Clinton takes another run at health-care reform

Oh come on, Hillary gets more money from pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies than almost anyone.

If you think she will do anything to harm her contributors you are sadly mistaken.

"...the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums."

I don't know why the Republican Party wankers are crying about this, all of the angry old rich Republican white guys will still be able to afford the BEST healthcare available for themselves and their families.

GOP = IT'S ALL ABOUT ME ME ME ME ME ME!

From the party that values freedom comes MANDATORY health insurance. What happen to freedom of choice?

The Clinton parallel: If you want the privledge to drive you must have auto insurance. If you want the privledge to ___________, you must have health insurance.

Fill-in-the-blank yourself.

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

Hillary Care? More like Hillary Scare!!!!!

From the party that values freedom comes MANDATORY health insurance. What happen to freedom of choice?

Posted by: Terry | September 17, 2007 3:44 PM

From the party of "family values" comes more cries of ME ME ME, IT'S ALL ABOUT ME and Scary Terry and the rich white Republican guys and everyone else can go f-themselves because they are not nor will the ever be angry old rich white Republican guys.

"Ultimately, this is about who we are as a people and who we stand for."

She has a point. I applaud her efforts to resolve the looming crisis.

What I hope is that after all this election sniping is over, we can have a serious dialogue among our leaders on the issue. Guiliani criticzes Clinton but his own plan is incredibly lacking. Its a plan only for the sake of having one. Romney does the typical "socialized medicine" slam job but the centerpiece of the universal plan he put in place while Governor of Massachsetts was the same principle of mandatory coverage that Clinton and Edwards have in theirs. As usual, Mitt shows he'll say anything, no matter how much it conflicts with his past actions or words. The Dems need to find some common ground on this issue quickly and establish themselves as thought leaders on the or else they are going to look as uncommitted to change as Republicans.

I am a full-time employee and my employer does not offer health insurance. Because of a pre-existing condition, Kidney surgery, I would have to pay $800-1000/per month for health insurance. That's catastrophic coverage not the all encompassing doctor visits etc. I'm all for Universal Health Insurance.

Why would you NOT want health insurance?!?

RAndy,

I agree.
Single Payer, National Health Ins.

110 Billion? Woo Hoo, thats $367 of health care per person.

good plan ur the ebst-ur nice womana nd very caring- left and right should agree with you-and soemtime the right dont have the right mind then regret later-ur physchic lady comment.o

Hillary wants medical care for everyone, but she forgot about LONGTERM CARE. The next health care crisis on the horizon. Where's the money for this Hillary? Health Care encompasses all areas including skilled nursing and home health care. Do we just let these people go bankrupt after paying into the government all these years. Social Security, National Health and Longterm Care. Great platform to get elected, but see I broken promises and huge TAXES. My opinion, $110 Billion is a sell job a serious short fall to the real cost. We're already spending $2 Trillion in health care. Hold on to your wallets it going to be a rough ride with Hillary in office.

When is Hillary going to turn buying my groceries into "a right, not a privilege." I need those even more than health insurance. Perhaps throw in my car insurance while your at it?

There are many persons now who can afford health insurance but do not purchase it. What will she do with those who, despite the unenforceable "mandate," do not purchase insurance. Will they still be provided free care as is the case now? And, if so, how is that an improvement?

More mouth-foam than usual in the comment section here, but here's a thought nayhow:

You will have to arrest all the plain people, or deny medical care to them. None of the Anabaptists (nor a lot of us conservative Christians) who pay one another's medical bills will purchase health insurance. Even under penalty of death. It goes completely against their understanding of the Biblical injunctions to care for the Brethren and not to be "unequally yoked" to the secular world.

Not to mention that Hillary Care probably will at some point begin to require that our tax dollars fund abortion and sex-change surgery.

Of course, Amish and Old Order Mennonites aren't going to be voting for HRC anyway.

"Unequally yoked." That's a concept to ponder over the next few years in Hillary's America....

"old rich Republican white guys "

Nice John E. Age discrimination, class envy, racism and sexism all in one sentance.

You liberals sure are tolerant and have a GREAT message!

For a scholar's critique of ClintonCare, see http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=656

The conclusion: it will actually RAISE health care costs while delivering LESS coverage and less patient choice.

JD,

"You liberals sure are tolerant and have a GREAT message!"

Are you starting to swing 'politically correct'?

randy,

Under the single payer proposition, you would wait a few months for that kidney surgery.

See Canada.

In addition to mandatory health care. I propose mandatory food and housing for everyone.

John E., perhaps if you got yourself a job you would have some health insurance. And just because you still live with mummy and duddy doesn't mean you are covered by them. Heck, at 40 it's time you started fending for yourself, don't you think??

Cause and effect - what will the effect of mandating businesses to provide health insurance be? You really want the corner dry-cleaners to provide the cashier with health insurance? Do we want small businesses to go out of business or maybe the start of inflation? Part of what makes our country great is the reward of busting our butts in the market place. The second you start handing out things for free people get lazy. It's just human nature.

Sorry, folks, but in 2008 "It's the health care, stupid."

Call it massive entitlement, but it's no worse than the massive entitlement our leaders have safeguarded the rich and the corporations with in the form of tax and investment breaks. Sorry, rich folks, but soon no one has to die or pay out their life savings because our great "choice" oriented, pharm and medical industry oriented gets to put their priorities ahead of the needs of millions. Universal mandatory health care is here, so get used to it.

The public is fed up at the inequities of health care, and which ever politician opposes it for everyone, will lose in 2008.

It's the whole election enchilada.

Nah, C. Morris.
I'm still keeping it real.
I'm just pointing out that John E. (and many other angry liberals) can be worse than those they profess to hate.

John E.
You have a real problem of irrational hatred. It's not about "rich white guys" and it's not about "me-me-me". It's about cost. Who is going to shoulder the tax burden of the cost of a national health care plan? You? I have been to countries in Europe and Scandanavia that have universal health care. Their income tax is around 30-40%, their sales tax is around 20% and their waiting lists for specialized treatment is ridiculous. You going to ante up???

For a scholar's critique of ClintonCare, see http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=656

The conclusion: it will actually RAISE health care costs while delivering LESS coverage and less patient choice.

Posted by: Bruce | September 17, 2007 7:27 PM

Let me see if I can do my best Bruce hack job. What Bruce doesn't want you to know about the Cato Institute:

FACTSHEET: Cato Institute;

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, was founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the U.S.

The Cato Institute holds regular briefings on global warming with known climate 'skeptics' as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy, all of whom believe that the current scientific understanding of climate change is inconclusive. Cato held similar briefings on climate change in Washington in July 2003 and 2002. (C. Coon, & Erin. Hymel (2003) Sound Policy for the Energy Bill, Heritage Foundation Reports, 23 September. ) According to People for the American Way, Cato has been funded by: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corp- oration, Netscape Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc. (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9261) Between 1985 and 2001, the Institute received $15,718,040 in 112 grants from only ten conservative foundations: Castle Rock Foundation (reformed Coors Foundation), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Earhart Foundation, JM Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Carthage Foundation, David H Koch Foundation. (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?51) The Cato Institute is a member of the State Policy Network 4/04

Conclusion: Draw your own. (follow the money)

Life expectancy for people living in Canada, Great Britain, and the Netherlands is 4 years longer. Are these people better build or is their system better?
First off the system can be run more economical because of known demographics.
For instance: Every self respecting medical facility in the US needs a Catscan machine and an MRI machine. In a nationwide system like Canada the need for these machines is demographically determined and used to full capacity..
Second: The systematic approach to recordkeeping will be invaluable in determining what is most effective in preventive medicine. In all of these countries the patient has either a free choice of primary care physician or can pick out of 5 the one he likes. This in contrast to the US where you are often dealing with a different docter every time.
ALL medicine is provided free. Price is negotiated on a country wide basis. The cost in the Netherlands per person is about $300 monthly. Full stop. If you are out of work you are still covered. So that you can join the workforce again shortly. There is a system in place of checks and balances for the work-shy that try to suck on the system :) Having lived under both systems for many years there is little question that the full coverage health care as provided in those countries is far and away preferred to the current "system" here, that by any measure is broken!
The persons defending the current system, either have a financial ax to grind, are ignorant or have never looked how other countries solved this problem of health care!

Yeah, great Idea.

We have a nine (9) trillion dollar government debt (fueled by inflationary funding), entitlement programs that already come in a close second to defense spending as the largest item on the budget; of these programs, social security is becoming more expensive every year as more and more baby boomers begin to retire; and we already spend close to ten percent (10%) of the budget just to pay the debt service on the public debt. On top of all of this, the market is slowing down; the finance, mortgage and credit markets are in the toilet; even Greenspan says we will have to have double digit interest rates just to properly combat inflation; and more experts are beginning to predict we are heading for a recession.

So, what do we hear politicians talking about? Are they talking about fiscal responsibility, or reining in the runaway spending practices of Congress and the President? No. How about paying down the debt? No. Are they talking about cutting back on existing spending programs in the budget? Heck no.

They want to spend more money. Hillary wants yet another $110 billion a year program which she claims can be paid for out of savings from spending cutbacks and eliminating Duh’bya’s tax cuts on the highest marginal tax bracket. Not to be outdone, Edwards wants to do the same thing, only the projected cost of his program runs anywhere from $105 billion to $145 billion a year – depending on who you talk to; and he would fund the plan out of increased taxation – in part, again, from deleting Duh’bya’s tax cuts.

It is naive or dishonest, or both, to believe that such a large program can be passed and paid for out of savings from cuts in spending. The largest parts of our budget – i.e. that crowd out everything else - can’t be cut. We have to pay our debts. If we don’t, and the government simply issues itself more credit to cover the cost, then we increase inflation – which is already a problem. We have to pay welfare-state programs because the law makes the benefits entitlements that are protected by the Due Process clause. Thus, trying to cut any of that is going to buy a lot of lawsuits. And lest we forget, those programs are getting more expensive by the year because more people are reaching retirement, and we have already spent the money taken in to pay for them. And the largest item on the budget is defense spending. With the country still awash with fear over terrorist attacks, nobody in their right mind is going to try to cut the defense budget by too much. That would be unpopular everywhere.

And do any of these people honestly believe they can curb Congress’ appetite for spending? Even replacing Republicans with Democrats in Congress, or vice versa, isn’t going to change a thing. The dismal state of political ethics makes the number one job of congressmen and senators to “plunder” the population. The one who brings home the most cash wins, because he or she gets re-elected for enlarging the wealth of his/her district or state at everyone else’s expense. Until that mentality goes away (and there is no let-up in sight), the permanent and stable spending cuts needed to pay for such enormous health care programs will never come about. Making promises of such cuts is just a sick joke.

What is going to happen is that we are going to pay substantially more in taxes every year, we are going to increase runaway debt and inflation, or both will occur. “All of the above” sounds about right because: 1) nobody has come up with a credible plan to pay for this stuff out of savings from budget cuts, meaning taxes will have to go up; 2) the estimated costs of these programs are probably underestimated for the very reason that none of them take into account the fact that the current health-care system has neither the facilities nor personnel to provide care to the entire country; and 3) the federal government is too notoriously corrupt, inefficient and wasteful to bring anything in, on or under budget.

Given all of the above, I have come to the conclusion that this whole thing has nothing to do with health care at all. Instead, the utter insanity of such ideas, delivered with a straight face, makes me believe that these people are bound and determined to wreck the economy and the dollar permanently. As such, they are either incredibly stupid or incredibly evil.

bd:

Nothing is "free." Free health care in some countries have resulted in everyone paying as much as a 50% income tax, as well as 10% or higher unemployment rate. If you think that's free, I think you're nuts.

You're naive too if you think our spendthrift Congress can pass anything resembling a health care system without making it cost us all a whole lot more than elsewhere, and certainly a whole lot more than predicted. Given the train-wreck of government finances and financial obligations in this country, the whole thing is unreasonable.

dt:

If you were trying to do a hack job, you've succeeded.

Your argument is a classic ad hominem, except it is directed at an entire organization instead of just one person. Your argument is that: Cato Institute is in bed with big business and environmental terrorists - ergo, everything it says is suspect and shouldn't be trusted. That's just shooting the messenger. It doesn't follow that all persons associated with business or global warming skeptics are untruthful. Thus, it doesn’t tend at all to disprove the assertions the Cato institute made.

You seem to be a decent person, dt. Please don't pelt us with B.S. like this.

People can talk about free heatlh care all they want, complauin about the lack of cov for some, but unless you are willing to give 50% of your earnings to the gov, free health care for all is not an option.

"Not to mention that Hillary Care probably will at some point begin to require that our tax dollars fund abortion and sex-change surgery.

Posted by: Franklin | September 17, 2007 6:34 PM "

Nice "Straw Men" there, Franklin.

Posted by: dt | September 18, 2007 2:46 AM

Excellent job!

John W
How long have you lived outside the country and personally experienced the foreign health care cost in countries like holland? If not than you are just repeating the same old BS that the cost are too high. The long and short of it is that those countries with a health plan for all of their citizens have healthier longer living people!!
Full stop.
Is their tax base higher than in the US? Yes
Is the health program the cause of this No!
Go check it out for yourself instead of repeating a tired mantra fed by those that have a vested interest in NOT having a universal healthplan...
Maybe you belong to that group?? :(

First we have to get big insurance out of the way. They say they exist on small margins, but they are liars.

They won't go away easy, the only I see is a revolution. You got to put a gun to their heads, that is the only way to get rid of them. Then all the other Republican scumbags, like the oil companies and Haliburtian, these are good places to start.

I think we could give them an island somewhere and call it "GreedLand" then we could all watch them kill each other, that's Capitalism at it's best.