Levgreee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:47 PM
Original message |
Mandates for Health Care will NEVER be able to be pushed through |
|
Edited on Sun Feb-03-08 04:49 PM by Levgreee
At least in the present time.
at least 1/3 through 2/5 of our population is fiercely against mandates such as these. Do you think it is politically viable to just force it politically?
Hillary is giving empty promises, because it is very likely she will not be able to accomplish this. She might be able to, but you are rolling the dice. You can't go from a broken system to a mandated universal health care. The backlash is too strong. The hundreds of problems with the system need to be fixed first, THEN mandates should be considered, possibly.
|
BootinUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The broken part is largely the fact it is not Universal |
|
How do you fix it without mandates?
|
Levgreee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. If everyone who wants health care, can purchase it, then it is in essence universal |
|
no one is being left out. How do you consider it not being universal, not accessible by all, if all who want to buy it, can?
|
BootinUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
10. So can we boot them out of the hospital when they get sick? |
|
since they were too greedy to pony up?
|
Levgreee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. in Obama's plan they can choose to enroll then, but have to have extra charges over time |
|
to pay back on the time they went without health care, and the charges the put on the system.
|
BootinUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
18. And you think that is a better approach? |
Kutjara
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
19. Universal healthcare is a social good, meaning it's not only... |
|
Edited on Sun Feb-03-08 05:08 PM by Kutjara
...beneficial to those who are entitled to it, it is also beneficial to the country as a whole. This social good breaks down if people are allowed to choose whether to participate in the healthcare scheme or not. Many will choose to roll the dice and use the money to buy a new car or a vacation. Others will opt to send their kids to a better school. Still others will save it "for a rainy day." What happens when these people get sick? Do we leave them at the side of the road or is there a social duty to treat them?
If we ignore the "voluntarily" uninsured sick, then we're a pretty barbaric society. On the other hand, if we treat the uninsured, then there's no incentive for anyone to buy insurance. Of course, we could treat the uninsured and then go after their assets, but that's a cumbersome and expensive process, not to mention one that would push families into bankruptcy and onto the streets.
The only real answer is some form of mandated universal healthcare that nobody can wriggle out of. A truly universal system would spread the costs across a larger population, reducing the cost to individuals. The rich wouldn't be able to select out and the greedy wouldn't be able to free ride. Of course, the poor would have to be subsidized to ensure they're not worse off than before.
I know that grates on people in what we laughingly call the "Land of the Free," but, frankly, that's tough shit. People accept a "mandated" school system and mandated "police/fire/rescue" services, as well as "mandated" garbage collection at their homes, so why not mandated health care?
|
flyarm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
21. no it is not..go grow up,..tell your bullshit to the stupid..we don't buy your ignorance!! eom |
|
Edited on Sun Feb-03-08 05:13 PM by flyarm
|
maddiejoan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Where's the "Audacity of Hope"? |
Levgreee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. Sure, you can hope... but she is not giving hope, she is not building the majority |
|
necessary to put through a controversial policy like this. The 50+1% won't work. You would need some Independents and Repubs behind you.
|
maddiejoan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:54 PM
Original message |
So we should start out with a weaker position? |
|
Edited on Sun Feb-03-08 04:55 PM by maddiejoan
That's what Obama's doing. By the time the GOP is done with Obama's plan there won't be anything left but bare bones and maggots.
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message |
4. That would take real work |
|
And after the joke of a $1,000 College Tax Credit of the 90's, I know not to put my trust in these phony Clinton promises.
|
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Couldn't you Mandate that every state offers a universal, single payer, health CARE plan. |
|
Thatd be intresting for an approach. How many conservatives would reject allowing the states to handle it? Isn't that what they want, rather than "having people in Washington control it". The only problem is the state by state inequality, when health care might be considered a civil right.
|
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:52 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I don't think she'd propose anything she knew she couldn't pass. |
|
"been there, done that," as she likes to say.
We will get a healthcare fix if we elect a Dem. I'm pretty confident of that.
|
Levgreee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. I think she'll have to compromise, in some manner |
|
i do believe she'll make big changes, yes. But it won't be the ideal, utopian health care system, that she claims she has, and Obama doesn't.
|
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
13. You really think you can get 60 senators to vote for |
|
mandated healthcare and garnishee of wages?
I dunno. I doubt it.
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-04-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
28. Which is why she's starting out with an already heavily compromised |
|
plan that keeps the private insurers in the driver's seat. And that's BEFORE she starts paring it down to suit the Grover Norquists.
