Hey Hillary, here's the solution to health care in America. Do you agree?

Question

Rather than start from ground zero, start by affording everyone full coverage. From there, eliminate those already insured and make it a law that employers can not drop coverage. Give employers who already provide coverage extra incentives to maintain current coverage. Eliminate those with incomes, say above $100k. Reduce coverage on those over 65 who are covered by Medicare. Eliminate those already covered by state plans. Provide more clinics nationwide to treat non-life threatening cases. Establish more groups of people lowering the premiums on the coverage. Have the middle class wage earners contribute thru payroll deduction a pre-determined contribution. Negotiate with providers, doctors, hospitals, etc., care for the unemployed, homeless, those with incomes within the poverty level. This would have to be a federal program offering each state the opportunity to join.Insurance companies would be like a FNMA, secondary market buying into the federal program thereby shifting the burde

Well, we must start somewhere! Last but not least, any provider found guilty of fraud... LIFE IN PRISON, no parole.

Answer 1

Here is a better idea. Have people take responsibility for themselves. Have them get a job with benefits. Have them get health insurance like the vast majority of Americans. Why should we change the entire healthcare system just because a small percentage of people don't want to take care of themselves?
Most people in the USA have health insurance.

Answer 2

Your plan is flawed on several levels. You want to reduce health care on the group who needs it the most. The elderly require more health care. Then you are creating several confusing layers of coverage which would require large bureaucracies to properly administrate. Lastly you want to tax the middle class to pay for it all, while absolving the poor from any cost. In short what you are proposing is a socialist structure like what is used in countries like England and Canada. It is cumbersome, expensive and unresponsive in general. I do believe there are options for addressing health care problems in the United States, but your plan isn't even close to ideal.

constance m: Before you start calling people ignorant kindly learn the facts. Study countries with national health and the costs associated with these programs. The billions spent in Iraq pale in comparison and the tax structure required to fund them is oppressive. You may be willing to pay out 50% of your income for a system which is unresponsive, but the vast majority of us are not. There are alternatives which would be good for all people in general, but creating what would be the largest entitlement program in American history is not it.

Just as a cost comparison on the basic level. In 2004-2005 Canada estimated that they spent 88 billion on health care. The population of Canada is roughly 32 million. The population of the United States is roughly 300 million. Do a little basic math and you have a total of 880 billion a year. Now these numbers are not scientific and I do not represent them as such, but it doesn't take a genius to draw the proper conclusion. That is a lot of money and it has to come from somewhere. If we accept the numbers and compute them that would require every one of those 300 million to pay alomost 3000 a year in additional taxes.

Answer 3

Sure, lets dump even more taxes on the middle class. People who make over $100 k don't deserve coverage? Excuse me, have you seen the cost of hospital stays lately. Yeah, lets definitely penalize the seniors, the people who most likely need health care and medications. Who determines what a life threatening case is? A life prison term for fraud? Wow, so, instead of burgeoning costs in health care and social security, we will now have to pay extra to build more prisons with a geriatric ward.

Any thoughts on the rich and filthy rich and enormously wealthy people, like say Hillary Clinton picking up any of the tab.

She's trying to get elected so she can continue her failed attempt to arrive at a national health care system. She'll never get my vote. Her husband was asleep at the wheel when he wasn't chasing interns, and he caused 9-11. All that planning happened on his watch. He closed most of our army bases, and he ignored terrorists attacks against our country in foreign lands, which opened the door for them to bring it home to our own country.

She thinks just like him. I'd rather vote for a cartoon.

Answer 4

I'm not Mrs. Clinton. I do know how politics and govt work. Suddenly offering everybody full healthcare will cause a massive loss of profits in all businesses. This would almost certainly collapse the already fragile economy!

Answer 5

How about taxes the very rich and famous people that lives here. I mean overly tax. If they make a few million dollars a year. They should get some of that money taxed to the poor.

Answer 6

Reading these answers is troubling to me. The ignorance of the American populace is appalling. We are spending billions of dollars a month in Iraq on a war which does nothing but create havoc and kill innocent people. And yet, we can not afford Universal Health Care for our own people, to make their lives better.

Answer 7

And your solution to any that do not abide...go along with your socialist fantasy??? Life in prison!
Mine is a country founded as a republic fantasy...Should socialists/ democratic thinkers serve life in prison in my view of reality?

Answer 8

don't like it. Smells of too much government and if you think that 100k is a lot of money then you need to think again. Any thing that gets the government more involved is not an option in my book.

Answer 9

universal health care would result in sub-standard care by sub-standard health care providers.

Answer 10

Take your Socialist plan out of America. It stinks.