Queen Hillary just announced her health care plan for the 47 million Americans (including this writer) who have no health insurance. She wants the gov't to cover all those who have no other insurance, who are underinsured, or who are insured and dislike their current plan. Putting my dislike for Hillary aside, I will try to be as objective as I can.
First and foremost, how is this going to be funded? With 300 million legal residents and citizens, if it costs, hypothetically, $2000 per person, we are talking adding $600 billion added to the federal budget. That would make health care 20% of the budget. She says she is going to tax big businesses to pay for it. Well, how are the Exxons and IBMs and Microsofts of the country going to pay for it? I figure two ways: mass layoffs, in which case we will have many more people without health insurance; and raising their retail prices, which means you and I will have to pay extra for everything we buy.
Second, can you imagine a massive HMO with 300 million members... run by the US gov't? The Federal gov't can't secure our borders, repair infrastructure, update information technology, or fund social security. I have no insurance, and I'd never, ever, trust my health to the gov't.
Third, I have heard stories from people I know in Canada and European countries with socialized medicine. Nothing positive, I hear about long waits for second rate care, cancer patients not getting the chemo and surgery they need. Have you ever heard about an American who went to Canada for surgery? Of course not, but I always hear the other way.
Fourth, the plan calls for insurance companies to "discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness." I'm okay with the first part, but if someone is a chain smoker, why the hell should I pay for his cancer treatment?
Fifth, the plan calls for individuals "to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible." This scares the libertarian in me - my medical records in a massive data base. What else is going to be in that database? We're not talking about driving records here!
Sixth, this entire program is begging to be abused. If every little boo-boo is covered, then some people will go to their doctor for everything. Then there is the propensity for double billing: charging both private and public insurance for the same procedure.
And she exopects to do this while offering a tax credit to small businesses and the working poor? Hillary's health care plan sounds too good to be true, and it is. This is a noble effort, but it fails on so many fronts - quality, cost, coverage, privacy - that I cannot and will not support it.
All factual info and quotes from America's Health Choices Plan from Hillary's official website.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're reading it in English, thank a veteran.
I see nothing in her plan to bring medical costs under control. She intends to preserve the monopolistic position of health care providers, and pharmaceuticals.
The insurance companies should be controlled as far as fraudulent contract violations, and uniformity of contract.
Other than that, the reason we can't afford health insurance for everyone is the cost of care. This is a blatant attempt to support, and protect the current corrupt, inefficient, monopolistic provider system.
Why do you think so many medical associations support UHC? If market forces are allowed to work, they will have to adjust their lifestyle. Employers have been supporting them for 60 years or so, but the cost of care has wounded the goose. None of the employers I have talked with offer 100% participation like they did 10 years ago, and some of them are self-insured, so it's not an insurance problem. It's a service problem. The reason health insurance is so high is the cost of care is outrageous.
$5,500 for tonsilectomy
$15,000 for appendectomy
$9,000 for hernia repair
$10,000 for broken leg
These are common procedures that the medical profession should be able to perform in their sleep.
2 broken leg equals 1 new car
2 appendectomy equals 1 nice new car
1 hernia repair equals cost of public eduacation for 1 student for one year
1 tonsilectomy equals cost of private education for 1 student for one year
I'm not going to pretend I have a better solution (or even another solution) to the health care problem in the US. But Hillary's plan will only make it worse, not better.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're reading it in English, thank a veteran.
Hillary also left out the part about penalties for people that do not pay for healthcare voluntarily. There is no penalty. Why pay for something if you can walk in an emergency ward and still be covered. The hospital can't refuse a sick person if they do it a trip to the courthouse. They can't win that lawsuit.
The only answer to high healthcare costs are competition and removing the tax incentives to businesses. If a person shops around for a doctor and switches doctors for a cheaper one the prices would drop in a heartbeat.
Two part failure of this plan is the $110 billion projected cost and that insurance companies are still major players. We need the political courage to rebuke the insurance middle man whose only goal is to make money by being the go between. Until such time as we focus on the most efficient means and tie the specific tax revenue to this specific outlay, we will grow a new monstrous money hole.
Phil
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://unity-usa.org
Why does anyone think Hillary Clinton will be able to solve our health care problem? If I remember properly, the 42 million uninsured Americans in 1992 were the reason for Bill Clinton being elected, yet the Clintons accomplished NOTHING in the way of health care reform in their previous EIGHT years in office. This problem will have to be solved by someone with political courage who is less financially beholden to the insurance carriers and the pharmaceutical companies.
I am no fan of the Clintons but I don’t hate them either as most of you seem to. I am willing to accept a good idea no matter where it comes from or who it comes from.
What’s more is that she keeps the free market concept as so many claim is the reason they don’t want healthcare for all. She strikes a balance and she leaves room for compromise.
First, she explains where most of the money is coming from and she cites several big time think tanks where she got those numbers.
Second, she did not mention HMO’s at all so I have no idea where you get this
Third, that’s just plain being paranoid
Fourth, ok, we all know your perfect and never engage in risky behavior, so if you get in a car and do not wear you seat belt, you won’t be covered because that risky, or if you go mountain climbing and fall, O well, that risky, your not covered and of course anyone who rides a motorcycle is engaging in risky behavior and should not be covered either. My point is that everyone behaves in some kind of risky behavior. Besides that, she directs care to preventive medicine to help with those kinds of things.
Fifth, again, this is being paranoid, modernization of our technology is the only way to improve the system and drastically reduce medical and billing errors.
Sixth, this is the one area I do have a problem but I’m will to give it a shot and say that we cannot realize the savings from uncovered care those without insurance would cost.
Seventh, if someone is going to the doctors for every boo boo as you put it then the chances are that person has some emotional problems, by coordinating care they could get the counseling they need.
JMCG, there are several reasons the Clintons failed in 1992, one, the people did not overwhelming want UHC and did not realize how bad our system was becoming, two, she tried to give UHC and eliminate the insurance companies and it was special interest that defeated that bill and three, the Republicans had control of the house and senate and was not willing to compromise, you forget, the reps was in the middle of a hate frenzy. And despite all that, Clinton still managed to get welfare reform through.
JW,
How do you figure that she leaves the drug and insurance companies in charge or keeping the monopolistic system?
You’re under the impression that it is all the providers are the reason healthcare is so expensive and I have not seen one study to indicate that. There are several studies that list a number of other reasons but that no one of them.
Furthermore, she mentions redirecting tax breaks and/pr exclusions for healthcare at least 4 times. Try to read them. She mentions putting caps on the insurance companies so they cannot charge excessive premiums. She requires insurance companies to guarantee coverage to anyone who applies and cannot single them out because of pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and they would automatically have to renew a policy if the person wishes to continue coverage with that company. They would not be allowed to charge more based on discriminating factors.
She opens up the market, i.e., reimportation, generic drugs sooner, etc., so that the drug companies would have competition...Something they have never had in the USA.
Again, how is that giving all the power to the drug and insurance companies?
Modernizations and the use of technologies are the ways to reduce cost. Bringing in competition for drug companies will lower the cost of drugs, allowing states to pool will bring down the cost of insurance premiums be bartering power, a Storehouse, if you will, for research from both the private and public sectors will increase effectiveness and efficiencies by measuring different treatments. Managing chronic illnesses better will cost billions. She don’t just give numbers, she cites research from the biggest think tanks in the country. She doesn’t pretend that all these savings, which most of the money is already in the system, will pay for everything up front, but over time they will pay for themselves.
It is spreading the responsibility out between businesses, government and individuals. Which is something everyone agrees should be the case. This may not solve every problem but she did leave room for input from others and it does one thing no other plan has done. It identifies the problems and gives solutions to those problems.
Go to Steve Beller wikispace site and read, you will see that she addresses all the problems mentioned there. Site below
http://wellness.wikispaces.com/Table+of+Contents
I think the hate you all feel for Clinton is clouding your judgment, that and the fact that none of you really believe that anything really needs to be done about healthcare.
Betty
Betty327@ptd.net
I believe you are right. You are no fan of Hillary, you are a cheerleader. I don't know what studies you are looking at, but the procedure pricing I list above are from a local hospital. Whether it pleases you or not, the providers set the prices. There is NO competition among providers. Hillary's plan does not address the issue.
I said nothing about her plan leaving anyone in charge. Hillary will be in charge. Perhaps you can explain to me how she will require coverage without risk assessment and cap insurance premiums at the same time? The intent is clear, run the insurance companies out of business, so she can take over.
There is competition among the drug companies, reducing, or eliminating, patent periods will reduce incentive for research.
"It is spreading the responsibility out between businesses, government and individuals. Which is something everyone agrees should be the case" NOT EVERYONE.
To compel everyone to purchase health insurance is no different from a tax, and is contrary to a free society. In those states that compel auto insurance, the prices have risen. At least in the auto insurance area there is a liability issue.
We agree on one issue, to some degree. There should be no restriction on any group voluntarily banding together to negotiate health insurance costs.
In summation, after reading her plan, it is clear to me that the intent is to essentially destroy what is in place, either directly or indirectly, leaving gov't funded UHC as the only remaining option, forcing the citizenry to participate.