REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Clinton's Mandated Health Insurance

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 22, 2007 03:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2338
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I can't imagine a worse way to "provide" coverage for all Americans' than to force them into the rapacious jaws of health insurances, and to back it up by funneling government money with them. To me, this is the worst of both worlds: Government intrusion and getting fucked over by the same bastards who created our current nightmare.

BOOOOO!!! HSSSSSSS!

Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan
Quote:

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.

"Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick. I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for change. "It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who accomplishes that goal finally for our country."

A Clinton adviser compares the plan's "individual mandate" -- which requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according to The Associated Press. In her plan, Clinton said families would receive tax credits to help pay for coverage. The tax credit would be designed to limit the premiums to a percentage of a family's income. Federal subsidies would be provided for those who are not able to afford insurance, and large businesses would be expected to provide or help pay for their employees' insurance.



www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:36 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't imagine a worse way to "provide" coverage for all Americans' than to force them into the rapacious jaws of health insurances, and to back it up by funneling government money with them. To me, this is the worst of both worlds


Without Health Insurance a person, even one making good money like myself, can't afford basic medical care. I like this idea. In 2004 when the Republicans failed to provide a Health reform plan that applied to real people (Medical savings accounts only work for people with money to save...and what's $500 or $1000 in savings compared to bills that easily reach the tens of thousands for simple surgical proceedures) I thought something like this would be useful.

My idea was to mandate that any company that sells insurance must offer a base plan to anyone. The price for the base plan would be based on income. The base plan would be identical to the plan used by members of Congress. More extensive plans would be available for additional price. It would not be mandatory to have a plan (its a personal choice). There would be competition to provide better base plans to attract more folks to your plan to ease the burden of covering so many and pressure by the insurance industry to bring health industry costs back down to maximize profits. Finally it would require medical services to be offered at the same price to uncovered folks as to covered folks.

I consider the war on terror to be the most important issue facing the country, but health care reform is the most important issue facing me personally. By offering this plan, which is 90% what I, conservative Republican, wanted, she has moved me officially on the fence (I just tucked my RUDY mug into my drawer).

If I'm on the fence, 34 year old conservative white male professional with good paying job, then the Republicans really are in trouble.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:14 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hero likes it - and that's a great reason to hate it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:33 AM

FLETCH2


My view -- you need a national health service. However, reality is that health insurance companies will use every dollar they can to bribe, bully and scare folks into not having one. Why? Because their very business is at stake.

The Clinton plan is just pragmatic acceptance of the facts on the ground that unless medical insurers get their "scratch" they will make it impossible to get anything at all. Personally I like the Hero plan better. Mandate a minimum level of insurance that must be provided if you want to be in the health insurance bidness. Make it a cost of doing business to provide basic care to all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:33 AM

SERGEANTX


This plan is kind of like a shot of whiskey as a cure for a bad hangover.

Seriously, the number one problem in the whole health care situation is that it's been operating for decades with none of the usual market pressures. The AMA has managed to have all reasonable competition regulated out of existence, and the insurance plans they've endorsed (they actually created the model for modern health insurance) discourage any natural incentives for consumer to prefer low-cost alternatives.

So the Democrats want to move everyone into the market block that drives even higher costs. Great idea! "Hair of the god that bit me.." indeed.

I'm sure the insurance companies will love it. And doctors. I guess that's what matters.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Huh. I would have thought that all good Republicans would HATE this plan!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:41 AM

SERGEANTX


The current crop of Republicans (the bushies that is), aren't in the least conservative. They're 'statists' (kinder, gentler fascists) who want to cram their version of what ought to happen down everyone's throats. Just like the liberals they claim to despise, every plan starts with 'We should... ' and ends with '... so do what I say!".



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:52 AM

EVILDINOSAUR


I like the idea of everyone having health insurance, since its basically impossible to get health services otherwise, but I dunno, this plan doesn't seem great. Especially the part where it compared it to required auto insurance, does that mean you get arrested if you're caught living without health insurance? I can just see the new branch of safe auto selling the minimum coverage health insurance lol.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:55 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


I am just wondering how many people on this board DO NOT have health insurance? I have been fortunate in that I have always had it, good thing considering that WITH my insurance my medical bills and prescriptions cost me well over $3000.00 a year.

I live in a small town in Alabama. Many people here do not have healthcare. Were I to walk into my doctors office, I would be charged $150 for the visit. My healthcare BCBS has an allowable charge of $75 and my co-pay is $30. Now, if I did not HAVE healthcare, the cost of the visit would increase to $300+ and would be payable BEFORE I saw a doctor. We won't even get into the charge if it were my Asthma specialist.

We need MAJOR, PAINFUL healthcare reform in this country.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:10 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The current crop of Republicans ...(kinder, gentler fascists)


If Republicans were fascists, like you and so many say they are, they would not have reliquished their power in Congress after the mid-term elections. If Republicans were fascists, most of the Dem leadership would have been lined up against a wall and shot. If they were fascists they would have shut down or censored most of the major media outlets in the country, and there would be Martial Law enacted in many cities. That's REAL fascism baby....my kind of fascism....I don't know what the hell you and the rest of your ilk have to complain about; or is it that you just hate President Bush so much that you cannot get through a single day without venting your hatred in an endless barrage of hyperbolized bullshit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:23 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am just wondering how many people on this board DO NOT have health insurance? I have been fortunate in that I have always had it, good thing considering that WITH my insurance my medical bills and prescriptions cost me well over $3000.00 a year.



I have it now, but went for about six years without it - while raising my sons. We got by on free health care clinics in town and illegal services from underground practitioners when we couldn't qualify for the freebies.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Most people can get by without health insurance until they get ill. And the more serious or chronic the illness, the more they need coverage.

The fact that you DID get by without is a testament to your luck.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:39 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
If Republicans were fascists...



Ok, maybe a little hyperbole, but not a lot. The current administration's political zeitgeist shares much of the fascist ethos.

Mostly I just get a kick of pointing out that they're no different than Hillary, who's been the target of the same sort of invective from republicans. Pot - kettle - black.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:41 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The fact that you DID get by without is a testament to your luck.



Ayup. Hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting it as a viable alternative. The fact that an employed parent can't afford reasonable health care for their children is solid verification that something is deeply out of whack.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If Republicans were fascists, like you and so many say they are, they would not have reliquished their power in Congress after the mid-term elections. If Republicans were fascists, most of the Dem leadership would have been lined up against a wall and shot. If they were fascists they would have shut down or censored most of the major media outlets in the country, and there would be Martial Law enacted in many cities...
Fascism is sometimes used to mean government in service to corporations, corporatism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:01 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
If Republicans were fascists...



Ok, maybe a little hyperbole, but not a lot. The current administration's political zeitgeist shares much of the fascist ethos.

Mostly I just get a kick of pointing out that they're no different than Hillary, who's been the target of the same sort of invective from republicans. Pot - kettle - black.
SergeantX


And maybe a little over-reaction from moi to your post.....I've been seeing that word...Fascist...pop up a lot lately in these boards & I wanted to give some examples of what Fascists do. On the other hand...it's the Liberals in America who are turning into the real fascists in America...little by little, directing our lives, our thoughts, ruining the quality of life by mandating :
Smoking bans
Trans fat bans
Political correctness
Gay Rights
Affirmative Action
Abortion Rights
Illegal Alien Rights
etc etc
I never voted to approve any of the above, yet it's been shoved down my throat and I'm supposed to accept it as normal....was never even given an opportunity to vote on any of it...now that's what I call fascism.



[

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:55 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hero likes it - and that's a great reason to hate it.


I don't like it all. Guess that means we have room to compromise on this one.

Specific things I don't like:
1. Mandatory (Right to privacy alone makes madatory insurance problematic.)
2. Tax hikes, always bad.
3. Could be a means to ease employers out of the insurance business for their low and middle class employees, that aint right.
4. Could be a means to ease us into a socialized system.
5. Don't like having to prove to an employer that I'm insured before getting a job, because you might need the job to afford the insurance.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:11 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hero likes it - and that's a great reason to hate it.


I don't like it all. Guess that means we have room to compromise on this one.

Specific things I don't like:
1. Mandatory (Right to privacy alone makes madatory insurance problematic.)
2. Tax hikes, always bad.
3. Could be a means to ease employers out of the insurance business for their low and middle class employees, that aint right.
4. Could be a means to ease us into a socialized system.
5. Don't like having to prove to an employer that I'm insured before getting a job, because you might need the job to afford the insurance


Very simple rule to follow here : If it comes from Hillary, it's fucked...we're fucked. Case closed. What's this...1994 again? Hillary pushing some half-assed Nazi HC Program on all us poor working stiffs, and OJ getting arrested.
The past is indeed prologue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:51 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
...If it comes from Hillary, it's fucked...we're fucked. Case closed. What's this...1994 again? Hillary pushing some half-assed Nazi HC Program on all us poor working stiffs, and OJ getting arrested.
The past is indeed prologue.



