Clinton unveils new health care plan

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

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.

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.

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. If you take the time to research the "success" of private retirement accounts in Chile and the UK you would discover that 30% of expected benefits are eaten up by administrative fees whereas US SS operates at under 1% administrative costs. In the long run the administrative fee disadvantage of private accounts would eat your assets alive.

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.

akasecrt · Sep 23, 2007

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

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

You have just made my point for me. We don't prohibit people from drinking. We simply hold them responsible for their actions.
The same should apply to health insurance. If someone chooses not to carry it, s/he should be held responsible for the consequences of that choice. If they remain healthy, they keep the cash to use as they wish. If they utilize expensive healthcare services for which they are not insured, let them pay for it, for the rest of their lives, if need be. We need to loose the mentality that we as a society are responsible for "righting" people's personal choices, or worse yet, that we do them favors by preventing them from making choices in the first place.
What is destructive to the common good is eliminating competition by implementing a single payor, especially a single government payor.

54% of bankruptcies in the US are driven by medical costs of the under and uninsureds. Guess what we pay for those costs through increased health insurance premiums and copays. Requiring health insurance and/or participation in a single payer health care system is along the lines of requiring a driver to wear a seat belt. We have implemented this mandate because it is too expensive for society to allow people to engage in stupid behaviors.

A true single payer system will enhance competiton between providers because they will have to compete for patients based on quality of care not price.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

robert reich has a very interesting discussion about moral hazard which i think applies to this thread:

[color=#231f20]

[color=#231f20]
moral hazard is for suckers
[color=#231f20]
b y rob e rt b . r e i ch
[color=#231f20]
l[color=#231f20]ast summer, while sitting on a beach, i over[color=#231f20]heard
a father tussle with his young son about
whether the child was old enough to take out a small
sailboat. the father finally relented. "go ahead, but i'm
not gonna save you," he said, picking up his newspaper.

[color=#231f20]
a while later, the sailboat tipped over
and the child began yelling for help, but
his father didn't budge. i put down my
book, walked over to the man, and delicately
told him his son was in trouble.
"that's okay," he said. "that boy's gonna
learn a lesson he'll never forget." i walked
down the beach to notify a lifeguard,
who promptly went into action.
letting children bear the consequences
of their risky behavior--what
some parents call "tough love"--can be
applied to adults as well, and conservatives
have made a virtual fetish of it.
...[color=#231f20]
people do tend to be less cautious
when they know they'll be bailed out.
economists call this "moral hazard."
but even when they're careful, people
cannot always assess risks accurately.
...

http://www.prospect.org/galleries/current_issues/oct_2007.pdf

[color=#231f20]

CHATSDALE · Sep 23, 2007

the problem is that calling some porcedures 'elective' is going to be a rough call..for someone extremely obese a gastric by pass is going to be a life saver it may not qualify as high up the ladder as an appendectomy but you can't wait forever either

i don't know of the stats on canada but i personally know of canadians who opted to come to us for tx of various kinds and a friend in italy has stated that the cost of the tax load w/free health care is backbreaking

what good is health care if you cannot buy food or houses

there are many pros and cons and i want to reserve judgement until we have a lot more information...it will be a lot harder to get out of this than to get in it

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

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/2007/09/the-hillary-pla.html

sharona97, BSN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

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?

sharona97, BSN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

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/2007/09/the-hillary-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:

Jolie, BSN · Sep 23, 2007

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.

Jolie, BSN · Sep 23, 2007

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?

sharona97, BSN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

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.

sharona97, BSN, RN · Sep 23, 2007

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.