Hillary's New Health Care Program.

fxramper · Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:26 pm

With a price tag of about $110 billion per year, Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan" represents her first major effort to achieve universal health coverage since 1994, when the plan she authored during her husband's first term collapsed.

She's got a great shot of winning the presidency, but what is this going to spell for her campaign?

stirthepot

article

L-188 · Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:41 pm

Quoting FXramper (Thread starter):
but what is this going to spell for her campaign?

Hopefully the death of her campaign.

National Healthcare doesn't work, doesn't provide the level of care private practice does, and will snub research efforts to find cures.

AsstChiefMark · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:02 pm

The Iraqi War is costing us $2 billion per week.

This program would eliminate and/or substitute for other existing programs like Medicaid for young people and Medicare for retirees. The funds currently spent on these programs would be shifted to the new plan.

In most states, the Medicare and Medicaid programs are managed by private insurance companies. These companies bid for the opportunity to provide insurance services. These same companies (or others) will simply manage the new program.

The Hillary health plan, despite some current misconceptions, will not be a free-for-all. People in the program will not be able to walk into a dental office and get a full set of implants at the drop of the hat. They won't be able to waltz into the surgical center and receive liposuction or gastric bypass. They will have to prove need. The doctors will have to prove need.

People who want to keep their private insurance will be able to keep it. The Hillary plan simply assures those without insurance coverage will have some.

Hillary's program is a means to provide basic preventative care, basic acute care (sore throats, etc.), and emergency care to those without insurance.

Hillary's program will mirror Tommy Thompson's Wisconsin BadgerCare program in some ways. . http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/badgercare/index.htm

As a nurse, I've dealt with traditional "Medical Assistance" programs when they were just a blank check for poor people to get whatever care they wanted at the taxpayers' expense. It pissed me off. Thompson's BadgerCare was revolutionary and many states have adopted similar programs. It cut Wisconsin's public health cost burden significantly and has been so successful that it's still in place a decade after its implementation. I see no reason why Hillary's plan won't be similar it.

[Edited 2007-09-17 09:11:04]

andessmf · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:16 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 3):

Interesting information, Mark.

Question for you:

How much of a burden and financial drain do you find the current paperwork required for medical care take?

AsstChiefMark · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:32 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 4):
How much of a burden and financial drain do you find the current paperwork required for medical care take?

It's gotten much, much easier over the past ten years. Check-in for clinic or ER takes about three minutes. Insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid (BadgerCare) reports and billing is done electronically. In fact, the Federal and state governments require their claims be submitted electronically by all providers (hospitals, ambulance, clinics, etc.) within 30 days of date of service.

Medical charting by docs, nurses, and medics is done electronically and kept in-house and separate from financial data (in compliance with Federal HIPAA law). Patient information may be released only after a patient gives express permission to do so.

[Edited 2007-09-17 09:34:18]

andessmf · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:34 pm

Why do you think healthcare costs have ballooned in the last several years?

AirTranTUS · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:39 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 3):
People who want to keep their private insurance will be able to keep it.

Will they be able to choose not to have their taxes contribute (or not pay taxes to) the fund that will provide for this healthcare? Will proving need take longer than the current system?

Would companies drop their healthcare because people can get it from the government? Would private insurance prices increase and would these companies go out of business?

The first two questions are serious, the second two are my curiosity.

AsstChiefMark · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:42 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
Why do you think healthcare costs have ballooned in the last several years?

To be honest, three things:

1. Those with insurance are paying for those without insurance to get their health care needs met by visiting expensive ER's.

2. Every time a BandAid changes hands between manufacturer and patient, someone wants to make a disproportionately inflated amount of profit on it. There's the manufacturer, two or three distributors, the hospital supply folks, and the emergency department. If every "handler" simply broke even or made a fair profit, things wouldn't be as expensive.

3. Increasing medical liability insurance rates. The docs and other professionals keep seeing their malpractice and other liability insurance rates go up every year. A doctor friend told me a few months ago that his rates have gone up by 120% in five years. Another doc had to stop delivering babies because her OB rider tripled in one year.

andessmf · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:51 pm

But then the Hillary plan only directly affects #1. But as example, car insurance rates in California dropped after everyone was essentially required to have it.

