Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan

Discussion in 'Mindless Banter' started by Erik, Sep 18, 2007.

  1. Patricia

    Patricia Guest

    AGAIN, big business and their frickin' investors have NO RIGHT telling MY medical provider how I should be treated. It's MY frickin' health - my life.

    I cannot believe you just posted that. In a strange way, you just pointed out WHY the healthcare system in this country sucks. Thank you.
  2. Patricia

    Patricia Guest

    I have more trust in a used-car salesman than I do in John Stossel. He's one sleazy bastard. And one of the reasons I stopped watching that show (and ABC) a LONG time ago.

    He uses his little bit to provide you with just ONE SIDE of the issue; usually, it's his side.

    Regarding this issue? Read for yourself: Media Matters: Yet again, Stossel distorts and conveniently leaves out information......
  3. Cris

    Cris I Can Do This!


    I cannot give a definitive opinion either, for exactly this reason. I would also like to know what input healthcare professionals have had into the proposed solution as well as its execution. If there is a way to actually accomplish shifting the focus to preventative versus curative health care, it would definitely make a difference in health care costs. That's a big IF though right now.
  4. Patricia

    Patricia Guest

    Here you go: Physicians for a National Health Program (
  5. Cindy Day

    Cindy Day Well-Known Member

    Just because the government CAN run it, doesn't mean I want them mandating mine.
  6. Sportsgirl

    Sportsgirl Well-Known Member

    That really blows. Is this true? Don't they have cover for pre-existing conditions? Such as not being covered for that condition for the first 5 years or so?
  7. 3sweeties

    3sweeties Well-Known Member

    And you don't think the government won't be doing the same thing to keep cost down? Our government runs every social program inefficiently and wastes millions of tax dollars. I do not want to hand them anymore of my money to waste.
  8. Erik

    Erik Admin

    Ok, forgive the ignorant here, but how does this proposition compare to what we have in Canada?
  9. Sportsgirl

    Sportsgirl Well-Known Member

    Just a question: How does Canada's health care system work exactly. I thought it was much like NZ and Australia's?

    Here we have a choice - if you have no money, you're under the public health care system (you may have to wait a while, but you get treated). If you have the money, you can also take out private health care insurance.... so, if you get sick and require surgery, you can basically choose when you want the surgery instead of going on a waiting list.
  10. Patricia

    Patricia Guest

    I'm talking here, about MY own experience. My only option was to pay a (not cheap) monthly fee for some Kaiser deal. I did for five months.

    I had to still (on top of that monthly fee) pay for prescriptions AND the gas cost to travel 45-minutes each way to the nearest Kaiser facility. Plus, there was quite a wait to see someone - normally over a week before I could get in to see someone when I needed to.

    And that "someone" was normally not a doctor.

    I also know of people who went through a similar experience. There's quite a few out there.

    Keep in my mind: I'm healthier than MOST people who don't even have asthma.

    YouTube: Real People Denied Healthcare.....
  11. Brandy

    Brandy Refreshed

    For the most part, this IS the way it works. I just went through a fiasco w/ coverage. We switched from my husband's health insurance to mine. We had a lapse of about 40 days in between the switch.

    The new company denied my son's LONG list of pre-existing conditions. Which basically would leave us w/ over $500/month in medical bills/prescriptions for him.
    Long story short, the "rule" was if you had a lapse of *60* days or more. We only had 40. So, we'll get it, but we have to fight and submit 9,000 documents proving the 40 days.:dope:
  12. Patricia

    Patricia Guest

    Sure the CURRENT government does. It's also spending $12-billion per month for this war in Iraq. And defense spending takes up over half of the federal government's fiscal budget.

    Y'see, the GOP (who were up until this past November, the ruling party) has a party platform: "Government doesn't work". And when they get elected into office, they get to, you know, PROVE it. And they've done it; which is why they have been privatizing just about every sector of government; hence your belief that the government is broken.

    I'm not trying to politicize it - but since it's been thoroughly politicized (per your comments above; which prove it), there's no way to avoid mentioning just WHERE thoughts like yours came from.

    "Keep costs down", that's a PRIVATE company's concern. However, government is public. It's suppose to be transparent to it's constituents -you and I. Which is why, when we get people in government who LIKE to govern, I trust the government more than I'll ever trust big business.
  13. mackie

    mackie With my hero, Brigitte Gabriel

    It can work but... many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea. Many have good health coverage now, and enjoy the benefit of choosing from an extensive list of "participating providers" (doctors & clinics who choose to accept a particular coverage). They've grown quite accustomed to "for profit health care physicians" ... and believe that when physicians compete for business, the quality of care is higher. Many fear that a national program, which will likely standardized costs for treatments, might jeopardize the quality of care available... as many doctors may no longer find incentive to be the best... or do their best. Or that many young people pursuing careers in medicine, may reconsider and change directions... leading to an eventual shortage of physicians & medical care workers.

    I agree... much better to wait for treatment, than to have no treatment available at all. But unfortunately, not all national programs are alike. Not everyone has the smooth experience that Stel had the other day. While my brother was living in Spain, his friend (a Spanish native & citizen) had a not-so-minor ovarian infection. She had to jump so many hoops & hurdles with her Spanish healthcare system... for several weeks... before finally being diagnosed & treated... the infection worsening the whole while.

    He'd lived there for about 11 years... and said it was like that for most of the Spanish residents he knew... except for his wife because she was able to use his U.S. Navy benefits, and be treated on base.

    I believe this is one of the many types of things that Americans fear about a national program. Yes, people with no coverage at all, would be better off. But for those who have been spoiled, by their current plans, not so much. I admit, I'm selfish & spoiled by my cushy coverage and a long list of easily accessible, highly qualified physicians. I'm not so eager to trade it in for a universal/national program.

    That's why I think Clinton's program, in an idealistic sense, might be better than a national program (for many). "idealistic" being the key word here. Not so sure its a very feasible or realistic solution.
    1) What kind of plan will there be to enforce mandatory insurance laws?
    2) Regardless of enforcement strategies, there will still be so many people who just can't afford to pay insurance premiums. Yes, supposedly there will be government subsidies for those who can't afford it... but who determines "can't afford"? There will likely need to be an income limit. So those who are just above the limit, but still just barely able to pay their rents & feed their kids will still be required to purchase insurance? :scratch:
    3) What kind of penalty/punishment/fine will they face if they are strapped... and have to choose between paying their insurance premium for the month... and buying groceries for their families... or paying their utility bill so they can have heat in the winter?

    None lately, but mine isn't bad. I pay $20 per office call... and $12 for any prescription, even if the full retail price is over $100. That's $12 for name brands. If the same thing is available in a generic brand it only costs me $4.

    Last edited: Sep 19, 2007
  14. mackie

    mackie With my hero, Brigitte Gabriel

    Glad you got that worked out, Brandy. Phew!! :love:
  15. fit'n'healthy

    fit'n'healthy Senior Member


  16. mackie

    mackie With my hero, Brigitte Gabriel

    I'm not sure how to answer that because I don't know how your system works, in Canada.

    But how it differs from national programs, in general, is that it wouldn't be a national program per se. The structure of medical treatment/facilities/practices won't change. There would still be private practitioners and competition among them. Basically, medical treatment will still be the "for profit" big business that it is today. What will change is that every citizen will be required to purchase medical insurance... just as drivers in, most states, are required to purchase car/driver insurance.

    This won't be a problem for people, like me, who have excellent healthcare insurance provided by their employers. But for those, who's employers do not provide healthcare coverage, could be too costly.

    Did I answer your question? :unsure: :lol:
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2007
  17. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F A Grade Asshat

    backwards and nearly useless?

    But at least we have a contingency plan of shipping our sick to aussie cos we cant service them here...

    The shame is if you have money, you end up paying twice... once through taxes, adn once through insurance.

    But its a fun game, insurance beancounter deciding your treatment, or the government beancounter deciding your treatment.:muahaha:
  18. char-dawg

    char-dawg Mr. Observant

    I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we do away with private health insurance programs. No matter what system is in place, people (or companies) that have money will be able to get better care than those without. That's just the way of the world.

    But for all those 47 million out there who don't have coverage, and for the growing number of retirees on fixed incomes, like my mother, who thought that they had decent insurance, two decent insurances, in fact, and are fighting a losing battle trying to keep up with all of the changes in their policies that progressively limit what is covered, and how much is covered, there needs to be a better solution.

    Again, it's not an either/or scenario. You can have both. And those doctors who are in it for the money can still work for the private companies or whomever.

    I also don't necessarily fear the possible doctor shortage you mentioned. There are a lot of doctors right now who are out of business because they can't afford malpractice insurance. If they were working for the government, they wouldn't have to worry about that nearly as much.

    I'm not arguing that there are bad social insurance programs out there. There are. But the way the GOP presents it, you'd think that national health insurance never works anywhere. And that's simply not the case. It CAN work.

    Yeah, I forgot to include dependents in my "millions" comment. Make that tens of millions. :lol:

    Also, I'm not so sure that the general public really "fears" a national health insurance program like you say. I've never heard of anyone who turned down going into the military because, you know, s/he was afraid of being exposed to a federally-run insurance program. :lol:

    See above.

    Agree that these are all questions that need to be addressed.

    Well, that's about the best I've ever heard of (in the US). Sounds like you've got a great plan that you're enrolled in.

    Now, multiply your case by 120 million, dye everyone's hair black, and you'll have Japan. :wink:
  19. Meadows

    Meadows misses her dad

    While having over 47-million people uninsured is tragic it represents just 15% of the population. If we do away with insurance companies and put in place a gov't ran health care system, can we promise the 85% that have insurance better care? Better rates? The same level of care we are getting now?

    Rather than completely doing away with the way our healthcare system works, we could find a way to subsidize insurance programs for smaller companies or business owners?

    I am in favor of finding a way to offer insurance to minors. In GA we have a system called peach care that covers children that are otherwise uninsured.
  20. mackie

    mackie With my hero, Brigitte Gabriel

    I wouldn't say that the general public fears it. But I have heard many people express their concerns about it. I think it could very well effect the quality of care. How many employers will continue to pay high premiums for private health insurance if they have the option of paying a low one-rate government fee?? I'm guessing my employer would not. :lol3:

    Maybe the police will help enforce mandatory insurance compliance. When you get pulled over they'll ask to see your driver's license, proof of auto insurance and proof of medical insurance. :lol:


Share This Page