Clinton announces her universal healthcare plan

[armybound]

U.S. citizens are even less safe now. Thanks to more interventionist policy.

Link to national intelligence estimate:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/terrorism/keyjudgments_092606.pdf



There will be no positive outcome in Iraq. The president has ignored every single expert's opinion on how to rebuild Iraq.

Again, not the point of the thread..

And I disagree with you fully. If you want to discuss it further, I welcome PMs..

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kaydubz]

To Kaydubz:

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the American process of voting. Really, it's great. Hell, I'm sure the other politics majors on the forum get giddy seeing you post about your uber crush on a certain Texan and the coming end of prosperity because of extreme debt.

But it must stop. We get it. You love Ron Paul. You want to be his apprentice. You want to have his babies. It's OK, all your reasons seem legitimate. But I may think it to be healthier if you express your love through a signature or SDN status rather than say why Ron Paul would be best suited to dealing with America's problems every time the post mentions something relevant.

"America's got debt. Ron Paul can solve it. Down on affirmative action? Ron Paul's an excellent mediator. Got cancer? Ron Paul can cure it."

Cancer? Really? That's cool. I'm still voting for Obama.

No, I want him to deliver my babies

And what do you think campaigning is. Ron Paul's biggest issue is name recognition and media attention, things that Obama has been whoring for the last however months. I realize I can just put it all in a sig but I haven't gotten around to it If it comes down to it and RP doesn't win the GOP nomination, I'll probably even vote for Obama, since I hate all the other Republican candidates.

On a lighter note, Ron Paul has probably seen more you know what than any other politician alive.

 

[F12]

Lol. HillaryCare, Version 2.0.

The worst part is that I'll be paying for everyone else's insurance in addition to my own private plan.

 

[mindquick]

On a lighter note, Ron Paul has probably seen more you know what than any other politician alive.

what!?

 

[Gut Shot]

Lol. HillaryCare, Version 2.0.

The worst part is that I'll be paying for everyone else's insurance in addition to my own private plan.

Newsflash: you're already doing that, and it's the most expensive, least effective care there is.

 

[Wildstang]

If you guys care this much about your money - you are going to be truly FANTASTIC doctors. I could just see it - "what? you are on welfare? You dont have a right to treatment - get out of my clinic..." Seriously - at least the democrats are coming up with solutions to alleviate the poor and disenfranchised citizens of this country as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars killing innocent Iraqis. If you weren't such staunch republicans - you'd actually look up the numbers of civillian deaths (much greater than reported in US Media) - and then blabber on about how much helping the poor sucks.

 

[armybound]

If you guys care this much about your money - you are going to be truly FANTASTIC doctors. I could just see it - "what? you are on welfare? You dont have a right to treatment - get out of my clinic..." Seriously - at least the democrats are coming up with solutions to alleviate the poor and disenfranchised citizens of this country as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars killing innocent Iraqis. If you weren't such staunch republicans - you'd actually look up the numbers of civillian deaths (much greater than reported in US Media) - and then blabber on about how much helping the poor sucks.

I will have to say I'm impressed, I haven't seen anyone go off on such a good tangent while not contributing a single thing to the discussion since... yesterday.

 

[Wildstang]

I will have to say I'm impressed, I haven't seen anyone go off on such a good tangent while not contributing a single thing to the discussion since... yesterday.

I mean isn't that what this thread is about? Pre-meds looking way into the future concerned about their salary and taxation? Connect the dots?

 

[armybound]

I mean isn't that what this thread is about? Pre-meds looking way into the future concerned about their salary and taxation? Connect the dots?

did you actually read any of it?

 

[Wildstang]

did you actually read any of it?

mm..yes. Do you actually understand any of it?
let me sum up your first post: rich will be taxed to cover medical costs

 

[Wildstang]

I just don't like redistribution of wealth. The rich get taxed but the poor get tax credits. Sounds like communism to me

theres some more of that charm! loving it.

 

[armybound]

mm..yes. Do you actually understand any of it?
let me sum up your first post: rich will be taxed to cover medical costs

My first post was a summary of her plan.. was that not what her plan said?

A you continue to read, you'll see that most of the discussion is focused on if there will be any kind of real difference made, personal feelings on government intervention v personal responsibility, policies changes that would make a bigger change, etc.

very little is actually "OMG wheres my money!!?!?!"

 

[Wildstang]

My first post was a summary of her plan.. was that not what her plan said?

A you continue to read, you'll see that most of the discussion is focused on if there will be any kind of real difference made, personal feelings on government intervention v personal responsibility, policies changes that would make a bigger change, etc.

very little is actually "OMG wheres my money!!?!?!"

In a way, yes, you are correct. But - she is simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
"To pay for her plan, Clinton said the tax cuts for Americans making $250,000 or more that were enacted under President Bush would be allowed to expire."

She is also making corporations such as WalMart more accountable - corporations who do not pay for healthcare for their employees and shift that cost onto society.

After the initial posts you wouldn't say that it sounds like the future of medicine complaining about making less money? Come on.

 

[armybound]

In a way, yes, you are correct. But - she is simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
"To pay for her plan, Clinton said the tax cuts for Americans making $250,000 or more that were enacted under President Bush would be allowed to expire."

She is also making corporations such as WalMart more accountable - coporations who do not pay for healthcare for their employees and shift that cost onto society.

After the initial posts you wouldn't say that it sounds like the future of medicine complaining about making less money? Come on.

There's always a little of that any time you talk about socialized medicine around here, but for the most part I think it's been a good debate about what's "broken" and what the best way to fix it is, along with some political debate about what people should be responsible for.

You might take it as a bunch of pre-meds complaining about money, I saw it as a lot of pre-meds concerned about a system being implemented that isn't going to fix anything (or those who think it will), being more concerned about something worthwhile being enacted.

 

[Jolie South]

There's always a little of that any time you talk about socialized medicine around here, but for the most part I think it's been a good debate about what's "broken" and what the best way to fix it is, along with some political debate about what people should be responsible for.

You might take it as a bunch of pre-meds complaining about money, I saw it as a lot of pre-meds concerned about a system being implemented that isn't going to fix anything (or those who think it will), being more concerned about something worthwhile being enacted.

I think he/she makes a good point about large employers that don't offer coverage or if they do it's insignificant. I mean my employer for example has $500/year prescription drug coverage and a $2000 benefit for office visits. And did I mention that I would pay $300 a month for that junk?

 

[Wildstang]

Honestly? A good debate has some give and take - this 'debate' consists of idealogues trying to convince other idealogues why they are right - and clearly (to me) not that much of it has offered new solutions to solve the HC problem (other than take responsibility for yourself aka people on welfare shouldn't have any more help than they already do)

 

[armybound]

Honestly? A good debate has some give and take - this 'debate' consists of idealogues trying to convince other idealogues why they are right - and clearly (to me) not that much of it has offered new solutions to solve the HC problem (other than take responsibility for yourself aka people on welfare shouldn't have any more help than they already do)

you read the part where we discuss insurance reform? I think it's a viable solution, personally.

I think he/she makes a good point about large employers that don't offer coverage or if they do it's insignificant. I mean my employer for example has $500/year prescription drug coverage and a $2000 benefit for office visits. And did I mention that I would pay $300 a month for that junk?

I agree with you that it is significant. I couldn't remember reading about that in the article, though. I only remember a part saying small businesses would get tax help for it or something like that.

Your situation is what I think is the bigger problem right now. You're paying $3,600/yr for $2,500/yr in coverage. I bet you still have copays or something too, huh? That makes no sense. Money is just getting thrown away to insurance companies while people are underinsured. That's what needs to be fixed, IMO.

 

[jochi1543]

I don't like this argument for the simple fact that not that many of these people exist. Many many Americans that don't have health insurance DO work, so incorporating them into a pool of despair and gluttony isn't a fair assessment of the situation.

True, and you also need to remember that smth like 25% of banktrupcies are due to healthcare expenses, so healthcare is a source of poverty for many people in itself.

This is largely the same for other public programs. The hidden myth behind welfare is that those on welfare are on it for a few months and the number that repeatedly jump on-board is not this huge number that a lot of people want to make it to be. Are there going to be people that abuse the system? Definitely, but that's the same with any system man has created since the beginning of time..

I've always wondered how one can really abuse welfare. Here in Canada you can get your unemployment insurance if you've been unemployed for something like 2+ weeks, but it requires you to stay in touch with the unemployment office weekly and submit a list of something like 20 employers you had contacted and submitted your resume to in the last week, and then they call and confirm, so they know you've been looking for a job. It's also like a 3-hour application that actually asks you to break down your daily schedule hour-by-hour for a week and explain why you can't use all of those hours for work (I know it because I've applied for that myself once). It's so much work, it's easier to simply get a job if you can - and you'll make more money, too.

However, with AISH and stuff (for handicapped people), they pay too much, IMO. My alcoholic neighbor, who passed away last year, was getting $1000 a month and also 50% discount on rent ($300). In the meantime, I worked full-time at Walmart for $1200. Who had it worse?

 

[jochi1543]

She is also making corporations such as WalMart more accountable - corporations who do not pay for healthcare for their employees and shift that cost onto society.

I don't know about the US, but having worked at a Canadian Walmart, I can tell you that they DO provide you with pretty good benefits. In fact, due to their benefits, they are on the list of 50 best companies to work for in Canada. Yeah, you don't get them till you've been there for a few months, but that's the way it works everywhere.

 

[armybound]

True, and you also need to remember that smth like 25% of banktrupcies are due to healthcare expenses, so healthcare is a source of poverty for many people in itself.

that statistic is misleading.

they find that ~50% of people who file for bankruptcy have some kind of medical debt, or were put into debt for some medical reason. medical reasons include addiction, even to gambling. so a person might be $200,000 in debt and file for bankruptcy, but if they owe a $20 co-pay to a doctor, that would be included in the statistic.

 

[Tropicana100]

I read a little more about the Clinton plan in little detail and it seems very reasonable. It is NOT a dramatic change as you might think. The plan gets funded through the following:

1) required purchasing of insurance even for healthy people
2) elimination of tax cuts for rich with >$250,000 salaries
3) anticipated health care cost savings

I think the advantages are:
-Really helps people who normally can't afford insurance. Some might argue that Clinton's would place a burden on those who can't afford this mandatory insurance. However, the government will provide subsidies for those who can't afford it.
-This plan won't affect people who are already happy with their plans. They simply go on doing what the used to do.
-There are no additional taxes with this plan, and no new bureaucracies.
-More money available to cover the cost of care. Realize that a lot of rich people don't have health insurance because they simply play out of pocket whenever they need to. This plan makes rich people contribute to the "pot" and help to cover people who are in real need of health care.


Potential problems?
-I don't see how this will cover illegal immigrants.
-Plan does not address total health care cost and spending. The problem with American health care is the profit motive: insurance companies and pharmaceutical industries generate lots of profit that could potential go toward health coverage.

So I think the Clinton plan is going in the right direction. It won't solve all our problems, but at least it won't create new ones (at least not any that outweigh the benefits.) Thoughts?

 

[jochi1543]

Potential problems?
-I don't see how this will cover illegal immigrants.

LOL, as someone who's a legal immigrant and went through a very long (3 years) and expensive (don't make me count) process of immigration, last thing I wanna hear is about how I have to pay for someone who didn't just so that they could have the same benefits as me. That's part of the deal, you can't just swim across the river and suddenly get all the same benefits that born and naturalized citizens get. It's not that easy.

 

[Jolie South]

LOL, as someone who's a legal immigrant and went through a very long (3 years) and expensive (don't make me count) process of immigration, last thing I wanna hear is about how I have to pay for someone who didn't just so that they could have the same benefits as me. That's part of the deal, you can't just swim across the river and suddenly get all the same benefits that born and naturalized citizens get. It's not that easy.

Agreed, but they will still be using our ERs and healthcare services. Whether we like it or not, they most likely will not pay. So, either directly or indirectly we'll always be paying for them unless we decide to refuse care which is a whole different issue in and of itself.

 

[jochi1543]

Agreed, but they will still be using our ERs and healthcare services. Whether we like it or not, they most likely will not pay. So, either directly or indirectly we're all paying for them already.

How exactly do they use "healthcare services"? I had health insurance from an obscure company (still health insurance!) and nobody would accept it - I'd almost always be asked to pay cash or be turned away. I think only once in my 5 years in the US was I able to see a doctor without paying cash upfront, despite having insurance.

 

[Jolie South]

How exactly do they use "healthcare services"? I had health insurance from an obscure company (still health insurance!) and nobody would accept it - I'd almost always be asked to pay cash or be turned away. I think only once in my 5 years in the US was I able to see a doctor without paying cash upfront, despite having insurance.

i guess i mainly meant ERs and ambulance calls, but i don't think restriction to these services means that the cost is insignificant.

 

[jochi1543]

i guess i mainly meant ERs and ambulance calls.

But if they are already getting their ER visits paid for by the hospitals they come to, why in the world do they need coverage, anyway?

Also, I thought ERs are only obliged to stabilize a patient in those cases, not "cure" them, correct me if I'm wrong (i.e., you won't be getting heart transplants and what not that way).

 

[Jolie South]

But if they are already getting their ER visits paid for by the hospitals they come to, why in the world do they need coverage, anyway?

Also, I thought ERs are only obliged to stabilize a patient in those cases, not "cure" them, correct me if I'm wrong (i.e., you won't be getting heart transplants and what not that way).

i guess what i was getting at was that someone would have to absorb their costs. i'm not sure about this but hospitals don't get any magical government funding to cover these cases though do they? this increases the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. it obviously doesn't matter to the illegals.

so they would refuse to give trauma surgery to someone with extensive injuries?

or an emergency surgery to someone with a burst appendix?

i don't think that they could ethically do that. there is no stabilization for these cases. it's either let them die or operate.

 

[Gut Shot]

that statistic is misleading.

they find that ~50% of people who file for bankruptcy have some kind of medical debt, or were put into debt for some medical reason. medical reasons include addiction, even to gambling. so a person might be $200,000 in debt and file for bankruptcy, but if they owe a $20 co-pay to a doctor, that would be included in the statistic.

The statistic might be misleading, but your above statement is patently false. The authors of the study separated "major medical bankruptcy" from "any medical bankruptcy" (with the latter containing the drunks, druggies and gamblers).

The bottom line is that no matter how you slice it, medical debt is a very significant precipitating cause of bankruptcy.

Don't believe me? You can read the whole paper here.

ABSTRACT:

In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

 

[M.Furfur]

mm..yes. Do you actually understand any of it?
let me sum up your first post: rich will be taxed to cover medical costs

I don't mean to start another hot debate, but I rather see rich getting taxed to cover medical costs than everyone being taxed to cover for useless wars all over the world. The American uninsured population is more worthy of the billions of dollars wasted to "rebuild" Iraq!

 

[jochi1543]

I don't mean to start another hot debate, but I rather see rich getting taxed to cover medical costs than everyone being taxed to cover for useless wars all over the world. The American uninsured population is more worthy of the billions of dollars wasted to "rebuild" Iraq!

Uh oh....he went THERE.

 

[jochi1543]

i guess what i was getting at was that someone would have to absorb their costs. i'm not sure about this but hospitals don't get any magical government funding to cover these cases though do they? this increases the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. it obviously doesn't matter to the illegals.

That's true, it's basically just shifting costs from one entity but not the other, neither of which is the entity getting the benefits of the services. But then who cares if it's the government or the hospitals absorbing these costs? Hospitals absorb them via charging us higher medical fees, and the government would absorb them via charging us higher taxes (and many illegal immigrants, although not all, don't pay taxes). Either way, its the law-abiding residents of the US who are footing the bill. And to address the last sentence, to illegals not paying for the ER visits matters even less than for citizens/residents, IMO, since citizens and residents have to worry about credit history and such as it is such a big part of day-to-day life in America. For example, I got some debt in the US due to circumstances beyond my control (homeless), and then I just took off for Canada and now I don't have to pay it unless I move back to the US for a long period of time, but someone who's permanent home is in the country can't do what I did. Similarly, someone who doesn't have to worry about the financial consequences can get away with abusing the services in the ER.

 

[Jolie South]

That's true, it's basically just shifting costs from one entity but not the other, neither of which is the entity getting the benefits of the services. But then who cares if it's the government or the hospitals absorbing these costs? Hospitals absorb them via charging us higher medical fees, and the government would absorb them via charging us higher taxes (and many illegal immigrants, although not all, don't pay taxes). Either way, its the law-abiding residents of the US who are footing the bill. And to address the last sentence, to illegals not paying for the ER visits matters even less than for citizens/residents, IMO, since citizens and residents have to worry about credit history and such as it is such a big part of day-to-day life in America. For example, I got some debt in the US due to circumstances beyond my control (homeless), and then I just took off for Canada and now I don't have to pay it unless I move back to the US for a long period of time, but someone who's permanent home is in the country can't do what I did. Similarly, someone who doesn't have to worry about the financial consequences can get away with abusing the services in the ER.

I get it. As long as the people abusing the services don't contribute anything, we're going to pay for it in terms of taxes or higher premiums.

Where I was going is that something needs to be done about the illegal immigrants already in the country because as long as they're here without status they are a burden to our system. The solution to that problem remains to be seen. Massive deportation? Amnesty? Some sort of legal status? I have no idea. Until that is solved there really is little we can do to reduce the costs.

 

[jochi1543]

I don't mean to start another hot debate, but I rather see rich getting taxed to cover medical costs than everyone being taxed to cover for useless wars all over the world. The American uninsured population is more worthy of the billions of dollars wasted to "rebuild" Iraq!

On the other hand, I'd rather Americans spend $ on Iraq and Iran in my lifetime to keep busy, otherwise they'll realize Alberta has oil, too, and start a war on Canada. Yeah, it's a joke here, but I wouldn't be THAT surprised if the US happened to declare war or otherwise encroach on Canada if its foreign policy continues to go in the direction it has recently.

 

[M.Furfur]

I get it. As long as the people abusing the services don't contribute anything, we're going to pay for it in terms of taxes or higher premiums.

Where I was going is that something needs to be done about the illegal immigrants already in the country because as long as they're here without status they are a burden to our system. The solution to that problem remains to be seen. Massive deportation? Amnesty? Some sort of legal status? I have no idea. Until that is solved there really is little we can do to reduce the costs.

If those illegal immigrants didn't have jobs waiting for them they wouldn't come in the first place. Those people come for the same reason the ancestor of everyone living in the states came for. All they want is a better life for them and their children. Granting them some sort of legal status will allow the goverment to generate some tax money from them.

 

[TheRealMD]

On the other hand, I'd rather Americans spend $ on Iraq and Iran in my lifetime to keep busy, otherwise they'll realize Alberta has oil, too, and start a war on Canada. Yeah, it's a joke here, but I wouldn't be THAT surprised if the US happened to declare war or otherwise encroach on Canada if its foreign policy continues to go in the direction it has recently.

We still have Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to get to first. Canada is pretty low on the list.

 

[jochi1543]

Granting them some sort of legal status will allow the goverment to generate some tax money from them.

Ok, here's a question. I was in the US for 5 years, during that time, I paid about $120K in tuition and god knows how much in living expenses, all for the wonderful US economy. I abided by American laws, dealt with stupid visas, crap at the border, etc. I have no legal status in the US. How come someone who came here in the back of a grain truck and mops floors somewhere under the table can push for a reform to give him or her legal status in the US, but not me? That's the main problem I (and anyone else who has dealt with the LEGAL side of things) has with the whole amnesty deal. Why should people who don't do things legally come ahead of those who take the legal path? If anyone can come here as an illegal immigrant and not bother with anything, why would people who already live here and abide by immigration laws have to go through all this BS to be able to marry someone and live with them here, or get work permits, or whatever else benefits are apparently supposed to be given to illegals? But any time anyone asks a legitimate question like this, it (like everything in America) is turned into a race issue.

 

[Jolie South]

We still have Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to get to first. Canada is pretty low on the list.

and Alaska. .. if we haven't already started destroying the untouched wilderness.

 

[jochi1543]

We still have Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to get to first. Canada is pretty low on the list.

Yeah, that's why I'm saying that I hope you guys stay busy. Keep up the good work!

 

[jochi1543]

and Alaska. .. if we haven't already started destroying the untouched wilderness.

I dunno, it'd be kinda hard to spin the whole "war on terror" thing for one of your own states.

 

[Jolie South]

I dunno, it'd be kinda hard to spin the whole "war on terror" thing for one of your own states.

haha, yea i just got caught up in the oil.

 

[MassTransport]

There's around 47 million or so uninsured people in the States, only a fraction of them are illegal immigrants. Those with insurance might not even have adequate converage. I think the first step is to let people engage the health care system, and that can only be accomplished with increasing access to insurance. Then comes education. You have to teach people that the ED is not a primary care center, that regular preventative medicine saves much more money, that health is a personal and not a state responsibility.

But that's just shifting the cost of medicine from the consumer to the government, or in Clinton's case, from poorer consumers to richer consumers. I think that meaningful progress can only be made by limiting the amount of money flowing into the system and forcing it to streamline and become more efficient. If you let companies -- be it insurance, pharmaceutical, even universities -- run free they'll take all they can get. Private hospitals are pumping money into facilities and recruiting name-brand doctors while county hospitals are strapped for cash and coming apart at the seams. I'm of the opinion that the government needs to rein that in and balance it out.

 

[M.Furfur]

Ok, here's a question. I was in the US for 5 years, during that time, I paid about $120K in tuition and god knows how much in living expenses, all for the wonderful US economy. I abided by American laws, dealt with stupid visas, crap at the border, etc. I have no legal status in the US. How come someone who came here in the back of a grain truck and mops floors somewhere under the table can push for a reform to give him or her legal status in the US, but not me? That's the main problem I (and anyone else who has dealt with the LEGAL side of things) has with the whole amnesty deal. Why should people who don't do things legally come ahead of those who take the legal path? If anyone can come here as an illegal immigrant and not bother with anything, why would people who already live here and abide by immigration laws have to go through all this BS to be able to marry someone and live with them here, or get work permits, or whatever else benefits are apparently supposed to be given to illegals? But any time anyone asks a legitimate question like this, it (like everything in America) is turned into a race issue.

I am not asking that they get naturalized. The jobs held by those immigrants are mostly in agriculture and those jobs are very necessary for the american economy since it is very hard to find anyone with legal status who is willing to perform any of those duties. So Maybe those people can come to the states for the season they are needed in, make some money that can both contribute to the american system and to the life in Mexico. Alberta started this model and so far it is very successful.

 

[Jolie South]

There's around 47 million or so uninsured people in the States, only a fraction of them are illegal immigrants. Those with insurance might not even have adequate converage. I think the first step is to let people engage the health care system, and that can only be accomplished with increasing access to insurance. Then comes education. You have to teach people that the ED is not a primary care center, that regular preventative medicine saves much more money, that health is a personal and not a state responsibility.

But that's just shifting the cost of medicine from the consumer to the government, or in Clinton's case, from poorer consumers to richer consumers. I think that meaningful progress can only be made by limiting the amount of money flowing into the system and forcing it to streamline and become more efficient. If you let companies -- be it insurance, pharmaceutical, even universities -- run free they'll take all they can get. Private hospitals are pumping money into facilities and recruiting name-brand doctors while county hospitals are strapped for cash. I'm of the opinion that the government needs to rein that in and balance it out.

Did you see my many posts above about education? Glad to see that someone else feels that we can educate people about this issue.

 

[TheRealMD]

There's around 47 million or so uninsured people in the States, only a fraction of them are illegal immigrants. Those with insurance might not even have adequate converage. I think the first step is to let people engage the health care system, and that can only be accomplished with increasing access to insurance. Then comes education. You have to teach people that the ED is not a primary care center, that regular preventative medicine saves much more money, that health is a personal and not a state responsibility.

But that's just shifting the cost of medicine from the consumer to the government, or in Clinton's case, from poorer consumers to richer consumers. I think that meaningful progress can only be made by limiting the amount of money flowing into the system and forcing it to streamline and become more efficient. If you let companies -- be it insurance, pharmaceutical, even universities -- run free they'll take all they can get. Private hospitals are pumping money into facilities and recruiting name-brand doctors while county hospitals are strapped for cash. I'm of the opinion that the government needs to rein that in and balance it out.

Insurance companies are for-profit. Let's reign that in first.

The real problem I see with anyone against "Hilarycare" is that if car insurance is mandatory in most states, how can healthcare not be? Is it that the government only cares about 3rd parties in car accidents and not ourselves? Seems a bit backward.

 

[jochi1543]

Insurance companies are for-profit. Let's reign that in first.

The real problem I see with anyone against "Hilarycare" is that if car insurance is mandatory in most states, how can healthcare not be? Is it that the government only cares about 3rd parties in car accidents and not ourselves? Seems a bit backward.

