|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan
#7423877 - 09/18/07 01:53 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Monday 17 September 2007
Michael D. Tanner, director of health and welfare studies:
Here we go again. HillaryCare is back, and its apparent that Sen. Clinton has learned little since the American people overwhelmingly rejected her last attempt to overhaul the U.S. health care system. Once again her plan, which would cost $110 billion per year in new taxes, calls for greater government control over American health care. If her plan were to pass this time, it would mean higher taxes, lost jobs, less patient choice, and poorer quality health care.
Among the worst features of her proposal:
.An individual mandate. Sen. Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties. There are many problems with such a mandate. It restricts individual choice and liberty. It will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. And it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.
.An employer mandate. Sen. Clinton would impose a “play or pay “ mandate on American businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. Some may even be forced to layoff current employees and others will offset their costs by reducing wages or wage increases.
.Expanding government programs. Sen. Clinton would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide benefits for middle-class families. Yet studies show that many of those who would be covered by such an expansion already have private health insurance. Thus, Sen. Clinton would simply be moving people from private insurance to taxpayer-funded government care. She would also allow people under age 65 to “buy-in” to Medicare despite the fact that the program is already facing a financial crisis.
.Insurance regulation. Senator Clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose “community rating” on health insurance premiums. As a result the young and healthy will be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker. And those who practice healthy lifestyles will pay more to subsidize the irresponsible.
http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=656
“Sen. Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties.”
Clinton would force enrollment of young, healthy people, ages 18 to 30, who often forego insurance because they believe they will never get sick. Clinton said their participation was essential because premiums from healthy patients offset higher costs incurred by older patients.....
That cunt Hillary is in the pocket of the Insurance Companies. So I guess we will be going to Jail if we don’t have insurance.....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: lonestar2004]
#7423889 - 09/18/07 01:58 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
she sucks balls, what more can be said.
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
Bikerfool
Your Local Edgelord



Registered: 11/21/05
Posts: 1,577
Last seen: 5 months, 13 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Syle]
#7423944 - 09/18/07 02:13 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The plan is flawed, but $110 billion a year isn't bad compared to the $10 billion being spent each day on Iraq.
-------------------- Just an angsty teen contributing to the pubs decline with contentless posts.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Bikerfool]
#7423980 - 09/18/07 02:21 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Anyone who thinks it will really cost just 110 billion a year is too dumb to be allowed to vote. No government program having anything to do with medicine (such as medicare or medicaid) has ever come in anywhere close to the predicted figure. Usually, they haven't come anywhere close to being even a quarter of the predicted figure.
Phred
--------------------
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Phred]
#7424100 - 09/18/07 02:49 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So?
His point is still valid.
If you accept that the War In Iraq is costing 10B a day, which I'm not sure about, even if this Healthcare program cost 3and a half TRILLION dollars, it would still cost less.
I know which I'd rather have my money spent on, and its not propping up some fucked up raghead government in some pissant shithole little country.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7424166 - 09/18/07 03:02 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure what Iraq has to do with Hillarycare?
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Phred]
#7424189 - 09/18/07 03:06 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
In 2004 Medicare cost this country some $540 billion
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.budget.ap/index.html
This bitch has no idea how much Hillarycare would cost this country.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Phred]
#7424206 - 09/18/07 03:10 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Anyone who thinks it will really cost just 110 billion a year is too dumb to be allowed to vote. No government program having anything to do with medicine (such as medicare or medicaid) has ever come in anywhere close to the predicted figure. Usually, they haven't come anywhere close to being even a quarter of the predicted figure.
Phred
Ch ching!!!!!!!! 
Not only are those phoney conservative figures, just wait and see how they get jacked up by the health care industry when the "system" is paying the tab.
How quickly people forgot that the Government, when selling us this war plan, estimated the cost of invading Iraq would be 4 billion TOTAL, and that they said, Iraqi Oil would pick up that tab.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque



Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7424387 - 09/18/07 03:58 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
owning your own healthcare spurs the economy in good directions. If only the fucks would buy their own insurance without havin to be told.
It really is only a very superficial liberal abuse of the power the government should have natural rights to. If I get the jist of the story. I only gave it a most cursory of glances. its more hillary nonsnese.
If she expected me to pay for your insurance any more than I already do regarding medicaid and others, that would be bullshit in the extreme.
-------------------- Asshole
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: lonestar2004]
#7424492 - 09/18/07 04:36 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah... Mother Clinton is going to take care of all of us for our own good!
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel



Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: lonestar2004]
#7424535 - 09/18/07 04:47 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:If her plan were to pass this time, it would mean higher taxes, lost jobs, less patient choice, and poorer quality health care.
Another false attack piece from Cato...
Higher taxes would more than be canceled out by the lack of medical fees. Parasite health insurance jobs should be lost, all those insurance bottom feeders contribute nothing and rape everyone for big money. Less patient choice is a false claim. Poorer quality health care for whom? Strawman! Every American would receive excellent quality health care. Tell that BS about lower quality care to the people in England and France, they'll laugh in your face.
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
downforpot
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Ellis Dee]
#7427024 - 09/19/07 06:15 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Nah fuck it, it's better to have 43-47 million uninsured, fuck them and better to have my insurance company fucking me over by not paying shit and me filling for bankruptcy, yes, I like it that way.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: lonestar2004]
#7427039 - 09/19/07 06:25 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
> I'm not sure what Iraq has to do with Hillarycare?
People are claiming that the money we are wasting in Iraq would be better wasted at home by giving it to insurance companies.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7427230 - 09/19/07 08:18 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Madtowntripper said:
If you accept that the War In Iraq is costing 10B a day, which I'm not sure about, even if this Health care program cost 3and a half TRILLION dollars, it would still cost less.
I know which I'd rather have my money spent on, and its not propping up some fucked up raghead government in some pissant shithole little country.
Have you considered that right now, the war is being funded by loans from the Federal Reserve Banks. You havn't felt the hit because what you pay in income tax hasn't changed, yet.
Under Hillary care, you will be forced to buy into a health insurance program, at whatever cost is set for you, or be forced to pay a penalty or go to jail. You'll feel this one hit your wallet now.
This whole plan is unconstitutional. I don't see how the Supreme Court could allow for it.
It's a frightening prospect and so is she.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
psilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Phred]
#7427329 - 09/19/07 09:17 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Anyone who thinks it will really cost just 110 billion a year is too dumb to be allowed to vote. No government program having anything to do with medicine (such as medicare or medicaid) has ever come in anywhere close to the predicted figure. Usually, they haven't come anywhere close to being even a quarter of the predicted figure.
Phred
The National Health Service in the UK costs around 92 billion pounds a year to run, serving a population of 60 million. Its not exactly what you would call a Rolls Royce service.
At the same spending per head of population in the UK you are talking around 900 billion dollars a year.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/329/7458/128-a.pdf
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7427350 - 09/19/07 09:28 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said:
Under Hillary care, you will be forced to buy into a health insurance program, at whatever cost is set for you, or be forced to pay a penalty or go to jail. You'll feel this one hit your wallet now.
I have a real job, and thus, insurance. I would not be buying into any insurance program. Again, I dont see anywhere I can opt out of the Iraq War spending frenzy...
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: psilomonkey]
#7427352 - 09/19/07 09:29 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
> The National Health Service in the UK costs around 92 billion pounds a year to run, serving a population of 60 million.
Converting to US population size and US dollars, this equates to 923 billion USD.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: psilomonkey]
#7427374 - 09/19/07 09:36 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Add to that figure, the rising costs of the doctors, pharms and hospitals that WILL raise prices if this goes though, and the insurance companies, that will jack up theirs. Because they have the largest lobby, they will be able too do that too.
Hillary is helping to line their pockets with this plan. She receives more lobby money/campaign donations from the health care Industry then any other candidate. Obama runs a close second.
There are a number of 18-29 year olds here all complaining about how they don't go to the doctor or dentists because, they have no insurance because they can't afford it.
Hillary knows they won't read through her 1,400 page plan. She knows they will hear her " Health care coverage for Everyone under my plan" sound bite, get all excited thinking the government will pay for it and vote for her.
She'll get you coverage alright. She will FORCE you to buy the coverage you already can't afford, through your employer. It will be deducted from your pay check. Your age group will pay the highest rate under her plan.
Wake up!
Her plan is not that you will be covered from out of the income tax pool like how it works in Canada. Her plan forces everyone to buy coverage, through pay check deductions, in addition to the income tax, state tax, and SS tax deducted from your pay check.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
psilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Seuss]
#7427382 - 09/19/07 09:40 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Thats kinda what I said
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: psilomonkey]
#7428395 - 09/19/07 02:14 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I hate Hillary, but I kind of like the plan. Only because I think it actually WILL reduce the cost of health care. The more people that are covered (including especially young people), the overall HEALTH of this country will increase over time, costing everyone less.
I mean... once you turn 65, you're going to leech off society anyways even if you're against universal health care (COUGH COUGH.. MEDICARE). WOuldn't it be nice if everyone required LESS medication when they turn 65?
Although... I'm doubting she actually wants to enact this plan because she CARES for anyone.. she probably is just getting paid by the insurance companies to do this because they'll see a huge profit initially.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7428465 - 09/19/07 02:29 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Wouldn't people living longer cost the system more over time than what you would save by having more healthy people?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7428508 - 09/19/07 02:38 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"the overall HEALTH of this country will increase over time, costing everyone less."
Nothing much about alopathic medicine is preventative. It serves as band aides, supressives, and masks. Further, many pharmaceutical drugs and unnecessary surgeries, create other health problems up the road.
The only solution to health increasing and it costing less is preventive medicine. Where is that in her plan? She votes for FDA bans on alternative medicine ( were talking nutritional supplements and herbs here) used for prevention by millions of Americans.
Her plan sucks and I don't want to be forced into it, or see the Constitution get raped further and have to live under her law, in the process.
You have access to the internet and I am sure a Library in your town. Both are loaded with information on how to stay healthy and disease free through prevention.
Tell me, does her plan cover naturopaths, homeopaths, holistic practitioners, chiropractors, and massage therapy? Will it cover, herbal teas, non processed and zero trans fat natural foods?
Let's see, it seems to cover being cut open and synthetic poisons, after I become il and diseased.
No thanks!
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Seuss]
#7428599 - 09/19/07 03:00 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: Wouldn't people living longer cost the system more over time than what you would save by having more healthy people?
True.. I think I'm confusing my state run universal health care system arguments with this one. In this one, the companies are still profiting.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7428605 - 09/19/07 03:01 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I want to add something here for the people who love this plan, which is nothing more then forcing people to get her health insurance plan, and at higher rates for many.
Why is it so difficult to let it be optional?
As you start to answer that question for yourself, you will begin to see why and who is being raped by this plan.
I would love to hear from people in support of her plan, reasons why it should be forced on all and not optional for those who want in on it.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7428611 - 09/19/07 03:02 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Besides.. you guys can't tell me that getting a physical when you're you and and finding a disease in it's early stages ISN'T going to cost less than waiting until you're older to deal with it. That's a load of shit. EARLY DETECTION of health problems saves shitloads of money in the long run. And if everyone is covered.. that's what you'll have.. more people actually being able to afford a god damned basic PHYSICAL when they're young.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7428699 - 09/19/07 03:23 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If you can't afford a physical now, how will you be able to afford having Hillary's health care premium being deducted from your pay checks?
Would you also care to take a stab at answering my question in my last reply- just for fun and discussion on it.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7428767 - 09/19/07 03:41 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: If you can't afford a physical now, how will you be able to afford having Hillary's health care premium being deducted from your pay checks?
Wait until the SHEEP get 37% cuts from their paychecks to pay for this ‘free care’.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7428840 - 09/19/07 03:59 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: If you can't afford a physical now, how will you be able to afford having Hillary's health care premium being deducted from your pay checks?
By suckling the teet of the gov't. Massachussets did the same thing a year ago.. and guess what happened to the poor people who couldn't afford it? You guessed it.. the gov't flipped thier bill..
Maybe this isn't a good idea afterall. I like the idea of universal health care.. if no one profits from it...
As far as letting it be optional.. well... the gov't says we have to have car insurance.. and the whole reason is to keep premiums down. People complain about car insurance being mandatory.. but if you didn't have it... and you caused 100K in damage for an accident, you might as well kiss your life goodbye. ... and the rates for those who CHOSE to pay it would be off the charts... just look at any historical records of car insurance premiums from 20 years ago back when there were a few states that said car insurance was optional. You'll find their rates to be off the charts. Perfect example is my sister. She was insured when she was 16 in florida (20 years ago when car insurance was optional). Some redneck that chose NOT to have insurance rammed into her at 70mph and demolished both their cars. He wasn't insured so my sister's insurance had to flip the bill those who CHOSE to pay the premium.
I'm not saying it's the same thing.. but I think the idea of Universal health care or manditory isurance would have a similar underlying principal.... to save generally save money for everyone. Assuming Hillary isn't doing this because she's getting kickbacks for it, she'd be doing it because she believes ultimately it will save the average american money... at least that's why she SHOULD be doing it.
There's really no way to prove this policy will save the avg taxpayer money unless there was a previous test case in which it was successful... and guess what? There *IS*.. It's called Massachussets.
To be honest.. maybe Hillary *IS* jumping the gun.
If, in 10 years, we can prove that Massachussets' move to require health insurance of all it's citizens in turn saves the average Massachusen (sp?) money as far as taxes going to subsidies for the poor and causes premiums to go down, then wouldn't it be worth giving it a shot on the national level?
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: lonestar2004]
#7429096 - 09/19/07 05:16 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7429118 - 09/19/07 05:21 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Remember when you use words and phrases like the "governments teet" and the "government flipping the bill", the money is really coming from working Americans having taxes deducted from their pay checks.
I'm okay with people being forced to have auto insurance to cover the OTHER guy. That's only fair to them if you caused the accident. I don't think one should be forced to cover their own cars if they choose not too. It's understandable that if you have an auto loan, the bank can mandate you keep it insured until it's paid off. Thats the Green party voter in me.
That auto insurance example doesn't exactly equate. I can shop around for good prices AND get better pricing by having a good driving record, and by the type of car I choose to own. There is a lot of control for me to make it affordable for myself and what I choose to put at risk.
It won't work that way under Hillary care. She will decide what your premium is and the younger and healthiest will pay the most. No matter what I do to keep my personal risks low and stay healthy, I'll have to pay MORE anyway because of those who don't and aren't. It's not fair and there is zero control over choosing a plan I am willing to pay for.
I don't know much about what's happening in Massachusetts. Keep us posted.:)
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: lonestar2004]
#7429205 - 09/19/07 05:45 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Fred Thompson on Hillarycare:
http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx
Phred
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7429243 - 09/19/07 05:52 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said:
That auto insurance example doesn't exactly equate.
I know it doesn't. If you read that I said.. I admitted that it doesn't. But I said the primcipal is the same.. assuming politicians aren't in the health insurance industry's pocket.. they're pushing mandatory health care for the same basic reasons... that they're doing it because they feel it would cost the average american less. And that if you can prove that it costs that it lowers the cost of health care per person to have everyone covered (because people are more likely to get insured when they have more money.. i.e. OLDER and past the time where they can catch diseases early on), then maybe it should be mandatory much like car insurance.
Im not trying to equate how the car insurance is like health insurance.. I'm trying to stress how having health care being mandatory might LOWER your health bill in the long run.
Like I said.. Maybe Hilary jumped the gun. You shouldn't really press this idea on theory. Wait until we see what happens with Massachussets. If the premiums go up for Massachussets citizens LESS over 10 years than the rest of the states.. THEN maybe you'll have a better argument for trying to push it on a national level like Hillary is doing.
Or at least she could push for a mandated health insurance for CHILDREN and just start with that. If we use taxpayer money to get them started healthy when they're young.. they're probably suck less out medicare when we're older.. and who pays for MEDICARE? YOU DO!
Someone in here said "Well if they live longer than aren't we going to have to pay for them for a longer period of time". Well.. yes.. but if they're HEALTHY during this time they're not going to need their high blood pressure medication through medicare which YOU the taxpayer are already paying for. They won't need cholesterol medication when they' re older.
Point being... your tax money is going to go to someone else's health one way or another... We're already paying money that gets sent to old farts using medicare.. That' basically a universal health care system that's already in place for older people. We're paying into it and 99% of the people on this site aren't getting anything out of it. Why not just cut medicare and use that money to insure CHILDREN at least? If a kid's parents are too poor to insure him... by the time he gets his own insurance at 18 (or whenever he supports himself) and that kid COULD have had a disease prevented when he was younger for 1000 bucks... now he's going to need 100's of thousands of dollars to fight his problem. When they kid FINALLY gets insured, YOU as an insurance premium payer are going to have to pay more in premiums. If that kid lives to be an old man he's going to use pay less in insurance and use taxpayer medicare money to pay for what he needs.
If we had LESS kids in that situation, being in a healthier state of body BEFORE they can afford to get on a health plan, you won't be paying as much per month.
It all boils down to this... Pay 1000 bucks now in taxpayer money to help fight a disease in its earlier stages in a child in a family that's too poor to afford insurance, and you won't have to worry about him hopping onto YOUR health insurance carrier and using up a million bucks in medical needs 10 years later after it's too late to eliminate the disease and now he just has to live with it. If he hops onto your health insurance plan after it's too late.. who's going to pay for the millions of dollars he uses in health costs? YOU ARE! And if this kid doesn't LIVE long enough to become an adult and get his own insurance because of his disease.. he's going to end up in the hospital at one point.
Makes a little sense doesn't it? Forget the whole sympathy argument and just look at the business side. Don't you think this statement above makes just enough sense to look into?
Most hospitals CANNOT deny you EMERGENCY, LIFE SAVING services even if you DON'T have insurance. So when he's dying in a hospital because of his disease... he's STILL using up 10's of thousands of dollars in hosptal services that YOU the tax payer are paying for.. all because you didn't want to chip in two cents of taxpayer money to pay the 1000 dollars he needed to eliminate his disease when you had a chance. Even if they finally toss him out on the street because there's nothing that can be done, he's probably still going to use a few grand worth of tax payer money before he gets tossed out on the street.
Someone just needs to do some research and find out the amount of taxpayer money the average UNINSURED person STILL uses on public health services and INCLUDE the amount that the average insurance premium has increased due to paying for preventable PRE-EXISTING conditions for that people got BEFORE they hopped on your health plan... and then compare that to the tax increase you'd be paying for covering poor children... My GUESS is that you'd be paying less if you paid a little extra tax money to go towards covering the poor kids when they're young.
Edited by BrAiN (09/19/07 06:20 PM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: Phred]
#7429272 - 09/19/07 05:58 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Fred Thompson on Hillarycare:
http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx
Did I hear this right? Hillary's plan says you have to be able to prove you have health insurance you've been paying for, before you can be hired for a job? 
You broksters and rarely employed thinking Hillary is your meal ticket better look more closely at this plan.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7429303 - 09/19/07 06:05 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I've changed my mind. I'm only for mandatory health care IF it's for children... for the reason I stated in my last post just now.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7429332 - 09/19/07 06:12 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said: I've changed my mind. I'm only for mandatory health care IF it's for children... for the reason I stated in my last post just now.
I'd be for that too. I already donate to Childrens Hospitals and childrens charities.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7429365 - 09/19/07 06:21 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said:
Quote:
BrAiN said: I've changed my mind. I'm only for mandatory health care IF it's for children... for the reason I stated in my last post just now.
I'd be for that too. I already donate to Childrens Hospitals and childrens charities.
Would you go a step further and be for giving welfare-type subsidies for children to get covered that come from poor families?
And i use "welfare" for lack of a better word. Welfare already has the conotation of being a hand out for lazy people. Think of it more as an INVESTMENT in getting a kid healthy so they don'y suckle YOUR wallet's teet when he/she's older.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7429459 - 09/19/07 06:48 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Here's the thing. "I" would be okay with it because I have a bleeding heart for children with fuck ups for parents.
I don't think it's right or fair for everyone to be forced too help other peoples kids, when they are just getting by taking care of themselves or one child. So no, I would not vote for forced taxation to cover health care costs for all children.
The argument that they will be healthier adults if they can get free medical treatment doesn't wash for me AT ALL!
( Remember, I don't think how alopathic medicine deals with illness and disease, sets you up for greater health. Most of what they use and do, ignores the underlying cause and puts you at new risks. If you have diabetes in the family and keep eating certain fats, proteins and sugars, a doctor isn't going to keep you from getting it. Since when does a couch potato, junk food eating, fat ass parent listen to a doctor about feeding their children healthy meals and making sure they get exercise? Alopathic docs, won't even touch, mental and emotional abuse and trauma that can lead to psychosomatically induced ilness and disease in children early or later in life.
Further, the food pyramid is crap and so is much of what is considered to be a healthy meal. Don't even get me started on the il effects of eating animal proteins and carbs together)grrrrrrrr
Anyway.......... 
Charity is the fair solution to me. It let's those who want to help and can, help as much as they want too.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7429518 - 09/19/07 07:03 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not talking about paying a bunch of money into a system that just payes people to TEACH kids about prevention.
I'm not sure about all the different types of diseases out there, but I'm sure there are a few that are just RANDOM and not PREVENTABLE, but probably have a small window of treatment.
What if the sytem just covers THESE types of health problems.. Lets say there is a type of cancer out there which if treated once discovered.... will eliminate the cancer.. but if left untreated for 5 years and THEN treated... will cause that person to have to be an invalid for the rest of their lives and cause them to suck way more out of the system over the rest of their lives than it would for the initial procedure to rid this person of the cancer.
This is the type of program I'm talking about. Eliminating stuff like that.. not encouraging kids to have a healthy lifestyle so they don't get diabetes. We already teach this crap in school.
I'm talking about directly funding these procedures with taxpayer money for children for eliminating diseases under these types of circumstances i just mentioned.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: BrAiN]
#7429596 - 09/19/07 07:20 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I answered that. I said though I would be okay with it, I wouldn't vote to force everyone to fund such a program via an income tax. It's not fair to me, to force people to work and pay for the health care of other peoples children.
That is why I choose to donate to childrens charities.
You confused me with the untreated children become long term invalids part.
Modern medicine is what helps create invalids, keeping those mother nature would take out, alive, yet now in need of daily care.
Speaking of, who knew that as of spring 2006, the injured vets from Iraq and Afdghanastan, requiring lifelong on going medicle treatment and care for sustained war injuries, now totals a projected cost of 2.3 trillion dollars.
I'm okay with paying for them too, even though this war is BS, vets deserve it from us.
If you want to work on prevention of long term invalid care, covered by the tax payers, help put an end to these senseless wars. http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
#7429908 - 09/19/07 08:29 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: I answered that. I said though I would be okay with it, I wouldn't vote to force everyone to fund such a program via an income tax. It's not fair to me, to force people to work and pay for the health care of other peoples children.
That is why I choose to donate to childrens charities.
You confused me with the untreated children become long term invalids part.
Modern medicine is what helps create invalids, keeping those mother nature would take out, alive, yet now in need of daily care.
Speaking of, who knew that as of spring 2006, the injured vets from Iraq and Afdghanastan, requiring lifelong on going medicle treatment and care for sustained war injuries, now totals a projected cost of 2.3 trillion dollars.
I'm okay with paying for them too, even though this war is BS, vets deserve it from us.
If you want to work on prevention of long term invalid care, covered by the tax payers, help put an end to these senseless wars. http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024
Touche! did i spell that right?
I take some continuing ed courses at the comm college here. The physics dept head's office has a bumper sticker on the window that reads:
"Trillions of dollars for war? Who needs health care?"
|
|