With Hillary we will get a muddled, weak, ineffective plan that will minimize results and maximize insurance industry profits. THAT is what she knows will pass.
|
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Rovian tactic from OP--instilling the FEAR factor. Several of these posts today. |
Levgreee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
15. This is not fear, it is a policy discussion, the kind of discussions we should be having |
|
I am willing to be convinced otherwise, that these mandates are politically viable. If you do so, I am more likely to vote for Clinton.
|
flyarm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
23. the obama bullshit propaganda is all over these boards today..posted by the ipod kids |
|
who are utterly ignorant about health care and health insurance..obviously students.. who never had a paycheck..or paid for health insurance..on mommy and daddy's insurance policies..
it is so obvious..its really disgusting..
fly
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Hillary is addressing health care to win an election |
|
She's trying to be all things to all sides of the issue and as a result of this triangulating no one will get what they need. Congress will not pass anything like this either Democratic or Republican just like they didn't in 1993. The plan is unworkable and she knows it. Once she is President and the plan is shot down in Congress again it will never be revisited in that Presidency like it wasn't in Bill Clinton's presidency.
Is it so hard for anyone to learn from history?
|
BootinUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. Sounds like extreme cynicism based on ignorance,nt |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
17. Oh the cynicism is there all right, but not the ignorance and |
|
I would suggest you get off your knees with that hero worship and take an objective look at things.
|
BootinUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
22. Oh ok. Why do you even bother to vote. |
|
I guess your pick is so much better, despite all his avoidance of tough issues. lol.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
24. My pick isn't running anymore and I did vote for him. n/t |
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Edwards had the best idea |
|
Either you could keep the expensive for profit plan your company "offers," or you could opt into the much cheaper Medicare. Make it mandatory to have coverage and people who balk at paying ten to twelve thousand a year in combined company and employee contributions will always choose the cheaper Medicare, especially if they're young and relatively healthy and don't think they'll need any more than bare bones care. Most of them wont. The rest will be covered for catastrophic costs.
It was a back door way to get us universal Medicare, something that was planned 40 years ago when Medicare was given to retirees, the largest group of uninsurable people in the country at that time. Now all of us with pre existing conditions, even allergies, are uninsurable in some states unless we are employed full time by a company that provides benefits.
Insurance has become a racket, denying coverage, care, and partial payment of services to the sick just to fatten the bottom line. The CEOs live like Sultans and 18,000 of us a year die from neglect.
I'm still voting for Edwards on Tuesday because it's the only way to vote for a rational plan.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
25. Yep, he did that's why it appears he was railroaded first by |
|
the media and then by his own party.
|
flyarm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message |
20. bullshit..if you work and you have health insurance it is already taken out of your paycheck.. |
|
and if you are retired it is already taken out of your paycheck..you obama kids are clueless..go get a job and come back here and tell us all about it!!
fly
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-04-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
29. And if you work and don't have health insurance |
|
you're fucked.
The 47 million uninsured would LIKE to have insurance, but they can't afford it. Mandating it doesn't make it any more affordable. Particularly when it is left in the hands of the insurance industry to set the rates and benefits. You are aware, aren't you, that Medicare and Medicaid rates and benefits are guaged by the going market standards.
Hillary's plan does NOTHING to bring down costs, because it props up the very industry that is responsible for the cost inflation. With her plan, in a few years we will see the industry CEOs raking in incredible amounts, and the industry making record profits...
and SOME here will be excusing that looting of the public just as they now excuse the record oil company profit at a time of skyrocketing prices.
|
Ilsa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
26. I wish it was possible for everyone to get a fake hospital bill, |
|
Edited on Sun Feb-03-08 05:16 PM by Ilsa
showing how poorly they'd do with typical health insurance and how they'd probably have to file bankruptcy for asset protection.
The statistic I heard from CNN this morning was that one-half of all bankruptcies last year were due to excessive medical bills.
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-04-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
31. Yep. In many ways the uninsured are safer than the barely insured. |
|
I have decent insurance, BC/BS through the state, and I recently had an emergency appendectomy. Even with the insurance paying 80% it cost me nearly $4000 out of pocket. Took my savings account down to $89. What if I had something REALLY serious? I'm working, insured, and 15 years from retirement. And broke. I don't know what I would do with yet another hit like that.
All my insurance has done for the last 15 years is keep me at the edge of poverty - every time I start to get ahead there's another accident, another illness, another surgery to drag me back to uncertainty. The only upside with the current system is that the stress it engenders will likely kill me off before I have to face going into retirement without any retirement funds.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-03-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
HeraldSquare212
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-04-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
30. What does Hillary mean by 'affordable'? That could resolve all the issues around mandate |
|
and garnishment or penalties or whatever way she would propose to enforce the mandate. If she could give an indication of what she considers affordable, a lot of people might be able to breathe a little easier about her proposal.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 07:39 AM
Response to Original message |