Clinton unveils new health care plan - page 5

... Read More

  1. by   Spidey's mom
    "senator clinton would require every american to purchase health insurance or face penalties."

    hmmmm . . . . . the federal government seems to be overstepping its constitutional bounds. hmmm . . .


    http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=656

    cato scholar comments on hillary clinton's health plan

    monday 17 september 2007
    michael d. tanner, director of health and welfare studies:
    here we go again. hillarycare is back, and its apparent that sen. clinton has learned little since the american people overwhelmingly rejected her last attempt to overhaul the u.s. health care system. once again her plan, which would cost $110 billion per year in new taxes, calls for greater government control over american health care. if her plan were to pass this time, it would mean higher taxes, lost jobs, less patient choice, and poorer quality health care.

    among the worst features of her proposal:

    an individual mandate. sen. clinton would require every american to purchase health insurance or face penalties. there are many problems with such a mandate. it restricts individual choice and liberty. it will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. and it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.

    an employer mandate. sen. clinton would impose a “play or pay “ mandate on american businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund. such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. some may even be forced to layoff current employees and others will offset their costs by reducing wages or wage increases.

    expanding government programs. sen. clinton would expand the state children’s health insurance program (schip) to provide benefits for middle-class families. yet studies show that many of those who would be covered by such an expansion already have private health insurance. thus, sen. clinton would simply be moving people from private insurance to taxpayer-funded government care. she would also allow people under age 65 to “buy-in” to medicare despite the fact that the program is already facing a financial crisis.

    insurance regulation. senator clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose “community rating” on health insurance premiums. as a result the young and healthy will be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker. and those who practice healthy lifestyles will pay more to subsidize the irresponsible.

    with health care, as with so many other things, hillary clinton clearly trusts big government more than she trusts the free market and the american people. . . . .
  2. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from rigmedic
    The good news in all of this is that our present healthcare system WILL NOT survive in its present form. That is good, because it is a fundamentally immoral system. When a corporation has a vested financial interest (it will make more money) in denying me care for my brain cancer, there is a huge problem. I see the Clinton plan as a middle of the road, achievable plan that will head us where we need to going. All the other countries manage to pull this off with no difficulty. I know lots of people that live in Canada and the UK. Not ONE of them would trade their system for ours. Not one!
    I am very sorry to read about your cancer and your financial troubles.

    I have to mention that your anecdotal information is equal to mine, which is having relatives in Canada who hate the system. You can't change policy based on anecdotal information.

    I wish you well.

    steph
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from rigmedic
    Jolie,
    Two points to your last post. First, if the rich people had to pay Social Security taxes on ALL of their earnings (wages, as well as investment income) there would be zero problem with SS funding. As it is now, they only pay taxes on the first $87,900. I pay Social Security taxes on 100% of my earnings. That is fundamentally unfair. If you'll notice, their "solution" to the problem is to turn all retirees over to the tender mercies of Wall St.

    The thoughts that "government is incompetent" and "I can do better in the market than Social Security" sound very good in an environment of historic stock market highs, and near-record low interest rates. Let those things invert and a LOT of people will be singing a quite different song!
    invest with wall street for a much higher fee structure.....
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from banditrn


    I still want the freedom to choose who and when I go to, and what I will pay for.
    Single payer does nothing to change your freedom of choice for a provider. If anything it expands your choice. If you are in an HMO or PPO now it is the insurance company that chooses who your possible providers are...(not you).
  5. by   sharona97
    Quote from stevielynn
    "senator clinton would require every american to purchase health insurance or face penalties."

    hmmmm . . . . . the federal government seems to be overstepping its constitutional bounds. hmmm . . .


    http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=656

    cato scholar comments on hillary clinton's health plan

    monday 17 september 2007
    michael d. tanner, director of health and welfare studies:
    here we go again. hillarycare is back, and its apparent that sen. clinton has learned little since the american people overwhelmingly rejected her last attempt to overhaul the u.s. health care system. once again her plan, which would cost $110 billion per year in new taxes, calls for greater government control over american health care. if her plan were to pass this time, it would mean higher taxes, lost jobs, less patient choice, and poorer quality health care.

    among the worst features of her proposal:

    an individual mandate. sen. clinton would require every american to purchase health insurance or face penalties. there are many problems with such a mandate. it restricts individual choice and liberty. it will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. and it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.

    an employer mandate. sen. clinton would impose a “play or pay “ mandate on american businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund. such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. some may even be forced to layoff current employees and others will offset their costs by reducing wages or wage increases.

    expanding government programs. sen. clinton would expand the state children’s health insurance program (schip) to provide benefits for middle-class families. yet studies show that many of those who would be covered by such an expansion already have private health insurance. thus, sen. clinton would simply be moving people from private insurance to taxpayer-funded government care. she would also allow people under age 65 to “buy-in” to medicare despite the fact that the program is already facing a financial crisis.

    insurance regulation. senator clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose “community rating” on health insurance premiums. as a result the young and healthy will be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker. and those who practice healthy lifestyles will pay more to subsidize the irresponsible.

    with health care, as with so many other things, hillary clinton clearly trusts big government more than she trusts the free market and the american people. . . . .

    and that is the reason she is against the big lobbyist for pharmeceuticals and insurance? not to mention her desire to rid medicare part d of the donut hole affect. did you happen to watch the presidential race debate that was on this past week? she identifies her weak points in the early ninties and goes on to give persistant, more defined thoughts on how to "pay "for this new healthcare system. she starts with the huge tax break the wealthiest are receiving, to budgeting the federal balance (again for all those who think she ran the country in the clinton years), to pointing out how solid ss was until 2045 until bush got his hands on that money to help subsidize current events. again, she is focused on domestic problems for the commonwealth of this nation. people can change their thinking and learn why. what appears to "hilary's" failure on her past healthcare package had direct interaction with the congress at the time. just my opinion. he article you sited was published before the debate date, so i have little value in the writer's piece.
    Last edit by sharona97 on Sep 22, '07 : Reason: Hilary
  6. by   rigmedic
    I did not mean to confuse anyone. I do not have brain cancer, but was using that as an illustration. The bottom line is that we need to remove for-profit corporations from the healthcare system. While the Clinton plan does not go straight to single-payer, it is an acceptable step in that direction for me.
  7. by   Spidey's mom
  8. by   sharona97
    Quote from stevielynn
    And your point as well as to the replys of the other candidates at the debate .....is?
  9. by   Spidey's mom
    "For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no-even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.. . ."

    http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
  10. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from rigmedic
    I did not mean to confuse anyone. I do not have brain cancer, but was using that as an illustration. The bottom line is that we need to remove for-profit corporations from the healthcare system. While the Clinton plan does not go straight to single-payer, it is an acceptable step in that direction for me.
    I'm glad you don't have a brain tumor. :hatparty:

    steph
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from sharona97
    and that is the reason she is against the big lobbyist for pharmeceuticals and insurance? not to mention her desire to rid medicare part d of the donut hole affect. did you happen to watch the presidential race debate that was on this past week? she identifies her weak points in the early ninties and goes on to give persistant, more defined thoughts on how to "pay "for this new healthcare system. she starts with the huge tax break the wealthiest are receiving, to budgeting the federal balance (again for all those who think she ran the country in the clinton years), to pointing out how solid ss was until 2045 until bush got his hands on that money to help subsidize current events. again, she is focused on domestic problems for the commonwealth of this nation. people can change their thinking and learn why. what appears to "hilary's" failure on her past healthcare package had direct interaction with the congress at the time. just my opinion. he article you sited was published before the debate date, so i have little value in the writer's piece.
    i watched it - it was painful, especially john edwards. is he for real? it was like fingernails on a chalkboard to listen to his superficial answers.

    as to hillary - i think she is wrong.

    clinton's plan would force insurers to offer coverage at the same rates to everyone: smokers would pay no more than non-smokers; drug addicts and alcoholics would receive the same rates as the abstemious; obese people would pay the same as the physically fit -- even though all of these behaviors affect health and can be avoided. the consequence would be higher rates for those who choose to behave responsibly.
    moreover, to pay for the estimated $110 billion cost of the new hillary care, clinton would raise taxes. first, she'd wipe out most of the bush tax cuts, and then she'd tax employer-provided health care plans themselves for those she deems "rich."




    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/l...e_us_healthier


    "senator clinton would require every american to purchase health insurance or face penalties."
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Sep 22, '07
  12. by   rigmedic
    There are certainly some entrenched special interests with DEEP pockets that will do their best to torpedo this thing. I will be very surprised if she can get it done in the first term, assuming she wins. If any of the Republicans win we can keep enriching Blue Cross and Blue Shield for another 4 years.

    It will boil down to whether or not people are really fond of the for-profit insurance industry. After years and years of "preexisting conditions", "out of network providers", and repeated denials of care I think the insurance industry has cut its own throat.

    The interesting thing is that all the Democrats are now for some form of nationalized healthcare. The Republicans are being forced to discuss healthcare and offer something other than just a tax cut, which is their universal cure-all. This tells me that the issue is resonating with the public and that we are moving toward reform. I still think it will take several years, though.
  13. by   sharona97
    Quote from stevielynn
    i watched it - it was painful, especially john edwards. is he for real? it was like fingernails on a chalkboard to listen to his superficial answers.

    as to hillary - i think she is wrong.

    clinton's plan would force insurers to offer coverage at the same rates to everyone: smokers would pay no more than non-smokers; drug addicts and alcoholics would receive the same rates as the abstemious; obese people would pay the same as the physically fit -- even though all of these behaviors affect health and can be avoided. the consequence would be higher rates for those who choose to behave responsibly.
    moreover, to pay for the estimated $110 billion cost of the new hillary care, clinton would raise taxes. first, she'd wipe out most of the bush tax cuts, and then she'd tax employer-provided health care plans themselves for those she deems "rich."




    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/l...e_us_healthier


    "senator clinton would require every american to purchase health insurance or face penalties."
    thanks for the articles, again their is a huge deficit not caused ny the clintons, no matter how much money she has spent. she has something to show for it and it's compassion. there is no doubt, the healthcare issue (debate) could go on forever. i think of our soldiers and the conditions they have been sent home too, and i think of "the wealthiest" not always being of a business, but as individuals who should be responsible as well. i.e. smokers, different tax laws for them. and as far as immigration goes, i believe our current president took that issue by the horns. after all, all his kronies to help "fix" katrina were substancially hispanic. there is nothing wrong with the culture, but just like many posts on this site, would'nt you aspire to improve yourself? 1993 was 1993. it's 2007 with a president on his last term. with that said, i hope to see change. i agree with you on edwards comments. "he's used to winning not only for political aspirations in my opinion. and the govenor of new mexico? was he chewing food while speaking? very hard to understand. i'm not lookink down my nose at anyone, i feel good about a change a comin, who that will be , don't know. but do realize that the issues here at home need to be addressed as well as over seas.

    peace!

close