I hope we can get Hillarycare soon, better than Bush-no-care, dont you?

Question

When you have insurance you are paying for everyone else

Answer 1

The US desperately needs health care reform.
I would love health care. My family makes too much to qualify for government programs and too little to afford insurance. ($300 or more for my husband and I) We live paycheck to paycheck and I guess if we didn't eat we could afford insurance. We just have a constant fear of getting hurt or sick. If we do, it's to the emergency room with us, and that's just basic care. My husband broke his arm(badly) a few years ago and the doctor in the ER didn't even bother setting it properly. Last year my daughter broke her arm and she has state health care (SCHIP) and the doctor is still giving her checkups and it was just a hairline fracture.
The US needs universal health care. I welcome Hillarycare with open arms.

Answer 2

When you have insurance your paying for everyone else. That's so wrong dude. It's because of insurance that the people who don't have it get screwed. The Middle class that is. Low income get free care. High income can afford it. The middle class doesn't qualify for free care however there tax dollars pays for it. They don't have the huge pocketbooks to pay for the doctors.
However the was insurance works is the make an agreement with the doctors to get x amount of dollars for a visit/procedure/etc.
Believe me it's a lot less then what the middle class guy with no insurance is paying out of his pocket. 125 percent less. So who gets the shaft??? Now if we all paid the same as the insurance companies pay for the doctor ect then everyone could afford it.

Answer 3

I do too, and so does the majority of our citizens. Today I heard that Edwards is putting out a new ad saying he will enact UHC within six months of taking office. I was a little stunned at that promise. No matter which Democrat takes office, they aren't going to waltz their plan into Congress and have it rubber stamped. This will be the most important legislation enacted in many years, and it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb. It could be halfway through the first term until we see an agreed upon plan emerge from the committees in Congress. It might be frustrating to some folks, but I'd rather they take their time and get it right instead of rushing it through and lamenting the flaws later.

EDIT: Just a little side note. I often wonder how many conservatives are aware of the fact that Hillary's plan uses the skeleton of the Republican Universal Health Care Plan from the 90's. Yes, they were for UHC back then, imagine that. And they weren't even calling it socialist. Hillary's original plan and the Republican plan couldn't meet in the middle so the whole thing went down the tubes. Now they act like they've always thought it was a bad idea lol.

Answer 4

Ah yes good old Hillarycare, do you also understand that this will raise your taxes to about 50% or higher and that for those who have insurance from insurance companies they will lose that and all will be enrolled in this great program. Do you also understand that you will have something like an 18 month waiting list to enroll and once enrolled you lose all rights to make your own decisions as to your own health because you have let the government make that decision for you.

Answer 5

Universal Health Care means everyone is eligible at government expense (and that means taxpayers). It also means most people who pay for their own health insurance today would drop it because they would already be paying for UHC in the taxes. Why pay double? UHC would also mean a huge increase in the demand for health services because, after all, going to the hospital for a splinter in ones finger won't cost me anything. Anyway, that increased demand has been the cause of rationing and prioritizing of services in every country that has ever tried UHC, and accounts for the stories of people having to wait as much as a year for examinations and treatment for serious illnesses.

Also, let us not forget that Hillary's original UHC plan included a provision that made it mandatory to use the government system and that if you wanted to go to a doctor in private practice and pay him out of your own pocket, and the doctor accepted, you could have both been sent to prison. Thus was the liberal Democrat's concept of a good idea exposed.

No matter how you cut it the current Democrat proposals for UHC would turn out being exactly like the health care system was under the old Soviet Union.

I'm sorry but that sounds to me like anything but a good idea.

Answer 6

What is Hillary care ? How much will it cost the American Taxpayer in Tax Increases ? How much coverage does it allow for ? What does it cover ? What are the deductibles ? What are the restrictions for what doctor you may or may not see ? Who will you send your monthly insurance premium to ? Will the premium be an automatic "Government deduction" out of your pay check , or in most cases , out of your welfare check ? If you decide you don`t want the Hillary Care can you drop out ( not without the threat of jail time ) ? If you can`t answer any of these questions , and you think Hillary Care is going to be FREE , CONGRATULATIONS ; you have just made an A+ in : Flying Blind into Socialism -101

Answer 7

I am a Republican, and I even worked in politics for a while. I would rather Hillary Care over our current system. There are too many people without health coverage and partisian bickering is not saving any lives.

I have a friend with cervical cancer and no health care. She can't afford politicians to wait for the perfect solution.

Answer 8

i think that the liberals do no longer care with regard to the debt by way of fact they comprehend that there is in easy terms one way out. That way is by ability of spending greater money. in keeping with annum, a clean federal budget could be authorized. no count if we like it or no longer, all government companies acquire earnings keeping with annum, thereby increasing the federal debt. i'm a centrist and that i think that the only thank you to get out of debt is by ability of lowering unneeded spending over long classes of time (10+ years). till now Bush and the middle East wars, we've been very very nearly there, very very nearly removing the national debt. i think that express departments' budgets (examine: branch of protection) might have their budget cut back by ability of a minimum of a 6th (12.5%). Seeing by way of fact the present protection budget (2010-11) is $663.7 billion, a 12.5% cut back might deliver it right down to $580 billion. Oddly sufficient, the protection budget greater effective by ability of 12.7%. As all of us understand, Democrats will go through in November and the GOP would be returned in employer, so which you will understand why the protection budget and the national debt, barring a miracle in the Mid-East, in simple terms isn't coming backpedal every time quickly.

Answer 9

N O, There is no such thing as Bush-no-care.
The USA DOES NOT need Hillary's Socialized
Medicine. Ask Canadians and any one from Britain about their health care system. It is no good!!

Answer 10

No way! When all is said and done, Hillary's agenda is to take everything the way of big business (Wal-Mart) and pool all the nation's wealth among a very few.

"I can't worry about every under capitalized business" -- Hillary Clinton, testifing 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.

Lawrence A. Hunter is a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation and a former staff director of the congressional Joint Economic Committee.

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

Anyway, she isn't going to win.....