- ‹ previous
- 3769 of 7881
- next ›
A Preview of Hillary Clinton's Health Care Plan
From yesterday's "presidential mashup": "I intend to dramatically rein in the influence of the insurance companies," she said, "because frankly I think that they have worked to the detriment of our economy and our health-care system."
—Nick Baumann









Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo







Well, the ol' "if we could only go back to the wonderful `50's" argument isn't going to work for health care either. I'll take my 21st century doctor over a `50's doctor any day, along with the technology too. The ONLY problem is rationing. Right now, I'm NOT rationed. I pay my co-pay, I get great medical services, my employer picks up the entire cost. For all the losers without health care? well, being a REAL `merican, I say: "to hell with them"! Survival of the fittest DUDES!! HAHAHAHA! Until you socialists (liberals, progressives, leftists, whatever) can figure out a way to get the white-middle-trash to WANT to pay for everybody's health care, you'll never have it. BUT, the white-middle-trash aren't going to fund anything that might benefit "those people". The "cutting of their noses to spite the faces" thing they've been doing for the last 40 years now. "Get EVEN with those people! Vote Republican!!!"
To bad none of you socialists (liberals, progressives, leftists, whatever) actually LISTEN to the white-middle-trash though. I realize they are mostly obnoxious ignorant racists, but if you don't understand the enemy how can you win? There's an OBVIOUS fracture line in the fascist base, which is why two Senators (and Alan Greenspan) philosophically quit their party, in ONLY the last WEEK!!. But, it's safe to say the socialists will continue focusing on forcing the white-trash to repentant for their sins (dispensing socialist guilt), instead of figuring out how to get SOME of them to vote FOR you.
Well, the ol' "if we could only go back to the wonderful `50's" argument isn't going to work for health care either. I'll take my 21st century doctor over a `50's doctor any day, along with the technology too. The ONLY problem is rationing. Right now, I'm NOT rationed. I pay my co-pay, I get great medical services, my employer picks up the entire cost. For all the losers without health care? well, being a REAL `merican, I say: "to hell with them"! Survival of the fittest DUDES!! HAHAHAHA! Until you socialists (liberals, progressives, leftists, whatever) can figure out a way to get the white-middle-trash to WANT to pay for everybody's health care, you'll never have it. BUT, the white-middle-trash aren't going to fund anything that might benefit "those people". The "cutting of their noses to spite the faces" thing they've been doing for the last 40 years now. "Get EVEN with those people! Vote Republican!!!"
To bad none of you socialists (liberals, progressives, leftists, whatever) actually LISTEN to the white-middle-trash though. I realize they are mostly obnoxious ignorant racists, but if you don't understand the enemy how can you win? There's an OBVIOUS fracture line in the fascist base, which is why two Senators (and Alan Greenspan) philosophically quit their party, in ONLY the last WEEK!!. But, it's safe to say the socialists will continue focusing on forcing the white-trash to repentant for their sins (dispensing socialist guilt), instead of figuring out how to get SOME of them to vote FOR you.
I wonder if she's improved over the old "cooked-up-in-secret-sessions", "one HMO plan force-fits all", Hillary-Care "fix"?
I wonder if THIS plan will be over 1,000 pages long, too? Probably more.
I think she's off on the wrong foot again though, to sell a plan by pointing the finger at the insurance industry, and try raise the anger-index about them, rather than sell her plan on it's presumed merits.
If the pitch comes down to: "The insurance industry is So BAD, you just KNOW This has got to be better", then it's no better than "Vote for Dems, because At LEAST we're not Republicans", and that ain't all that much to run on.
so government can keep cost down and provide for all better care than private business. one has to wonder about the IQ of thoses who think government is the answer. the problem is not hard to fix. Simply require all employers to provide manditory care for employees who are not covered. Make that the core you work around then fine tune from there
But Common Sense, why should corporations be responsible for providing a public service? What about folks that can't keep steady jobs?
Essentially what you advocate is what is falling apart now. Health care costs are rising and employers are tired of footing the bill.
Your call sign "common sense" isn't coming across in your ideas.
And by the way, the government does an excellent job keeping costs down...its called Medicare.
Another mess from the Hillary
Another mess from the Hillary.
Blue, there are many doctors in the area where I live who would rather work for free than work with Medicare.
I know of one woman who had surgery on both her wrists, and the doctor said he would do them without cost to her, rather than take the low medicare payment and have to jump through all the hoops and fill out all the paperwork medicare required.
Local doctors, Indiana University and Bloomington Hospital have set up their own "Volunteers in Medicine" group to provide for uninsured, low income people in the area, rather than mess with medicare.
There ARE alternatives to Big Government Programs that Actually Work.
http://www.vimmonroecounty.org/
It's Not going to be a big surprise to find that the people who have so far been a failure at their War on Poverty, their War on Illiteracy, their War on Drugs, their War on Terror and their War on Iraq, will also fail at the enormous task of providing decent, easily accessable medical care to a large nation.
Look that list of "wars" over again, and ask yourself: "Are THESE the people I want to trust with my medical care?"
My only fear is the further entrenchment of the medicalization of healthcare--rather than focusing on preventive measures. My current internist spat at me his frustration that I was using herbs when I told him that butterbur has controlled/i.e.stopped my ocular migrains. Yet there IS research that it should work, research that I consulted before I used it to stop the things that could lead to a stroke.
Funny thing about our health care. It costs dramatically more than any other country in the world. We pay about 15% of our GDP for it. The next highest is around 9%.
For that, we must have the best health care in the world, right?
NO!!
We're about 47th. We're solidly below all of the democratic developed nations of the world except Israel. Britain while only spending 6% of their GDP does much better and is starting to ask whether they could get even more if they spent a bit more.
We do need nationalized health care. There is no other sane choice.
For all that, Scott, I still have to doubt..., very SERIOUSLY doubt the sanity of turning over the nation's medicine to the people who's War on Drugs has done nothing in 40 years if not to make things worse. And don't you even have to doubt THEIR Sanity as a result of CONDUCTING a "War on Drugs" in the first place, given the lesson they SHOULD Have Learned from their earlier Prohibition experiment?
Again, I ask: Is it Sane to trust THESE People with our health care?
I'd rather see the nation do something OTHER than just try to copy other nations' programs, because we seem to do best when we are innovators and not copycats.
Maybe follow the Underwriters Lab model, and let those actually INVOLVED in providing health care figure out how to deal with the problem (see 'Volunteers in Medicine' reference above)
Because if the Politicians do for health care what they've done for drug abuse..., or Poverty, or Illiteracy, or 'Terror', or Iraq, or the nation's bridges, or food safety.., I'M finding a good witch doctor!
Sorry gvc. Your argument doesn't wash. I agree about the war on drugs. It can be won with the flick of a pen. Just legalize all of them. Tax them. Earmark the taxes to be used only for anti-drug advertising and treatment programs. Do not allow advertising of any drug, including the ones advertised now. Sell them from behind the counter in pharmacies to avoid any possibility of attractive displays. Set a minimum age, something that can't be done now.
My methods may or may not succeed in reducing drug use. But, they will put the gun toting drug lords out of business. I have yet to hear about a drug more dangerous than an automatic weapon in the hands of a drug lord.
Back on topic though, our existing system is as horribly broken as it is precisely because of the profit motive. It must be removed. Even an incompetent government official would have a difficult time making our health care worse than the unbridled unregulated health care industry has become.
It simply is more profitable not to treat people than it is to treat them. This is a recipe for disaster. We see that disaster every single day. Look at our life expectancy and infant mortality statistics. The all-powerful corporations are quite literally killing us.
BTW, does it scare the screaming heebie jeebies out of anyone else that among the topics people cared about for the Mashup, the environment didn't even make the grade?
We're talking about the potential for global civilizational collapse here, even possibly human extinction. Can anyone here really imagine a more important topic?
She believes in faith healing and will have faith healers in the hospitals to keep down the costs. She belongs to a secret cell of faith healers. See the MoJo article on the Senator and the secret cell.
The primary problem you have is that the medical system is essentially a corporatist system- and power is concentrated in a manner which does not yield good results because of its lack of flexibility.
Concentrating decision-making further into the hands of a bureaucracy is going at it in the wrong direction. What you need is an open source system which would allow the greatest amount of choice with keen competition in the delivery of the treatment options.
Because the approved treatments are gamed by lobbyists and their influence in congress, there is simply no shred of hope that universal healthcare would do anything more than simply concentrate the decision making process into the hands of the lame, power grabbing and/or the corrupt.
Try an open source system based upon competition and real choice (natural health, pharmaceuticals, alternative medicine, etc.)to see what works best.
One size fits all will simply not work.
It's pretty well established that US health care was once considered to be among the best, if not THE best the world had to offer. And it was not anywhere near what you'd consider expensive.
My mother recently showed me an old hospital receipt for a two day stay my father had for a minor surgery back in the early '50s. It was $42.00.
Total.
The surgeon's bill was separate, but on a similar scale. And yeah, doctors, hospitals and drug companies were in business to make money, even in the '50s. So WHY did it work so well for just about everybody THEN, and not NOW, if profit motive is the culprit?
We used a pretty typical doctor's office when I was a kid in the 50's. It employed one receptionist, one nurse and two doctors. (I had rheumatic fever, so I was there a LOT.., I can still tell you all their names, first and last.)
Today, it takes that many people just to handle the paperwork for ONE doctor, and the vast majority of that paperwork is government mandated. It's not: "greedy corporations are the culprits, and government is going to be our savior",
Power and Authority Hungry Government is ALREADY a huge part of the problem.
I don't believe it's a coincidence that our health care system started downhill and the costs started UPhill right about the time the federal government got their heavy hand in it through medicare,and then later through medicaid.
"Greedy Corporations" saw an opportunity and took it, when Government put itself in a position where it could FAVOR certain corporations. It was an opportunity to 'favor' politicians who would return the favor by regulating competition into non-existance. So government, in large part, gave us what we've got, and the solution is to say: "Government..., just take over the whole thing, 'cause it's f'd up, and we think YOU'RE they guys who'll fix it"?!?!
I'd caution ANYONE against believing "politicians couldn't possibly make it worse", because that's exactly what's happened to education ever since we decided to give the feds a shot at "improving it", back in the '70s.
The slide has been consistent ever since, and they have YET to succeed at Any ONE of the "wars" they've been conducting, at great cost to our economy and our Liberty.
Every time the federal government sets out to "fix" something, they only end up "fixing" US.
[BTW: By legalizing drugs, you have no need to tax them.
You SHOULD be able to actually reduce other taxes, after you factor out tremendously DOWNSIZED 'Law Enforcement' needs, prison costs, courts, military used for the interdiction of drug shipments, etc, etc, etc., and factor IN the productivity of people currently taking up jail space, or unable to find suitable employment due to drug convictions.]
Well, the ol' "if we could only go back to the wonderful `50's" argument isn't going to work for health care either. I'll take my 21st century doctor over a `50's doctor any day, along with the technology too. The ONLY problem is rationing. Right now, I'm NOT rationed. I pay my co-pay, I get great medical services, my employer picks up the entire cost. For all the losers without health care well, being a REAL `merican, I say: "to hell with them"! Survival of the fittest DUDES!! HAHAHAHA! Until you socialists (liberals, progressives, leftists, whatever) can figure out a way to get the white-middle-trash to WANT to pay for everybody's health care, you'll never have it. BUT, the white-middle-trash aren't going to fund anything that might benefit "those people". The "cutting of their noses to spite the faces" thing they've been doing for the last 40 years now. "Get EVEN with those people! Vote Republican!!!"
To bad none of you socialists (liberals, progressives, leftists, whatever) actually LISTEN to the white-middle-trash though. I realize they are mostly obnoxious ignorant racists, but if you don't understand the enemy how can you win? There's an OBVIOUS fracture line in the fascist base, which is why two Senators (and Alan Greenspan) philosophically quit their party, in ONLY the last WEEK!!. But, it's safe to say the socialists will continue focusing on forcing the white-trash to repentant for their sins (dispensing socialist guilt), instead of figuring out how to get SOME of them to vote FOR you.
Impressive strawman you've built there, John.
No One Suggested going back to 50's medicine, but don't let that stand in the way of refuting the position-not-taken...
No doubt that's simpler and more rewarding than dealing with the point that was actually being made.
Say, did you EVER take part in a messageboard discussion where your 'contribution' wasn't some form of hate filled diatribe aimed at your countrymen?
God, it must be Awful to live in a nation populated by "white-middle-trash"..., "the enemy"..., surrounded by "obnoxious ignorant racists" and people "dispensing socialist guilt".
Pure Hell on Earth!
Why would anyone want to continue living in a world like that?
[BTW: Scott, did you REALLY claim the health care industry is UNREGULATED? Are we talking about the SAME America here..?
I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but..: "The healthcare industry is likely the most heavily regulated industry in the United States.(Christopher J. Conover (4-10-2004). "Health Care Regulation: A $169 Billion Hidden Tax)" "A Cato Institute study suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion. The study found that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, FDA regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost arises from regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk (Sue A. Blevins (15-12-1995). "The Medical Monopoly: Protecting Consumers Or Limiting Competition?")
Like I've been saying: They're part of the problem. A BIG Part.
So where is the sanity in the belief that they comprise any kind of solution?]