Clinton unveils new health care plan

Nurses Activism

Published

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

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

I attest to this as I am one of those people who did become sick from a unimmunized patient. Had a near-death experience, and now remain disabled, which begets attention to oneself and the community at large, begets depression, and on it goes.

I am truly sorry for your situation, but I don't understand how you think government-paid healthcare would have prevented it. No matter who pays for healthcare, our current system allows individuals to refuse it, and I can't imagine the American public accepting any new system that would negate that right of refusal.

Also, we know that no medication, vaccines included, is 100% safe and effective for everyone. Even if we had 100% immunization rates, there would still be isolated incidents of disease that not even mandatory healthcare could prevent.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in IM/Critical Care/Cardiology.

Thanks Joli

Exactly one of my points. This is America, taxes are mandated, laws are mandated. Why not healthcare?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The truth is that one can invest his/her own money in an FDIC insured savings account (an investment with the lowest return, due to the federal guarantee of funds) and still fare better than the return on Social Security. There is no need to purchase "risky" investment to outdo the government's track record. By investing a portion of one's money in federally-insured products, and a small amount in various higher-risk non-insured products, anyone can far out-pace the government's return, regardless of market conditions. The key is self-discipline and personal responsibility, something the government does NOT encourage. Politicians would rather convince you that you need to rely on them than support your efforts to provide for yourself.

Jolie - another point about private investments vs. SS. If a person works their entire life, and dies at say, 64, that money is gone - zip - nothing left to pass on to their heirs.

And say they have a 60 yo wife - and she dies before she can collect widows benefits - all the money that person put in over the years is gone - government isn't going to give ANY of it back.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in IM/Critical Care/Cardiology.

I agree Banditrn and Jolie to a certain degree. some folks may be waiting for the gov't to take of them, true. The majority of people I would hope detail their own destinies for retirement.

However; in the event of a death, there is a (very small) death benefit to the children. And if a person is disabled and on SSDI, etc, there is an education grant for the children up to a certain age. Not that this will enable to take total care of themselves with these monies, but they may be motivated individuals such as yourself and make the best with what they have and apply themselves to.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I agree Banditrn and Jolie to a certain degree. some folks may be waiting for the gov't to take of them, true. The majority of people I would hope detail their own destinies for retirement.

However; in the event of a death, there is a (very small) death benefit to the children. And if a person is disabled and on SSDI, etc, there is an education grant for the children up to a certain age. Not that this will enable to take total care of themselves with these monies, but they may be motivated individuals such as yourself and make the best with what they have and apply themselves to.

Sharon - unless it has changed, that death benefit only goes to the surviving spouse, and it's only a few hundred dollars.

I agree that the insurance industries in our country need looking at - but I DON'T want the government to take it over. Anything the government has ever done does not turn out well - it just grows cumbersome and expensive.

I still want the freedom to choose who and when I go to, and what I will pay for.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in IM/Critical Care/Cardiology.
Sharon - unless it has changed, that death benefit only goes to the surviving spouse, and it's only a few hundred dollars.

I agree that the insurance industries in our country need looking at - but I DON'T want the government to take it over. Anything the government has ever done does not turn out well - it just grows cumbersome and expensive.

I still want the freedom to choose who and when I go to, and what I will pay for.

I'm not an attorney so as far as the stats on who gets what when is controversal at this point and time between you and I.

I think of my parents who were pushed into retirement when their employee boarded up. Thank Goodness they are doing alright financially, but what if they weren't? Or someone elses parents. This issue involves so many people at different stages in their life. Am I to assume you would reject a social security check at your retirement, (If it was an option;)?

Times are a changin, but I haven't lost all hope to form the opinion that my tax dollars taken from me should in some way be given back. I'm not encouraging social medicine, or welfare, just a change. I'd like to see someone in office who has a business head and cares about the American Economy as a priority.

Personally, my dh and I have pensions that are sound and I consider myself damn lucky. I also realize it could be gone tomorrow. If tomorrow never comes, then great. But what about yesterday?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
am i to assume you would reject a social security check at your retirement, (if it was an option;)?

no, i wouldn't, because it sould simply be a matter of the federal government returning my money to me. but i seriously doubt that will happen. i would have preferred the opportunity to have invested that money myself all along. even if i had stuck it under the mattress, i would have done better than the zero dollars i am likely to collect from ss.

times are a changin, but i haven't lost all hope to form the opinion that my tax dollars taken from me should in some way be given back. i'm not encouraging social medicine, or welfare, just a change. i'd like to see someone in office who has a business head and cares about the american economy as a priority.

i half-way agree with the second part of your statement. i have no hope that my tax money will be returned to me, but i do hope that some enlightened politician of the future will stop taking it from me to fund programs that i could do better myself. i agree that we need an economic-minded business person to run our country. career politicians don't cut it!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

All the people over 65 that I know get their Social Check deposited into their account on the 3rd of every month without fail.

Medicare pays the doctors and hospitals on time and does not cancel anyone’s policy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
All the people over 65 that I know get their Social Check deposited into their account on the 3rd of every month without fail.

Medicare pays the doctors and hospitals on time and does not cancel anyone’s policy.

Social Security became a pyramid scheme when the ratio of workers to retirees dropped combined with the gov't issuing IOUs (taking) for any surplus.

These programs are unsustainable. Greenspan, in his new book, says the failure of SS is NEEDED in order to convince the public that you can't vote yourself wealth. He's not calling for its failure, rather, he is acknowledging that it must happen. I said this in another thread today: the failure of SS is the result of what amounts to not heeding simple, fifth grade mathematics. You could get away with that when practically everybody died short of collecting. Not now.

The engine of money growth is compound interest. Period.

To answer your quote, it must be nice to get in on the front end of the pyramid scheme. Those of us on the back in, are, as they say, the marks in the con.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in IM/Critical Care/Cardiology.

Timothy, did you get a chance to see the presidential debates this evening? If so, what are your thoughts if you don't mind me asking?

Sheri

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Social Security became a pyramid scheme when the ratio of workers to retirees dropped combined with the gov't issuing IOUs (taking) for any surplus.

These programs are unsustainable. Greenspan, in his new book, says the failure of SS is NEEDED in order to convince the public that you can't vote yourself wealth. He's not calling for its failure, rather, he is acknowledging that it must happen. I said this in another thread today: the failure of SS is the result of what amounts to not heeding simple, fifth grade mathematics. You could get away with that when practically everybody died short of collecting. Not now.

The engine of money growth is compound interest. Period.

To answer your quote, it must be nice to get in on the front end of the pyramid scheme. Those of us on the back in, are, as they say, the marks in the con.

~faith,

Timothy.

Sorry but there was a surplus just a few years ago. I hope we can relearn some fiscal responsibility so we can repay what was "borrowed" from the Social Security surplus this century because the insurance you are paying for must be provided if you are blessed with a long life.

I have paid into Social Security for 48 years and have not collected $0.01. Not exactly the front end of anything.

People retiring at age 65 began collecting "Old Age Pensions" in 1940, before I was born.

See I can do 3rd grade arithmatic ;)

In August of 2001 the White House released new budget numbers showing that almost all of the surplus came from the Social Security Trust Fund:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec01/lockbox_8-22.html

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Thanks Joli

Exactly one of my points. This is America, taxes are mandated, laws are mandated. Why not healthcare?

This IS America where we have a Constitution that lays out the purpose of government. It would do us all well to review that document. Micromanaging our health care responsibilities for us is not the purpose of our government. That is the difference between our form of government and socialist and communist forms of government. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton's "modern progressive" (aka socialistic) proclivities.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment