Clinton Vows to create Universal Health care for Americans

[Andreus]

I'm waiting for your pals to do away with all the "pork" they moaned about so mightily. Millions for peanut storage and spinach subsidies hidden in a bill to fund the troops is not a step in that direction. Feel free to tell us all who they are related, if you care to!

yah

so says the supporter of the biggest pork fest do nithing congress in the last fifty years of the USA

which face are we addressing here, jack?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well, we can all be certain that there will (or at least should be) a debate on Universal Health Care.

Traditionally, whenever "Corporate America" fails "The People's Government" has a way of stepping in and "regulating" things.

Regulation however, doesn't work and it hasn't worked.

Especially when you have the Pharmaceutical and Insurance Companies "writing the regs," among others.

Health Care in America, while undoubtedly some of the best in world, isn't available to all Americans.

Hell many of us can't even AFFORD the insurance for Health Care, much less the Health Care itself.

The rich get richer, the shareholders get bigger dividends, and more and more people go without health-care, or access to it.

The entire system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

When Doctors spend more time filling out paper work and fighting with Insurance Companies to get paid, something is wrong. When U.S. Automakers complain that they're losing profits because they can no longer afford to provide health-care benefits for their employees, something is wrong. When more than 40 million Americans get out of bed every morning without any type of Health Care Benefits, or Insurance, something is wrong.

When families have to file for bankruptcy, or end up on the street because a heart-attack, or cancer decimates their finances, because the insurance that they had been paying on won't cover "certain" treatments, preventive or otherwise, then something is wrong.

The emphasis of Health-Care in this country should be placed upon "preventive" medicine, instead of "catastrophic."

The focus of National / Universal Health-Care should focus on the patient, and not the "bottom line."

A little government regulation, and a lot of government oversight should be in order. The the current model is broken. It doesn't work. It's an industry that no longer has anything to do with health, and everything to do with profit margins.

[end rant]

 

[NickCole]

I'm waiting for your pals to do away with all the "pork" they moaned about so mightily. Millions for peanut storage and spinach subsidies hidden in a bill to fund the troops is not a step in that direction. Feel free to tell us all who they are related, if you care to!

I disapprove of it and I'm very disappointed Democrats did that.

Not surprised but disappointed.

But I don't recall them moaning about it "so mightily." Remember Democrats are known for spending -- their primary point has been if you're going to spend then you can't at the same time cut taxes, it's fiscally irresponsible. It's Republicans who've been hypocrites about it, using Democratic spending as a propaganda tool to win elections then spending more than any Democratic Congress or POTUS ever did. And where did Republicans send our tax dollars? Halliburton et al -- gotta love Halliburton getting a no-bid contract, milking Americans for billions, doing a crappy job in Iraq then announcing they're going to cut and run out of the United States and head for Dubai.

And my point stands:

From a supporter of Bush & Co and the Republican controlled Congress that expanded government dramatically, that's just more hypocrisy.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Where is the compassion?
Universal health care might be mismanaged just as welfare was. There are people who will milk any existing system.
The counter balance is 45 million people who don't have or can't afford health care.
Each congressman who votes against an equitable health care plan should have to perform community service and have to sit beside a doctor who has to tell ailing patients (and their families) that they can't afford the treaments or medications necessary to keep them alive.
It's licensed euthanasia.

 

[Andreus]

rethuglicanism and compasion run in two different directions

 

[slobone]

Personally, I expect this to take the form that Massachusetts and California have gone about this issue. I expect any candidate who wants to get this plan through Congress will have to let it be dealt with like automotive insurance. To exist, you must purchase insurance, and you can be penalised for not having insurance. That lets the market drive the price down, and keeps medical care high, or so it is supposed to work.

Wait -- requiring everybody to buy something drives the price down? Fascinating.

 

[jackoroe]

^Good point! Requiring that you buy something makes demand inelastic. It doesn't matter what the cost is, you have to buy it. So there will be no incentive for costs to come down. Le the free market determine prices.

 

[naked gent]

^^ Picking up on that I live in Massachusetts and one aspect of their forced universal insurance plan is that everyone, by law, must have perscription drug coverage. Currently I don't have it nor do I need it but my insurance cost will go up about 15% because the state demands I get it.

I don't see how this will drive down the price of drugs or make anything more affordable. To keep the cost of the insurance plans down you could exclude perscription drugs or have high deductable plans and the state choose the latter which I think is a mistake.

The result is that when I watch t.v. and see drug commercials I make note of certain drugs which one may or may not have a real need for (if you're borderline say) but since you're not paying for it you'll take it.

I'm think of the men's going and going commercial or almost any anti-depressent drugs which some need but if they're free more will take.

I think the drug industry has very good lobbyists and get a good return on that investment.

 

[slobone]

Most states that require insurance (car insurance, say) also have Insurance Boards that regulate rates.

But technically, I suppose you could say that in a free market mandatory insurance should have no effect on rates. Companies will still compete over price, and those who are the worst risks will always pay higher rates than those who aren't.

Unfortunately, I suspect that most people who don't currently have health insurance are probably worse risks than those who do, so they would end up paying the most.

President Bush, of all people, recently floated a proposal that's shocking in its fairness: Make employees pay taxes on employer-funded insurance premiums, and let everybody deduct out-of-pocket expenses from their taxable income. This would be of great benefit to those who don't get health benefits from an employer, and remove what amounts to a federal subsidy for insurance companies.

Rarely does one see something proposed that manages to satisfy free-market principles and be radically redistributionist at the same time. Needless to say it was dead on arrival in Congress.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Most states that require insurance (car insurance, say) also have Insurance Boards that regulate rates.

But technically, I suppose you could say that in a free market mandatory insurance should have no effect on rates. Companies will still compete over price, and those who are the worst risks will always pay higher rates than those who aren't.

Unfortunately, I suspect that most people who don't currently have health insurance are probably worse risks than those who do, so they would end up paying the most.

President Bush, of all people, recently floated a proposal that's shocking in its fairness: Make employees pay taxes on employer-funded insurance premiums, and let everybody deduct out-of-pocket expenses from their taxable income. This would be of great benefit to those who don't get health benefits from an employer, and remove what amounts to a federal subsidy for insurance companies.

Rarely does one see something proposed that manages to satisfy free-market principles and be radically redistributionist at the same time. Needless to say it was dead on arrival in Congress.

There's a difference between health-insurance, and health-care.

Using your car analogy insurance," it's just that. You insure your car in case anything happens. You don't have any type of policy to take your car in for preventive maintenance, check-up, or repairs.

You car insurance has deductables, coverage limits, liability coverage, etc., while health-insurance has similar types of coverage, there are also limits to how much it will pay, and for what. That my friend IS NOT health-care.

Most people that I know personally don't have either if they're self-employed because they can't afford it. They take a gamble everyday of getting into an accident and having to go to the county hospital, where after health-care has been provided are now strapped with huge bills, and often times either have their credit ruined because they can't afford to pay, or end up having to file for bankruptcy.

I know some people who ended up having to do just that because the insurance premiums that they had been paying every month, wouldn't pay because they didn't file some form correctly. The would have been better off taking that premium payment and putting it into a savings account. At least they could have used that money to pay down their medical debt.

As a self-employed single man, I cannot deduct my medical expenses from my income tax each year. But if I was married I could. That's bullshit. The National Association of the Self-Employed (NASE) has been working on getting that changed, but I'm not aware if they've had any luck.

Here in the real world, if the Feds require the employer to pay taxes on insurance premiums, the employer will just drop the insurance. That's how small businesses work. If they can't afford it, they won't offer it. Which is why I'm technically "self-employed."

I have an employer, and they take out taxes for my wages, but I had to join a group like NASE so that we could pool together for health-care benefits. I had to drop my health-care benefits because they eventually exceeded the cost of my truck payment and my truck insurance combined each month. All within the span of about 8 months.

Now I have "health-insurance." They assured me when I signed on that my premiums would never go up. Guess what? With no claims on that insurance I received a letter the other day informing me "that due to costs" they were going up on my monthly premiums by more than $40.00 which makes my insurance payment $80.00 MORE per month than the "full-coverage" insurance that I'm paying on my truck.

So my monthly insurance premiums are now running neck and neck with my monthly automotive expenses, and right behind my mortgage payments.

I'm lucky I don't have kids to feed and to provide for, because I couldn't afford to do so. Something would have to be cut from my budget somewhere, and most likely it would be my "health-insurance." I would have to take that risk, that gamble that I wouldn't get into an accident.

Mandatory Health Insurance, what a scam! Texas has the highest insurance rates in the nation, and they're "regulated" by the state. Each year the insurance companies want a rate increase, and each year the Republican appointed Insurance Board gives them whatever they want, without once having to justify why our rates are higher than Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, or Louisiana.

Scrap the system and start all from scratch is what I say. It's just a big piled on over/under regulated mess; not cost controls, no caps, CEO's getting richer, and more and more people deciding between eating or their medicines.

It's broken, and it needs to be replaced. Not repaired, not overhauled, but replaced. Something brand new needs to take its place.

Honestly I'm not expecting much from either party candidate short of perhaps a "band-aid," an "aspirin" and "call in 15 years so we can see if things have improved." How can our elected officials do anything when they're bought and paid for by the very industries that they're attempting to change/regulate?

 

[jackoroe]

^Excellent point, Ico7, right on the money!

 

[NickCole]

ICO7's not right on the money.

First of all, with Bush in the WH I can't help but at this: "Congress creates the laws. The President enforces them." Bush never met a law he wasn't willing to NOT enforce, including those he signs.

And secondly, ICO7 and jackoroe, let me give YOU a simple refresher on how government works.

Whom do we credit, or blame as the case may be, for all the New Deal and Great Society legislation? Congress or FDR and LBJ?

If Universal Healthcare happens it's going to be through the leadership of a President who makes it happen.

 

[Lost For Love]

Are Americans really against National Universal healthcare that much?

Its hard for me to understand. If any Australian politician said they would abolish it they would get publicly hung, drawn and quartered. lol

 

[NickCole]

Are Americans really against National Universal healthcare that much?

BushRepublicans who have access to the health care they want are opposed to universal healthcare. With BushRepublicans issues never have meaning beyond their own individual need.

The rest of us recognize that the patchwork health care and healthcare insurance situation in the US isn't working for a lot of Americans, it's been a growing problem for some time now and needs to be addressed.

BushRepublicans pretend we're talking about socialized medicine (naughty words in the US) but that's not the case. As some in this thread have suggested, what probably will be designed is something like the systems put in place in Massachusetts and California.

 

[lancelva]

BushRepublicans who have access to the health care they want are opposed to universal healthcare. With BushRepublicans issues never have meaning beyond their own individual need.

The rest of us recognize that the patchwork health care and healthcare insurance situation in the US isn't working for a lot of Americans, it's been a growing problem for some time now and needs to be addressed.

BushRepublicans pretend we're talking about socialized medicine (naughty words in the US) but that's not the case. As some in this thread have suggested, what probably will be designed is something like the systems put in place in Massachusetts and California.

They've managed to turn "universal healthcare" into dirt words, just like "liberal." And so many people are quick to attack "HillaryCare" when they have no idea what it was even about. Moderate Republicans defeated it just because their leadership didn't want to give a victory to Hillary Clinton. It was about the substance of the legislation, but who was proposing it.

 

[NickCole]

They've managed to turn "universal healthcare" into dirt words, just like "liberal." And so many people are quick to attack "HillaryCare" when they have no idea what it was even about.

