HillaryCare is back!

[Vic]

Hillary's plan isn't UHC. It does nothing to address the problems with the HMO/health insurance industry, it just throws public money at them and forces everyone to buy their product. Fascism, plain and simple.
I am disgusted. Hillary's health care plan to deal with the uninsured poor is to just pass a law requiring them to purchase insurance. That's like fixing the homeless problem by making homelessness illegal.

And hey people, just because you're blindly partisan doesn't mean there's only 2 choices, or that we have to accept one flawed plan over an even worse one.

edit:

Originally posted by: morkinva
Didn't she watch Stossel 20/20 Sick in America?

Link fixed. I can't watch youtube from my current location, so I'm just saving this for later.

Dismissing the inevitable Republican criticism, Clinton admonished the crowd. "I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government-run health care. Don't let them fool us again. This is not government-run."

I'd like it noted that most of the arguments in this thread, both for and against, are completely wrong. This is not socialism. This is not UHC. Hillary just told all the health insurance companies that she is going to guarantee them with the government.

 

[Genx87]

Vic, this shouldnt surprise you. This is a person who a few weeks ago wanted to bail out the sub prime industry with public money in the name of the homeowner. She is in bed with big business and isnt even trying to hide it very well.

 

[PimpJuice]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So her plan is to force everyone to get insurance, even people who don?t want insurance?

What happened to all the people constantly yelling about how Bush is tearing up the Constitution?

The left is always complaining about how Bush is trampling on their freedom with his war on terror programs, but have no problems at all with the government forcing people to do things they approve of.

If they can force you to get healthcare then next they will try to force people to eat healthy diets and exercise three times a week as well. Following that they will force people to give up SUV?s in order to save the world.
BTW From a political point of view this is going to make for some great attack ads.

Image of Hillary and her "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." speech followed by a voice over stating how Hillary now wants to force Americans to get health insurance, even if you don?t want it.

I would support this.......fat people and SUV owners in GENERAL suck up costs.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Sinsear
And how much will my taxes be raised so I can pay for everyone elses healthcare?

While that is a concern, I'll point out that by simply having insurance, you are agreeing to pay for coverage that may not be commensurate to the amount that you (or the other person) paid in. So in a sense, you are already agreeing to pay for other people's health care. Private health care is a socialized system, it just isn't the government running it.

Does this mean I can opt out of paying the extra taxes this system will put on me? Like I can with my "private socialized system"?

Like I said before, you can't opt out of paying taxes and part of those go towards paying for uninsured idiots who go to the emergency room.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Vic, this shouldnt surprise you. This is a person who a few weeks ago wanted to bail out the sub prime industry with public money in the name of the homeowner. She is in bed with big business and isnt even trying to hide it very well.

This doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is all the cheering she's getting while she tells the poor to eat cake.

 

[Tab]

Curious, where can I find more information about her healthcare plan?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: PimpJuice

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So her plan is to force everyone to get insurance, even people who don?t want insurance?

What happened to all the people constantly yelling about how Bush is tearing up the Constitution?

The left is always complaining about how Bush is trampling on their freedom with his war on terror programs, but have no problems at all with the government forcing people to do things they approve of.

If they can force you to get healthcare then next they will try to force people to eat healthy diets and exercise three times a week as well. Following that they will force people to give up SUV?s in order to save the world.
BTW From a political point of view this is going to make for some great attack ads.

Image of Hillary and her "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." speech followed by a voice over stating how Hillary now wants to force Americans to get health insurance, even if you don?t want it.

I would support this.......fat people and SUV owners in GENERAL suck up costs.

What other freedoms are you willing to give up? Maybe we should pass a law that every steak has to come pre-cut in bitesize pieces so people don't accidentally hurt themselves with a sharp knife.

Give me a break.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Vic
Hillary's plan isn't UHC. It does nothing to address the problems with the HMO/health insurance industry, it just throws public money at them and forces everyone to buy their product. Fascism, plain and simple.
I am disgusted. Hillary's health care plan to deal with the uninsured poor is to just pass a law requiring them to purchase insurance. That's like fixing the homeless problem by making homelessness illegal.

