HILLARY CLINTON'S HEALTH CARE PLAN ( Archived) (109)

Here are my thoughts on Senator Clinton's Health Care Plan. What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from “cherry picking” healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.

In effect, her plan would turn “insurance” into “subsidy.” The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary’s program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.

Hillary says that her program would provide “universal” coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don’t want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don’t want to.

So Hillary’s program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don’t need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.

But the main defect of Hillary’s program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care, which at present is 16 per cent.

Senator Clinton will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.

For the first time, the word “no” would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say “we won’t pay for it” or “you don’t need it” or “we can’t fit you in at our facility.” The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one.

WOW... Now that's a program we definitely don't need ( if it's really what you say it is) it's a scary thing!

Now, what do you think our "friends" in Washington should come up with? Any ideas?
It seems to me that EVERY health system in the world is or is labeled as a "bankrupting" system. I have heard that Canada's health system is bankrupting them, that the European system is bankrupting them and on and on about almost every country that strive to heal the sick and keep the healthy healthy.
I don't pretend to have any answer on that one, it's a tough one, as they say but don't you think that all those billions of dollars we have spent fighting wars could have, by now, given much needed care to those who still today need a transplant or an operation of some kind?
It is amazing to me that when it comes to public health and safety, in any country, there just isn't enough money but when it's about blowing people up and putting their country in chaos, the money just keeps flowing! Can you explain that one to me? I really, not being cute here, but I really don't understand how government funds work.

Mysticalguy.......

I agree with everything you have said. I don't have an answer. I think part of the problem is that we have a lot more technology, which enables doctors to keep people alive artificially. Consequently, physicians are doing everything humanly possible to save those who are dying for another few months. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that if someone is dying, let them die. But if I have a killer disease and it is obvious that I am going to be dead in a short time, then don't waste a lot of medical resources and money to keep me alive for an additional few months.

Another problem is that in America and elsewhere public hospitals are not permitted by law to turn away those who need help, even if those people are in the country by illegal means. I hate to say don't let illegal immigrants have access to health care, but we have to do that, because it is costing taxpayers too much money.

An additional reason is AIDS, crack babies, and the like. We are a compassionate people and even though we know these people are going to die, we spend a fortune trying to make their last days easier.

It is amazing, as you say, that when it comes to public health and safety, in our country and others, there is a money shortage, but there's always plenty of big bucks to go to war. The simple answer to that one is that the hawks outnumber the doves, so we go to war whether we are right or wrong.

I agree with 99% of what you said. As far as illegal immigrants, they are still people and doctors are supposed to treat people not just U.S citizens, or just women or just men or just customers but people. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, they even have some sort of oath? to treat patients?...

This world is RICH! We have plenty of food, plenty of money and plenty of talented people who ask for nothing but to serve their fellow Man. There are plenty of deals being made behind closed doors to facilitate the lives of certain individuals, to see that the red tape is stuck to the back of the folder and to get somethings through without a hitch or a snag.
When there is a will, there is a way and it's not a solution that is needed it's the will to put it through.

You're on the mark, I do believe. But then when you get to the $5000 per newborn, you have another problem.

Sadly, I don't think there's a good answer to the insurance/healthcare problem. There are several reasons people don't have health insurance; one being that some people don't want it. When I was single and in my 20's....I thought I was inevitable. Some people are temporarily unemployed. So it goes...

I've heard Canadians come to American for emergency surgeries...don't know if that's true. (due to the backlog in Canada)
Don't know if that's accurate?

I believe that we should at least start with the children. It has been proven that kids that get better healthcare as babies end up being healthier adults. Proper screening as a child is vitally important.

If we can bankrupt the country for a war, why not spend our tax dollars on our citizens?


I have to get to work now....one of 2 full time jobs :)

-Erin

------ This Post was removed by Moderator ------

------ This Post was removed by Moderator ------