HillaryCare is back!

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Kudos to Hillary for sticking her neck out and taking a brave, lonely stand. Hopefully this will amount to more than just giving the righties a target to aim their soundbites at.

Anyone who knows anything about the US health care system knows that it is an expensive boondoogle, and anyone who pays for their own UNSUBSIDIZED health coverage (almost $800 per month here, mediocre plan and I haven't seen a doctor in at least five years) knows that there has to be a better way.

I have an HSA plan and see the doctor for a yearly. I also see an allergy specialist yearly along with dental. This money comes out of my pocket upto the first 2500.

If you are paying 800 bucks a month for a plan and not seen a doctor in 5 years. That is on you, not the system.

 

[piasabird]

More like 100 trillion.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Did you even read the Constitution past the 2nd amendment?
Why don't you show us exactly what part of the Constitution you think her idea violates?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Promote General Welfare?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Did you even read the Constitution past the 2nd amendment?
Why don't you show us exactly what part of the Constitution you think her idea violates?

10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people"

Don't see the power to provide healthcare delegated to the United States, maybe I missed that part.

Before you try throw out the "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" line as an excuse I shall provide you with some nice quotes from our founding fathers that specifically address this line.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."-- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction."-- James Madison

And finally, a reminder of what happens when people realize that they can vote themselves benefits without regard to their cost:
?When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.?-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Did you even read the Constitution past the 2nd amendment?
Why don't you show us exactly what part of the Constitution you think her idea violates?

10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people"

Don't see the power to provide healthcare delegated to the United States, maybe I missed that part.

Then why hasn't Medicare been ruled unconstitutional?

Before you try throw out the "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" line as an excuse I shall provide you with some nice quotes from our founding fathers that specifically address this line.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."-- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction."-- James Madison

And finally, a reminder of what happens when people realize that they can vote themselves benefits without regard to their cost:
?When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.?-- Benjamin Franklin

Those quotes are not in the Constitution. Providing for the General Welfare IS.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Promote General Welfare?

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison,

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

Read the whole clause: "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" and then look up the word 'welfare' in a period dictionary and you will find this meaning when it is applied to states "exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government."

Since they included defense and general welfare in the same line is would seem clear that they were implying a meaning similar to the one above.

 

[senseamp]

Last I checked, we don't use Madison's opinions instead of the Constitution. We use what's written in the Constitution, which is the Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, and medical care qualifies, which is why Medicare is perfectly constitutional and hasn't been overturned. You are going to tell me healthcare for the elderly is constitutional and healthcare for the young isn't? I'd like to see where YOU find that in the Constitution.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

Promote General Welfare?

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison,

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

Read the whole clause: "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" and then look up the word 'welfare' in a period dictionary and you will find this meaning when it is applied to states "exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government."

Since they included defense and general welfare in the same line is would seem clear that they were implying a meaning similar to the one above.

Hmm, I must have skipped over those snippets when I read the constitution.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

yeah, amazing what is being accredited to being in the Constitution when THEY want its support, yet they are the first to scream "thats not whats really in there" when gun nuts for the same papers

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The socialist Clinton has begun. Looks to me like nothing but HillaryCare circa 1994. Of course, she had no intention of going through with it in '94.

Every news and commentary show I saw, yesterday, said all of the sicko ultra-right parrots would be out screaming, "HILLARY CARE! HILLARY CARE! HILLARY CARE! OH, FsCKING NOZERS... THE SOCIALISTS ARE COMING! THE SOCIALISTS ARE COMING!!!!!!"

Thanks for proving ALL of them right. :roll:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Where in the Constitution does it say the government can require people to have health care? It doesn't. Hillary knows this, as such she will let her first idea get ruled Unconstitutional and then get nationalized health care.


Amazing the idiocy of people. Willing to turn over healthcare to the very people they mocked for not doing right on a little hurricane relieft.

read the link. Hillary specifically said that her plan is not government run. She is trying to get business to cover for all employed people as much as possible through tax and incentives, and the rest through plans similar to medicare.

If the US really want medical coverage for all resident, and not like some 3rd world country with millions of people who cannot afford decent health care, somebody got to start doing something. I don't see anyone from the republican side coming out with anything decent on the national scale, Hillary is the only one that comes out with something that sounds workable. This is not even a democrat/republican ideology. her plan is largely modeled after what arnold swarchenegger and mitt romney was trying to do.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: IGBT
..so for those of you's in Calif. Mrs. Bill Clinton's model for health care is Kaiser. So how do you feel about Kaiser since you won't have any othe choice under HilCare Inc.

I have been a Kaiser member for over 40 years. The care is decent, except for long waits to see some specialists. Kaiser is I think the top-rated HMO in the country? My major complaint is the cost, going up 15% per year and now over $500 per month for just myself.
I've tried to get a job there, free medical ftw!
I don't know how much longer I can afford the increasing costs and reduced coverage, my prescriptions used to be $20 and now are market rate, ouch.

