Is Hillary's health care proposal really good or bad?

Question

I read somewhere that Hillary wants to have it mandated that every American has to have health care and that Obama says she is not considering all those who can't afford any kind of health care at all. But isn't Medicade and Medicare still available for those who can"t afford healthcare? I also read somewherre that Hillary also wants to force both insurance companies and pharmacies to cut costs to make health care more affordable and also is trying to make it mandated that insurance companies are unable to turn anyone away regardless of pre existing health issues or age. If this is all true, then what is so wrong with what she wants to do? How would this be bad for the American people? And just what is Obama presenting that is supposed to be better than this?

Answer 1

Instead of relying on hearsay, why don't you just read the plan for yourself?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

Answer 2

Medicare and Medicaid are still there, but they have brought the available level of care down for all segments of the public.

Here are some of the reasons.

Doctors get taxed on receivables, not recipts. Therefore they pay taxes on what they bill, not necessarily what they get paid. I know of at least one doctor, who quit billing medicaid because if he billed them for 1100.00, he paid taxes on that. Later when they decided what to pay him, they decided that 3.00 was enough. He had allready paid taxes on 1100.00.
The result of this is that he stopped billing medicaid at all, and treated the patients for free. While this works with a few patients, if he has many more who have insurance, or who can pay, it doesn't work if all your patients are medicaid.
If that is the case, you quickly learn what medicaid will pay for and that is what you do. If a patient needs something else, but medicaid won't pay, they don't get it.
Now insurance companies are doing the same thing, they are deciding what they will pay for, and that is what the doctors are forced by economic necessity to order. If they order anything else, even if the patient needs it, they won't get paid for it.

How many Americans do you know who are willing to work for free? Or even worse, pay for the privelege.
How many of those Americans had to pay over 150,000 for their education? How many of these have to start their adult lives with this much debt?
How many of those Americans have to pay in excess of 50,000 per year for malpractice insurance, just so they can open their door.

It is getting to the point that it is not cost effective to become a doctor. The only way you can make a living is to figure out how the system works, and play it. Patient care is a thing of the past.
This is what we are looking at with the advent of government paid health care.
I think we will be better off if we go back to the village medicine man or woman, and the local midwife. At least then, you will have someone who has time to listen to your complaint, and will try to address it appropriatly, instead of seeing what will be paid for, and giving you that, regardless of what is wrong with you.

Answer 3

Pharmacies don't make a huge profit. They (medicare and medicade) want to change the reimbursement formula, and that will actually lower the reimbursement rate below true cost. If they continue with this, expect the end of independent pharmacies. The problem is that they include hospital acquistion costs. Hospitals acquire drugs at a fraction of the cost of what a normal retail pharmacy acquires the medication at.

Answer 4

If she wants ins. co's & pharmicies to cut costs for affordability and mandate it, just who and where is this coming from? My assumption is from >us< in the way of higher premiums, office visits, prescritions and taxes on our paycheck. To make this work she has to rob peter to pay paul somewhere, and more than likely it's gonna come from the already taxed-out middle class and paycheck to paycheck working joe American.
In Canada, that has " socialized health care", they have to wait for months to get simple health care. So, if you have diabetes and you need your 90 day check-up and medical supplies you could be waiting a long time and dying in a short time, plus there is ususally a "cap" on socialized health care meaning once you reach a certain amount you're cut off.
Everybody thinks it's a good thing but in order to get it accomplished the $ has to come from somewhere and it's usually from your every day joe in the way of higher taxes and premiums and Dr. visits and prescriptions, so therefore, its not really "free" as people think.
I know alot of people don't like John McCain, but he wants to give a $2,500 tax >credit< to single people and $5,000 tax >credit< to families which in turn stimulates the economy. Iowa may not like him because of his stance on ethanol, but he does have a couple of good ideas.
ALL of the candidates have something most of us don't like if it's health care, Iraq, immigration, taxes ect... but in my independent voter observation, clinton and obama are leaning a little too far left along with guliani. You can check all the candidates out on votematch.com :)

Answer 5

You can't have privitization of the healthcare industry without some degree of regulation for the benefit of the consumer. What Hillary is proposing is still privatized healthcare...not even remotely close to universal. By requiring everyone have insurance, it should lower the cost overall, but since you would be required to have it, then we must regulate what they are allowed to charge you in order to make it fair to you and still profitable to the industry.

The health insurance industry profits plenty. They wouldn't exist if they didn't. Some could argue that the largest portion of revenue within the healthcare industry is being gobbled up mostly by the insurance companies in the form of profit, which would otherwise flow directly to hospitals and doctors.

I think we should go universal...and take out the middleman completely (insurance). But since many cannot stomach the idea of universal healthcare just yet, I would support this change for now. Regardless, we need to change, what we have isn't working and it's only getting worse. I'm up for any ideas as long as it's not "stay the course".

Answer 6

What will happen is the companies will than stop offering health care insurance, just like after the government started to guarantee pensions, and with in a month the department was bankrupted.

Answer 7

Hillarycare will place _your_ health care decisions in the hands of politicians and accountants and _remove_ your doctor from the equation.
This type of health 'care' is socialized medicine and it does not work. See the large migration from Canada to the U.S. for health care because they cannot get in to see the doctors and if they do see one, he does not have enough authority to properly treat his patient.
The thing being presented by Obama is the same thing with a different name.
Nationalized, Universal, or Socialized Medicine...it's all the same thing and it's ALL BAD.

Answer 8

Really bad. It is the same Hillary Care program she tried when Bill was in office, this time around, she just published a 14 page bullet point brochure as opposed to the 1200 pages that spelled it all out last time. The devil is in the details you see, and a 14 page bullet point pamphlet is good at hiding that kind of thing.

Answer 9

I suppose it would be a great plan for a socialist.

Because when it boils down to it that is what she is really pushing, Same as most of the left, they are simply hiding it behind allot of plans and special financing.

Look at the recent childrens act, they want to fund it with a tax on cigarettes, to do so we need to stop trying to get people to quit smoking and add 200,000 new smokers to the roles...

Sorry , but get a job and buy health insurance, and for those millions who could have it and figure they won't get sick?
Well for their sakes I hope they are right.

Answer 10

Awful...In England, health care is free...Prescriptions and everything...Free...That means that whoever needs health care gets it...Now that isn't a bad thing, it's just that it is too demanding on the doctors and OTHER PATIENTS. I now people who had a bad infection on their foot (in England) and they were put on a waiting list...It was almost gangrene by the time he got into the hospital...People with the mildest form of cancer are forced to wait months/year until they get treated...needles to say they suffer/die before they can get the treatment...That is why many British come to america for treatment.

Answer 11

some people, like me, middle class incomes, still cant afford health care, but we make too much money to recieve cheapened care (medicare, health dept). So we are screwed basically. The health care option at work, has a 2 thousand dollar deductible. I cant afford that. I think it is a good idea for people to get individual health care, but make it affordable and worth it! So I have no health care, but still cant afford to get sick because I still have to pay full price at health depts and other government run places for the people who cant afford it. And if I can feel secure, and not worry about getting sick and losing everything, then give me socialism. It works for canada. Plus...Not everyone with a job can afford health insurance, and NOT everyone can get jobs that offer health insurance. There are only so many of those to go around. So before people start moaning telling others to get jobs and health care, do some research and educate yourself about the true situation. I am middle income, I have no health coverage because my job offers expensive high deductible that I cant afford anyways.