Hillary to announce "universal" health care policy today. Do you think...?

Question

Rumor has it she's going to model it on Massachusetts which forces all uninsured people to purchase a health care policy. It's not optional. You aren't given a choice. You buy a policy or they take your money and buy it for you. Low income people will get a subsidy.

1. Will this cause businesses that now cover their employees to drop coverage and let employees fend for themselves?

2. Will illegal aliens be forced into purchasing their own health care coverage and, if so, is it really the job of the US taxpayer to subsidies low income illegal aliens to help them pay?

Answer 1

a) "Socialism guides our behavior...In practice, we keep moving down the Socialist road...In fact, we are more than half Socialist today, that is, more than half the total output of the country is being distributed in a way that is determined by the government (including regulations)...Bill Clinton is a Socialist, defined as somebody who believes that the way to achieve good things is to have government do it. You can't think of a more Socialist program than the health care program that he tried to get us to adopt." Milton Friedman, (C-Span), November 20, 1994, in Dennis L. Cuddy, The Road to Socialism and the New World Order, p. 74.

Answer 2

ITs funny ytellu thinks only rich people will be against Hilary's plan. As she unveiled it today, it forces people to buy coverage. This is something that we know does not affect the rich: they already have coverage, they dont care.

But what I am worried about are low income individuals. They will supposedly get a tax subsidy: I can already see the problems she has not thought of though. One, that subsidy will most likely be stagnant in order to equally fund everyone: one mans subsidy will be as good as anothers.

But this forces people to buy coverage: bad idea. So what, the companies cannot deny you coverage based upon pre-existing conditions, that does not mean they will not charge that person more. And all companies use risk-assessment to figure out what to charge, so no matter what company the person eventually has to go to, its going to cost them crap loads that they may not have.

I'd rather that we go to a full on Universal Coverage system or not at all. The problem is, I know many, many people have no idea how to budget effectively and/or have trouble paying bills. Not only is this a brand new and huge bill to place on them, but l doubt it will be easy for them to find a place for it in their budgets (that is, it will just add more confusion to their financial lives).

If the money was taken out of their pockets when they got their paychecks, it'd simply be easier for them to plan how to spend their money. And then the amount removed could be adjusted for income: the bills a person pays to insurance companies cannot. So what that person will get a check every year: thats just more paperwork to file, more crap for them to worry about and more time spent working with government bureacracys. People have trouble filing their taxes: Imagine what this will be like! I can see the abreviated names of the forms and the companies that pop up to help them: we already have H&R Block Tax professionals, now will we get Healthcare filing professionals?

And as if people did not need more paperwork they may not be capable of filing and more trouble working with their money, its still technically health insurance we have today, which I have to say is flawed. Companies will still try and deny payments, still say what can and cannot be done. And still have plans without full coverage: HMOs and PPOs and OPOs will still exist.

Way to go Hilary, not only are you satisfying every Insurance Executives wet dream and forcing them to accept 44 million new customers, your plan does not prevent them from crapping on those people.

Obama's plan sounds the best so far, at least it does not force people to pay money they may not have to gain coverage. If Clinton goes into the White House, I can see this being the issue in 12' that gets the Republicans back in Office.

Answer 3

1. Probably. But that might be best for all. I know a lot of businesses that cannot afford health care for their employees. And the businesses that hire union employees would finally have a way or turning a profit. Maybe that would help our economy.

2. Yes, and no. But there is nothing we can do about the illegal aliens until our government focuses on them. Right now, the focus is on Iraq. Eventually, they'll get around to the immigration issue.

Answer 4

Anything that is done for the non-rich will be an improvement!
If the money wasted in Iraq had been used for medical
research---we might have wiped out at least one of the
major diseases that still threaten our parents today---and
if not some strides would have been taken in their fight
against the big pharmaceutical companies to lower
the prices of prescription drugs.

I wonder why some of the Hilary-haters can justify their
opposition to someone---anyone---who fights a
battle that might save the lives of a friend or loved
one in days to come ?

Are you Rich---or just unthinking ?

Answer 5

She will model it on the success of the Northern European Universal Health care (Germany, Netherlands). As a result, they have half the insurance costs we pay today! Why, because of prevention. People go to the Doctor, before they get to sick, it costs society to much, like here.
Germany - Universal Health care - $2700 a year
USA - insurance coverage - $6700 a year
Above are the average costs for society per person
You still can do your own stuff, anytime you want, as long as you are insured.
I applaud Hillary for her courage to go against the uninformed opinions of the numb masses.

Answer 6

I pay attention you, Steve J. The coverage is attempting to get rid of the intermediary. as an occasion: a real tale... state of affairs #a million: interior america of a a million) 7 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous baby has scientific insurance. gets bronchitis in yet another state. youngster's be certain takes baby to interior of sight MD workplace. HMO says to pass to the wellbeing center to get coated- won't disguise interior of sight MD workplace pass to. baby continues to be 2 hours interior the emergency room to be seen for bronchitis. baby gets antibiotics. fee: $500 funds drugs: $20 greenback co-pay state of affairs #2: out of america of a a million) baby gets bronchitis. 2) baby is going to interior of sight pharmacy and gets antibiotics. fee: $8 funds The pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies are completely out of control. individuals are crossing the borders to Canada, Mexico and different international locations for their wellbeing care. Clinton have been given many death threats for desiring wellbeing care reforms. the american wellbeing care device is shrouded in shame. straightforward illnesses fee a minimum of an $80 regular practitioner fee and a cost of regardless of prescription there is. All that's circumvented- that's what the coverage is attempting to do. what isn't trouble-free is the exorbitant volume the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies are asking. A drug that's $40 funds a month in yet another usa is $350 in ours. that's what's sickening. (i'm speaking approximately minocycline, an extremely straightforward antibiotic.) The insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies could like it if I voted Republican. it could shop their scams going. Antonio

Answer 7

And where is she going to get the money to subsidize all the low income people?
I think you should have to show proof of citizenship as well.

Answer 8

1 Yes 2 .The working taxpayers would be forced to pay for it, which means higher taxes for the working class.

Answer 9

She tried this 1s before it bombed out>Another nail in her coffin> Keep up the show then there won't be any Dem's left as the starting gate>easy win Rep>

Answer 10

Either way, its just a new way to expand the gov't and create more taxes. Will I get a tax deduction for carrying insurance? Probably not.