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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Everything in nursing seems to be about evidence bsed practice. The evidence for people living within a universal health system is compelling. lower costs, emphasis on prevention of illness, Better qol measures, better longevity statistics, lower infant mortality rates and so on.
FWIW, I don't think that any of us needs to worry about being unable to collect our social security. The worst case scenario is payment of 75% of promised benefits without any reform for at least the next 75 years.
The Diamond-Orszag plan makes recommendations for how to fix the system. Some of which are along the following lines:
Expanding the tax base is the simplest way to tackle the problem. The earnings cap on SS tax should be lifted to the point that it erases the deficit. Currently earnings above 90,000 (more or less) do not pay taxes into the system above that point.
Raise the earnings cap to help bring the system into balance. (and then index the cap to inflation).
Restructure capital gains/dividend taxation to include a contribution to the SS system (with an exception for low income retirees)
Restructure the estate tax to include a contribution to SS
Bring ALL state and local public employees into the system
Remove current penalties for working during retirement
Each of these could be used to address the relatively minor problems facing the system over the next 75 years.
Then who pays for their healthcare when they have an accident or become ill?
Why does someone have to pay for it? I know that sound heartless but, if they made a decision they have to live w/ the consequences. Is it pos. that some opt out of insurance programs that they could afford b/c they know that a catastrophic bill from a serious accident or illness will be written off if they can't afford to pay it?
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.
and your point then is conservatives only think of themselves?
Why does someone have to pay for it? I know that sound heartless but, if they made a decision they have to live w/ the consequences. Is it pos. that some opt out of insurance programs that they could afford b/c they know that a catastrophic bill from a serious accident or illness will be written off if they can't afford to pay it?
Jolie, BSN
6,375 Posts
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.