I don't see why people think that Hillary's health care plan is good? Is my reasoning wrong?

Question

Firstly, it will make poor families poorer because it forces them to adopt the health care plan.

Secondly, it would drain the economy due to the war.

Thirdly, even though she has tried to implement her health care plan in the past she and failed due to the approach she took, she wants to repeat it again.

Obama's plan is more implementable and can be converted to a better version of Hillary's plan.

Furthermore, since the meeting will be opened up, the companies will be put on the spot, and we will be able to call them on their tactics and tricks.

Furthermore, Obama's plan allows more time for economic recovery. Also, those that don't want health care, don't have to get it. I like going without it when I need to save up some money.

Please enlighten me on why its better. I'm still trying to figure it out. Also, Obama balancing out the taxes on the poor will help them out more.

Hillary, isn't doing much for the normal person. If she is please explain how.

Answer 1

I'm not a fan of either plan, but Obama's IS better, for many of the reasons you already stated.

I'm not a fan of either because BOTH of them want you to be existing insurance plans WITHOUT reforming the MULTITUDE of abuses that are allowed which result in the high cost of health care.

When 75% of the people who declare bankruptcy over medical bills ARE INSURED, then insurance is CLEARLY not the answer.

"Aldrich’s situation is "asinine" but increasingly common, said Dr. Deborah Thorne of Ohio University. Thorne, co-author of a widely quoted 2005 study that found medical bills contributed to nearly half of the 1.5 million personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, said that ratio has likely worsened since the data was gathered.

...

Like Aldrich, Thorne said, three-quarters of the individuals in the study who declared bankruptcy because of health problems were insured. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201807/

Linda Peeno, MD testified that SHE had often denied treatment JUST to save the insurance company money http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPe...

Furthermore:

"the vast majority of health insurance policies are through for-profit stock companies. They are in the process of “shedding lives” as some term it when “undesirable” customers are lost through various means, including raising premiums and co-pays and decreasing benefits (Britt, “Health insurers getting bigger cut of medical dollars,” 15 October 2004, investors.com). That same Investors Business Daily article from 2004 noted the example of Anthem, another insurance company. They said the top five executives (not just the CEO) received an average of an 817 percent increase in compensation between 2000 and 2003. The CEO, for example, had his compensation go from $2.5 million to $25 million during that time period. About $21 million of that was in stock payouts, the article noted.

A 2006 article, “U.S. Health Insurance: More Market Domination, More CEO Compensation”

(hcrenewal.blogspot.com) notes that in 56 percent of 294 metropolitan areas one insurer “controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting." In addition to having the most enrollees, they also are the biggest purchasers of health care and set the price and coverage terms. “’The results is double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004—peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003—soaring well above inflation and wages increases.’" Where is all that money going? The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article looking at the compensation of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. His salary and bonus is $8 million annually. He has benefits such as the use of a private jet. He has stock-option fortunes worth $1.6 billion."

--Save America, Save the World by Cassandra Nathan pp. 127-128

"Insurance Companies Robbing Patients

Robbing patients to pay CEOs leads to unprecedented medical insurance corporation greed.

Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:52 AM

By: Michael Arnold Glueck & Robert J. Cihak, The Medicine Men"

http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/medi...

Until pols decide to address the ACTUAL cause of high costs, they're just distracting the public from the REAL causes and getting folks to fight for a failed system (UHC) instead of real results:

""...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.

Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca...

Sensible plan if anyone actually cares about solutions:

QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.

That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).

http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...

Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com

Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World

Answer 2

when Clinton can't come up with a good health care option she always falls back to a socialist system that takes the cost away from the people with out their consent.

Answer 3

Her plan will reduce costs in the same way Mr,. Obama's does.  The only difference is that she requires universal health care so everyone is covered.  I think that this is good public policy and will save both families and the government money in the long run.

   I think its time for everyone to  stand behind Mr. Obama now, he is the peoples choice, even though I wish he was for universal health care.

Answer 4

You haven't provided any reasoning so I would have to say yes.  For example your first point, that it will make poor families poorer.  What aspect of the plan will cause that to happen, what are the details?

Answer 5

Neither one of them are economists, and they both have major design flaws in their plans.  Right now, the worst I have heard is Obama's ideas to "fix" the economy.  If we really follow his plan, we will back in the worst of the 70's inflation economy.  Unfortunately, most people don't have to economic knowledge to recognize this, including him apparently.  In their present states, neither of their plans are practical or implementable.

Answer 6

Do you realize how many people ARE poor due to medical bills?  A friend of mine (without insurance) had to have an emergency quadruple bi pass, and he will be making payments on it until the day he dies(it was hundreds of thousands of dollars)

Answer 7

I am one of the 46 million uninsured taxpayers whos tax money provides health care benefits for government employees and elected officials. I resent candidates that enjoy the benefits we have provided for them and are now acting like they are going to do me a favor.

Answer 8

Nice to see someone really thinking about these issues.

You are exactly right!  Hillary does not care/nor intend to take care of the individuals.  Just like her husbands "big" job expansion- they were nothing but low income jobs created by giving gov't $$ to those who qualified to build expensive franchise fast food and other retail businesses.

I am not sure of the details of Obama's plan, but I do know that what Hillary puts on the plate can't be digested very well.