Oh yeah, John Stossel is lying POS. I didn't watch any link, I just know him from past hatchet jobs.

..I have them too thru my employer. Many don't like them and may be forced into them if HilCare becomes the norm.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ironwing

The government running health insurance would be a huge cluster F... The idea that the gub'ment can run it better than private industry is laughable.

so u'll trust the government w/ da police, defence, and education, but not healtcare?! lol man u sure have ur priorities mixed up.

im canadian, i just dont think about this, but u guys suit yourself.

 

[nageov3t]

don't you think the failures of HillaryCare make her a bit wiser and more experienced so that she can apply the mistakes she made the first time to the new plan?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

The socialist Clinton has begun. Looks to me like nothing but HillaryCare circa 1994. Of course, she had no intention of going through with it in '94.

Expect to see similar UHC plans from other Democrats in the near future.

It was '92, FYI, and the health-care model it follows the closest is one put into play by republicans.

Also, partisan hackery, once again. You people are so pathetically predictable.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Clinton, and her stupid health-care plan. But that's not what matters here.

What matters is hacks play "follow the sound-bite politician's lead" very well, but that's all they do well.

"Socialist Clinton LOL!"

"HillaryCare 2.0 LOL!"

Why do you continue to play into the partisan game? Is it just funny for you, because if you're trolling I'd understand that as entertainment. But no, I really do think you believe every word you say... That's sad.

 

[shadow9d9]

Bout damn time! Everyone kept saying she was bought out by the healthcare industry... thanks for letting me know! Now there is an actual chance I'd vote for her!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
She can get a lot of support on this, when I saw Sicko, the audience stood up & clapped at the end, (& this was in Texas)

Anybody who found Sicko a revelation should automatically lose voting rights because it shows that they're stupid. I'm not saying all the points were wrong, but for it to be a revelation, as it was for some, indicates how disconnected they already are. They should be given a blanket and more American Idol to watch, not have any say in public discourse.

Ah darnit.. I gotta tell my doctor father that his opinion was wrong and disconnected : (.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Skoorb
They should be given a blanket and more American Idol to watch, not have any say in public discourse.

Sadly, a vast majority would be quite happy. Especially with American Idol :laugh:

Sicko was nothing but far left-wing Moore propaganda. (Per usual.)

Yeah, real life stories of our healthcare industry is pure left wing propaganda... Reality is left wing.

I am willing to bet all I have that you haven't even seen the movie.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Triumph
The government running health insurance would be a huge cluster F.

That is for damn sure.

It's amazing to me that people think the government can handle this

All these scandals we have in the high office.
Police departments that can't control their officers.
Streets departments with 20 guys standing around and 1 guy working.
12+ weeks to get a passport back now.
"Right to a speedy trial" translates to 2+ years in prison until your appeal


Government agency's run in reaction mode 99% of the time. I am not willing to turn my health over to that.



Yeah, our public school system is terrible, our post office is terrible.... our medicare/medicaid is incredibly efficient... very very bad!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ironwing
Just another plan to maintain the status quo, handing out public money to private insurance companies. We don't need HillaryCare, we need national health insurance.

The government running health insurance would be a huge cluster F. I'm all for a plan that lets me keep my current insurance and only covers people who don't have access to it otherwise. Why mess up health care for the people who it works for? The idea that the gub'ment can run it better than private industry is laughable.

That's the problem... It's not working for the majority.

I believe that it could work if ran right. But, I have to think that it most likely won't work... I think this is more of a political stunt since.... If you think back when Bill was running he was on the same page about free health care for all. People hear this and they win more votes. Sadly... It won't happen unless everyone is on the same page.

For it to work, they would have to abolish the entire system and start over as one big health system. That is the only way it's going to work. I'd say get rid of it all except for the kaiser model then work off of that for low cost health care for all.

Good Luck!

And what, pre tel, isnt working exactly?

I can;'t for the life of me believe this statement was said in honesty.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
At any rate, many Western European nations seem to have forged a strong middle ground between the obviously flawed US healthcare "system" and the also flawed Canadian system. The debate over healthcare is far from an A or B decision between the too-little American system and the too-far Canadian system.

the euros have figured out how to let dying people die. the US hasn't figured that out yet. by far the most money spent on medical care in this country is on people who will be dead within a year.




and i laughed when i read the line about her proposal not making her the insurance industry's woman of the year. oh really? she wants to give them 43 million new customers and a giant public subsidy. yeah, i'm sure insurance industry CEOs are quaking in their boots.

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

At any rate, I quoted a section I posted above particularly relevant to countering TheSlamma and Triumph's arguments. I bolded a few sections for particular emphasis:

Where is the money going? An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork. The administrative costs for our patched-together system of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and government programs are nearly double those for single-payer Canada. It's not because Americans are inherently less efficient than Canadians -- our publicly funded Medicare system spends under five cents per budget dollar on administrative overhead. And the Veterans Administration, which functions like Britain's socialized medical system, spends less per patient but consistently outranks private providers in patient satisfaction and quality of care.

But in the private sector, profits and excessive CEO pay are added to the paperwork and bureaucracy. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry averages a 17 percent profit margin, against three percent for all other businesses. In the health care industry, million-dollar CEO pay packages are the rule, with some executives pulling down more than $30 million a year in salary and amassing billion-dollar stock option packages.

i'm not certain about the VA, but if it's anything like medicare the reason the proportion of costs due to paper pushing are much lower than in the private care system in general is that the private care system in general has a much lower percentage of low-cost services. a regular doctor visit costs almost nothing compared to the octogenarian care that medicare pumps out.

but yes, the paper pushing costs are incredible, and elimination of them by central clearing houses and common forms could pay for hillary's plan without increase in taxes (and yet she doesn't even want the industry to do that, if that doesn't show that she is in the industry's pocket i don't know what will).


and no 'health care' plan can work without proper support for the basics of health care: diet and exercise. otherwise it's really just medical care.

Originally posted by: Hacp


Promote General Welfare?

three cheers for authoritarianism!

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Edit: didn't see above poster's changes at first. See my comment below:

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
At any rate, many Western European nations seem to have forged a strong middle ground between the obviously flawed US healthcare "system" and the also flawed Canadian system. The debate over healthcare is far from an A or B decision between the too-little American system and the too-far Canadian system.

the euros have figured out how to let dying people die. the US hasn't figured that out yet. by far the most money spent on medical care in this country is on people who will be dead within a year.




and i laughed when i read the line about her proposal not making her the insurance industry's woman of the year. oh really? she wants to give them 43 million new customers and a giant public subsidy. yeah, i'm sure insurance industry CEOs are quaking in their boots.

I forgot to take the bolded point into account, but at any rate my mother, who is a RN, would certainly agree with that point. She'll talk about how she spends night after night seeing the same people living in great pain. Most of them have no chance of recovery, and are being kept alive (very expensively) for several days or weeks longer for essentially nothing. Those last several weeks cost a ton of money, crippling their family financially, all the while the patient is experiencing nothing but pain.


It's like the Terry Schivo case: what was the point of her being kept alive for ten years? She wasn't conscious, had no chance for recovery...all the while costing a ton of money. There are just some people who would consider it "unnatural" to pull the plug when the only thing unnatural is keeping a person like Schivo "alive" in the first place.

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

At any rate, I quoted a section I posted above particularly relevant to countering TheSlamma and Triumph's arguments. I bolded a few sections for particular emphasis:

Where is the money going? An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork. The administrative costs for our patched-together system of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and government programs are nearly double those for single-payer Canada. It's not because Americans are inherently less efficient than Canadians -- our publicly funded Medicare system spends under five cents per budget dollar on administrative overhead. And the Veterans Administration, which functions like Britain's socialized medical system, spends less per patient but consistently outranks private providers in patient satisfaction and quality of care.

But in the private sector, profits and excessive CEO pay are added to the paperwork and bureaucracy. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry averages a 17 percent profit margin, against three percent for all other businesses. In the health care industry, million-dollar CEO pay packages are the rule, with some executives pulling down more than $30 million a year in salary and amassing billion-dollar stock option packages.

i'm not certain about the VA, but if it's anything like medicare the reason the proportion of costs due to paper pushing are much lower than in the private care system in general is that the private care system in general has a much lower percentage of low-cost services. a regular doctor visit costs almost nothing compared to the octogenarian care that medicare pumps out.

Well, that could explain part of the difference between private healthcare and the VA, but certainly the healthcare industry's far greater profit-margins (compared to the US-average, as noted in one of my previous posts) and executives being paid many millions of dollars is another huge part.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
but yes, the paper pushing costs are incredible, and elimination of them by central clearing houses and common forms could pay for hillary's plan without increase in taxes (and yet she doesn't even want the industry to do that, if that doesn't show that she is in the industry's pocket i don't know what will).

and no 'health care' plan can work without proper support for the basics of health care: diet and exercise. otherwise it's really just medical care.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that. If anything, a government-funded healthcare plan would be more likely to stress diet and exercise: while the private healthcare industry relies on people coming in requiring service (and thus a sick person is better for business than a healthy person). A government program, by contrast, would benefit by spending less, and thus a healthy person not costing any money would be ideal.

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp


Promote General Welfare?

three cheers for authoritarianism!

Okay...I guess that means being compelled to pay for a public fire department is also authoritarianism too, isn't it? Same deal with public education, police, sanitation, etc.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am willing to bet all I have that you haven't even seen the movie.

You're right. I don't watch propaganda.