Yep.

Moderate Republicans defeated it just because their leadership didn't want to give a victory to Hillary Clinton. It was about the substance of the legislation, but who was proposing it.

Well in fairness Democrats were no help. That was in the days when Democrats were still being nice guys and they let Republicans smear the Clinton plan the way Republicans tried to smear everything Clinton. Remember the Harry and Louise ads (I think it was Harry)? And the other ads and the op-ed pieces and Sunday morning talk show appearances? You're right, it was all about who was proposing it. But Democrats didn't respond well. Rather than defend the Clinton proposal they came up with other versions, which only muddied the water.

But Democrats have learned a lot since then, which is clearly evident in the House and Senate recently passing the Iraq legislation, and also in the way they're going after the US Attorney scandal.

 

[NickCole]

That does NOT mean someone in Congress cannot push to make good law.

Congress is not going to initiate universal healthcare. Doesn't happen that way.

This dependency on the president SHOULD end, you know, what with an INDEPENDENT Democratic-controlled Congress. Maybe it's about time for Clinton to spearhead the autonomy of the Congress and make it be relevant and, well, not incompetent. NOTHING, outside of her lust for power, is keeping her from starting the fight for universal health care NOW.

I'm satisfied with the way our government is set up.

The BushCheneyRove idea of our President being Dictator or King is outrageous, but at the same time I believe the Presidency has to be a potent position.

 

[lancelva]

Well in fairness Democrats were no help. That was in the days when Democrats were still being nice guys and they let Republicans smear the Clinton plan the way Republicans tried to smear everything Clinton. Remember the Harry and Louise ads (I think it was Harry)? And the other ads and the op-ed pieces and Sunday morning talk show appearances? You're right, it was all about who was proposing it. But Democrats didn't respond well. Rather than defend the Clinton proposal they came up with other versions, which only muddied the water.

But Democrats have learned a lot since then, which is clearly evident in the House and Senate recently passing the Iraq legislation, and also in the way they're going after the US Attorney scandal.

I agree on both points. The Democrats had been in power for 40 years and were heavily influenced by the intensive lobbying of the insurance industry. It was one of the many things that led to the tragedy of the 1994 midterms. Times, however, certainly have changed. And it's interesting to note that it only took Republicans 12, not 40, years to reach that point.

P.S.: Yes, it was Harry and Louise in the ad--paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America. Imagine that. These were the days before the "so and so is responsible for the content of this advertisement" disclaimer was required.

 

[lancelva]

Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about, let me refer to the above quote (or most anything you say for that matter, but I digress). Moderate Republicans didn't defeat it as you say. Considering that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress at the time that would have been difficult. Conservatives were the ones who opposed the plan the most, but I'm sure you knew that. And it was Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) who actually killed the bill.

But, lancelwhatever, as usual, you don't let those pesky things like "facts" get in the way of your fallacious arguments.

And, liberal is a "dirt word"? Your words, not mine, lol.

Don't worry, it's not the first time a Bush supporter doesn't know what I'm talking about. I am well aware that Democrats were in control of Congress and that conservatives opposed the bill. Democrats didn't oppose the idea per se, but they broke into factions and proposed their own versions. As for the moderate Republicans I made reference too--they were needed to help compensate for defections within the Democratic majority. And some, including John Chafee (Linc's dad), seriously considered reform. They would never sign on to a Clinton plan, however, since the Republican leadership wanted to punish Clinton and in turn win back a majority in Congress by portraying themselves as "anti-Clinton" at a time when Clinton was losing popularity.

As for the "dirt" word? So I accidentally left of the "-y"--big deal. It's like the same mistake you make when you leave the "-ic" of Democratic--except, in your case, it's intentional.

 

[NickCole]

The Democrat [sic] majority couldn't get it passed. The end.

True.

And now the Democratic majority has passed legislation telling Bush when to stop his failure of a war.

Come a long way, baby.