#2 could be caused by many different things, and has as many solutions. What I was getting at with my prior questions was whether there may be a disproportionate amount of admin staff required to deal with reams of paperwork, which obviously adds costs to the delivery of healthcare.

In our business, construction, there is an incredible amount of paperwork required, which does not necessarily improve upon the quality of our product, but certainly adds costs. This I could say could easily top 40%. I was wondering if the same occurs in healthcare.

#3 - 'Kill all the lawyers'

AsstChiefMark · Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:59 pm

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Will they be able to choose not to have their taxes contribute (or not pay taxes to) the fund that will provide for this healthcare?

In most cases, yes. I anticipate that companies with 10 or more employees will be able to choose between private insurance and Clinton's plan.

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Will proving need take longer than the current system?

Applying for Hillary's plan would probably be done online, like Wisconsin's BadgerCare program. It's a lot like using TurboTax. Once you have all your numbers in order, punching the buttons is easy. And you'd hear back with a few hours or couple of days (under normal circumstances).

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Would companies drop their healthcare because people can get it from the government?

Small companies might choose to do that. I don't know about you, but in order to keep their insurance premiums down, my last employer kept increassing deductables and copays and lowering the number of covered services for the last five years of my employment. More and more small companies are already discontinuing their employee insurance plans now due to increasing costs of premiums. A lot of the latest uninsured folks are uninsured for that reason. In that case, small companies might actually benefit from Hillary's plan.

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Would private insurance prices increase and would these companies go out of business?

The private insurance companies will more than likely be managing Hillary's plan on a state-by-state type basis. It'll increase competition between the insurance companies and theoretically lower costs. Health insurance companies are very wealthy, so I wouldn't worry about them going under. Their stockholders' dividend checks just might not be as large as they used to be.

AsstChiefMark · Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:09 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 9):
But as example, car insurance rates in California dropped after everyone was essentially required to have it.

That's a perfect example! I never thought of that! The same will happen to health insurance, except on a national level. You can see why the insurance companies are going to balk at this plan. It reduces profits and, therefore, dividends to their shareholders.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 9):
In our business, construction, there is an incredible amount of paperwork required, which does not necessarily improve upon the quality of our product, but certainly adds costs. This I could say could easily top 40%. I was wondering if the same occurs in healthcare.

It seems to be the opposite in health care. There's still a lot of paperwork, especially for clinic doctors, but it's nowhere what it was ten years ago. In 1996, I used to spend two hours of a 12 hour shift charting and it was all paper and pen work. In 2006, it was down to 30 minutes thanks to computers, charting software, and online submission. About 5 minutes of that was spent doing pen and paper charting.

[Edited 2007-09-17 10:13:06]

fxramper · Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:38 am

Some good points made in the CNN article that weren't covered in the Yahoo link.

article

Charles79 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:15 am

Quoting FXramper (Thread starter):
She's got a great shot of winning the presidency, but what is this going to spell for her campaign?

Honestly, I don't think it's going to affect her chances at all. If you look at the other democratic candidates, they all offer some variation of the (much needed, IMO) national health care system. If she looses the primaries, it won't be because of this.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
National Healthcare doesn't work, doesn't provide the level of care private practice does, and will snub research efforts to find cures.

Would you care to elaborate on this statement? Most western countries that offer national health care rank higher than the US in most health measures of their population. Moreover, having been involved in the research arena while in college, I can personally state that research is still going strong in those countries. Besides, if national health care does not work, would you care to offer an alternative that does? It is embarrassing that we live in the world's "greatest economic power" yet 40% of us don't have any health coverage at all. Obviously the current situation is not working; at least these candidates are proposing to do something about it.

Cheers!

Charles

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:29 am

Here's a summary of her plan from her website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

Pope · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:52 am

There it is right on her website.

"Promote a shared responsibility" is nothing more than a euphemism for "from each according to his ability; to each according to need" This is exactly what Karl Marx advocated. See,

Marx's full statement reads:

Quote:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:17 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):
"Promote a shared responsibility" is nothing more than a euphemism for "from each according to his ability; to each according to need" This is exactly what Karl Marx advocated

Oh, get off it. Comparing the Shared Responsibility section to Marxism is far from the truth. What are you saying?

You favor limiting health care coverage to people based on past medical problems?

You favor people not having ANY health insurance coverage?

You favor price gouging by drug companies?

You favor market-driven drug research programs based on what people WANT versus what people NEED? Read: Developing new impotence drugs versus new orphan drugs?

Remember Bush's answer to the crisis of the uninsured when he first took office? He "encouraged" private insurance companies to address the problem. Well, they haven't done very well, have they? Bottom line: Private insurance companies aren't going to help solve the problem unless they're forced to do so. I think Clinton's come up with a pretty damned good way to keep the involved. Don't you?

stlgph · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting FXramper (Thread starter):
She's got a great shot of winning the presidency, but what is this going to spell for her campaign?

mandatory auto insurance has never hurt a politicians' career.

then again, not everybody has ever followed the rule, too, per se.

eaa3 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:33 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
National Health care doesn't work, doesn't provide the level of care private practice does, and will snub research efforts to find cures.

The simple fact is that not everyone in the United States has health coverage and that is unacceptable. Would you find it acceptable if not everyone was protected by the police, firefighters, military and other government functions. How is health care any different than for example law enforcement. Would you find it acceptable if you had to buy police protection. If firefighters would only come to your house if you had that type of insurance. These are things that everyone needs and we should consider it a human right like the police, firefighters, military and so forth.

There is no way to guarantee that everyone will have health coverage unless the government has a say in it. Something has to be done to make this the case. Clinton has the balls to do what needs to be done.

[Edited 2007-09-17 23:34:29]

stlgph · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:34 am

--from notes, facts, and the Iowa Democratic Party

HOW TOP DEMOCRATS' PLANS COMPARE
Most Democrats want to shore up the existing system, which is a mix of public and private insurance.

One notable exception is presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is calling for a more drastic change — he’d like the federal government to be the insurance provider for all. Under this concept, called a single-payer system, the government would issue all Americans an insurance card and directly insure everyone for medical, dental, mental health, long-term care and prescription drugs.

Here are summaries of the plans of the Democratic candidates who are the top four in the polls:

HILLARY CLINTON:
Unveiled: Today

The thrust: All Americans would be required to have health insurance.

Details: Americans could choose from private plans or a government plan. Those who like their current insurance plan would be able to keep it. Those who are uninsured or who don’t like their work-based coverage could choose between two public programs: a pumped-up Medicare program or the health care plan available to federal employees. They could receive tax breaks to help pay for it.

The plan would require large employers to cover their employees or else pay into a public pool. It would offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help cover their workers’ insurance. It would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Cost: $110 billion a year

How to pay for it: She would end some of the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 a year.

JOHN EDWARDS:

Unveiled: February, the first of any candidate

The thrust: Everyone in the country, adults and children, would be required to have health insurance by 2012.

Details: Americans could choose from private plans or a government plan similar to Medicare. Currently, only people 65 or older or those with certain disabilities are eligible for Medicare. The plan would provide tax credits to help lower-income Americans pay their premiums.

It would expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The plan creates regional “health care markets” through which individuals could choose from a range of approved health care plans. Small businesses could purchase insurance through the regional pools and pay prices like larger employers.

Employers would be required to cover their employees or help finance the cost of insurance for employees. It would cap profits and administration costs for insurance providers at 15 percent — thus requiring they spend at least 85 percent on patient care. It would allow for importation of prescription drugs from Canada.

Cost: $90 to $120 billion a year

How to pay for it: Raise taxes on Americans earning more than $200,000 by completely repealing the Bush income-tax cuts enacted in 2001 for the top two income brackets.

BARACK OBAMA:
Unveiled: May

The thrust: All children would be required to be insured; adults wouldn’t.

Details: The plan would establish a new public program for those who don’t have insurance through an employer, and who don’t qualify for existing government programs. It would cover medical and mental health care. It would also be available to small businesses — probably with 15 employees or fewer.

It would offer every American the choice of buying the same health care plan available to federal employees, and if they still can’t afford that, it would provide subsidies. The government would pick up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses. There would be incentives for healthy habits. The plan would expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

It would require employers to offer insurance or contribute toward the costs of the public plan, called a National Health Insurance Exchange. The typical family that already has coverage would see a reduction of up to $2,500 in premiums a year.

Cost: $50 billion to $65 billion in new revenue a year

How to pay for it: Cut costs in the health care system and increase taxes. He proposes not renewing tax breaks enacted in 2001 for families with higher incomes, mostly over $250,000. The tax cuts expire in 2010.

BILL RICHARDSON:
Unveiled: August

The thrust: Ultimately all Americans would be required to obtain coverage.

The details: Any American could purchase the same health care plan provided to members of Congress and the president. The age for Medicare eligibility would be lowered to 55. The plan would also expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover more people.

Family health insurance coverage would be extended up to age 25. Insurers would be required to spend at least 85 percent of revenue on direct health care rather than administration. Employer contributions would be required. A sliding-scale tax credit would help people afford coverage. Interest rates would be capped on medical debts on credit cards. There would be tax breaks for people and for businesses paying for their own coverage.

Cost: $110 billion a year

How to pay for it: He says it could be done without raising taxes. Improved information technology, negotiated drug prices and streamlined expenses would save enough money to pay for universal coverage.

****

By the number ... about 47 million Americans have no health insurance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

AirTranTUS · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:29 am

Bill Richardson's plan looks the best, IMO.

Am I correct in stating that none of this healthcare is totally free, but subsidized by the government and offered at a low cost to the people?

andessmf · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 10):
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 9):
But as example, car insurance rates in California dropped after everyone was essentially required to have it.

That's a perfect example! I never thought of that! The same will happen to health insurance, except on a national level. You can see why the insurance companies are going to balk at this plan. It reduces profits and, therefore, dividends to their shareholders.

I see plenty of car insurance companies advertising all the time. But, we must also remember that these changes took a long time to implement.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 10):
It seems to be the opposite in health care. There's still a lot of paperwork, especially for clinic doctors, but it's nowhere what it was ten years ago.

What about the paperwork and staff required to process insurance claims?

wingnut767 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:48 am

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7):
. Those with insurance are paying for those without insurance to get their health care needs met by visiting expensive ER's.

Like all of the illegal aliens. Will they be required to get healthcare?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7):
3. Increasing medical liability insurance rates. The docs and other professionals keep seeing their malpractice and other liability insurance rates go up every year.

Who is going to stop the lawyers. All of our politicians are one. So we will never see reform there.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 18):
By the number ... about 47 million Americans have no health insurance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

That number is including Illegals and people who voluntarily do not get it. Mainly young peole.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:57 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20):
What about the paperwork and staff required to process insurance claims?

There are still some paper forms that docs still need to sign and mail, but most claims are done online. Most insurance companies have secure sites that claim processors can log into to enter required info. Ten years ago, it was all paper, envelopes, and the US Postal Service.

The people who used to shuffle all the paperwork are now computer jockeys.

The entire health care industry realized they were getting buried in paper. Everyone "sort of" made a concerted effort to switch to a paperless system around the smile time. And it seems to have worked.

andessmf · Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:06 am

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 22):
The people who used to shuffle all the paperwork are now computer jockeys.

So in a way the 'paperwork' still exists?

I mean, I would loooooooooove to hear just one person say one day:

'But if you do that, we'll have to cut several bureaucrats!'

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:19 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23):
So in a way the 'paperwork' still exists?

There's always going to be SOME paperwork. What I'm saying is the 10-inch stack of 1994 paperwork is now a 2-inch stack. The other 8-inches is inside computers.

andessmf · Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:35 am

But some decrease in the amount of paperwork required should help to reduce some costs.

JetJock22 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:50 am

First of all, does anyone really think it is gonna cost $110 billion dollars? It, like everything else the government will cost at least 5 times what she says. Secondly, why should the govt tell me I have to have healthcare? If I don't wanna go to the doctor, I shouldn't have to just because the govt tells me to.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting JetJock22 (Reply 27):
Secondly, why should the govt tell me I have to have healthcare? If I don't wanna go to the doctor, I shouldn't have to just because the govt tells me to.

Have to been immunized against polio, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, and hepatitis B? The government tells us we have to have those in order to go to school, get certain jobs, and, in some states, get married.

You don't have to go to the doctor to be required to have health insurance.

MaidensGator · Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:59 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 5):
Why do you think healthcare costs have ballooned in the last several years?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 9):
Health insurance companies are very wealthy,

See a connection here??

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7):
3. Increasing medical liability insurance rates.

The malpractice situation also leads to "defensive medicine" where the physician orders more diagnostics than are really necessary in a CYA move. An example is ordering an MRI for a broken ankle when an x-ray is all that's really needed. Better to take the precaution in case you're sued later....

Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 17):
Would you find it acceptable if you had to buy police protection. If firefighters would only come to your house if you had that type of insurance.

Spoken like somebody that doesn't pay property taxes...

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 21):
Who is going to stop the lawyers. All of our politicians are one. So we will never see reform there.

Who do you think defends the doctors when they get sued??? Believe it or not, there are some really incompetent physicians out there... I don't do malpractice, but I have seen some scary stuff that doctors have done...

I wouldn't even pretend to have an answer to how to fix the broken health care delivery system in this country. But one start will be equitable billing practices. Imagine if you backed your car into a tree denting the fender. You go to the auto body shop for an estimate and they ask if you have insurance. You say yes, the estimate is $400; you say no, the estimate is $2,100. That's what happens all the time in hospitals. The large insurers negotiate rates that are as little as 20% of the self-pay rates. They base what they'll pay on the Medicare DRG's. You go in with no insurance and you get the royal screwing.... Fix the unfair billing practices and a big part of the problem goes away. Why should my insurance company pay $1,400 when I need an appendectomy, but a person with no insurance is paying ten grand or more...

FriendlySkies · Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:29 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
National Healthcare doesn't work, doesn't provide the level of care private practice does, and will snub research efforts to find cures.

Seems to work pretty well in Europe...I took an ethics class this summer, and while we didn't go into medicine too much, my professor showed us an interesting figure. We pay about five times the amount for health care in the US than the Czech Republic, and receive about the same level of health care. Most Europeans pay less than half what we do on average, and receive better care. I think it's pretty obvious who's system isn't working.

[Edited 2007-09-18 04:29:50]

flanker · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:08 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 30):
Seems to work pretty well in Europe...I took an ethics class this summer, and while we didn't go into medicine too much, my professor showed us an interesting figure. We pay about five times the amount for health care in the US than the Czech Republic, and receive about the same level of health care. Most Europeans pay less than half what we do on average, and receive better care. I think it's pretty obvious who's system isn't working.

Just wait and see how wrong and sorry all americans are going to be if this comes true. Subsequently myself as well.

People all over the world come to the united states for treatment. Why? Because it has the best system in the world. it might not be perfect, but it offers a level that no one else can touch. Most importantly you have a choice of what to do, where to go, who to see , when to see them and so on.

Socializing medicine does not work. Anyone who says it works has never experienced it. OH and if you think its not going to cost anything, well you have another thing coming.

When you remove the free flowing clash of ideas and competitiveness in any aspect of society it simply cant progress and seizes to deliver results which is what everyone wants. whether its technological or scientific .etc.

Even though this system will affect everyone, the upper class and the super rich will have private doctors and get all the amazing treatment that one can wish for. It will be expensive but it will be good, while everyone else rots.

Its a shame that i escaped socialism from one country only to see it being born again in another.

And Hillary did not come up with this system. It was her husband that came up with it. In 94' she was in charge of promoting it.

And in the meantime I'm thankful that most Americans have the sense to realize the wrongs in a system like this. Im confident this wont be an issue, again.

[Edited 2007-09-18 05:09:38]

[Edited 2007-09-18 05:09:58]

PPVRA · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:16 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 30):

Plenty of people in the USA who complain about the system and how it is rigged up with regulations that distort prices, health care, lawyer bills, etc. The U.S.'s system is a system, it is not a free-market. Deregulation will do wonders to it, including costs.

Pope · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:22 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 15):
Comparing the Shared Responsibility section to Marxism is far from the truth. What are you saying?

I'm not saying anything. I'm just citing what HRC herself wrote. I read the entire 10 page plan off her website. She goes on to write that she wants to limit what insurance company can earn (her words not mine).

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 15):
You favor limiting health care coverage to people based on past medical problems?

You favor people not having ANY health insurance coverage?

You favor price gouging by drug companies?

I don't believe that a private company should be made to insure someone when they're guaranteed to lose money in doing so. The market sets the price of products. Why should Boeing be able to sell a plane for what it's worth but Pfizer be limited in what it can earn as a return on its investment.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 15):
You favor market-driven drug research programs based on what people WANT versus what people NEED? Read: Developing new impotence drugs versus new orphan drugs?