The thing is, it's not just Hillary. It's not even just the democrats, as zero has proven. I was honestly depressed after hearing about this kind of scam when they pushed it through in Massachusetts - because I knew the crooks in Washington wouldn't be able to resist. Anytime someone comes up with a program that both expands government power and puts money in the pockets of a powerful lobbying blocks, it's a "slam dunk". All that's left is for all the sheeple to bend over and take it.

I won't be though. I'll raise holy fucking hell if they try to push this shit through on a national level.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:43 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
...If it comes from Hillary, it's fucked...we're fucked. Case closed. What's this...1994 again? Hillary pushing some half-assed Nazi HC Program on all us poor working stiffs, and OJ getting arrested.
The past is indeed prologue
____________________________
The thing is, it's not just Hillary. It's not even just the democrats, as zero has proven. I was honestly depressed after hearing about this kind of scam when they pushed it through in Massachusetts - because I knew the crooks in Washington wouldn't be able to resist. Anytime someone comes up with a program that both expands government power and puts money in the pockets of a powerful lobbying blocks, it's a "slam dunk". All that's left is for all the sheeple to bend over and take it.

I won't be though. I'll raise holy fucking hell if they try to push this shit through on a national level.
SergeantX


I'll tell ya, the whole media presentation of this is insane.....I just saw a special on MSNBC ( the station that loves Hillary & hates Repubs ) about the Universal Healthcare coverage in Canada. Canada is a small country in terms of population, and their "free" healthcare system is totally in shambles. People have to wait months for services and operations...hell ..they actually have LOTTERIES each month to determine who gets to see a doctor from a long waiting list!!! And the final absurdity...the most thriving business in Canada is???...guess what? "illegal" private health clinics where people go in and pay MONEY for health services....everyone looks the other way. Talk about hypocritical insanity...just look to Canada. What Hillary & the rest of the socialized medicine crowd fail to talk about is the fact that the vast majority of un-insured in America are young people...either in school or at "starter jobs"....most adults who work have healthcare in some form. And if the "arguement" here is that MY TAXES HAVE to go UP because some wino or drug addict need a fucking hepatitus shot, I a'int gonna pay. If Hillary and her gang get in and raise taxes I will then claim 18 dependents, pay no taxes, and never file again.

[

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:50 AM

SERGEANTX


The fact is, health care is a mess in this country, far worse than in Canada. As much as it pains me to say, I'd rather see full-blown nationalized health care than the insanity we're currently living through. But Hillary's plan is like the worst of both worlds. With pile of shit on top... and we're likely to see some version of that if things continue the way they are. People love being slaves.

From my experience, the vast majority of people going without health care are those don't hold regular jobs (whether by choice or misfortune). Like so many of the institutions that have formed in this country it directly pushes people into 'feeding the machine'. Outliers get the shaft.

The health care situation, combined with all the various ways they try to keep us in debt, help to create and maintain a kind of 'employee indentured servitude'. Sure, you don't have to work for "the man", but if you don't, you're going to pay - with your very health.

No, I don't buy the "it's not all that bad" argument. I think it's much worse, because it's not the shiftless and lazy that are punished by the current setup. It's the independent folks looking for a better way to live, the people who best exemplify the 'American spirit', if there still is such a thing.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:58 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


I work for a bank, now. They offer pretty decent health insurance, and pay for most of it.

Before that, I worked at a telemarketing company. Their health insurance was slim. The employee was made to pick up the majority of the tab, and on their wages, lots of employees couldn't afford the health plan.

Before that, I worked in security. Same deal, only worse. I couldn't afford the health plan on near-minimum wage.

Before that, I worked for a police department. Excellent health care coverage, the City picked up most of the tab.

Before that, I worked for Radio Shack. You can guess.

So, during three jobs and about seven years of my life, I couldn't afford the health insurance that was available. That made me uninsured, and put me in danger. So, while most anyone who has a job also has 'access' to health insurance, try to keep in mind that they might not be able to afford it.

Now I hear about a 'mandatory' health insurance plan. I end up wondering... how much would it cost? Would I, as a struggling bachelor working for Radio Shack, have been forced to get health insurance that I can't afford? What happens then?

Before anything like 'mandatory' health insurance is approved of by me, I'd need to know a LOT more details.

Right now, a lot of people have to decide whether to pay rent or see the Doctor. If Mandatory Health Insurance carries the same choices, then it really hasn't solved any problems.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:18 AM

SERGEANTX


The fact that they are openly modeling these things on the mandatory car insurance laws is enough to piss me off.

When I was 20, I borrowed my grandmother's car to help my girlfriend move. We lived in Missouri, which had yet to pass mandatory insurance laws. Well, my girlfriend lived in Kansas, which had. While we were driving back to Missouri, some guy ran a stop sign and hit the right rear of our car. The legal fallout of this was thus: The driver of the car who ran the stop sign and caused the accident got a $50 fine. I got a $500 fine for not having insurance (my grandmother didn't drive and at the time had no insurance on the car).

I'd love to have the government pass a law that required everyone to do business with me (actually I wouldn't because I have some sense of right and wrong). The frustrating thing is, insurance is much closer to the cause of the health care crisis than it is to the solution. I think that the way out of all this is to address our health care issues without old style insurance plans. In some sense they're pyramid scams and they've run their course. In the process they've driven prices through the roof and made it nearly impossible for those of us who don't want to play their little game.

A lot of other people are beginning to see it this way and lots of creative solutions are bubbling up. That's probably why the insurance companies are looking to solidify their position with legislation. Bastards.

Government is only ever able to give us "one-size-fits-all" solutions. All they need to do to solve the health care crisis is to get the hell out of the way.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:36 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


I think I remember hearing that Clinton gets a shit load of dough from insurance companies these days. Its nice to see that it isn't influencing her policies...

On a side note, she continues to defend taking money from lobbies. Something about them being made up of people too.

Sounds like she's a shoe-in for the nomination.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"But Hillary's plan is like the worst of both worlds."

Amen.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 3:25 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Before anything like 'mandatory' health insurance is approved of by me, I'd need to know a LOT more details.


One issue is price controls.

If everyone is insured then usage of the health care system will skyrocket. If there is no immediate increase in service providers and resources then prices will spike (because one doctor can only see so many people). If prices spike then price controls are the only solution.

According to Dick Morris, when all this was being bounced around in 1994 this was something that was at the center of the Clinton plan. Rationing limited resources, price controls, strict control of wages, specialties, practice areas for new doctors, etc.

What it means is that if you are in this system then "no" may be your answer. If you need heart surgury you'll apply and they'll possibly say "no". Not, second opinion, not go to another hospital... just plain "no". If you get the procedure done (in the US) then you'll have violated the law and so will the doctor who did it. This is Canada's system and why so many folks from countries with socialized medicine make discreet trips to the US for major surguries.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 3:38 AM

FLETCH2


People in the British system have the option of going private if they want to. A byproduct of the NHS is that compared to US rates UK health insurance is reasonably priced. It's really a "top up" system.

I don't think that demand will be that big an issue. As it stands the existing "for profit" system SHOULD BE excessively redundant because of competition to provide service (if it isn't then there is no effective existing marketplace.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 5:21 AM

LEADB


Please explain what 'Top up' means?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 5:44 AM

FLETCH2


If you need a proceedure then you may have to wait, especially if your symptoms are relatively mild. If you have medical insurance like BUPA you can chose to go private to get the procedure sooner. Therefore in the UK private medicine is a "Top up" you don't need it to get treatment, your base level of care is provided but it allows you to be seen sooner or get more exotic work done that the NHS may not provide.

For example. My dad has had a heart murmur for a number of years but it could be controlled my medication so he took meds. About 2 years ago he had a minor heart attack, that changed his priority and as soon as he recovered they gave him a quadruple bypass ---in a new NHS hospital in a department that does just bypass work on a production line basis. Now he's good as new.

In the US with good insurance it's likely that a doctor would have recommended a bypass sooner rather than treating it with medication for as long as they could. However had he not had insurance it's unlikely that they would have done the operation at all.

The reality is that modern healthcare is expensive, the people that do it cost a lot to train and the fascillities cost a lot to build and maintain. All systems work by agrigating demand and by distributing costs across a larger group of patients such that those that are not sick in effect "Pay forward" money that helps treat those that are.

Social healthcare views this as a civil defence function and the perview of government. Commercial healthcare sees it as a business but in the main it works the same. If you pay tax into a social system and never get sick or pay insurance premiums where you get less back a year your excess is used to pay for the cronically ill that take out more than they donated. The only difference is how things are organised and if anyone profits from it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 7:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"The only difference is how things are organised and if anyone profits from it."

That and the paperwork and excess corporate salaries and benefits of commercial healthcare. That's why in the US 30% of premiums go to something other than providing actual care.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 8:46 AM

FLETCH2


Well your system is just scary.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 10:55 AM

SERGEANTX


So... from some cursory reading of the mainstream press, most people seem to be ok with this. What gives? I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to defend it. I'm not asking so we can dogpile on you, but I'm really curious how people think this is an acceptable solution.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 11:22 AM

FLETCH2


I'm not going to support it but I think it shows a pragmatic understanding of the world. Fourteen years ago the Clintons talked up universal healthcare but once they were in office they found that the entrenched special interests made implementation impossible. There is nothing to suggest that things are any different this time.

With universal single payer off the political table the pragmatic approach is to throw the special interests a bone to allow ANY plan to get passed. It's sad but there you are. It seems that in America the government has to pay off the medical insurance lobby to get anything done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 12:30 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


MOST peple are dissatisfied with health care overall:
http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
9/14-16/07
Thinking about the country as a whole, are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of health care in this country?" If satisfied or dissatisfied: "Would you say you are very satisfied / dissatisfied or somewhat satisfied / dissatisfied?"
Very Satisfied 11
Somewhat Satisfied 21
Somewhat Dissatisfied 24
Very Dissatisfied 42
Unsure 2

regarding Clinton's approach, I could find only 1 poll, with data found here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Sep07b-HRC-HEALTH.pdf


Among the people I know, everyone opposes her health plan. What gives me hope that it won't come to fruition that that, overall, Clinton has the edge only by having higher "like" v "don't know" responses. That means that if the other candidates can put there position out they have room to improve.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 1:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I'm with Sarge, besides, the words "Government Mandated" drive me into a berserk rage no matter what idiotic idea they precede.

Insurance, as a general rule, is just a successful Ponzi scam anyway, considering they use most of the money they rake in from Govt Mandated "clients" (read: victims) to hire lawyers and buy off courts so they don't actually have to fulfill their end of the deal - not to mention since it's mandatory, THEY get to write the contract any way they like, and change it at a whim, and the only choice YOU get is vaseline or K-Y, cause all them bastards are gonna do ya.



-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 21, 2007 3:53 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Insurance, as a general rule, is just a successful Ponzi scam anyway...



Ayup, and it's damaging to society for many of the same reasons. Ultimately it's a sucker's game and a drain on the general welfare. I'm not entirely kidding when I say it should be outlawed rather than made mandatory.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:13 AM

LEADB


I've been fairly quiet on this particular thread because in general, I believe that health care is broken in the US for many of it's people and needs to be fixed; but there's no clear alternative.

Mandatory insurance... insurance company red tape... millions if not billions of profit raked off by these companies. I admit it, the picture worries me.

This also worries me: folks who need medical care have to settle for either no care or going to a practitioner who is completely 'off the books' (and if said practitioner is not a bogus fraud, I suppose that is not so bad; but how does one know?).

At this point, I think a lot of people are desperate enough to accept anything that gets them in a position of getting medical care.

Personally, I've been dang lucky; I've been covered under fairly generous 'big company' medical insurance; and as long as my job isn't shipped off to India, I'll probably do fine. I can afford to wait for this to all get fixed.

So, what about the folks who -can't- afford to wait want? Ok, I'll agree; the Clinton proposal is pretty ugly. What instead then?

I'll say what Fletch2 describes is looking pretty good to me right now; especially since there seems to be a provision to 'pay out' to get care ahead of 'schedule'; which should allow folks / businesses to buy/provide premium health care. -If- we concur that's what we want, how do we get to it. If it isn't what we want; what the heck do you want -instead- of what Clinton suggests.

Frankly, I give Clinton a few points for at least suggesting -something- that potentially provides a window into some form of health care for all. Big problem in the US is the folks on the short end of the stick are too disorganized to get things changed -- pulling in too many different directions.

Features I want to see:
1) Continued ability to identify medications which have not passed rigorous testing requirements. Something standard needs to be in place so folks have a reasonable chance to identity snake oil for what it is.
2) Relaxation of standards of what providers are permitted to provide services; while ensuring access to the level of provider -needed- by the medical conditions present. (eg: If I have a cold, I should be able to go to a nurse practitioner for confirmation (ie: that it is not early pneumonia); with expectations to reliably get a referral up the chain (and quickly) if the nurse recognizes it is beyond his/her skill set).

So, what are the odds we can either achieve deregulation to get the costs down but somehow retain the needed safety features or get something in place like what the UK has... when we have such a clear distrust in this country of Gov. provided services and at the same time a (justified) fear of folks who would use medicine to exploit the sick for profit? If you can't answer that, I think you will understand why Clinton's proposal has the appeal that it does.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL