HillaryCare is back!

[Hacp]

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.

Yep, the health care system in other industrialized nations is in tatters I bet(Sarcastic)!

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly. Lots of people in the US, however, seem to assume anything the government does is guaranteed to fail, and that any expansion of government power automatically equals totalitarianism/communism.


At any rate, I quoted a section I posted above particularly relevant to countering TheSlamma and Triumph's arguments. I bolded a few sections for particular emphasis:

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.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: 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?

That the US trails Chile and Costa Rica according to the World Health Organization while we spend more than twice as much as Europe, Canada, and Japan on health care.

 

[FoBoT]

why would she reveal this before she is elected? what a maroon

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: 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:

What is the Republican plan for healthcare? Let more and more people continue becoming uninsured and costs continue outpacing inflation? Continue treating the uninsured at the ER?
It's easy to bash Hillary's plan, but not so easy to come up with a solution yourself.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
why would she reveal this before she is elected? what a maroon

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
why would she reveal this before she is elected? what a maroon

Well, healthcare is becoming a rising concern for many Americans, and most of her competitors are talking about their own plans.

Though I'd imagine it is a complicated decision: reveal too much, and your opponents can point out flaws in your plan or modify theirs. Reveal too little, and your opponents will criticize you for having no idea, just rhetoric.

 

[senseamp]

The other thing people don't get is how much support for universal healthcare there is in business circles, outside of healthcare industry itself. The costs are rising so fast, many companies can't afford to provide healthcare if their overseas competition spends less on full salary than they do on insurance premiums alone. Hillary is not stupid. She is picking sides, but this is not 1993.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The other thing people don't get is how much support for universal healthcare there is in business circles, outside of healthcare industry itself. The costs are rising so fast, many companies can't afford to provide healthcare if their overseas competition spends less on full salary than they do on insurance premiums alone. Hillary is not stupid. She is picking sides, but this is not 1993.

Hillary had no intention of going through with HillaryCare in 1994. She knew it was dead out of the gate. It was nothing but a sham to blame Republicans for the failure of her socialist medicine agenda - and it worked.

If you can't get beyond ridiculous crap like calling the Republican plans "Don't Get Sick" there is really no point in trying to have a logical debate.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
The other thing people don't get is how much support for universal healthcare there is in business circles, outside of healthcare industry itself. The costs are rising so fast, many companies can't afford to provide healthcare if their overseas competition spends less on full salary than they do on insurance premiums alone. Hillary is not stupid. She is picking sides, but this is not 1993.

Hillary had no intention of going through with HillaryCare in 1994. She knew it was dead out of the gate. It was nothing but a sham to blame Republicans for the failure of her socialist medicine agenda - and it worked.

If you can't get beyond ridiculous crap like calling the Republican plans "Don't Get Sick" there is really no point in trying to have a logical debate.

What!?

Why would conservative groups have launched ad campaigns like the famous Harry and Louise ads if it was a sham? Wikipedia

Likewise, as stated on Wikipeida:

The 1994 mid-term election became a "referendum on big government ? Hillary Clinton had launched a massive health-care reform plan that wound up strangled by its own red tape."[20] In that 1994 election, the Republican revolution led by Newt Gingrich gave the GOP control of the House of Representatives, and the Senate too, ending prospects for a Clinton-sponsored health care overhaul. Comprehensive reform aimed at creating universal health care in the United States has not been seriously considered by Congress since.

Why would she have pushed a "sham" so hard if it would fuel a Republican takeover of Congress for the first time in four decades?

And senseamp never called the Republican plan "Don't Get Sick", but at any rate if you don't want to engage in namecalling than why refer to it as "HilliaryCare" or "socialized medicine"? That sure sounds like namecalling to me...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Why would she have pushed a "sham" so hard if it would fuel a Republican takeover of Congress for the first time in four decades?

It was all Newt. Hillary underestimated him.

The Clintons have always sought to blame Republicans for everything. You know, the "vast right wing conspiracy" that forced Bill to screw interns, and those nasty neocons who took down her HillaryCare vision. Who will she blame this time?

 

[IGBT]

..so for those of you's in Calif. Mrs. Bill Clinton's model for health care is Kaiser. So how do you feel about Kaiser since you won't have any othe choice under HilCare Inc.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: sandorski
Cheaper than iraq.

fixed.

:laugh: $100 billion is about as much as one of those "supplementary" military spending bills, which get passed 2 or 3 times a year.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Why would she have pushed a "sham" so hard if it would fuel a Republican takeover of Congress for the first time in four decades?

It was all Newt. Hillary underestimated him.

The Clintons have always sought to blame Republicans for everything. You know, the "vast right wing conspiracy" that forced Bill to screw interns, and those nasty neocons who took down her HillaryCare vision. Who will she blame this time?

Hey, I'm no Clinton-apologist, but there were clearly some people out to get them (not a "vast" right-wing conspiracy, but one on some level nevertheless). Most notably, the totally-BS Arkansas Project: Wikipedia

Also, while the "vast right wing conspiracy" was obviously wrong, Clinton doesn't blame everything on Republicans. As the Wiki article notes:

In 2004, as a U.S. senator from New York, Hillary Clinton argued in the The New York Times that the current health care system is unsustainable, and she offered several solutions.[21] Her article also mentioned areas of agreement with one-time opponent Newt Gingrich, and likewise Gingrich has expressed agreement with Senator Clinton on some aspects of health care, including a bill to modernize medical record keeping.[22][23]

In 2005, referring to her previous efforts at health care reform, Hillary Clinton said "I learned some valuable lessons about the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done."[19] Again in 2007, she reflected on her role in 1993-1994: "I think that both the process and the plan were flawed. We were trying to do something that was very hard to do, and we made a lot of mistakes."[24]

 

[ProfJohn]

Thank you to the people who posted the John Stossel link.

Everyone who is not an expert on this should watch all 6 parts. You will learn a lot.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..so for those of you's in Calif. Mrs. Bill Clinton's model for health care is Kaiser. So how do you feel about Kaiser since you won't have any othe choice under HilCare Inc.

I have been a Kaiser member for over 40 years. The care is decent, except for long waits to see some specialists. Kaiser is I think the top-rated HMO in the country? My major complaint is the cost, going up 15% per year and now over $500 per month for just myself.
I've tried to get a job there, free medical ftw!
I don't know how much longer I can afford the increasing costs and reduced coverage, my prescriptions used to be $20 and now are market rate, ouch.

Oh yeah, John Stossel is lying POS. I didn't watch any link, I just know him from past hatchet jobs.

 

[Lanyap]

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

edit>>thanks for correction

Part 6 was interesting and made sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&NR=1

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: 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?

I guess you like to see the majority of people with out health care suffer? Does that sound good to you?

If we can find the money to kill people....Then we can find the money to help people.

No it's not working. I'd be all for it if it worked and was fair to all. Tho, I have my doubts.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: 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:

As opposed to the Halliburton thunderbird chuggers?

 

[rpanic]

I think at some point there should be a universal health care of some sort. How do you make the transition? Are businesses going to all of a sudden increase pay since they don?t have to pay medical benefits? I don?t know how the average person would fair with a drastic increase of taxes, it might push a lot of people over the financial edge.

I have really good benefits now, I would hate to loose them for something worse and have to pay 15 to 20% more taxes on the same amount of pay.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thank you to the people who posted the John Stossel link.

Everyone who is not an expert on this should watch all 6 parts. You will learn a lot.

Yeh it sounds a lot like Ron Paul's ideas of free markets, doesn't it?

 

[agentbad]

Anyone in the actual medical industry want to comment? My moms an RN and she thinks the system can be modified for national health care. Also any who think illegals and poor have it made getting free health care guess who all the residents practice on.....

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If the United States continues on its path to becoming a third world country, the kind of health system the nation has will be immaterial; few people will have decent health care and the government won't be able to afford to provide it. Our current system has failed because our economy has tanked and because we have imported tens of millions of impoverished people (via mass immigration, both legal and illegal).

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

 

[Thump553]

Kudos to Hillary for sticking her neck out and taking a brave, lonely stand. Hopefully this will amount to more than just giving the righties a target to aim their soundbites at.

Anyone who knows anything about the US health care system knows that it is an expensive boondoogle, and anyone who pays for their own UNSUBSIDIZED health coverage (almost $800 per month here, mediocre plan and I haven't seen a doctor in at least five years) knows that there has to be a better way.