Again. If the government believe that research in these areas are necessary, then it should conduct it. But when government starts telling private industry what it must conduct research in, I guarantee you that an inefficient allocation of resources will occur.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 15):
Bottom line: Private insurance companies aren't going to help solve the problem unless they're forced to do so.

But why should they have to be part of the solution. Nobody forces me to use United Health Care. I choose them because the provide what I perceive to be value for my money. When's the last time Boeing had to donate aircraft to the government. Or Ford gave cars away? Why is it that the only industry where earning a profit is considered evil is private insurance.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:24 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 31):
Socializing medicine does not work.

Have you bothered to read the link I posted earlier? It's not socialized medicine. The private insurance companies will still issue the insurance. They will just be supervised by the government.

Quoting Flanker (Reply 31):
the upper class and the super rich will have private doctors

The doctors will not change. They will still work for the same clinics, hospitals, etc. that they do now. Their paychecks will still come from their employers. I'm not going to restate what I posted earlier except to say that people can still see their own doctors. If someone wants to pay more out of their pocket to visit a doctor or dentist that uses gold-plated instruments, then so be it. It's no loss for the general public.

Quoting Flanker (Reply 31):
And Hillary did not come up with this system. It was her husband that came up with it. In 94' she was in charge of promoting it.

It's not the same plan. I'm not sure where you're coming up with your delusions, but I studied her 1994 plan and her 2007 plan. It's apples and oranges.

Quoting Flanker (Reply 31):
When you remove the free flowing clash of ideas and competitiveness in any aspect of society it simply cant progress and seizes to deliver results which is what everyone wants. whether its technological or scientific .etc.

So you mean the research done in Britain, Japan, Germany, and other countries is shit?

Good lord, man. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

L-188 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:31 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 32):
Deregulation will do wonders to it, including costs.

Exactly.....it is currently an expensive system because it is a complex system. A lot of doctors have gotten out of the insurance buisness entirely and are going to a cash only practice, and their patients benifit from the lower costs.

flanker · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:45 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 34):
So you mean the research done in Britain, Japan, Germany, and other countries is shit?

Good lord, man. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I never said it was shit. What i am saying is that they are nowhere near where they can be. I don't understand how you cant see that.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:45 pm

Quoting Pope (Reply 33):
she wants to limit what insurance company can earn (her words not mine).

I haven't examined that part of the plan in much detail, so I can't answer that with confidence, yet.

Quoting Pope (Reply 33):
I don't believe that a private company should be made to insure someone when they're guaranteed to lose money in doing so. The market sets the price of products.

First, I guarantee you, the insurance companies won't lose money. It will increase competion between the insurance companies. But, instead of insuring a few people with high profit, they'll insure several people with lower profit. It's a wash. Secondly, there's a difference between manufacturing a tangible product and caring for people.

Quoting Pope (Reply 33):
Why should Boeing be able to sell a plane for what it's worth but Pfizer be limited in what it can earn as a return on its investment.

Because money isn't the most important thing in the world when it comes to helping people stay healthy. The Viagra folks should be able to make a fair profit, but not gouge.

When people place profit over human lives, they're just greedy thugs. When the insurance and drug companies price there products out of reach of those who NEED it to live, then it's the government's responsibility to step in and regulate them. I'm not in favor of regulation, but like I said earlier, they ignored the president's "encouragement" to fix the problem. In fact, they blew him off.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:54 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 36):
What i am saying is that they are nowhere near where they can be. I don't understand how you cant see that.

I know what you're getting at, but you're wrong. The thing that drives drug and disease research in the USA is the almighty dollar. In other countries, reseach is often done to help people.

flanker · Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:00 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 38):
I know what you're getting at, but you're wrong. The thing that drives drug and disease research in the USA is the almighty dollar. In other countries, reseach is often done to help people.

If you think government cares about YOUR health you're more delusional than i thought.

And on second thought, whats wrong with monetary gain from research that in the end actually HELPS people?

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:13 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 39):
If you think government cares about YOUR health you're more delusional than i thought.

A 27 year career in health care hasn't made me delusional. It's allowed me to see things as they are and to see what's wrong. If government doesn't care about health care, why are they proposing to oversee and manage it?

Quoting Flanker (Reply 39):
And on second thought, whats wrong with monetary gain from research that in the end actually HELPS people?

