Post #293,135
9/18/07 6:06:18 PM
|
Your papers please
[link|http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6|http://news.yahoo.co...on_ap_interview_6] Well it appears that Hillary thinks that if you don't have insurance, you should be forced to pay for it. If you can't afford it, you can't get a job. Now >THAT< makes sense...doesn't it? Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.
"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview \ufffd like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress. Anyone here still think she's presidential material? (Please, no comparisons to the current President, as we have pretty solid evidence already that he isn't) Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,136
9/18/07 6:13:03 PM
|
Few people are articulate in sentence fragments.
What do you find wrong with the plan as outlined on her web site, [link|http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx|here]?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #293,141
9/18/07 7:16:11 PM
|
Re: Few people are articulate in sentence fragments.
>will be required to get and keep<
that is the gov't forcing me to do something I may/may not want to do. And what they are requiring is buying into a system that will be created in the same way that gave us all of those other fine entitlement programs that are going to bankrupt this country.
It is "gov't knows best" at its worst.
And tell me, how do you expand a program that deals with a couple thousand people to potentially serve 45 MILLION or more and do it "without any new bureaucracy". On this point, I call BS. Pipe dream. A politico with her mouth open.
Drug companies will offer "fair" prices. As determined by who. Right in line with her earlier "misstatement" that has her taking away the profits of the oil industry that are in excess of what >she< thinks is fair.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,145
9/18/07 9:39:15 PM
|
I'm disappointed.
Is the [link|http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/|Massachusetts] state system that "requires" people to have health insurance as bad? If not, why not? And tell me, how do you expand a program that deals with a couple thousand people to potentially serve 45 MILLION or more and do it "without any new bureaucracy". On this point, I call BS. Pipe dream. A politico with her mouth open. I have little doubt that she's talking about the [link|http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/about/fehb.asp|FEHB Program]. It covers more than 4 million current and former federal employees: The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program can help you meet your health care needs. Federal employees, retirees and their survivors enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country. You can choose from among Fee-for-Service (FFS) plans, and their Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO), or Plans offering a Point of Service (POS) Product, or Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) if you live (or sometimes if you work) within the area serviced by the plan.
Some FFS plans are open to all enrollees, but some require that you join the organization that sponsors the plan, which usually involves paying a membership fee. Some plans limit enrollment to certain employee groups. Membership requirements and/or limitations also apply to any Point of Service product the Fee-for-Service plan may be offering.
[...]
Some of our important program features are:
No waiting periods. You can use your benefits as soon as your coverage becomes effective. There are no pre-existing condition limitations even if you change plans.
A choice of coverage. You can choose self only coverage just for you, or self and family coverage for you, your spouse, and unmarried dependent children under age 22. Under certain circumstances, your FEHB enrollment may cover your disabled child 22 years old or older who is incapable of self-support.
A choice of plans and options.
* Fee-for-Service plans
* Plans offering a Point of Service product
* Health Maintenance Organizations
A Government contribution. The Government pays 72 percent of the average premium toward the total cost of the your premium, but not more than 75 percent of the total premium for any plan.
Salary deduction. You pay your share of the premium through a payroll deduction and have the choice of doing so using pretax dollars.
Annual enrollment opportunities. Each year you can enroll or change your health plan enrollment. This year the Open Season runs from November 13, 2006, through December 11, 2006. Other events allow for certain types of changes throughout the year; see your human resources office or retirement system for details.
[...] There are dozens or more insurance plans to choose from, depending on your state of residence, etc. It isn't dumping everyone on Medicare. The necessary bureaucracy is in place - a new one (like a new National Health Service) wouldn't need to be constructed. Yes, it will cost money and more people will be needed. But the heavy lifting will be done by existing insurance companies. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #293,146
9/18/07 10:02:54 PM
|
Yes, it is.
Mass isn't exactly the bastion of free market thinking either. In fact, alot of their politicians make Hill look downright conservative.
Still, at least in their plan their is something that discusses affordability and no interview discussions about how you MUST have insurance to get a job.
And be it a couple thousand or a couple million...at min you are talking about expanding an existing gov't program by a factor of 10...maybe you are just playing semantics when you say it will require no new bureaucracy because there is an org with that name already in the government...but since they'll have to hire 10 times more workers to run it (assuming reasonable gov't efficiency...a very large assumption)...I would consider that new bureaucracy.
Now for the real kicker...how is it anything other than a forced tax on the poor? Do you think the uninsured are really happy about it? And how is it supposed to reform the system if it is simply using the existing infrastructure? Inquiring minds want to know?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,150
9/18/07 10:36:25 PM
|
Hmmm..
[link|http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/hillarys-websid.html|Wired]: Dan Balz of The Washington Post and [link|http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/18/in_ways_clinton_healthcare_plan_resembles_romneys_mass_solution/|others] noted that Clinton's plan is in fact remarkably similar to Romney's own much-lauded health care scheme that he proposed for his own state, and which was subsequently enacted into law. Balz notes:
There are differences in some details of the two plans -- the subsidies available for purchasing health care, the size of the tax on big companies that don't offer insurance, the scope of the basic benefits package, the tax credits offered to small businesses to provide insurance. But as Jonathan Gruber, an economist at MIT, told me today, the two plans are "very, very similar."
Gruber advised Romney as governor in the development of the Massachusetts plan and now is a member of a board overseeing its implementation. He said Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards consulted him as they were preparing their proposals this year.
One portion of Clinton's plan provides doctors and insurance companies with incentives to use "privacy -protected information technology." The point is to make health care more efficient and affordable. This subject has been an ongoing legislative issue in Congress for the past few years. Clinton has even worked with her husband's nemesis Newt Gingrich on this. I really think you're making too much of that sound bite, just as you did about her comment on oil company taxes. It's hard for me to read her [link|http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf|summary of her plan] (16 page .pdf) and reach the conclusions you have based on some sentence fragments. People can and will argue about the specifics of her plan, as well they should, but arguing with a caricature of the plan isn't very enlightening, IMHO. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #293,157
9/18/07 11:43:00 PM
|
How many times
does she need to make these "mistakes" in her soundbites before you realize they aren't, in fact, mistakes or misstatements?
And its hard to not call it a forced tax it indeed the state 1) requires you enroll and pay and 2) attaches penalties if you don't.
But her carefully crafted sales document makes it sound wonderful..like how it "offers new choices". Reality is its not a really a choice. Its a government mandate.
There are aspects of the proposal that are fine and, indeed, well thought out. Unification of insurance rules and elimination of "pre-existing condition" outs for companies.
But it also contains language like..."Hillary Clinton\ufffds comprehensive
agenda to lower costs and improve quality will substantially lower costs for employers,
making it easier for all firms to continue coverage or offer new health benefits to their
workers. In return, large employers will be expected to provide health insurance to their employees or make some contribution to the cost of coverage. This responsibility will take into account firms\ufffd size and average wages." Problematic because 1) promises HUGE savings based on "use of modern technology" which we've all heard before..the internet was going to change everything in corporate America and 2) just how do you enforce that "expectation"..and if you increase their expense with this "expectation" all you do is cost people their jobs.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,245
9/19/07 10:05:55 PM
|
Re: Yes, it is.
Mass isn't exactly the bastion of free market thinking either. but is is a bastion of Mitt Romney's thinking (or what passes for it). And to hear him spout it, they ain't nothing more free market that Mitt Romney! jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #293,234
9/19/07 9:16:28 PM
|
Actually for once I'm in agreement with BP.
providing Insurance coverage to all Americans will not fix the problem (imo).
I disagree with BP's contention that there is an issue of having to buy health insurance. Rather I have issue with the fact that medical facilities offer three prices: to the poor, (some) of their services are gratis; to the insured, their services are a fraction of the quoted price; to the uninsured, their services are full value.
Hilllary's solution is now to simply require everyone get insurance. The underlying problem is ignored.
This I believe is the real problem of our medical system -- and until it's addressed, no solutions will be forthcoming.
|
Post #293,236
9/19/07 9:20:25 PM
|
EARTHQUAKE! ;-)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,153
9/18/07 10:47:45 PM
|
I'm no longer surprised
...that the same folks who respond with lusty cheers to every encroachment of police powers inflicted upon the populace, provided only these are cloaked in the raiments of the War on Terra, are the first to sound the tocsins about the dire hazard to our ancient liberties whenever some social program threatens to sap the self-reliance of our sturdy yeomanry with vile gummint strictures addressing healthcare instead of manly patriotic restrictions upon travel promulgated by an enlightened bureaucracy to save us from the machinations of al Qaeda.
I've come to think of this as "situational libertarianism."
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #293,158
9/19/07 12:22:20 AM
|
A little intellectual honesty would be good
because this is being called "universal healthcare"...the promise of providing coverage for the uncovered.
It isn't. Its brute force. Its a social program if its funded by the tax code. This isn't.
The proposal is to force you to buy in based on the lofty promise that tax breaks will make it affordable. And if you don't, Hill supports you not being able to get a new job (or some other penalty to be named later).
The goal is not necessarily a bad one. Just not a fan of something loading up this much commitment with not much more than a hope of keeping it affordable by using better computers. (privacy protected info tech...pretty words)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,246
9/19/07 10:10:31 PM
|
Lemme get this straight
"Its a social program if its funded by the tax code." But it isn't a social program if its foisted upon one with the power of the Penal Code?
BeeP, your intellectual wankery could use a little extra KY...
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #293,287
9/20/07 6:23:14 AM
|
No jail involved. No courts
nice try.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,159
9/19/07 1:24:12 AM
|
I have an idea
You could pay for your healthcare through federal taxation. And then, the health care could be provided by a governmental organisation, delivered on the basis of clinical need. That way, it'd be free at the point of delivery for all.
Nah, it'd never work.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #293,160
9/19/07 1:27:13 AM
|
Where do you come up with these *STOOOPID* ideas?
Next thing you know, we will have Jake chiming in.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Alternate Fingerprint: 455F E104 22CA 29C4 933F 9505 2B79 2AB2
|
Post #293,165
9/19/07 3:30:16 AM
|
Yeah - Jake, or...
|
Post #293,257
9/19/07 10:26:03 PM
|
No, that particular doesn't chime in...
That particular lets you know it... without missing a beat.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Alternate Fingerprint: 455F E104 22CA 29C4 933F 9505 2B79 2AB2
|
Post #293,198
9/19/07 5:07:50 PM
|
Interesting timing
[link|http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=Health|http://www.ctv.ca/se...070914?hub=Health]
I heard a pretty good description concerning the extremes of the US system.
#1 - We are one of the the worst places to be if you don't have decent insurance. No preventitive care, and will only do a minimal amount to keep you alive in an emergency. Once the emergency is over, we'll let you die quietly.
#2 - We are the best place for you to be if you have good insurance. The best people, the best hospitals, the best equipment, all waiting to serve you with a minimal amount of delay.
I would expect this 2 class system to evolve a bit under Hillary.
The #1 group will be given / expected to contribute somewhat to access to the health care system. They will get better treatment than they have right now, but not as good as Canada's or British entry level. But they will be in long lines for the more expensive stuff.
This WILL cost the average tax payer more, no doubt about it. The question is how much? Something tells me it'll be far less than the bullshit war(s) that Bush is currently fighting, but then again, you knew that.
The #2 group will continue pretty much as it is. If not, it'll give the right wing some serious ammunition for the next election swing.
And as far as the "proof of insurance for work" compared to immunizations. If the insurance costs the same as immunizations then the gov (us) will pay for it, just like emgergency care is "free" right now. It just means the person is registered in the system, has the chance of seeing a regular Dr before a simple infection that can be treated for $2 of anti-biotics blows into a hospital visit.
If it costs a lot more, and people simply can't afford it, then of course it is silly. You've simply grabbed onto a sound bite and hammered away at it.
|
Post #293,233
9/19/07 9:15:24 PM
|
Forced to repeat myself
How many times is she going to make these statements, give these "sound bites" as it were, before its realized that the packaging is great...but the real deal actually >does< think like this?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
