Clinton unveils new health care plan

[bethin]

des moines, iowa (cnn) -- democratic presidential candidate sen. hillary clinton will roll out a health care reform plan on monday that would cost the federal government around $110 billion and require all americans to have health insurance, clinton campaign sources said.

under the plan, federal subsidies would be provided for those who are not able to afford insurance, and large businesses would be required to provide or help pay for their employees' insurance.

[color=#004276]clinton's package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/politics/09/17/health.care/index.html

[Jolie, BSN]

This is why I asked you that question concerning refusing healthcare. Is it just universal healthcare for all that you are oppposed to? Just curious.

What I oppose is further government intrusion into the lives and finances of private citizens.

[Music in My Heart]

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

For what it's worth, I don't have much use for Hillary Clinton.

However, any website that "preps" its readers with an image like:

doesn't merit any of my time. They're appealing to fear and loaded imagery instead of seeking to have a rational debate.

[Music in My Heart]

The biggest problem that I have with Clinton's plan is, from what I understand, it does not remove the corporate profit motive and continues to provide a place for the for-profit insurance companies.

The fundamental philosophical consideration as I see it is not "Who do you trust more, big government or big business" but rather should health care be primarily viewed as a profit-generating business or "industry" or rather as a basic human right ("right" is too strong a word but I'm severely fatigued and not coming up with a more suitable term so that'll do).

I don't believe that families should be bankrupted to provide profits for shareholders.

[Music in My Heart]

For the free-market advocates, I'm curious:

Do you also believe that insurers should be permitted to genetically screen their applicants and deny coverage based on those results?

In fact, couldn't you consider that certain genetic traits might actually constitute "pre-existing conditions?"

[sharona97, BSN, RN]

I believe now that families are being premiumed to death and have pre-existing clauses in some large conglomerate groups.

I'm hoping for "BETTER" healthcare choices that are affordable to all American's,including those that are impoverished. I don't want to see penalties imposed on people who are deemed uninsurable,just because a CEO has deemed a clause. Do I think pre-existing conditions matter? Yes, of course along with their insurability that should follow them.

If one doesn't have insurance, I hope to see them insured. I believe all should be responsible to the best of their ability in achieving all it takes to become insured in some form or another.

I know some folks that are disabled or poverty-stricken may fall into another category to achieve this. What that is remains to be seen.IMO

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

For what it's worth, I don't have much use for Hillary Clinton.

However, any website that "preps" its readers with an image like:

doesn't merit any of my time. They're appealing to fear and loaded imagery instead of seeking to have a rational debate.

I told y'all that I just googled her name and haven't endorsed the website . . . It was just in reference to Tom's "WE".

steph:clown:

[fronkey bean]

it is insulting to equate conservative with racist . there are just as many if not more racist liberals than conservative

robert byrd (d) west virginia, who was was a recruiter and an exalted cyclops for the kkk, for one. and he is just one of the most obvious.

newshound.de.siu.edu

(i'm not sure why the link is not working. just type in racism in the democratic party into yahoo search. it was the first one to come up.)

i believe now that families are being premiumed to death and have pre-existing clauses in some large conglomerate groups.

i'm hoping for "better" healthcare choices that are affordable to all american's,including those that are impoverished. i don't want to see penalties imposed on people who are deemed uninsurable,just because a ceo has deemed a clause. do i think pre-existing conditions matter? yes, of course along with their insurability that should follow them.

if one doesn't have insurance, i hope to see them insured. i believe all should be responsible to the best of their ability in achieving all it takes to become insured in some form or another.

i know some folks that are disabled or poverty-stricken may fall into another category to achieve this. what that is remains to be seen.imo

yes, we are premiumed to death at times but would that get better by forcing companies to insure everyone? i think premiums would go up across the board. now i will pay more for people who won't stop smoking even though i toughed it out and quit 11 years ago. and, before you say that is why we need uhc, it will allow people who refuse to curb their bad habits before they affect their health will get all the health care they want on my dime despite the fact that they won't try to improve their health. if uhc passes i may start smoking again and let y'all pay for my recurrent bouts of bronchitis and my multiple stents (and mabey even my protracted chemotherapy for my incurable lung ca). ok, mabey someone w/ a genetic predisposion for disease may pay a little more but teenage boys pay more to have drivers insurance b/c they tend to cost companies more in pay outs. it doesn't matter that some, like my son, never have an accident. life isn't always fair and we are never going to erase all inequity. i think we need to make some allowances for people who are working but just can't afford insurance, but for those who won't work, for those who won't control their risk factors, or for those who want to play the odds, i don't feel its the gov'ts responsibility to give them unlimited healt coverage.

