DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 20, 2007, 03:14:45 AM
-
Hillary?s Snare
By The Editors
Only two groups of Americans should worry about Hillary Clinton?s new health-care plan: the healthy and the sick. The healthy are going to pay more, since one of Clinton?s ideas is to prohibit insurance companies from giving them a discount.
For many of the sick, the Clinton plan will mean worse care. She promises to generate $35 billion in savings by insisting on ?best practices? and reducing the ?geographic variation in care.? These are code words for rationing. And there will be more rationing to come. Clinton?s plan is likely to cause health costs to rise. For one thing, it expands every government health-care program in sight, including the ones that are already insolvent. Government-imposed rationing will be the only way to control these costs once her system is in place.
The federal government provides a tax break for employer-provided coverage; Clinton would take it away from high-income workers. Something like that could be done as part of a tax reform that would reduce the federal government?s distortion of health markets. But the way she does it, it?s just a tax increase ? one of many in her plan.
Senator Clinton is being treated as a political genius for leaving all the unpleasant parts of liberal health reform for later. Her plan features no explicit rationing, and she even claims that it would create no new bureaucracies. (Then who?s going to keep track of whether everyone has complied with the mandate to get health insurance?) Republicans should fill in the blanks, and explain that there are better ways to reform health care.
Article (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDAwMWM3MThiMzI3YmQ4OTdmYzY2ZWU2ODU3NDY1MGE=)
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070918/margulies.gif)
-
OK, so Hilary's snare will result in higher payments by the healthy (i.e., the wealthier tier of the country) and rationed health care for everyone. My question is, whose snare is responsible for 45 million Americans not even having a health plan? Because THAT is some fucking snare, my friends.
-
My question is, whose snare is responsible for 45 million Americans not even having a health plan?
The same one that has always been responsible...themselves
-
My question is, whose snare is responsible for 45 million Americans not even having a health plan? Because THAT is some fucking snare, my friends.
The consensus seems to be it is your fault.
-
<<The consensus seems to be it is your fault.>>
My fault? This time even sirs had a better answer - - blame the victim.
-
<<The consensus seems to be it is your fault.>>
My fault? This time even sirs had a better answer - - blame the victim.
This has always been an intriguing, not to mention disengenuous, tact by many of those who advocate wealth redistribution and mandatory Government cradle <--> grave support, for every breathing soul. The idea that there must be blame for a cause THEY deem egregious. A) someone that doesn't have health insurance is not defacto "a victim". Many choose not to. B) many more make lifestyle choices that prohibit them getting insurance coverage. In both cases they are no more a victim, than I. And with the tact of trying to lay claim to some sort of victom-hood, by design there must also be the "bad guy", in this case, those evil RW greedy bastards, who dare advocate personal responsibility and accountability for their actions.
Bt kinda nailed it.....if Tee wants everyone to have healthcare coverage, by all means, he and like minds ought to pool their resources and provide it. The fact they haven't and show no signs of doing so, pretty much makes it their fault for not having health care
-
We already have rationing. The rich get cured and the poor? They can't pay, so they get to die.
-
Despite studies and common sense alone, which would tell you that few people born to wealth end up in poverty and few people born to poverty endu up in wealth, sirs and other like-minded souls continue to deny the common-sense proposition that although exceptional individuals can rise above the circumstances into which they were born, for the average member of the human race, even in America (although arguably less so than anywhere else on earth) where you are born determines where you will end up in the socio-economic pecking order. The cheap shot, the easy way out, of dealing with this unsavoury fact of life is the conservative solution to everything: blame the victim.
-
You ever publish what your "free" healthcare actually costs you in dollars earned?
-
<<You ever publish what your "free" healthcare actually costs you in dollars earned?>>
Gotta cost less than U.S. health care because all studies indicate the U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth. Pays way more and gets way less, by most objective standards of measurement.
So whatever our system costs us, we get more for our money than you get for yours, and we pay less "dollars earned" than you do.
-
Gotta cost less than U.S. health care because all studies indicate the U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth. Pays way more and gets way less, by most objective standards of measurement.
So whatever our system costs us, we get more for our money than you get for yours, and we pay less "dollars earned" than you do.
Do you really not know what it costs your or are you simply being coy?
-
We already have rationing. The rich get cured and the poor? They can't pay, so they get to die.
Strange, I was part of "the poor" for most of my childhood & adolescence, yet lived. Go figure
-
The cheap shot, the easy way out, of dealing with this unsavoury fact of life is the conservative solution to everything: blame the victim.
When desperate, (b)lather, rinse, repeat
-
<<When desperate, (b)lather, rinse, repeat>>
When completely devoid of ideas, attack the man who has one.
-
You may have ideas, but you apparently have no idea what your "free" health care costs you.
-
I don't think it matters to Tee, so long as "the rich" are paying for it
-
Seems to me a universal service should require universal contributions.
-
Of course in this case, "contributions" are mandatory, and skewed so that "the rich" pay "their fair share". Did I get enough buzz/code words in that sentence? ;)
-
<<You may have ideas, but you apparently have no idea what your "free" health care costs you. >>
I know the more important fact that it costs us less per capita than your system costs you and we get better results from it. MUCH better results.
You're stuck with the facts that (1) you pay MORE per capita for health care than any other country and (2) you are WAY behind most of the rest of the world in the results you have to show for it.
And all you poor suckers can hang your hat on (and keep harping on) is: "Tee doesn't know what his system actually costs." As if knowing that fact would in any way alter the basic equation of you guys paying more than us and getting less.
Hey, if you're so fucking interested in that little detail, why don't you read the Romanow Report? It's all in there for you. Every insignificant, nit-picking detail. Reminder, math genius: whatever the figure is, it's meaningless without the corresponding U.S. figure for comparison. Which you probably don't know either.
-
<<You may have ideas, but you apparently have no idea what your "free" health care costs you. >>
I know the more important fact that it costs us less per capita than your system costs you and we get better results from it. MUCH better results.
Which of course is why folks are flocking from the U.S. to Canada for their healthcare.....oh wait, it's the other way around.
-
Of course in this case, "contributions" are mandatory, and skewed so that "the rich" pay "their fair share". Did I get enough buzz/code words in that sentence? ;)
Nothing wrong with that.
-
Of course in this case, "contributions" are mandatory, and skewed so that "the rich" pay "their fair share". Did I get enough buzz/code words in that sentence? ;)
Nothing wrong with that.
Kinda what I thought
-
Reminder, math genius: whatever the figure is, it's meaningless without the corresponding U.S. figure for comparison. Which you probably don't know either.
Well i glanced at the Romanow Report. Interestingly i found out the the Canadian Medicare system is funded primariliy at the province level and up until recently most of that was through sales taxation. Naturally the report was light on what that percentage was. It's almost like the govt is hiding actually cost to the average citizen.
And per capita spending or per capita share figures are meaningless since the figure is diluted by the numbers who are subsidized and get a free ride. .