stroke, she insists to this day that BC pills are "life threatening".

Well, I mean, that's still accurate. They are. It's not exactly one in a million. You're still rewiring your entire hormone system. It'd be a lot easier to wear a condom. Seems like not the brightest move. I mean, you might not die but you're still pretty likely to get that anemoryeah or whatever it's called where your body depends on the pills to make hormones so if you go off them, like you go on a trip and forget them, you get violently sick and whatnot.

 

[Busybody]

GOP proposal scraps taxes, opens choice, retains continuous coverage.







It has been five years since the Affordable Care Act became law, crystallizing partisan division in our national health care debate. The law made fundamental changes to how health care is financed, delivered and structured, yet serious challenges remain. What we need now is a conversation about how to truly strengthen our broken health care system by empowering patients, lowering costs, increasing quality and protecting the most vulnerable.

Now is the time to present Americans with a path forward that is better than Obamacare.

Thursday, we are unveiling our vision of policies that would strengthen our health care system while reducing federal spending and taxes. The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment (CARE) Act outlines specific ideas that could replace Obamacare with more choices and higher quality, while protecting those with pre-existing conditions.

First, our plan would lower health care costs by empowering millions of lower and middle-income families with a refundable tax credit to purchase private health care coverage of their choice. They would no longer be subject to an individual mandate and limited to Washington-approved plans. Workers for small businesses would be eligible, too.

Reversing damages

By scrapping dozens of mandates, we estimate premiums would drop, on average, by double digits. We'd also reverse harmful changes that limited consumers' ability to save and manage spending through health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts, and we'd encourage small-business insurance plans to give smaller employers better and more affordable options.








What our plan would not allow is a return to the days before Obamacare when insurance companies turned away patients simply because they were sick.

Under our proposal, no patient could be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition. We create a new "continuous coverage protection," and if you change your job and buy a plan on your own, we would provide protections so you could not be denied coverage or be forced to pay a higher premium because of a pre-existing condition.

We would also ban insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits on a consumer, and we'd adopt age-rating changes, which lower costs for younger Americans. Individuals could stay on their parents' health plan up to age 26, unless a state chose otherwise.

Our proposal also envisions common-sense reforms that have long enjoyed public support, such as allowing Americans to purchase coverage that is available in another state and ending junk lawsuits through meaningful medical liability reform.

State flexibility

Next, we would modernize the Medicaid safety net by enacting proposals that prioritize and protect the most vulnerable. For too long, a Medicaid card has promised patients coverage, but it delayed and denied access to care. Our plan adopts financial reforms and state flexibility to protect the most vulnerable while also giving Medicaid recipients the option of purchasing private insurance that better serves them.







Not only would our policies lower costs for patients, they would be good medicine for taxpayers. By scrapping Obamacare's Washington-centered approach, we estimate our proposal would cut more than $1 trillion in taxes and reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. All of Obamacare's taxes would be scrapped, including the medical device tax, health insurance tax, pharmaceutical tax and other taxes masked as mandate fees.

In the coming months, the Supreme Court will hear and decide an important case regarding the president's health care law, King v. Burwell. The justices should uphold the rule of law by overturning the administration's unlawful decision to tax and spend through the federal exchanges. If they do so, we believe modifying and adopting some of the ideas outlined in our proposal could provide a path toward minimizing the disruption experienced by consumers.

Over the longer term, the Patient CARE proposal offers a credible path to reform and strengthen our health care system. We believe there's a better prescription for helping Americans with pre-existing conditions and making coverage affordable.

The American people know we can do better than the partisan divisions created by Obamacare. They are right. It's time Washington starts listening.

Sen. Orrin Hatch is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Rep. Fred Upton is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Sen. Richard Burr is a member of the Senate Finance Committee.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Republican "alternative" is toxic. Small wonder Busybody and his ilk like it.

Get laid off and cannot afford COBRA? Back into the pre-existing exclusion pool with you...that means just die already.

Make more than $12,000 a year? Brand new tax on insurance premiums for you, single man!

Lower rates for under 30, and higher rates for over 50? Why yes, let's do "let's you and he fight".

The Republican "alternative", like so much of what comes out of Busybody's mouth, is a fabrication.

 

[Busybody]

The Republican "alternative" is toxic. Small wonder Busybody and his ilk like it.

Get laid off and cannot afford COBRA? Back into the pre-existing exclusion pool with you...that means just die already....Link!

Make more than $12,000 a year? Brand new tax on insurance premiums for you, single man!......LINK?

Lower rates for under 30, and higher rates for over 50? Why yes, let's do "let's you and he fight".........If true, its the way it should be

The Republican "alternative", like so much of what comes out of Busybody's mouth, is a fabrication.

show me

its ok

I'll wait

#a long time

 

[RobDownSouth]

Here's your link, busybody.

Now give us some of your patented splutter 'n misdirection.

 

[Busybody]

Here's your link, busybody.

Now give us some of your patented splutter 'n misdirection.

apt source



and

The Republican proposal says that “no one can be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition,” but this guarantee would apply mainly to people who had been continuously covered by insurance. For people who are uninsured, the Republican plan envisions “a one-time open enrollment period in which individuals would be able to purchase coverage regardless of their health status or pre-existing conditions.”

so as usual, you are full of BS

 

[NeverEndingMe]

We need to go back to what we had. it was less expensive than obamaShitCare

 

[Busybody]

an APT source to carry DUMOHSHIT lies

CROOKS n LIARS

 

[RobDownSouth]

apt source



and

The Republican proposal says that “no one can be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition,” but this guarantee would apply mainly to people who had been continuously covered by insurance. For people who are uninsured, the Republican plan envisions “a one-time open enrollment period in which individuals would be able to purchase coverage regardless of their health status or pre-existing conditions.”

so as usual, you are full of BS

Not much on comprehension, are ya?

If you miss one insurance premium payment, your coverage lapses and you fall into the "sucks to be YOU" exclusion pool.

Most folks cannot afford the prohibitive cost of COBRA coverage, so basically this is a return to the bad old days.

Now #GimmeMoarSplutterAndDeflection!!!

 

[Busybody]

you made that up

#as usual

as opposed to NoBama"care" you don't have to pay and you get no care

 

[Busybody]

Progressive news and media coverage on Crooks and Liars



crooksandliars.com/








Crooks and Liars





A politically left blog focusing on political events and the news coverage of them.


#Full of SHIT

 

[Busybody]

Progressive news and media coverage on Crooks and Liars



crooksandliars.com/








Crooks and Liars





A politically left blog focusing on political events and the news coverage of them.


#Full of SHIT

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pVAY7iaSFD8/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAA8/LNYZ3oWCLh4/photo.jpg?sz=48

 

[Busybody]

lemme guess Robby

your next source will be

#B Williams

 

[Wrong Element]

That "plan" is so obviously unworkable from a cost perspective that it's not even worth the effort to rebut.

You can't make goodies like "coverage can't be denied based on preexisting conditions" work without an individual mandate. Which is one reason why the GOP has had so much trouble coming up with their alternative (remember, the ACA turns 5 next month): every time they've tried, they've realized that the system they come up looks too much like Obamacare -- not a surprise, since the ACA is rooted in the "conservative alternative" to what the Clintons were pitching.

I continue to maintain that once Obama himself is out of the picture, getting revenge on him will lose its potency, and people will be more willing to look at the actual program -- not to mention the fact that the doomsayers aren't looking too hot so far.

 

[KingOrfeo]

They actually have a plan!

Unfortunately, their plan is to . . . tax your employer-provided health insurance benefits as income.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

hum....no. for working American's obamacare is more expensive

we need to end this welfare program

That "plan" is so obviously unworkable from a cost perspective that it's not even worth the effort to rebut.

You can't make goodies like "coverage can't be denied based on preexisting conditions" work without an individual mandate. Which is one reason why the GOP has had so much trouble coming up with their alternative (remember, the ACA turns 5 next month): every time they've tried, they've realized that the system they come up looks too much like Obamacare -- not a surprise, since the ACA is rooted in the "conservative alternative" to what the Clintons were pitching.

I continue to maintain that once Obama himself is out of the picture, getting revenge on him will lose its potency, and people will be more willing to look at the actual program -- not to mention the fact that the doomsayers aren't looking too hot so far.

 

[RobDownSouth]

They actually have a plan!

Unfortunately, their plan is to . . . tax your employer-provided health insurance benefits as income.

Busybody has already opined that tax cannot possibly be true.

Because.... reasons!

#TehNarrative

 

[KingOrfeo]

Busybody has already opined that tax cannot possibly be true.

Because.... reasons!

#TehNarrative

Well, that's what the NYT is reporting.

Their plan includes a potentially explosive proposal: Workers would have to pay federal income tax on the value of employer-provided health benefits that exceed certain annual thresholds — $12,000 for individuals and $30,000 for families. Health benefits above those levels would be treated and taxed as regular income for the employee. The thresholds would increase over time.

Employers could still take tax deductions for the cost of employee health benefits as an incentive to continue providing coverage, Republicans said. Moreover, a summary of the proposal says that “economists across the political spectrum largely agree” that the current tax break for employer-provided insurance is fueling the growth of health costs.

 

[Busybody]

Busybody has already opined that tax cannot possibly be true.

Because.... reasons!

#TehNarrative

Crooks n liars n FAGZ n Gimpz. ...not credible

NY Slime reports B Williams on page 10..section B

Your sources

Lie

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Let me try again. The Democrats saw that health insurance reform was needed and the ACA was passed into law when they controlled the Congress. The GOP has vowed repeal and voted for it 40 (something I lost count) times, symbolically, because they only controlled the House.

Now the GOP controls the Congress. What will they offer up as the signature public policy initiative for health insurance reform to replace the ACA? It is what they have been running on for 6 years.

56 times now as of last Tuesday's vote.

They haven't got the votes, it's all political theater at this point.