Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2008, 12:11 PM
 
2,356 posts, read 3,460,451 times
Reputation: 864

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by vickilynn View Post
Ok...Hillary keeps bringing up that her plan is mandatory...but I'm not so sure why this is "bad" or "good"...can any of you give me some simple, concrete examples?
My understanding is:

Her plan would be to force young, low-risk invidivuals to pay for health insurance. People like me, who spend very little on healthcare, would be forced to have expensive health insurance policies that we would rarely use.

This would help subsidize the cost of health insurance for the high-risk individuals, like seniors, or the poor.

I'm not saying it is a good or bad idea... just that this is my understanding of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2008, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,064 posts, read 17,974,622 times
Reputation: 3729
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous View Post
My understanding is:

Her plan would be to force young, low-risk invidivuals to pay for health insurance. People like me, who spend very little on healthcare, would be forced to have expensive health insurance policies that we would rarely use.

This would help subsidize the cost of health insurance for the high-risk individuals, like seniors, or the poor.

I'm not saying it is a good or bad idea... just that this is my understanding of it.
No, that's not exactly true. As she said in the debate, she keeps Medicare and Medicaid but the government subsidizes the cost of insurance for others so the premiums are affordable. The lower the income, the less (if anything) one pays.

The way I see it is it HAS to be mandatory participation. If not, you will ALWAYS have people who say, "Well, I never get sick so I'll just take my chances." And when something happens, those are the people who will present themselves at the hospital expecting care but unable to pay $20,000+ for surgery or treatment. That's simply not fair to everyone else.

Obama is being foolish when he says he knows everyone wants/will buy health coverage but just can't policies because they're too expensive. A segment of the population wants to buy the latest gadgets and have more expendable income so they won't pay for other things. Look at the percentage of the population that doesn't have adequate auto or home insurance!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 12:30 PM
 
2,356 posts, read 3,460,451 times
Reputation: 864
Quote:
No, that's not exactly true. As she said in the debate, she keeps Medicare and Medicaid but the government subsidizes the cost of insurance for others so the premiums are affordable. The lower the income, the less (if anything) one pays.
What's not exactly true? I don't see where your statements contradict my statements. I made no claims about Mediare, Medicaid, or taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

Quote:
The way I see it is it HAS to be mandatory participation. If not, you will ALWAYS have people who say, "Well, I never get sick so I'll just take my chances."
Which is their right..

Quote:
And when something happens, those are the people who will present themselves at the hospital expecting care...
Which is a seperate problem. I don't think you should be able to just "show up" and expect care without some way to pay for it.

Quote:
..but unable to pay $20,000+ for surgery or treatment. That's simply not fair to everyone else.
Which is why it shouldn't be part of the plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 12:40 PM
 
3 posts, read 3,219 times
Reputation: 10
I can tell you military health care has gotten worse. We went from military doctors being trained in at some of the best medical schools to foreign doctors who you can barely understand. All because the cost is cheaper. What do you think Hillarycare? It will contract healthcare for all to the lowest bidder. If you think it's hard to find a good doctor now...... just wait. She won't make it worth it to go through med school!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 12:43 PM
 
2,776 posts, read 3,966,471 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by iameso View Post
I can tell you military health care has gotten worse. We went from military doctors being trained in at some of the best medical schools to foreign doctors who you can barely understand. All because the cost is cheaper. What do you think Hillarycare? It will contract healthcare for all to the lowest bidder. If you think it's hard to find a good doctor now...... just wait. She won't make it worth it to go through med school!
So you don't like the state of healthcare today (at least for the military), and you don't like the proposal that Hillary Clinton has put forth. OK, so what do you see as the solution? Perhaps open another thread on this if you have ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 12:54 PM
 
3 posts, read 3,219 times
Reputation: 10
I remember healthcare not being in the state it currently is due to the
sue-happy. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed, and doctors have no choice, but to increase their fees accordingly. We all wish doctors were able to work free, but I am sure medical school is not also. We have to find a way to make it worthwhile for doctors to want to be there, without making it impossible for us to afford them. Tax breaks for doctors so they can lower fees? I wish I had an answer, but hopefully one of the candidates do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 01:08 PM
 
2,776 posts, read 3,966,471 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by iameso View Post
I remember healthcare not being in the state it currently is due to the
sue-happy. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed, and doctors have no choice, but to increase their fees accordingly. We all wish doctors were able to work free, but I am sure medical school is not also. We have to find a way to make it worthwhile for doctors to want to be there, without making it impossible for us to afford them. Tax breaks for doctors so they can lower fees? I wish I had an answer, but hopefully one of the candidates do.
Dr. Ron Paul is the one Candidate with direct insight/experience regarding this as a former OB/GYN. I suspect your ideas align well with his since what you're stating describes well at least some of the issues affecting the state of US healthcare today and what he's talked and written about.

Where Hillary Clinton's plan is strong is that she's had well over 10 years to tweak the ideas and concepts while conducting research and indeed through her failure to get anything of significance passed in the 90s, she has likely learned how not fail similarly again. I guess we'll see how it all shakes out in the end, I just hope that whatever happens I don't end up having to spend a ridiculous amount of money each month insuring my healthy family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,064 posts, read 17,974,622 times
Reputation: 3729
Anonymous, you said that everyone would have to pay high premiums to subsidize care for the elderly and poor. That's not true. The elderly and poor would remain in the government health care programs (Medicare and Medicaid) and the government would be subsidizing people purchasing policies through the private system. You may not have said "Medicare" and "Medicaid" but the "high-risk" individuals you refer to are, and will continue to be, covered by the government programs, whereas others will get subsidies for buying private insurance.

And, sorry, it is NOT someone's right to refuse to buy coverage if it's been made affordable and then expect the people who HAVE bought coverage to take care of them. I live in Texas and I can't get away with not having car insurance even though I've never had an accident in my 28 years of driving. The law says I have to have it and they check every time I renew my auto registration. And the state has done nothing to make car insurance affordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Mesa, AZ
485 posts, read 557,452 times
Reputation: 153
Mandated ANYTHING is bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2008, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 14,124,218 times
Reputation: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
Anonymous, you said that everyone would have to pay high premiums to subsidize care for the elderly and poor. That's not true. The elderly and poor would remain in the government health care programs (Medicare and Medicaid) and the government would be subsidizing people purchasing policies through the private system. You may not have said "Medicare" and "Medicaid" but the "high-risk" individuals you refer to are, and will continue to be, covered by the government programs, whereas others will get subsidies for buying private insurance.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are broke. There is no money. Read the GAO's report. Hillary is making promises that she can't keep. We need to transition people out of government run programs like this and allow young people to make their own choices about retirement and healthcare. Remove the regulations and let the market set the price. I can't name a single program that the federal government has taken over that is better than under the private market.

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08417cg.pdf

It's a lot of information to take it, but the Democrats seem to be ignoring all of this with their promises. Subsidizing anything creates more of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top