Posted on 12/05/2007 5:18:43 PM PST by shrinkermd
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been engaged in a bitter back-and-forth over whose health plan covers more people. Former Sen. John Edwards has jumped in, saying his plan is the best of all...
The argument concerns whether the government should require all Americans to get insurance. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards would require people to get insurance...Mr. Obama would only require that children be insured.
Other elements of their plans are similar, including subsidies to help lower-income and even middle-income families pay premiums, and various proposals to cut the cost of health care. The candidates say they would pay for their plans by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for upper-income earners and by savings in health spending through various measures.
None of the Republican candidates has proposed a universal health plan. But with the race tight and health care the No. 1 domestic issue for Democrats, the differences among Democrats have become a point of continuing tension.
Mrs. Clinton charges that Mr. Obama's plan would leave 15 million people without insurance. Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark. If people aren't required by law to buy insurance, many won't. There are millions of children, for instance, who remain uninsured, even though they qualify for free or subsidized government programs.
In addition, all three candidates want to bar insurance companies from rejecting sick people or charging them more. But it is hard to require companies to insure expensive sick people if they aren't guaranteed that cheap healthy people will balance them out.
On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton has attacked Mr. Obama for his plan, saying it betrays the Democratic principle of universal coverage. Her campaign has demanded that he take down an advertisement that claims his plan "covers everyone
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The facts in this matter have been laid out by Dr. David Gratzer. You can find a discussion of these facts in his book, The Cure: How Capitalism can save American health care.
Gratzer’s conclusions on the number of uninsured are as follows:
NONE
Here’s my health care plan:
Get the government out of health care period.
(Should I have put a (.) after the word period? - Seems redundant)
In all the give and take, back and forth, he said, she said, we said, etc., ad nauseam, let us remember one important thing. All these folks are socialists. And socialists, by their very nature, want to government to super micromanage your life.
Making us dependent on the government for our health is a hugh step in (their) right direction.
Universal health care becomes ...
... health care rationing, almost immediately.
Then there is the other shoe,
controlling your behavior to reduce care expenses.
For example, a study will be funded that “proves”
that listening to talk radio raises your blood
pressure. Can’t have that.
It is just like all Democrat primary campaigns, a contest to see who can be the biggest violator of the Constitution, and then if one of them is elected he or she will unashamedly swear to uphold what they have been promising to destroy. The worst part is that they do it unconsciously, I think I would prefer that they have some understanding of their own evil, or am I missing something?
One thing is certain: it costs will be covered by all taxpayers.
Oh, yeah? What's RomneyCare? Swiss cheese? Hmmmmm.... nevermind.
I’d like to know what “TRULY COVERS” means......
Yep. I'm trying to find that single example where uninsured people are "refused care". Uninsured people come into my office all the time. They agree to pay for the care they receive. In a lot of cases they just don't feel like paying anything, so everyone else already has to make up the difference with higher costs. No different than shoplifting. Adding a layer of government doesn't make this any cheaper for those of us already paying for the deadbeats.
I’m from the Department of Redundancy Department...
Yeah right. I've been without health insurance for 9 years. My employers don't offer it, and I can't afford it. The system is broken and needs to be fixed. Clinton ruined it in the '90s.
The system wouldn't be broken if the government would allow people to pool across state lines to access more options at more affordable rates. Competition works.
Solutions:
1. Open your own business and buy your own da*m insurance. If you think the government or your employer has the responsibility to pay for your healthcare, move to Cuba.
2. Sell your TV, your computer, and your car. Opt for insurance instead of the Internet, McDonalds, or Cable TV. You make choices, your employer makes choices, and I make choices. In other words: prioritize.
ping
I completely agree about being able to pool around state lines. And allowing small businesses to pool together as well.
I cannot afford health insurance. I have pre-existing conditions that make it impossible, and I’ve talked to many insurance agents and providers. I’d have to do without eating and living under a roof to afford it.
Self employment doesn’t change those issues either. *shrugs*
“....I have pre-existing conditions...”
My wife is in the same boat. She had 5 surgeries on her right knee 15 YEARS AGO!! She can’t get insurance on that knee...period.
Profiling is okay if you’ve had a surgery, had a heart attack, or crashed a car, but it’s not okay if you’ve attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan...
Then you always key in your P.I.N. number at the A.T.M. machine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.