Reply With Quote
I still haven't found a quote attributed to her about 'univesral healthcare' now or in 1992. Yoni admit that language is a scare tactic.. a tactic to rile up the folks on the right..
So maybe her stance has changed? evolved?
Where were you in 1992?
I still haven't found a quote attributed to her about 'univesral healthcare' now or in 1992. Yoni admit that language is a scare tactic.. a tactic to rile up the folks on the right..
So maybe her stance has changed? evolved?
I doubt it.
One of the fundamental tenets of the universal health care program she was working on in her husband's first term, was that in order to make sure consistent, quality health care was available to everyone, you had to completely socialize medicine and penalize private practice.
One recommendation was to provide for criminal penalities for doctors found to be treating patients on the side.
Hillary Clinton in 2008 is not calling to "completely socialize medicine." None of the candidates are calling for a single-payer plan, which is what "completely socialized medicine" means. John Edwards' plan comes the closest to out-and-out socialism. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan in California is more comprehensive than Hillary's proposal.
Well, any hybrid plan is nothing different than what we have now.
That's exactly my point. No one is calling for universal healthcare..of course that doesn't stop hush, whannity, fox news ..etc. from promoting false news..
Hopefully, a reformed system would not simultaneously have the highest costs coupled with some of the worst results in the developed world, which is what we have now.
One theoretically could devise a more free-market-based approach which could work. The key would be eliminating the economic incentive to deny needed care. Insurance companies will deny a $500 screening that prevents a $100,000 treatment regimen ten years down the road, because they are focused on short-term profits. We need a simpler system where health care is primarily doctors offering services to patients, and actuaries and lawyers stay on the sidelines.
We aren't hearing good ideas on this from the Republicans because unfortunately right now they are rather unapologetically going through a Gilded-Age corporate- phase. Proponents of the free market will have to debate good ideas outside of the political process while the GOP decides going forward whether it wants to be the party of Reagan, Rockefeller, or Rebel Yells.
Hillary's #1 psychophant, Michael Moore, is calling for exactly that.
Now, I realize he doesn't help Hillary form her policies but, it would seem to me that if he weren't confident her election represented a realistice opportunity to ins ute the type of health care system he envisions he would be fawning all over her and her ideas of health care while pitching his movie "Sicko!" on the Leno Show.
If you want to say Moore is a thoughtful, intelligent, and politically astute film maker (which, certainly, I don't but, some in here do) then you have to wonder what he likes about HillaryCare. I suspect it's the socialist nature of it.
Because clearly the status quo and Michael Moore Socialism are our only two options.
Antiprogress 101.
No, but any move towards a socialized single-payer system is a step backward.
Right, or it's the same thing we already have. Why bother right?
Truth: America's system of healthcare is atrocious. Not only does it cost the most, it kills the most in comparison to other developed countries.
So, we either do something or we do nothing.
I choose something. But thats from a guy who pays for his employees healthcare every month for some crappy HMO. Pathetic really.
The capitalistic, for-profit, free-market health care system we have now is an inhumane nightmare for patients, and a dream for the health care providers who basically charge whatever they want and keep raising the prices out of all proportion to actual costs. Patients are basically being raped and gouged.
All the other major industrial countries have better health care systems, delivering more health care to more people for less money, and people don't have to worry about their finances being wiped out by a serious sickness, don't have to worry about the health insurance being cancelled or their rates being raised, don't have to worry about declaring personal bankruptcy due to medical bills.
The health care system's winner will slime and swift-boat vehemently anybody who dares propose reforms.
While Clinton's plan in the early 90s was apparently too complex, the violent, well-financed opposition wasn't against the complexity, it was against any kind of reform.
The health care lobbyists will buy enough politicians to kill any reform, no matter that majority of US citizens (who know they are getting screwed) and US corps (who want to get out of the healt care business) are for reform.
Last edited by boutons_; 07-16-2007 at 02:56 PM.
I agree it costs the most, but what do you think the cost would be if we had serious tort reform limiting lawsuits? Almost any medical procedure carries at least a small random risk. Lawsuits should only be awarded when clear malpractice can be shown, and the doctor should lose his license and more.
As for killing more? I have a hard time believing that. have any stats for that which specifies how the numbers are broken down?
Malpractice reform would help, but it is far from the biggest piece of the puzzle.
What is the biggest piece? To my knowledge:
Tort reform would dramatically reduce the insurance. Some medical providers pay in excess of $250,000 per year for insurance which means they must make $100 per hour just to pay the insurance.
Excessive tests and procedure are performed to protect from liability claims.
Medicine suffers the same fate. Something like 80% of the net income collected on medicines is set aside for lawsuit pay-outs if I recall the numbers right.
One primary reason socialized medicine is cheaper is that you don't have the ability to sue under the system.
Am I wrong on these points?
The biggest reason our healthcare is more expensive is that we scrimp on preventive care, kick the can down the road, and then pay out the nose for interventional care.
The second-biggest reason our healthcare is more expensive is that our lifestyle and food supply promotes obesity and its related chronic diseases.
The third-biggest reason our healthcare is more expensive is that we pay stratospheric pharmaceutical costs basically to underwrite direct marketing of those products to consumers.
Malpractice claims abuse is further down the list.
Extra Stout is on a intellectual role.
I think the best sort of system would provide free basic health-care to everyone (pick your level of care) and those who choose to, or can afford too, can purchase catastrophic or supplemental insurance on their own. Right now, we are all paying to research technology that most of us will never use. Why should I supplement the costs of some rich/poor/obese guys live/kidney/stomach transplant when I can't afford a regular doctor visit on my HMO?
...in comparison to other developed countries. So, my point is, we arent comparing the US to, say, Guatemala.
My point is, people die in America because they do not have health insurance. You dont qualify for Medicare/Medicaid if youre a) not a senior citizen or b) below a certain income level.
Therefore, its actually counter-productive to have a job that pays around $30k a year, but doesnt have health insurance, because if you get sick, youre screwed.
While the welfare-sucking, 6 children from 3 different men, mothers of the country have their entire family's health paid for by you and me.
So, in essence, my statement was misleading, Ill admit. While the statement may be true (i dont want to research), lets assume it is not.
Of the other developed countries of the world, the US is the only one without socialized medicine. Coincidence that we are also the most expensive? I dont think so.
Argue it anyway, boutons even though laced with vitriol, is absolutely correct. Healthcare should never be linked with the word "profit". No amount of argument can convince me otherwise.
So, all that to say you don't have the numbers? He asked for stats not for what countries you're presuming to stack us up against.
I only bring it up because I'm curious as well.
WC, show us stats where the TX tort reform and $250K cap has lowered doctor insurance premiums in TX and that those savings have been passed along to consumers.
Also show us were medical liability suits are the dominating contributor to high, increasing health costs natiowide, or even a significant contrbutor.
Re-gurgitating Repug talking points isn't credible.
That's a good take. Another reason of the high costs is that pharm Reps are to Doctors what Lobbyists are to politicians. Drug costs are high in part because of all the marketing and "company dinners" that the reps invite Docs to. I used to work in the healthcare industry and I can tell you that I did not notice a week go by that there weren't reps passing out free stuff, trips or having multiple dinners at places like Morton's or Ruths Chris to promote their products. Cut that out (like lobbyists) and the costs of the mdeications would go down.
Hmm, not sure if it applies, but I know every time I go to the doctor I always steal one of their numerous "Glyco-cylclimean" or some such pens, stationary, buttons, stickers, post-its, toilet paper and license plate when I'm there.
BTW, I totally made that name up.
The stuff Big Pharma sales babes give to doctors costs pennies to produce. The kind of stuff where the cost to market it costs way more than the cost to produce it.
Has anybody heard of Big Pharma giving away drugs like avastin or other drugs that costs many $1000s, even 10s of $1000?
It seems to me we view these a little different. Your first two reasons I consider a category of why we need health care rather than the reason it is costly. I have not seen issues with on the prevention side when it comes to things like physical exams. I have seen these encouraged. I agree peoples lifestyle are a major cause, and maybe someday we can even eliminate the need for health care.
If we are going to look at lifestyle and food, we should separate that and remind people that a socialized system will not change such things. Socializing the system may (will in my opinion) make things worse since it removes personal responsibility.
I completely agree that lifestyle is a key factor to needing health care. I will agree it is the greatest reason and therefore the greatest cost factor because of the volume it places on the system. Just not that it changes the cost per visit per doctor in the way that driving insurance rates for doctors do. Yes, it increases the insurance rates for individuals.
I am one that doesn't live natural or organic, but I include them in my foods to get natural vitamins and enzymes that are not killed. At 47, I am far more healthy than most in their 30's, and probable better than half of the college age crowd. There are foods with some ingredients I steer away from, but don’t completely avoid, hike high fructose corn syrup. I seldom drink soda and use 100% maple syrup on my pancakes. It is only slightly used as a sweetener in Power-Aid and I buy that sometimes, but prefer Simply Orange. Hard to find things these days without that poison. When I have those cravings for greasy hamburgers and fries, I buy them. I simply make sure I eat enough foods with good natural nutrients, and eat pretty much whatever I want. I also eat sushi about once a week.
As for the cost of drugs, I covered that briefly. It shares the burden of having to recoup money to pay out lawsuits. They would be far cheaper if they didn’t have that burden.
The one thing I have not seen anyone address was my point regarding settlements. What type of lawsuits would be permitted under universal health care? Would health care prices fall to acceptable levels if only reasonable lawsuits could be pursued?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions