What part of this statement says socialized medicine?

Question

You don't have to change doctors.

"If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums."

It says if you have a plan you like, keep it. No where in this plan does it say you have to choose.

So if it raises the your taxes (never mind the expense of the Iraq war) it's called socialism?

So we should get rid of all public plans? No Social Security, roads, freeways, police, fire protection, etc etc etc?

Answer 1

or this:

If you do not have insurance you can choose to enroll in the new public plan

will make available a new
national health plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health
coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees.


or this, which doesn't sound anything like medicaid:

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE. To provide Americans with additional
options, the plan will make available a National Health Insurance Exchange to
help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as
a watchdog and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards
for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more
affordable and accessible. Through the Exchange, any American will have the
opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan, and
income-based sliding scale subsidies will be provided for people and families who need
it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable
premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the
plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards
for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average
premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the
differences among the plans, including cost of services, transparent.

Answer 2

'Socialism' is a word overused by Republicans in this election. They've worn out 'liberal' through overuse so now it's 'socialism'. Like 'liberal', 'socialism' is anything they don't like, and anyone they disagree with is a 'socialist'.

You hear Hillary called a socialist all the time, showing that either the Republicans don't understand Hillary very well, or that they don't understand what 'socialism' is, they just know it's something bad so she must be it.

Socialized medicine is a system where the doctors work for the government. Britain's National Health System is an example. What most Americans want is a Canadian-style single-payer system which is not socialized medicine at all.

In fact Hillary's plan is even farther from socialized medicine than that. Hillary's plan, like her husband's plan, like GHW Bush's plan, all work for the preservation and perpetuation of the commercial current health insurance system. I think that's what we need to get rid of!

BTW we -do- have socialized police and fire protection in the US, and those work pretty good!

Answer 3

The part not clearly implied by the democrats and not realistically understood in your statement that one of the options for the poor that can't afford any program will have to default to some sort of "government" plan.
In that way, by forcing people to go to a Government plan, they will be able to later add pressure to private plans.
Its the real difference between what democrats set up and publicize to "look good" to people before the vote, and what actually happens after the voting is done.
They've done it before, the party really hasn't changed that much. They always do that "slight of hand" thing and next thing ya know, your stuck.
Look at L.A.'s phone tax recently. It was a tax that unless renewed , it was going to go away....completely. But instead of the truth, the leadership there decided to reduce the tax by 10% and claim they were cutting the tax and to vote YES on the proposition. Now although mathematically it was 10% lower than what they were charging before, 100% of the tax would go away if you voted NO. But if they got enough people to vote yes on the initiative, they could legally continue to charge the tax to people at the reduced rate. That's the kind of politics that politicians are playing now days. And it stinks. I consider it Lying to Americans and I get very insensed against the people that do it.

Answer 4

The "public plan option like Medicare". This Medicare-like plan will be funded by increased taxes, so that's part of the socialism aspect. Also, there's no explanation of how those "dozens of plans" will be paid for. I'm guessing we will all be paying for them through yet another tax increase. And then there's the question of how this will impact physicians and their practices. That statement is constructed to hide any socialistic aspects and appear more moderate.

Answer 5

i'm in Britain and may want to argue it would not artwork besides because it would want to or used to- notwithstanding it really is by ability of a few distance better than the yankee gadget. It receives to the point the position in difficulty-free words diseases that are worthwhile are dealt with for. notwithstanding, some might want to argue the gadget in us of a stops human beings going to their prevalent practitioner for trivial issues, as those human beings might want to ought to pay, putting a lot less of a stress on the wellbeing gadget. i in my view imagine that being publicly funded, owned and run, besides as thoroughly loose, might want to recommend peoples issues are solved no count number number how trivial, ensuing in a more fit artwork force that would want to finally cost the inhabitants a lot less. Nationalising pharmaceutical businesses is a step that is desperately mandatory too; the present scandals in antidepressant medical trials and study taken by ability of those businesses (i.e. they in difficulty-free words educate the "good" evidence) shows that no less than there must be some distance extra public scrutiny.

Answer 6

So what happens if I don't want to have healthcare? Do I get arrested? Apparently it's mandatory.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

And it requires insurers to accept anyone who applies? AND they can't charge more for people with higher health needs... Sounds like an actuary's nightmare to figure out break even points.

Answer 7

Hillary is pushing an agenda that is not needed in this country and I truly believe it is intended to continue the pooling of our nation's wealth among a very few.


"I can't worry about every under capitalized business" -- Hillary Clinton, testifying before congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/clinton.php



"Hillary Clinton just dropped the universal health care bomb that everyone knew was coming. "I intend to have a universal health care system that does three things lowers costs for everybody, improves quality for everybody and covers everybody."

Well, maybe. But not here on planet Earth.

In fact, a cursory scan of the Western Hemisphere shows that Britain, Canada and other nations with socialized medicine have all made similar promises and consistently failed to deliver.

Hillary's plan requires mandatory participation by everyone in a government system that goes under the euphemism of an "individual mandate."

This "mandate" is nothing more than a law forcing people to acquire insurance either through the government or private sector. The program would require massive federal outlays. Sen. Clinton claims it would cost $110 billion per year, although that number would surely skyrocket. It would be financed through higher taxes.

Sen. Clinton also would require all employers to offer health insurance to their employees or contribute to a government-run insurance pool. Small businesses would receive subsidies. And people would have the option of enrolling in a government-operated plan if they did not want private insurance.

America spends more on health care than other countries, but that's why the U.S. system works without waiting lists and rationing. We receive the best treatments available, which is why our survival rates for most life-threatening diseases including the four most common types of cancer are the highest in the world.

In America now, the poor are already insured by Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Nevertheless, Sen. Clinton claims that we need a government takeover of the health care system because 47 million Americans remain uninsured. But that's a grossly misleading figure.

The Census Bureau's estimate of 47 million "uninsured" is based on a survey question that asks the respondents if they "were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year."

In other words, if you're uninsured for a single day of the year, the government considers you "uninsured."

Second, the Census Bureau includes 10.2 million non-citizens in its estimate. Does Sen. Clinton intend to admit non-citizens into her plan?

Finally, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 19 percent of those without health insurance earn more than triple the federal poverty level but choose to forego coverage. Kaiser also estimates that 25 percent of those without health coverage are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but have not signed up.

With scarce government resources, does it make sense to lavish subsidies on folks who make thousands more than the average U.S. family?

When all is said and done, only about 15 million Americans or 5 percent of the population are truly unable to obtain health insurance. And that doesn't mean they must do without medical care when they need it.

It hardly makes sense to jump to a government remedy in order to meet the exceptional needs of just 5 percent of the population when our current system delivers top-notch care to the other 95 percent and some significant level of protection to those who are uninsured.

The vast majority of Americans have coverage that gives them reasonably affordable access to the best health care system in the world. As the debate on Sen. Clinton's plan unfolds, voters should resist the imposition on America of a system that has already failed throughout the world."

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Politics/Q_22862552.html

Answer 8

Helping people obtain health INSURANCE has nothing to do with socialized medicine.

Answer 9

Well, the roads that I drive on are filled with pot holes. The government just doesn't do very well with anything.

Answer 10

nothing. i'm not sure why people have a problem with all americans getting health insurance. are they just mean spirited? or so greedy that they'd rather see someone die than give up their precious pennies?