Healthcare vs. Freedom of choice (1 Viewer)

so in effect she would decide the cost and coverage for everyone? Govt. subsidies for anything just scares the heck out of me. I think everyone should have insurance, but it's not the govt job to force it. Hospitals should be allowed to garnish wages for services performed and the govt. should be told to shut up and leave us alone. I hate the thought of more government in our daily lives.

Sorry for the rant.
 
Last edited:
Yet she can't figure out why some call her a socialist.
 
Surely she's bright enough to know that forcing millions of people to do something doesn't usually go over very well...
 
You would think so wouldn't you.

Let's see if this gets much press. I say no.

It has been discussed in numerous articles and several debates over the last year. Mandated coverage is the main difference between her plan and Obama's. His plan only mandates coverage for children while focusing on lowering costs before requiring coverage.

Neither plan goes far enough (single payer or government run), but they are better than the current broken system.
 
It has been discussed in numerous articles and several debates over the last year. Mandated coverage is the main difference between her plan and Obama's. His plan only mandates coverage for children while focusing on lowering costs before requiring coverage.

Neither plan goes far enough (single payer or government run), but they are better than the current broken system.


Based on what you said, I favor Obama's. One, requiring parents to cover their kids reminds me of requiring parents to buckle up their children in the car. That sounds good. And, more enforceable. As far as lowering costs, it will be interesting to see how govt. can force a private company to lower their cost to a "customer", if you will.
 
Based on what you said, I favor Obama's. One, requiring parents to cover their kids reminds me of requiring parents to buckle up their children in the car. That sounds good. And, more enforceable. As far as lowering costs, it will be interesting to see how govt. can force a private company to lower their cost to a "customer", if you will.

yep, when they required everyone to have liability insurance.. the prices sure seem to have went up. now the insurance companies have to have a request put in so they could increase premiums

what about the people that just simply can't afford it. they barely make what it takes to eat, and gas to get to work. and often have to bum that.
 
It's all about compromise. She puts out a plan that will be scaled back, but solves the problem in the end. Plus, politically, both parties can take credit.
 
It's all about compromise. She puts out a plan that will be scaled back, but solves the problem in the end. Plus, politically, both parties can take credit.

Or blame.
 
Based on what you said, I favor Obama's. One, requiring parents to cover their kids reminds me of requiring parents to buckle up their children in the car. That sounds good. And, more enforceable. As far as lowering costs, it will be interesting to see how govt. can force a private company to lower their cost to a "customer", if you will.

I think any plan that relies solely on private insurers is bound to fail.

Obama's plan will offer public insurance for small businesses and those who are self-employed or uninsured. Larger businesses will be required to offer private insurance or contribute to the public plan. The plan creates a national exchange to oversee, provide access to, and in some cases subsidize participating private insurance plans. Private plans will be required to meet or exceed coverage levels of the public plan.

Eligibility will be guaranteed regardless of pre-existing conditions or illnesses. Coverage for children is mandated and optionally expanded up to age 25. Like other plans, it promotes preventive care and technology to eliminate administrative costs.

Obama's site has a summary and more detailed PDF of the plan.

Hillary's plan is also available on her site and McCain has a summary on his.
 
The more that terms like "garnish wages" are associated with Billary, the better Obama's chances are.

I'm predicting that tomorrow Obama will win the delegates needed to win the nomination.

The Republican race will be decided by Texas.
 
The more that terms like "garnish wages" are associated with Billary, the better Obama's chances are.

I'm predicting that tomorrow Obama will win the delegates needed to win the nomination.

The Republican race will be decided by Texas.

No way Obama puts it away tomorrow. Every state gives out delegates proportionally so there's just no way he's going to be the nominee by tomorrow night.
 
The more that terms like "garnish wages" are associated with Billary, the better Obama's chances are.

I'm predicting that tomorrow Obama will win the delegates needed to win the nomination.

The Republican race will be decided by Texas.

I'm not prepared to call the race, but Hillary will be in trouble if they split the delegates evenly. If Obama comes out with a delegate lead or a win in California then her campaign is over. Polls seem to suggest Hillary is losing women and latinos.

The rest of the February calendar (LA, WA, NE, ME, MD, DC, VA, WI, HI) should strongly favor Obama.

Romney will be lucky if McCain doesn't seal it up with all the WTA states.
 
Disclaimer:
The following is my personal opinion and is not intended as medical advice.


While I don't disagree with the premise that something has to be done about healthcare, This opening paragraph from Obama's website on healthcare (that is linked in this thread) seems to indicate a nativity on the subject.

“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.

Anyone who tells you that prices will be lowered and the highest risk candidates will be covered hasn't in my opinion thought this issue through. Consider for instance, the increased healthcare costs that are due to the increased demands on salaries of healthcare workers and technology demanded by patients that are suppose to be offset with increased efficiencies in providing insurance and treatment. Although I have no reason to believe the government will make delivery of healthcare more efficient, let's say it happens.

Now, we have two other issues to address, the aging of the population and covering individuals with pre-existing conditions. Clearly with the aging population there will be more utilization of healthcare services and this translates to higher overall healthcare costs. Let's be real...once a person is in their 60's, 70's, etc. it's unlikely most are going to change much in the way of their diet, exercise, etc. While I agree targeting kids in grade school and even early teens may have some impact (we need to get serious about Health and PE in schools and not cancel that class because it's considered less important than reading, 'righting and 'rithmetic) we won't see the benefit of that for decades. Also, my guess is any strides made in preventing physical ailments will be offset by increases in mental illness treatments (consider the explosion of prescription psychiatric drugsover the past two decades).

Now with pre-existing coverages....how is that insurance in the first place? Say someone has a pre-existing condition that requires $20,000/year in treatments. The health insurance company must accept that person (the risk) and is capped in their charge to say--$2,000/year. In this scenario the insurer must lose $18,000/year on that customer (plus additional expenses from unexpected medical treatments e.g. cold, broken bone, etc.). Who or how will the shortfall be made up? Clearly, it has to come from everyone else...either in the form of higher premiums for the most healthy and least likely to use the system or in the form or higher taxes from everyone. Otherwise, the insurer will not be able to remain in business.

I like Hillary's plan better because it has an end game of Universal coverage (my translation is government sponsored healthcare). We already have our foot in that model but no one wants to admit it or instead attempts to obfuscate the issue by blaming the problem with that model (providing care to prisoners, and anyone who visits an ER) on Illegal Immigrants (who they maintain come to the U.S. not to work, but primarily to commit crimes, engage in terrorist activities and for access to free healthcare).


Again, this is my personal opinion based on my knowledge and I don't represent myself as a healthcare expert. Please do not rely on this information in determining your healthcare options.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom