And her plan, like any national plan before it, is doomed to create lower quality health care and HUGE SPIRALING UPWARD COSTS, and then implode with the weight of the costs that NOBODY can afford.
fast and bulbous...ROFLMAO! I needed a good laugh today. That was it. Reality is that Bill was a much more moderate liberal than Hitlary....who is a rabid socialist. Now, if you look at President Bush's second term, and take into account his spending, his wimpy fighting of a war, and his stance on illegal immigration, I would agree if you said that he was a moderate liberal.
janice...you are almost 100% correct. The only point you are wrong on is that next year, the year after, and each year following we WILL be forced to pay more, but the quality of insurance will not go up, but it will go down. And when they cannot tax us any more, the quality of health care will plummet...just like anywhere else that socialized health care has been trying and dying.
Elana...other countries are not more mature. That has nothing to do with it. Other countries have tried, AND FAILED! Without exception, every country with socialized medicine has experienced rapidly decreasing quality of health care, and out of control costs. We are MORE mature in that we are learning from the MISTAKES of others.
2007-10-18 02:06:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
9⤊
9⤋
It is the same system that Mitt Romney put in place as Governor of Massachusetts, so you can say it a conservative republican system. But it is better than over 40 million people not being able to afford health insurance and having to use an emergency room as a doctors office and leaving the government with the huge bills to pay the hospital.
The States are already paying the money for the uninsured, it will just be shifted to insurance and preventive care instead of overcrowding emergency rooms.
2007-10-18 09:30:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Michael G 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
Actually it is the Democrats (libs if you like) who have been trying to tell Repbulicans (cons) that Hillary's proposal is AFFORDABLE health care not free health care. But the cons didn't listen instead they railed on with their scare tactics. You see, the difference really boils down to the fact that progressives (libs if you like) have empathy toward others and conservatives don't. Progressives believe in empowering people to help themselves by giving them a boost when needed where cons say you're on your own and if you need help too bad. Actually if you currently have health care coverage you are likely to see no difference other than a smaller premium under Hillary's plan. If you don't have health insurance now you will have it. Just like you have to have Social Security deducted from your check like it or not you will possibly have a small amount taken out to help others afford health care. You will see health care providers and pharmaseutical companies better regulated with regard to pricing through tax incentives and price fixing. They will still be able to make a profit but not a huge one as they do now. The main thing is everyone will have medical care not just a selfish few lucky enough to be able to afford it or who have a company with deep enough pockets to pay the majority of the premium for them.
The scare tactics of the far right worked before but people have become wise to that crap now and we are going to have some form of reform regarding health care in the next few years one way or the other.
2007-10-18 09:59:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Hillary is a "Professional Politician", and as such, she knows how to present an agenda where by many hear only what they want to hear.
ALL government programs ALWAYS start out being a ' cheap benefit ' to all, however the following year, the price, and costs, GO UP, and the 'benefits' go DOWN!!!
From there, the trend continues, and the "Tax Payers/ Citizens" take it in their shorts!!!
But then, the liberals idea is 'benefit us', and spread the costs to ALL others.
2007-10-18 11:41:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by I'M HERE 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
The liberal side says that with her plan we will all be able to afford health insurance and we will only have to have a slight increase in taxes to do it. That is for this year. Next year we will have to have a slightly bigger increase in taxes to pay for a little bit better insurance for everyone. This will go on and on until the government is getting 40 or 50% of our income and we must wait 3 or 4 months to see a doctor. If we can find a doctor. There will still be private insurance for those who can afford it and they will get in to see the doctor much faster than we will because the doctor will get paid more to treat them. So, what will change the rich will receive better care than the poor or middle class (the few that will be left) same as now.
It is socialism plain and simple. Medical care is just the beginning of what they really want to do.
2007-10-18 09:18:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋
We'll ALL end up paying for it.
The question really is who will end up spending the most money and who will end up getting fair services.
Do not oversimply something that is extremely complex.
Ultimately, the only workable solution will be socialized medicine, but we're still too "anything that reaks of commies is poison" to do that. Other countries are more mature.
2007-10-18 09:21:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Elana 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
More BS.....what's been proposed is HEALTH INSURANCE that's accessable to ALL american citizens at an affordable price. As there's an 'opt' out clause nobody is 'forced' to do anything. Since UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE will eventually replace Medicare and Medicade the price of UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE will be no more than it is now. You can spin this all you want, but the fact is a non-profit single payer system that covers everyone is cheaper and better than the half @ssed for profit system we have now. We pay too much and get too little.
2007-10-18 09:17:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Noah H 7
·
6⤊
5⤋
I've read her proposal, I think you do not understand. She never has proposed 'free' health care. Her plan will help pay for itself through an added percentage on your income taxes based on your income. Also her plan does not eliminate private pay insurance, it only gives you a choice.
2007-10-18 09:32:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by ndmagicman 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
This is nothing more than a power grab.
What government controls it can ration or deny.
For years we've heard ,"the republicans want to take away your social security"and people voted out of fear.
Next we'll hear ,"the republicans want to take away your health care" and people will vote out of fear.
Beware the promises of government.
2007-10-18 09:19:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
THE DEMOCRATS ARE JUST LOOKING TO TAKE OVER THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY. MANY YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS.
2007-10-18 13:52:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