Sure, it'll help, but that's just a secondary importance. Profit is what's most important, unfortunately.

flanker · Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 40):

A 27 year career in health care hasn't made me delusional.

Right, well in that case go vote for that idiot and see where it takes you.

It's unfortunate that you take this wonderful country and what it offers for granted.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 40):
If government doesn't care about health care, why are they proposing to oversee and manage it?

Without getting into detail, liberals or should I say socialists want control of your constitutional freedoms. One by one.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:52 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 41):
Without getting into detail, liberals or should I say socialists want control of your constitutional freedoms. One by one.

Give it up. I used to be a Reagan Republican. Somewhere along the line I realized the free enterprise system cared more about money than people. Now I'm one step above what's considered a bleeding heart liberal.

I believe what I believe based on my life experiences and education. This country has developed a great cancer that no one wants to acknowledge. And that's a society in which people care about themselves and no one else. People in successful civilizations look out for each other.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:57 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 41):
Right, well in that case go vote for that idiot and see where it takes you.

Well, since I'm a nurse, it'll probably get me back into the profession as a case manager for the local division of the new national insurance program. I'm too old to go back to direct patient care. Time for that desk job.

flanker · Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:08 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 42):
I believe what I believe based on my life experiences and education.

Great me too. Except the fact that you have never experienced government controlled health care first hand. Most you have ever come across is probably transportation.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 42):
People in successful civilizations look out for each other.

In a sense that is true. My countries coat of arms states " strength through unity".

Sadly that does not apply in the greater sense of the issue. The government has no business controlling private matters.

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:16 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 44):
Most you have ever come across is probably transportation.

Transportation? Oh. you mean ambulance? That was a volunteer/part-time job. My "real job" has been emergency room nurse, school nurse, nursing home nurse supervisor, surgical nurse, and critical care nurse. Does that clear things up?

Quoting Flanker (Reply 44):
The government has no business controlling private matters.

Hillary's plan is based on the utilization of private insurance companies. It mandates private companies to provide insurance to those currently without it. Most people will pay for their own policies and a few disabled or handicapped people will have it paid for by existing government programs. It's not like anything's going to change for people who are happy with their current policies. It's not like the doctors and nurses will work for the U.S. government. It's not like the hospitals, clinics, and ambulance services will be taken over by the government. What part of that is so hard to understand?

[Edited 2007-09-18 07:27:13]

flanker · Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:34 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 45):
It mandates private companies to provide insurance to those currently without it

It mandates huh? Once again, government has no business controlling or telling any PRIVATE entity what to do. Thank you socialism. What part of this is so hard to understand? hm?

[Edited 2007-09-18 07:35:52]

AsstChiefMark · Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:49 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 46):
Once again, government has no business controlling or telling any PRIVATE entity what to do.

The US Code and state statutes and administrative rules have been telling people and entities what to do for over 200 years.

Quoting Flanker (Reply 46):
What part of this is so hard to understand? hm?

I understand what socialism is. Socialized medicine is a single-tier system. Hillary's plan is a modified two-tier system. There are private insurance companies insuring most people and government-paid insurance for the handicapped, elderly, and disabled.

fxramper · Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:17 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 46):

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 47):

Please limit responses in this thread to Hillary's campaign and the topic at hand: her health care platform. I'm not interested in reading a back in forth rant.

Thanks guys. yes

flanker · Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:21 pm

Quoting FXramper (Reply 48):
Please limit responses in this thread to Hillary's campaign and the topic at hand: her health care platform. I'm not interested in reading a back in forth rant.

Thanks guys. yes

Seems like we are the only members on. Haha. I'm going to bed as well.

bigthumbsup

CupraIbiza · Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:40 pm

Quoting Flanker (Reply 46):
Once again, government has no business controlling or telling any PRIVATE entity what to do

You make no sense. What are you advocating., The destruction of all government? If you say they shouldn't control or tell any private entity to do, then what would you like them to do?

Australia has had a universal healthcare system since 1975. We now see it as a cornerstone of our society. Sure it isnt perfect, there are some issues around the margins. But all in all it means if I am sick I can walk into any hospital and receive the best care possible, without anyone going through my wallet looking for my insurance card.

A nation cannot be great if it doesnt adequatley look after those who cannot look after themselves. Universal health care is the bedrock of greatness.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net