And hey people, just because you're blindly partisan doesn't mean there's only 2 choices, or that we have to accept one flawed plan over an even worse one.

edit:

Originally posted by: morkinva
Didn't she watch Stossel 20/20 Sick in America?

Link fixed. I can't watch youtube from my current location, so I'm just saving this for later.

Dismissing the inevitable Republican criticism, Clinton admonished the crowd. "I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government-run health care. Don't let them fool us again. This is not government-run."

I'd like it noted that most of the arguments in this thread, both for and against, are completely wrong. This is not socialism. This is not UHC. Hillary just told all the health insurance companies that she is going to guarantee them with the government.

I tend to agree with you here. I don't know if the government can pull off UHC without screwing it up or not...but this "solution" is worse then the status quo. Thats kind of the sticking point with healthcare solutions...there aren't really any compromise solutions between private and UHC that don't essentially suck worse then either extreme.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have the people screaming for universal health care and the corporations determined not to let it happen, so Hillary, it looks like to me, is just being pragmatic. About all Americans can get and thus deserve is fascistic universal health care, no?

 

[senseamp]

So far I am seeing a lot of solutions from the left, and a lot of ideology to the right. Not surprising at all.

 

[Aimster]

I doubt this will ever happen even if she is elected.

Country is in too much debt.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Sinsear
And how much will my taxes be raised so I can pay for everyone elses healthcare?

While that is a concern, I'll point out that by simply having insurance, you are agreeing to pay for coverage that may not be commensurate to the amount that you (or the other person) paid in. So in a sense, you are already agreeing to pay for other people's health care. Private health care is a socialized system, it just isn't the government running it.

Does this mean I can opt out of paying the extra taxes this system will put on me? Like I can with my "private socialized system"?

Well what we should have is a bunch of boxes on our tax form, and we get to choose where our money gets spent. I should be able to say that I want my taxes to go towards paying for, say, an M1 Abrams tank. Each program only gets as much money as the American people are willing to give. Completely democratic. If some program complains that they don't have enough money, tough luck because the American people decided on how much money it should have. It'd kinda be like involuntary charity!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
So far I am seeing a lot of solutions from the left, and a lot of ideology to the right. Not surprising at all.

Those are some amazing partisan shades you're wearing! :laugh:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's fine for her to push this, but the costs are probably off by a factor of 5 to 10. Government involvement health care has been disastrous.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's fine for her to push this, but the costs are probably off by a factor of 5 to 10. Government involvement health care has been disastrous.

Yeah, it will probably end up like Bush's prescription drug plan.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's fine for her to push this, but the costs are probably off by a factor of 5 to 10. Government involvement health care has been disastrous.

Really? Then why does spend twice as much as western Europe on health care, while all of these countries have some form of national health insurance.

http://www.alternet.org/storie...www.healthcare-now.org

Here's some other points to consider:

The United States spends by far the most on health care per person -- more than twice as much as Europe, Canada, and Japan which all have some version of national health insurance. Yet we are near the bottom in nearly every measure of our health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the U.S. health care system 37th of 190 countries, well below most of Europe, and trailing Chile and Costa Rica. The United States does even worse in the WHO rankings of performance on level of health -- a stunning 72nd. Life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter than in 27 other countries; the U.S. ties with Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Slovakia for infant mortality -- ahead of only Latvia among industrialized nations.

The cost of corporate bureaucracy

Where is the money going? An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork. The administrative costs for our patched-together system of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and government programs are nearly double those for single-payer Canada. It's not because Americans are inherently less efficient than Canadians -- our publicly funded Medicare system spends under five cents per budget dollar on administrative overhead. And the Veterans Administration, which functions like Britain's socialized medical system, spends less per patient but consistently outranks private providers in patient satisfaction and quality of care.

But in the private sector, profits and excessive CEO pay are added to the paperwork and bureaucracy. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry averages a 17 percent profit margin, against three percent for all other businesses. In the health care industry, million-dollar CEO pay packages are the rule, with some executives pulling down more than $30 million a year in salary and amassing billion-dollar stock option packages.