Eh, I'm not sure if car insurance is really comparable, because not everyone has a car, but everyone has health that needs to be insured in case of a crisis. Most people who couldn't possibly get car insurance also can't afford a car, thus eliminating the concern. Not the same situation with health, really.

 

[jochi1543]

But that's just shifting the cost of medicine from the consumer to the government, or in Clinton's case, from poorer consumers to richer consumers. I think that meaningful progress can only be made by limiting the amount of money flowing into the system and forcing it to streamline and become more efficient. If you let companies -- be it insurance, pharmaceutical, even universities -- run free they'll take all they can get. Private hospitals are pumping money into facilities and recruiting name-brand doctors while county hospitals are strapped for cash and coming apart at the seams. I'm of the opinion that the government needs to rein that in and balance it out.

Seriously, it's not about how to pay for health insurance, but how to revamp the entire system itself. Everything else is like icing a broken leg because it's swollen, but not wearing a cast and continuing to try and walk around with it.

 

[armybound]

Eh, I'm not sure if car insurance is really comparable, because not everyone has a car, but everyone has health that needs to be insured in case of a crisis. Most people who couldn't possibly get car insurance also can't afford a car, thus eliminating the concern. Not the same situation with health, really.

Car insurance is also usually so you pay if you injure others or damage their property. Not true for medical insurance.

 

[armybound]

The statistic might be misleading, but your above statement is patently false. The authors of the study separated "major medical bankruptcy" from "any medical bankruptcy" (with the latter containing the drunks, druggies and gamblers).

The bottom line is that no matter how you slice it, medical debt is a very significant precipitating cause of bankruptcy.

Don't believe me? You can read the whole paper here.

I still am not seeing it the way you see it, I guess. According to their parameters, someone could have been injured and lost pay and that would be consider a medical bankruptcy. I would say that's considerably different than the cost of medical care causing bankruptcy.

Under the rubric "Major Medical Bankruptcy" we included debtors who either (1) cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy, or (2) reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000 in the past years, or (3) lost at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness/injury, or (4) mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Our more inclusive category, "Any Medical Bankruptcy," included debtors who cited any of the above, or addiction, or uncontrolled gambling, or birth, or the death of a family member.

 

[OCallag]

Your situation is what I think is the bigger problem right now. You're paying $3,600/yr for $2,500/yr in coverage. I bet you still have copays or something too, huh? That makes no sense. Money is just getting thrown away to insurance companies while people are underinsured. That's what needs to be fixed, IMO.

Best point made the past two days.

 

[Sweenracer]

Oh, and I think there should be penalties for some things. You must get physicals or some sort of checkup each year from you FP (has to be from your FP, or an FP, so no ER visits here, sorry folks) and if you are in roughly the same health, then you get a little discount, or no increase in your insurance rate. If you are a fat lazy ass, and have gained 20 lbs since your last checkup and/or are one of these noncompliant diabetics that roll into the ER everyday, that wont take responsibility for your own health, your insurance rates go up. We have to start putting the responsibility on the person rather than relying on modern medicine to be an end all and an instant cure. It doesnt work like that. You cant reverse years of being a fat lard and being morbidly obese in one visit to the ER, sorry. Learn to start pushing away from the table fatass.

BRAVO!!! When will YOU be running for president Rose??? You got my vote.

A few things to think about:

You get what you pay for... and when you enter a hospital you get a whole lotta education, experience, overhead... it ain't cheap because it CAN'T be! What people expect is impossible.

People need to be responsible FOR THEMSELVES... If you smoke, you will most likely die at a yonger age and require more the medical attention and more cost... it only makes sense that you pay more for healthcare... or maybe put a levy on cigarettes to help pay for increased healthcare. If you are obese, drink heavily, do drugs, don't exercise, etc., etc. Why should I pay for your healthcare??? An incentive/penalty program needs to be initiated that assesses an indiviuals actual risk.

Americans are some of the fattest, laziest people on this planet... Not only will the RICH be paying to cover the holes... I think it is the HEALTHY people's pockets that will suffer the most.

This is the real world, nothing is free... And until "shooting the lazy" is legalized, then socialized healthcare is just medical communism and is doomed to fail... (unfortunately doc's will be the first to suffer in it's demise).