Clinton unveils new health care plan - page 7

... Read More

  1. by   sharona97
    Quote from akasecrt
    I'm for healthcare for all. I think the phamaceutical companies should have to reinvest any profits back into public healthcare funding. Cap their costs to a set rate. Dr's/hospitals/DDS should have an AFFORDABLE set rate for procedures. (Paying 10$ for 1 Tylenol is not only ridiculous it's financial rape, not to mention paying for sheets/linens in your hosp. room then not getting to take them when you leave?) Have you read your itemized hosp bill? No wonder healthcare costs are so much with little or no regulation. As for our gov- there is no one entity I trust LESS. As for having mandatory healthcare...yeah that has worked so well with car & property insurance. They keep raising the rates, we're paying higher deductables and getting shafted for being law abiding citizens with a clean driving record. Just think what you could do with the THOUSANDS you've blown paying insurance you don't use. Shouldn't it go into an account to earn you money or be returned (or even a %)at the end of the year if you don't use it? AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THIS IS UNFAIR??:angryfire
    jm.02
    I see your point. I also see the other side of the equation. Geez, even if you die at one time you had a death tax......see what mean?
  2. by   sharona97
    Quote from hm2viking
    from ezra klein:
    there are a variety of affordability measures, the most important of which, by far, is a refundable tax credit limiting the cost of insurance to a certain percentage of family income. the plan doesn't yet define what that percentage of income is, but it'll presumably be reasonable. in this, the plan differs from edwards' plan, which uses sliding scales of subsidy up to a certain level of income. on the other side, the employer tax deduction will now be limited to standard plans for middle-income folk, while gold-plated health care for wealthy individuals at will be subject to taxation.
    so the policy is very, very sound, and includes other sundry goodies like a best practices institute that will vastly accelerate the amount of research done and distributed on the cost-effectiveness of treatments, better chronic care incentives, and so forth. the rhetoric is interesting too, being entirely about "choice." it's called the "american health choices plan." the first section, on the opening of fehbp and the creation of a new public insurer, is titled, "[color=#101010]providing a choice of insurance plans." the first bullet point assures readers that every american will be able to keep their current coverage if they so desire. etc, etc. this is very distinctly aimed at the criticisms of the 1994 plan, which is that it would reduce choice and constrain medical freedom. this plan won't, and its ability to expand options is laced through the document, and through the statements her advisors have made.
    [color=#101010]http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/20...llary-pla.html
    thanks for posting this very interesting, debatable article. i read alot of the comments and just like here, neg, po,neg,pos. is she going to start on this plan in her first year, well yeah, or is she throwing the bone to the boys club of america? even if she is throwing a bone, people are eating it. she is a smart woman. i would not underestimate her. nuff said. thank you hm2viking.:trout:
  3. by   Jolie
    Quote from hm2viking
    simply ridiculous assertion. ss is insurance not a true investment vehicle. i would venture to guess that there are quite a few worldcom/enron investors and employees who would gladly trade their (worthless) 401 k portfolios for the security of social security.

    viking, for middle-aged and young adults in america today, ss is just as worthless as enron's 401k. unlike participants in enron's 401k, contributors to ss have no option. the government forcibly takes the money from their paychecks.

    somewhat ot but the point remains that ss was never meant to be the sole support of retirees but was meant as a leg of a three legged stool including personal savings, pensions and ss.

    on this point, we agree. the problem is that most americans do not practice personal responsibility and save for their future, and why should they when they know that elected officials will bail them out by adding entitlement after entitlement, in the name of "compassion"? true compassion would be to hold individuals accountable for their own welfare, providing assistance only to those few who lack the ability to provide for themselves due to illness or disability. as a nation, we need to foster independence: in employment, in saving, in paying for education, and in paying for healthcare. but that doesn't earn politicians many votes.

    to bring this back to healthcare the private non system we currently have is eating up 30% plus of our health care dollars for profit and administration costs that in actuality have nothing to do with providing patient care.
    i'll accept your statistic of 30%. i agree that it is abysmal, but i think you are teribly naive to believe that government mandated or government paid healthcare would be any more efficient. it would probably be far worse. remember, this is the land of $500 government toilet seats.
  4. by   Jolie
    Quote from cyberkat
    Then who pays for their healthcare when they have an accident or become ill?
    THEY DO! It's their personal responsibility. If it takes a lifetime for them to pay it off, so be it. That is a logical consequence of their choice, and a consequence that they should be held to. There is currently little incentive for young, healthy people to purchase insurance, because they know they will be bailed out of a financial mess if they don't have it.

    Why is personal responsibility such a foreign concept?
  5. by   sharona97
    I am glad the poster who stated true compassion is for those who can not provide for themselves. If we provide for them (since it is agreed that is true compassion) isn't that universal healthcare for every one or at least one of it's main points that has people in an uproar? Your thoughts.
  6. by   sharona97
    Jolie,

    I am young, paid for my medical insurance, and had a pretty healthy life until..........something unexpected happens. I fought with my insurance for the coverage they wouldn't give. I paid out of my pocket, what the insurance didn't. I am currently disabled now because of this unexpectated misdiagnosis, and my income is squat. I have SSDI, I paid for many years, so I don't feel bad about collecting. I know have Medicare that offered me a part D plan that I did refuse. Why I would have had to give up my roof over my head and also fall down through their donut holes. Thank God I still have another insurance, my husband's. But he could become ill so fast with no notice after working as a journeyman for 30 years and he is to say, I guess I should pay all of this by myself after he has paid in thousands of dollars? I don't think so. It's easy to look at the big picture and say a generalization, an idea of what is the great cure-all. My point here is that no one knows when they could become very ill, and I thank my gov't for seeing the point in returning the monies when needed.
  7. by   Jolie
    Quote from sharona97
    I am glad the poster who stated true compassion is for those who can not provide for themselves. If we provide for them (since it is agreed that is true compassion) isn't that universal healthcare for every one or at least one of it's main points that has people in an uproar? Your thoughts.
    That poster was me. I believe that it is a moral obligation of a civilized society to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves (due to physical or mental illness, disability, advanced age, etc.)