Now, I'm not saying that Hillary's plan is necessarily any good: I haven't looked at the details, but from what I've read using taxpayer money to pay private insurance companies sounds like a very bad idea, given that they already have huge profit margins and insane executive pay levels (as noted above), without a guaranteed source of income. Imagine the corruption of Iraq contractors on a national scale.

Again, however, I haven't really looked into Hillary's plan, so for all I know my above concerns might be groundless.


At any rate, many Western European nations seem to have forged a strong middle ground between the obviously flawed US healthcare "system" and the also flawed Canadian system. The debate over healthcare is far from an A or B decision between the too-little American system and the too-far Canadian system.

 

[OutHouse]

Taxes wont be raised to cover this, we will just borrow more money from China.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's fine for her to push this, but the costs are probably off by a factor of 5 to 10. Government involvement health care has been disastrous.

Really? Then why does spend twice as much as western Europe on health care, while all of these countries have some form of national health insurance.

http://www.alternet.org/storie...www.healthcare-now.org

Here's some other points to consider:

The United States spends by far the most on health care per person -- more than twice as much as Europe, Canada, and Japan which all have some version of national health insurance. Yet we are near the bottom in nearly every measure of our health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the U.S. health care system 37th of 190 countries, well below most of Europe, and trailing Chile and Costa Rica. The United States does even worse in the WHO rankings of performance on level of health -- a stunning 72nd. Life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter than in 27 other countries; the U.S. ties with Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Slovakia for infant mortality -- ahead of only Latvia among industrialized nations.

The cost of corporate bureaucracy

Where is the money going? An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork. The administrative costs for our patched-together system of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and government programs are nearly double those for single-payer Canada. It's not because Americans are inherently less efficient than Canadians -- our publicly funded Medicare system spends under five cents per budget dollar on administrative overhead. And the Veterans Administration, which functions like Britain's socialized medical system, spends less per patient but consistently outranks private providers in patient satisfaction and quality of care.

But in the private sector, profits and excessive CEO pay are added to the paperwork and bureaucracy. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry averages a 17 percent profit margin, against three percent for all other businesses. In the health care industry, million-dollar CEO pay packages are the rule, with some executives pulling down more than $30 million a year in salary and amassing billion-dollar stock option packages.

Now, I'm not saying that Hillary's plan is necessarily any good: I haven't looked at the details, but from what I've read using taxpayer money to pay private insurance companies sounds like a very bad idea, given that they already have huge profit margins and insane executive pay levels (as noted above), without a guaranteed source of income. Imagine the corruption of Iraq contractors on a national scale.

Again, however, I haven't really looked into Hillary's plan, so for all I know my above concerns might be groundless.

Medicaid costs about 300 billion dollars a year. Adding more people is going to make this cheaper how?

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's fine for her to push this, but the costs are probably off by a factor of 5 to 10. Government involvement health care has been disastrous.

Really? Then why does spend twice as much as western Europe on health care, while all of these countries have some form of national health insurance.

http://www.alternet.org/storie...www.healthcare-now.org

Here's some other points to consider:

The United States spends by far the most on health care per person -- more than twice as much as Europe, Canada, and Japan which all have some version of national health insurance. Yet we are near the bottom in nearly every measure of our health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the U.S. health care system 37th of 190 countries, well below most of Europe, and trailing Chile and Costa Rica. The United States does even worse in the WHO rankings of performance on level of health -- a stunning 72nd. Life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter than in 27 other countries; the U.S. ties with Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Slovakia for infant mortality -- ahead of only Latvia among industrialized nations.

The cost of corporate bureaucracy

Where is the money going? An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork. The administrative costs for our patched-together system of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and government programs are nearly double those for single-payer Canada. It's not because Americans are inherently less efficient than Canadians -- our publicly funded Medicare system spends under five cents per budget dollar on administrative overhead. And the Veterans Administration, which functions like Britain's socialized medical system, spends less per patient but consistently outranks private providers in patient satisfaction and quality of care.

But in the private sector, profits and excessive CEO pay are added to the paperwork and bureaucracy. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry averages a 17 percent profit margin, against three percent for all other businesses. In the health care industry, million-dollar CEO pay packages are the rule, with some executives pulling down more than $30 million a year in salary and amassing billion-dollar stock option packages.

Now, I'm not saying that Hillary's plan is necessarily any good: I haven't looked at the details, but from what I've read using taxpayer money to pay private insurance companies sounds like a very bad idea, given that they already have huge profit margins and insane executive pay levels (as noted above), without a guaranteed source of income. Imagine the corruption of Iraq contractors on a national scale.

Again, however, I haven't really looked into Hillary's plan, so for all I know my above concerns might be groundless.

Medicaid costs about 300 billion dollars a year. Adding more people is going to make this cheaper how?

Presumably if we went with a French-style healthcare system, we would no longer need Medicaid...I'm not saying we should simply expand Medicaid to include everyone.

Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but the following article looks like it gives a pretty good overview of the French system. As I said before, from what I've seen the French system looks to be a pretty good middle-ground between the US-system, which costs far more per-person despite giving healthcare of no greater quality (and giving executives $30 million salaries), and the British/Canadian systems that seem to go to far and, unlike the French system, resulting in waiting lists and etc.


http://www.boston.com/news/glo...del_healthcare_system/

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Vic, this shouldnt surprise you. This is a person who a few weeks ago wanted to bail out the sub prime industry with public money in the name of the homeowner. She is in bed with big business and isnt even trying to hide it very well.

This doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is all the cheering she's getting while she tells the poor to eat cake.

The sheeple dont think for themselves, just take marching orders and ask how high.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The sheeple dont think for themselves, just take marching orders and ask how high.

This particularly applies to the Clinton kool-aid sippers. :laugh:

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ironwing
Just another plan to maintain the status quo, handing out public money to private insurance companies. We don't need HillaryCare, we need national health insurance.

The government running health insurance would be a huge cluster F. I'm all for a plan that lets me keep my current insurance and only covers people who don't have access to it otherwise. Why mess up health care for the people who it works for? The idea that the gub'ment can run it better than private industry is laughable.

That's the problem... It's not working for the majority.

I believe that it could work if ran right. But, I have to think that it most likely won't work... I think this is more of a political stunt since.... If you think back when Bill was running he was on the same page about free health care for all. People hear this and they win more votes. Sadly... It won't happen unless everyone is on the same page.

For it to work, they would have to abolish the entire system and start over as one big health system. That is the only way it's going to work. I'd say get rid of it all except for the kaiser model then work off of that for low cost health care for all.

Good Luck!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ironwing
Just another plan to maintain the status quo, handing out public money to private insurance companies. We don't need HillaryCare, we need national health insurance.

The government running health insurance would be a huge cluster F. I'm all for a plan that lets me keep my current insurance and only covers people who don't have access to it otherwise. Why mess up health care for the people who it works for? The idea that the gub'ment can run it better than private industry is laughable.

That's the problem... It's not working for the majority.

I believe that it could work if ran right. But, I have to think that it most likely won't work... I think this is more of a political stunt since.... If you think back when Bill was running he was on the same page about free health care for all. People hear this and they win more votes. Sadly... It won't happen unless everyone is on the same page.

For it to work, they would have to abolish the entire system and start over as one big health system. That is the only way it's going to work. I'd say get rid of it all except for the kaiser model then work off of that for low cost health care for all.

Good Luck!

And what, pre tel, isnt working exactly?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

"It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs," Neera Tanden, Clinton's top policy adviser, told The Associated Press. "If you like the plan you have, you keep it. If you're one of tens of millions of Americans without coverage or don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and you'll get tax credits to help pay for it."

Yeah, right. THis fails to mention that my tax burden, to cover the people below me, is almost certaintly likely to get heavier.

If you don't like it, move to another nation.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Triumph
The government running health insurance would be a huge cluster F.

That is for damn sure.

It's amazing to me that people think the government can handle this

All these scandals we have in the high office.
Police departments that can't control their officers.
Streets departments with 20 guys standing around and 1 guy working.
12+ weeks to get a passport back now.
"Right to a speedy trial" translates to 2+ years in prison until your appeal


Government agency's run in reaction mode 99% of the time. I am not willing to turn my health over to that.

Yep, the health care systems in the other industrialized nations are in ruins! Ow wait, it isn't.