What do you think of Hilary Clinton's medical plan ?

Question

I heard that this woman is trying to change our medical plan like Canada basically. In other words we would have to wait forever, 2-3 years for one little procedure for a sprain or a major procedure like heart surgery. I was a democrat until i heard this. It is scray because with our medical plans changing and everyone one on a 10 years long list would mean worse disease due to many not getting treatment fast enough and they mutate, more deaths.....Did yall know this or am i wrong ? Who is voting for her because she is just a female ?

Answer 1

I really suggest you do some research into UHC and find out what you are saying is absolutely false. Currently the U.S is ranked number 1 in cost and is 14th in quality of care, this from the world health organization. What you are spreading is what the insurance lobby wants you to say and is not true in any aspect. .

Answer 2

The Healthcare System has gotten so BAD in this Country- ANY "plan" is better than what we have now! I give the Lady credit for just having the NERVE to put something out there- when nobody ELSE will touch the subject with a ten foot pole! I'm a guy- but I'm HOPING that alot of women DO vote for Hilary just because she's a woman, because none of the MEN running with her- have half the guts to DO anything that SHE has!

Answer 3

For one thing, you are very, very wrong about Canadian medical care. Compare the actual statistics for 2006:

Life expectancy:
Canada, 80.3 years
USA, 78.0 years
Canadians on average live 2.3 years longer than Americans.

Infant mortality:
Canada, 4.6 deaths per 1,000 births
USA, 6.4 deaths per 1,000 births
Your baby is about 50% more likel.y to die under the United States health system than if he/she were born in Canada.

Other countries fare even better - including countries with federalized medical care or health insurance. Check the statistics yourself.

"I heard" you say... Darth, above, says "I don't know the details, but socialized medicine is a horrible idea..." If he doesn't know the details, how does he know it's a bad idea? Because he read it in the answers of other "experts" who also answered your question saying, without any statistics or references, how nationalized health insurance would destroy American health care? By listening to Rush Limbaugh, AMA lobbyists, and pharmaceutical company publicists?

Before you pass judgment on anyone's proposals, regardless of party, you should read it, or at least listen to what they have to say, so you know what you're talking about.

Medical care in America is currently controlled by million and billion-dollar medical and pharmaceutical corporations whose only motivation is profit. Countless Americans die every year because they can't afford to see a qualified doctor, go to a good hospital, or buy their medications. That's just a fact... Clinton's plan may or may not be the answer, but medical care in America has to change, to become not just acceptable, but the best in the world, which it is not today.

What is far more disconcerting to me about your question is that you, an American citizen and voter, would change your political affiliation based on "something you heard." Regardless of our party or political beliefs, we as citizens need to be critical thinkers, to demand accountability from our leaders, and not to be easily swayed by political rhetoric from any biased source (and they're all biased) that comes along.

Answer 4

Right now only the people who can afford it get those treatments. In Canada everyone has the right to basic health care. Therefore Canada's system, even with its limitations, is still better for their society than our health care system is for ours.

You are being quite stuck up by saying that only people who can afford medical treatments should have the right to them.

Answer 5

I don't know the details, but socialized medicine is a horrible idea. I know it sounds great to say people have a "right to healthcare," but it's just not so. Healthcare is not free, and the money has to come from somewhere. Like it or not, taking money from taxpayers to provide services is stealing. The best way to ensure the poor get healthcare is to get the government out of the equation. Deregulate the healthcare industry, and costs will come down. Furthermore, if people are that concerned about the poor having access to healthcare, then they should VOLUNTARILY give money to charities that would provide this. Charity is great, and I give regularly. Government theft is not.

Answer 6

When she tried to get her plan through when Bill was in office, even the Democrats rejected it. It is absolute socialized medicine. Our medical system is doomed if she gets her way.

Answer 7

She already did plenty of damage 10 years ago. What she want another crack in killing people. I have Canadian relatives. There medical services sucks. I keep trying to remind people that hospital cause deaths increased emensely after Hillary tried to fix it a while back. All the cost cutting done by the hospitals in preparation of Hillary health care reform left the hospitals understaffed.

Answer 8

in line with risk a nearer seem is needed as to what fairly occurred, she in basic terms have been given so a techniques as protecting some conferences earlier the hostilities began, the coverage firms went after her for no longer revealing who she replaced into consulting with, a tactic accompanied by potential of Cheney for the period of the potential commision conferences and defended by potential of him as desiring unvarnished honesty which he does no longer are turning out to be if he had to bare the names. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander on that one. the 2nd challenge replaced into that it decrease out or lower back on the involvement of coverage firms which might have meant a alleviation of their income, which by potential of ways have been up progressively previous inflation expenditures for the previous ten years. The coverage firms then began a brilliant merchandising marketing campaign the place it replaced into mentioned that there could be no decision of scientific expert or wellbeing facility, that the government could be making scientific judgements, that it could be frightening. and expensive. Ten years later, and the coverage firms make scientific judgements, you may in basic terms bypass to their docs or hospitals, and confident, its very frightening. and expensive. So costly that its previous the attain of 40 seven million voters, so costly that companies are dropping wellbeing care plans, so costly that working human beings can't handle to pay for the minimum of twelve thousand money to insure their relatives. Now it rather is an common assertion of fact, one which you will discover in action commonplace. i'm no longer interested in costs intercourse existence, purported murders or shady fundraisers. i'm no longer interested in relatives values hypocrites or Bushs failings, no call calling of Liberals, or conservative. So tell me? Did Hillary bungle it, or did we enable super agency to scare us out of it? the place are we now? Are we greater efficient off or worse than we've been ten years in the past interior the combat to get adequate wellbeing preserve all?

Answer 9

What plan? That plan she's been planning for the past 10 years? You see all those elders sitting around her belted off on her website? Well there were there to find out what the hell happened to her promise 10 years ago to get them healthcare. I think they wanna kick her azz!

Answer 10

It will irreparably ruin medical care in this country, if implemented, for generations.