    Universal healthcare is not simply providing for the disabled. Universal healthcare is providing for everyone without a means test. That includes billionaires who neither need or want government mandated healthcare. That includes healthy, able-bodied adults who would rather spend their money on other things. (And still have the right to do so, even if we think their choices are foolish.) That means able-bodied bums who choose not to work. That means people who are at extremely high risk of incurring medical costs due to lifestyle choices such as skydiving, motorcycle riding, promiscuous sex, etc. That means families who are satisfied with their healthcare coverage and choices and don't want government involvement.

    Universal coverage means everyone, whether they need or want it. Do we force food stamps on everyone regardless of need or want? Of course not. That even sounds foolish. Forcing healthcare coverage on those who don't need or want it is just as foolish, it is expensive, and it comes with strings. Do you think for one moment that the government is going to craft a healthcare coverage program, require everyone to participate (or be penalized), and not mandate the contents of the program? If so then you are naive. There will be limitations without appeals. At least now, if you are not in agreement with your insurer's decisions regarding treatment or payment, you have the right to appeal. That right will evaporate with government mandated programs. There will be outright denials of services and you will no longer have the option of paying out of pocket for those services, and no-where else to turn.

    Hillary proposes fining people whose private healthcare plans are superior to the government mandated plan. Why? 2 reasons: To force private employers to stop offering plans so that the government can gain control of the entire healthcare system, and to bring the level of quality and service available in the US healthcare system down to the level of the government plan.

    That scares me, and it should scare you.
  8. by   teeituptom
    Go Hillary, we love you
  9. by   sharona97
    Quote from Jolie
    That poster was me. I believe that it is a moral obligation of a civilized society to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves (due to physical or mental illness, disability, advanced age, etc.)

    Universal healthcare is not simply providing for the disabled. Universal healthcare is providing for everyone without a means test. That includes billionaires who neither need or want government mandated healthcare. That includes healthy, able-bodied adults who would rather spend their money on other things. (And still have the right to do so, even if we think their choices are foolish.) That means able-bodied bums who choose not to work. That means people who are at extremely high risk of incurring medical costs due to lifestyle choices such as skydiving, motorcycle riding, promiscuous sex, etc. That means families who are satisfied with their healthcare coverage and choices and don't want government involvement.

    Universal coverage means everyone, whether they need or want it. Do we force food stamps on everyone regardless of need or want? Of course not. That even sounds foolish. Forcing healthcare coverage on those who don't need or want it is just as foolish, it is expensive, and it comes with strings. Do you think for one moment that the government is going to craft a healthcare coverage program, require everyone to participate (or be penalized), and not mandate the contents of the program? If so then you are naive. There will be limitations without appeals. At least now, if you are not in agreement with your insurer's decisions regarding treatment or payment, you have the right to appeal. That right will evaporate with government mandated programs. There will be outright denials of services and you will no longer have the option of paying out of pocket for those services, and no-where else to turn.

    Hillary proposes fining people whose private healthcare plans are superior to the government mandated plan. Why? 2 reasons: To force private employers to stop offering plans so that the government can gain control of the entire healthcare system, and to bring the level of quality and service available in the US healthcare system down to the level of the government plan.

    That scares me, and it should scare you.
    If I'm hearing you correctly,being brought down to the level of healthcare the gov't now experiences would mean I could fly into Mayo Clinic for treatment. I'd pay for that kind of care. I'm not saying everyone has to take universal coverage,my point is that you never know when you could get very sick and you'd be happy with any program(s) to help you out when you're down.
  10. by   Shaggyb2000
    Quote from teeituptom
    go hillary, we love you
    no, we don't. just like a liberal to think he knows what everybody thinks and what is best for everyone. couldn't have come up with a better example. thanks tee.
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from teeituptom
    Go Hillary, we love you
    Hi Tom!

    Actually "we" don't love her . . .. .check out the link below, from the website "Stop Her Now".

    http://www.stophernow.com/site/PageServer
  12. by   HM2VikingRN
    Clinton's health-care proposal, released on Sept. 17 in Iowa, would require all Americans to have health insurance. It would give many Americans the option of paying to join a new government-run plan, require insurance companies to accept all applicants and offer tax credits to help families afford coverage.
    She said it would be paid for with $52 billion gained from repealing a tax cut passed during President George W. Bush's first term for those earning more than $250,000 annually and $55 billion saved by making the health-care system more efficient.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...siOXk&refer=us
  13. by   HM2VikingRN
    Actually the FEBHP is a better package of plans and more affordable than most plans offered in the market by the benefit denial specialists of our current non-system.

close