Clinton unveils new health care plan

Shaggyb2000 · Sep 22, 2007

A RIGHT is not a RIGHT if someone else has to provide it. A voluntary exchange between customer(patient) and seller(doctor) at an agreed price is the only single payer system that is economically viable and morally correct. Seller(doctor) charges too much then Customer(patient) takes his business elsewhere. That is the only true price control. The seller and customer has the RIGHT to negotiate whatever price they want without any high horsed "intellectuals" who think they know what is fair and best for seller and customer telling them what they can do. That is how the forefathers set it up and it worked just fine before politicians and "do gooders" got involved.

Shaggyb2000 · Sep 22, 2007

:lol2:

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.

Yeah, because the government can just print off more money with the click of a button. But, this brings the value of those dollars down that the over 65 get every 3rd of the month.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Sep 22, 2007

Yeah, because the government can just print off more money with the click of a button. But, this brings the value of those dollars that the over 65 get every 3rd of the month.

The beauty of the necessity to devalue the Dollar to meet future SS obligations is that it will also devalue the retirements of people that worked hard and saved over the years. This puts everybody in the same boat - equal outcomes.

See, a fair share in an equal, yet dismal, outcome is preferable to differentiations based upon individual effort.

If you protect against failure, you also protect against success. Everybody equal equals everybody very mediocre.

~faith,

Timothy.

rigmedic · Sep 22, 2007

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!

allnurses Guide · Sep 22, 2007

"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. . . . .

allnurses Guide · Sep 22, 2007

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

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 22, 2007

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.....

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 22, 2007

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).

sharona97, BSN, RN · Sep 22, 2007

"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.

rigmedic · Sep 22, 2007

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.

allnurses Guide · Sep 22, 2007

sharona97, BSN, RN · Sep 22, 2007

And your point as well as to the replys of the other candidates at the debate .....is?