[sharona97, BSN, RN]

FronkyBean,

I agree with you. Your points are valid. But aren't we already paying for those who smoke? Look at the CHF hospitalizations alone. Not all smoked, but probably had a poor non-cardiac lifestyle, or were genetically prediposed.

Another poster pointed out that the amount of premium paid by their family was in part due to those individuals who "make less". I believe that may have some truth too it. For always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. (Desiderata Ehrmann, Max)

Looking at my own situation, I'm collecting SSDI (due to a misdiagnosis-that stopped my career at that moment in it's tracks -nearly killed me) and now I am eligible for Medicare. I was at one time feeling bad about recv'ing this, until I realized all the monies, I have paid in to the govt'; SS , Medicare, and Federal and State tax, that I am glad our govt deems me disabled, inspite of continous attempts to go back to work.

I could have been told, well thanks for all your contributions since age 13 (yes 13 ) but "we" can't help you so sorry, so sad.

I'm not 100% convinced that mandated penalties will be passed by the congress then signed by the president, with tacked along other expenses as usual. I don't read "into any blog, article, that the author is bashing a political presidential runner, due to what I feel is a biased report, statement etc.

Every one has one IMO , but that doesn't make it true. I believe in actively participating in the debates by watching and listening. They "the candidates" could be lying as well. Look at our current situation in Washington D.C.

Did we see this coming? The huge deficit there is from a once balanced budget?

I guess I'm just one the regular kind of people who at times takes a person's spoken word where I can see body language and hear it with my own 2 ears to give my 2 cents worth.

May the best candidate win

[Jolie, BSN]

May the best candidate win

I only wish there was one :)

I admit that I may be overly skeptical and suspicious of anything government related, especially when it has the potential to profoundly impact on me, myself, and I.

I find one thing to be curiously absent from any candidate's healthcare proposal, and that is a pilot study. If these candidates (Republicans and Democrats alike) are so jack sure that their answers are the answers, why don't they make their cases by proposing carefully planned trials? I'll answer my own question: Because they know they are fudging on the facts and withholding important information that the American people will find unacceptable once the plans are underway.

[sharona97, BSN, RN]

I agree Jolie,

However, isn't that how it's always been during election years? It would be great to get someone who really cares and do just that. Do a pilot study. Then there is the can of worms with the pharmeceuticals, and to begin a pilot study for the sake of proving it's worth while campainging would need congress involvement.IMO.

So to prove would be great, to believe would be greater.IMO

[fronkey bean]

FronkyBean,

I agree with you. Your points are valid. But aren't we already paying for those who smoke? Look at the CHF hospitalizations alone. Not all smoked, but probably had a poor non-cardiac lifestyle, or were genetically prediposed.

Another poster pointed out that the amount of premium paid by their family was in part due to those individuals who "make less". I believe that may have some truth too it. For always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. (Desiderata Ehrmann, Max)

Yes, there is some truth that cost goes up across the board when one segment of the population is costing the providers more money. But the insurance co.s have built in increases for those who have high risk habits (I don't know about you but I had to submit to a test for nicotine in my blood in order to get my life insurance and I think I did for my health insurance too). All those questionaires and physicals are to see if there is some reason they can charge you extra for the same coverage.

As for the folks in the hosp. who are there b/c of their poor lifestyle choices, the ones that cost me the most are those on the gov't payroll who cause taxes to go up with their indiscriminate use of medical resources b/c they will not control the factors that cause them to get sick in the first place.

[fronkey bean]

I only wish there was one :)

If we could just though them all in a blender then boil them to distill out the best parts of their plans. And if nothing good was distilled out, at least it would be fun to put them all through the blender:devil:

I admit that I may be overly skeptical and suspicious of anything government related, especially when it has the potential to profoundly impact on me, myself, and I.

I find one thing to be curiously absent from any candidate's healthcare proposal, and that is a pilot study. If these candidates (Republicans and Democrats alike) are so jack sure that their answers are the answers, why don't they make their cases by proposing carefully planned trials? I'll answer my own question: Because they know they are fudging on the facts and withholding important information that the American people will find unacceptable once the plans are underway.

Good point!