Hillary Clinton: Worst Nightmare

JP5 · #1 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 06:39 PM

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...C-RSSFeeds0312

And she thinks she's gonna do this.....how????

DuH2 · #2 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 06:55 PM

Seems she thinks the Democrats that where elected are all yes men/women to any leftist policy initiatives. They're not.

A Re-emergence of Nationalized Health Care with the name Hillary Clinton attached to it should send any sane Demcrat running. It won't get alot of Democrats and pretty much no Republicans behind it.
All it would effectively do is help the Republicans regain both the Senate and the House....even the ABC

Course she "says" alot...one day its this group shes trying to say I supprot you then next its this group opposed to the previous group. She's worse then Kerry on saying what people want to hear instead of saying what she actually intends.

Force-of-the-Truth · #3 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 07:26 PM

There will be no nationalized health care. Too many people know that it leads to an equal rationing of misery, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill. Health care is in a crisis, and it is because of excessive government intervention in the sector. Fully legalize all foreign prescription drugs, abolish the FDA (I support legalizing all drugs, so I have no social objections to doing this) and fully privatize everything but catastrophic health care. The result would be lower health care costs and ultimately, fewer people without health coverage (particularly with Medicare taxes eliminated).

Vergilius · #4 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

There will be no nationalized health care. Too many people know that it leads to an equal rationing of misery, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill. Health care is in a crisis, and it is because of excessive government intervention in the sector. Fully legalize all foreign prescription drugs, abolish the FDA (I support legalizing all drugs, so I have no social objections to doing this) and fully privatize everything but catastrophic health care. The result would be lower health care costs and ultimately, fewer people without health coverage (particularly with Medicare taxes eliminated).

Why would there be lower health care? Capitalism will always equate the exploitation of individuals based on their personal need. The more one needs health care is the more the companies will charge. The more they charge is the less poor who will be able to afford health care. Therefor they will make more money, (healthcare costs will rise), and less people will be helped.
And the idea that universal healthcare rations misery is ridiculous. I have stated more than once the actual facts of the American medical system. Americans are the least cared-for, most highly charged, and unhealthy people in the western world. It is better for most people in need of an operation to fly to India on medical tourism than to waste their time on our healthcare for the rich

justabubba · #5 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 08:44 PM

hospital emergency rooms

this was excerpted from wikipedia

Quote:

In 1996 congress passed a law commonly referred to as EMTALA (Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, also known as the Patient Anti-Dumping Law) to address a growing concern that EDs were refusing to treat patients based on their ability to pay. This law requires every ED to provide a minimal level of care to all comers regardless of their ability to pay.
Unfortunately the EMTALA act passed by congress in 1996, was an unfunded mandate and even patients with the most minor complaints, may no longer be directed to visit a primary care physician or outpatient clinic that is not on-site and/or a direct extension of the Emergency Department. Under this law, any person presenting to an Emergency Department is entitled by law to a Medical Screening Exam. The purpose of that exam is to determine if any illness or injury is present that without immediate intervention, could have serious consequences if treatment is delayed more than 24 hours. In practice, doing so often requires a full evaluation of all patients presenting to an Emergency Department. Only after that exam is fully complete may patients be referred to an outpatient clinic or their primary care physician if their condition and/or diagnosis allows it. The cost of performing these exams has resulted in growing financial losses for hospitals. Many have responded by closing their Emergency Departments, further overcrowding surrounding Emergency Departments that have stayed open. All of these factors combined have resulted in longer and longer waits for even seriously ill patients as most ED's in America routinely operate well beyond their designed capacity. The overcrowding is further exacerbated by uninsured or under-insured patients who are forced to use Emergency Departments as their primary care facility because they have been turned away elsewhere. ED's have also been inundated with patients seeking test and/or exams that generally require long waits for approval by their HMO health plans and patients referred to the ED for admission by their primary physicians who are afraid of being denied payment for pre-admission tests a health plan administrator may decide was not medically necessary.

notice that EMTALA enables illegal aliens as well as citizens and legal aliens to receive medical care, which cost will be borne by the taxpayer (assuming the patient is unable or unwilling to pay).

while it may not be an efficient system, that IS the taxpayer funded ad hoc heathcare available to all who choose to use it. so, do we continue down this path or acknowledge the problem that our nation's healthcare system needs a major overhaul.

it would seem one obvious aspect of an improved healthcare delivery system would be to graduate more fully trained physicians. we have many more qualified medical school applicants than we have med school chairs. just as our nation has excellent military officers who graduate from military academies and who are obligated to serve a number of years in return for that education we should establish medical academies.

while i hesitate to offer up cuba as a role model, recognizing that some will assume a communist government can provide nothing we would want to emulate, the fact is cuba has twice the number of doctors per capital than we (1:200 vs 1:400). additionally, cuba is recognized for its superior public healthcare system, despite the embargo and its poor economic health. the cuban medical success may be indicative that there is a nexus between low doctor patient ratios and good healthcare.
http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/...e_in_cuba.html
http://healthythoughts.wordpress.com...us-healthcare/

Quote:

"The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country, yet in overall quality its care ranks 37th in the world," says a World Health Organization analysis. It concluded that France provides the globe's best health care, with Italy ranked 2nd. Japan won the distinction as having the world's healthiest people. 'While good at expensive, heroic care, Americans are poor at the low-cost preventive care that keeps Europeans healthy,' said Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt. Measuring how long people live in good health - - not just how long they live - - the Japanese beat Americans by 4 ½ years - - yet Japan spends just $1,750 per person on health and France $2,100, compared to the stunning $3,724 spent by the U.S. The report said it doesn't endorse government-run insurance only, as countries with good mixes of private and public programs do well.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/healthcare.htm [this is an excellent, understandable, stat-filled article]

after the election our resident sore losers have repeatedly posted that it is now time for the democrats to do something other than sniping at republican ineptitude and corruption. yet, when ideas are advanced which may address America's ills, in this case healthcare, the kneejerk neocon response is 'if Hillary is for it, i am against it'. your nonsensical backbiting evidences the advanced degree of inbreeding within the GOP. an improved national healthcare system may be able to remedy that problem.

Force-of-the-Truth · #6 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vergilius";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

There will be no nationalized health care. Too many people know that it leads to an equal rationing of misery, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill. Health care is in a crisis, and it is because of excessive government intervention in the sector. Fully legalize all foreign prescription drugs, abolish the FDA (I support legalizing all drugs, so I have no social objections to doing this) and fully privatize everything but catastrophic health care. The result would be lower health care costs and ultimately, fewer people without health coverage (particularly with Medicare taxes eliminated).

Why would there be lower health care? Capitalism will always equate the exploitation of individuals based on their personal need. The more one needs health care is the more the companies will charge. The more they charge is the less poor who will be able to afford health care. Therefor they will make more money, (healthcare costs will rise), and less people will be helped.

By the same reasoning, there should be no motivation for people who want health insurance to avoid dangerous habits. You work on the presumption that people are powerless to control their own health. Furthermore, Medicare currently covers people who could be covered by private health insurance companies, which would increase the profits of those companies and allow them to expand and cover more people. Insurance companies have every selfish incentive to cover as many people as is possible, but right now the government is in their way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vergilius";p=&quot

And the idea that universal healthcare rations misery is ridiculous.

Demand for an artificially free good or service always exceeds its supply, thus leading to shortages. Certainly, one can get a guarantee of health care in socialist nations- low quality health care for all.

kaladrew · #7 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 08:55 PM

<<<"Karl Rove's theory is you just take your base, and you expand your base, and you basically just role over everybody who gets in your way,">>>

no one was in his way when he rolled out the door.

"cut and run"

"never heard of him"

"you will die if demos win"

didn't work.

He got out "roved" when people put the minimum wage initiave on state ballots and he COMPLETELY forgot that the senate confirms judges and never had it mentioned once in senate campaigns.

Vergilius · #8 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vergilius";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

There will be no nationalized health care. Too many people know that it leads to an equal rationing of misery, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill. Health care is in a crisis, and it is because of excessive government intervention in the sector. Fully legalize all foreign prescription drugs, abolish the FDA (I support legalizing all drugs, so I have no social objections to doing this) and fully privatize everything but catastrophic health care. The result would be lower health care costs and ultimately, fewer people without health coverage (particularly with Medicare taxes eliminated).

Why would there be lower health care? Capitalism will always equate the exploitation of individuals based on their personal need. The more one needs health care is the more the companies will charge. The more they charge is the less poor who will be able to afford health care. Therefor they will make more money, (healthcare costs will rise), and less people will be helped.

By the same reasoning, there should be no motivation for people who want health insurance to avoid dangerous habits. You work on the presumption that people are powerless to control their own health. Furthermore, Medicare currently covers people who could be covered by private health insurance companies, which would increase the profits of those companies and allow them to expand and cover more people. Insurance companies have every selfish incentive to cover as many people as is possible, but right now the government is in their way.

You are quite mistaken. Insurance companies are, at this point an obstruction to business. So many companies (the auto companies especially) are being strangled to economic death due to the insurance companies greedy raise of premiums that companies under contractual obligation must oblige. A universal system would just make more sense.
People have a responsibility to their own health, but most Americans will not see a doctor until they are sick. The American healthcare system costs twice that of most other western countries and yet it is ranked as one of the lowest quality systems as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vergilius";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

And the idea that universal healthcare rations misery is ridiculous.

Demand for an artificially free good or service always exceeds its supply, thus leading to shortages. Certainly, one can get a guarantee of health care in socialist nations- low quality health care for all.

Have any proof?

jedimiller · #9 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 11:51 PM

Stop fighiting what is good for the country. National Healthcare, universal healthcare, whatever, it's good for the people of the United States. Stop being selfish just because you already have benefits. this is a democracy, think about other people who can't afford it and stop acting like morons.

Hilary Clinton is the best candidate for the presidency.