Was there a difference between Hillary Care 2.0 and the Republican Health Care Agenda?

Question

Why do the Health Insurance Companies’ profits always trump the policy?

RitchWilliams- it's funny that you want to "reduce costs" in something that is a "free market". The Insurance and health business is FAR more complicated than simple arithmetic. How do you propose lowering costs? Tort reform? That’ll cut, at the best estimate, 2% of the Drs cost, and even then those savings aren’t going to the patient. “Making Drs more competitive” I saw someone else say. How do you propose doing that in a “free market”? You’re talking in circles.

espreses@sbcglobal.n…- I agree about “profit motive” and how it drives our economy. It can even drive the healthcare business in a better direction. But there are many ways to have a Profit Motive. Right now, Drs profit motive is to see as many sick patients as possible, and either bill an insurance company or write-off a “non-reimbursement” . Either way, their profit motive depends on people being sick. So don’t you see how that particular Profit Motive is detrimental to public interest? What if we could reform the industry so well, that their Profit Motive was predicated on PREVENTION and PERFORMANCE? Unfortunately there’s not enough room here or time to explain this.

RitchWilliams- this is not about the little man being screwed by the rich man, it's about public policy. I'm well aware how this country works.

Answer 1

"Was there a difference between Hillary Care 2.0 and the Republican Health Care Agenda?"

There was a slight difference in implementation. The only underlying difference is that different parties are proposing it. And the Republican agenda doesn't involve raising taxes for the rich so the poor can afford it.

Answer 2

We can parse the Clinton .02 plan all we want but the fact still remains it is going to be Congress not the president who decides this in the end. The fact that the Democratic candidates are even talking this issue is a step in the right direction. Our health care system has some serious problems. Senator Clinton is offering a solution as are Barack Obama, and john Edwards. I have seen nothing, zip, nada from the Republican side regarding this issue.

Massachusetts already has a healtcare plan that seems to be working and California has one in the works. It will simply be a matter of time before the other states will find it necessary to do the same. A federal plan will make it quicker and easier. By the way the plan in Mass. was under Republican Governor Mitt Romney and the plan in California is being pushed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Answer 3

I suggest you do the math. You obviously haven't.

Compare the annual cost of your medical expenses and then factor in the probability of your having an accident or some catastrophic illness and then compare it to the cost of insurance. Insurance companies are not only charging you a premium, they're paying the cost of your care. The net is their profit and while they are not a charitable organization, they're not the oil companies either.

But you're upset with the cost of care. I understand that. And THAT is what needs to be addressed because until we can get the costs of care down, NO solution is going to be reasonable. And that's my problem. Everyone's looking at how to pay. No one's looking at how to reduce costs.

UPDATE: I understand that Adam and that's my problem too. How do we reduce the costs? Because until we reduce the costs, we'll have to pay the price, what ever that price is as a factor of costs. Right? Whether it's the government or private insurance, makes no difference. So what goes into that cost? Malpractice? Malpractice insurance? The incredible costs associated with creating new drugs that actually make it to the market? How about the law suits against drug companies and their insurance? What else? I don't know, don't pretend to. But what I do know is that people are no sicker today than they were a hundred years ago when the family doctor made house calls and the average guy could pay the bill...or give him a few chickens. The difference is the levels of care and technology that we have today. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is spent using million dollar machines trying to keep a person alive for a few more weeks, another year. We're spending hundreds of thousands to circumvent nature. That's a tough thought to get our heads around and sounds uncompassionate, but it is also one of the main reason for the extraordinary cost of health care. Something to think about.

Answer 4

There appears to be a lot of similarity between the plan Clinton is proposing and the one that was brought up by Bush early in his second term. Both would rely on taxes to pay for health care coverage that the poor cannot afford and both would offer tax exemptions to ebcourage the buying of health insurance. Both are attempts to bring down the overall cost of healthcare and healthcare coverage for everybody.
Health insurance companies are strongly opposed to anything that may cut into their huge profits. If they were not already making huge profits, they would not be able to afford to lobby against any reform. One big difference in the new Clinton plan is that it appears to be working from the middle rather than going full bore against the health insurance industry.

Answer 5

Without the profit motive service and quality suffer. The caliber of individuals willing to make the sacrifice to become doctors will drop. Competition will be decreased meaning a drop in service. Pharmaceutical companies will have no incentive to come up with the next wonder drug, or treatment. Profit is not a dirty word. Whithout profit(income) where would the money come from that fuels government programs that help people in need, how would things get done without incentive? Please note that those countries that shun profit are the poorest on earth

Answer 6

i've got consistently worked for small companies and have consistently had great coverage. beneficial I had to make contributions approximately 25-30 % of the top classification and had co-will pay and deductibles, yet it quite is, and could be, my accountability. Its superb while a company grants that income, yet they might desire to no longer be mandated to realize this and your "neighbor" shouldn't might desire to pay to your well-being care the two. additionally, by using how, the republicans had to permit small companies to pool jointly to have get admission to to the extra constructive costs that massive businesses have, however the democrats choose to mandate companies to furnish the intense cost scientific well-being coverage plans you are able to no longer cope with to pay for now or pay a great. The exchange courses are purely for human beings whose employers do no longer furnish scientific well-being coverage and that they'll might desire to pay a hundred pc of the top classification until they qualify for medicaid or a small subsidy which will pay for possibly 10 % of their $10,000+ top classification. So...have you ever even examine the recent well-being care reform invoice? for sure no longer in case you think of this is going to help small companies or persons in any way.

Answer 7

If she does not have the courage to face the Health Insurance Companies, then I have no confidence in any of her plans unfortunately.

Answer 8

Wow, I'm scared...I actually agree with Edge Caliber.

The answer to the health care issue is not universal health care, it's re-making the insurance companies, getting rid of frivolous law suits and making doctors/hospitals more competitive.

Answer 9

Money makes for powerful political influence in this country. That's why large corporations have the power and the average American does not.

Answer 10

HEALTH CARE COMES DOWN TO MONEY IF PROVIDED BY THE US TAXES WOULD HAVE TO GO UP CANADAS DONT WORK AND NEITHER WLL CLINTONS OR ANYTHING ELESE IVE SEEN. EMPLOYEERS PROVIDING COVERAGE IS THE BEST BET FOR NOW,I WANT TO SEE NATIONAL COVERAGE RIGHT NOW 50% OF MY INCOME GOES FOR IT.