Or it just might be her worst nightmare!
In her remarks, Clinton outlined a range of challenges she said Democrats would tackle in the coming months, such as trimming the federal deficit, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and improving the image of the United States abroad.
She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care _ a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband’s calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.
Oh crap. it’s starting already.
Expanding governemt social programs means expanding taxes to cover those new social programs.
Assclowns.
It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?:mad:
I side more with the left on health-care than on any other social issue. Having lived in Europe and having dealt with the large U.S. pharmaceutical companies on a professional level, I truly believe that something here has to change. I still find it odd that everyone seems to agree that it’s the duty of the government to address the care of its highways but not the care of its citizenry.
kelf- can we by law tell the 350lb woman to stop eating so much? Can we force people not to eat transfats, thereore lessening a person’s chance of developing diabetes? Can we force a person to take chemo?
Not only that, in the original plan, if the plan in your area was oversubscribed, a lottery would be held to see who got benefits. It wasn’t universal. READ THE FINE PRINT! Especially you Socialists like shitto.
Also, since many homosexuals practice unsave sex, contributing to the numbers of AIDS patients, will we outlaw sodomy based on Health Care reasoning?
Also, will we have to quarrentine AIDS patientes so that they don’t spread the disease?
shitto,
You have never used commonsense in your life.
Hillary is a socialist who wants totally socialized health care. Only blind partisans like yourself can’t see it.
PCD, I don’t know you, but this should be fun watching the tables turn on the idiot..just look how quick he was to tell us to wait..:lol:
9, it’s easy. shitto doesn’t want universal health stalled before he gets in line for his AIDS treatments.
It isn’t aides PCD, it’s mental health..look how he can’t even remember, not read what he wrote…:lol::lol:
7
i’m glad to see you’re giving peace chance.
shouldn’t you at least wait until reality comes before getting upset about ‘maybes’?
Said shiloh
HilLiary is perhaps the most evil woman in America. IMO, she is an example of “perfect posession”. She long ago sold her soul in exchange for her success.
Re Kelf post 3:
“I still find it odd that everyone seems to agree that it’s the duty of the government to address the care of its highways but not the care of its citizenry.”
Everyone benifits from the highway system. It is part of our infrastructure and an integral part of Americ’s economic well being. It is what we use to distribute most all consumer goods.
Healthcare is not.
And that too Ted:wink:
17.
Yeah Peejz.
What I fail to understand is why folks like Shiloh and kelf think that governement interventions is the answer. Just look at the history of the governement with similar social programs that are abject failure: Social Security, The Welfare System, Medicare…the list goes on and on.
Folks, governement isn’t the solution, it is the problem!
17-Said the GREATEST POTUS ever:wink:
18. Greatest ever? Probably not, but definately the greatest in my life time!
EVER EVER EVER Ted!!!!
I’m not totally sure that I’m following the argument here. A couple things seem to be at stake.
Is it the idea of universal health care (perfectly executed, however utopian that may be) that you object to or is it that you think that the specific proposals (proposals that have yet to be made) will be particularly awful?
Presumably, most of you want the government to protect its citizens; in fact, many of you use this argument to support the war in Iraq. Taxes (yours and mine) pay for the war, although I’m not convinced that “everyone benefits” from it.
As far as the lard-ass clutching her cheetos, the gay and straight folks screwing without condoms, and the three-pack-a-day smoker go, why is this such a huge problem? We don’t outlaw freedom of the press, even though it might make our lives a bit more dangerous (and thus cost us a bit more money to stay safe), and we don’t outlaw SUVs, even though they produce more wear-and-tear on the highways than, e.g, VW bugs (and thus necessitate more taxes for hw repairs).
I’ll repeat my first question: Is it the very idea of universal health care that you object to or is it a specific proposal for its execution? I don’t always like the way ODOT handles the roads, but I don’t think that all of the highways should be privatized.
The biggest single problem with health care is the cost, which for years has been going up every year 3-5x the inflation rate.
What nobody seems to want to tackle, especially not the Democrites*, is that if you ever hope to gain any control of the cost, you have to get the lawyers out. They can bluster all they want about affordability, but it won’r get better until the lawyers are taken out.
next: the Frauders. Make the penalties so Draconian that it isn’t worth the risk for 99% of the providers. Aggresively investigate and prosecute. Make the cases public; hand violaters out to dry for all to see.
At some point tough decision will need to be made about who gets what. All of these great new technologies are wonderful, but they are very expensive. It is very disagreeable to have to make these choices, but do you spend $1.2M on a heart transplant for an inmate in State prison? (this happened in Kalifornia-I kid you not!)
The Democrite solution is to point fingers and generate a lot of rhetoric about corporations ripping off the system to gain support (and drug prices do need to come down) but ultimately the Hillarycare solution equals three things:
1. Costs paid for by someone else’s tax dollars.
2. Gov’t inefficiency and bureaucracy just wasting even more money.
3. Crappy socialized medicine. Wait two years for non-emergency surgery.
*The Lawyers practically own the Democrite Party.
A few things came to my mind…why should I pay for some fat lazy person? Why should I have to take sub-standard care because of someone elses inability to be employable? Robert touched on something that seems to get lost in the debate..the largest expense a medical practice carries is malpractice…
As far as the lard-ass clutching her cheetos, the gay and straight folks screwing without condoms, and the three-pack-a-day smoker go, why is this such a huge problem? They are what drive the cost up..the lard ass has diabetes and high blood pressure..more than likely coronary disease..the smoker has cancer and/or related health issues..
Why can’t those that don’t have insurance learn to avt appropriatly at a job so that they don’t lose the job providing insurance…have you taken a good hard look at the workforce..they are theones that can tell you exactly what their job isn’t:shock: This isn’t nothing more than a government entitlement program..we already give medicaid, what happened to that? Is it not working?
It isn’t actually accurate to say that it’s the lard-ass with diabetes that drives the costs up; for the most part, it’s the elderly and the infants. Most of us wouldn’t just tell them to “go die,” though.
As far as not wanting to waste money on on some fat lazy person, I fully understand. Unfortunately, this is the way that Tax dollars work in most situations: Why should my $$$ pay for a text-book that some stupid high-school student is just going to draw pictures in anyway (when I’d rather pay for the honor student)? Why should I pay for the war on terror (if I live in a part of the midwest where no terror attack has ever occured)? I can’t be sure that every dollar I spend will only benefit me (or only those that I choose to benefit), but I pay taxes anyway out of some (admittedly vague) notion of the common good.
As far as the costs, the lawyers, etc. These are indeed big problems. So are the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies (pure-fucking-evil, trust me), etc. But all of these are technical issues that stand apart from the wider question of universal healthcare’s desirability.
One more thing: I agree that govt tends to be inefficient, but it doesn’t have to be. Compare the metros in Paris (always state run and pretty amazing) and NYC (initially privatized, producing redundancy in the lines, breaks, etc.) Not a perfect example, but it’s out there.
Get rid of the illegals and their anchor babies and you’d see an immediate improvement in the situation.
Get rid of the illegals and their anchor babies and you’d see an immediate improvement in the situation.
Though I doubt that it’s the main problem, it probably wouldn’t hurt.
Incidentally, the European countries with which I’m familiar, those that have been sucessful with different forms of socialized medicine, don’t recognize birthright citizenship (that is, “anchor babies”).
24- No, it isn’t the elderly and the babies..it is the in between that feed off transfats, drug it up and drink to excess…And no, my tax dollars don’t need to be going to pay for some fat lazy person that refuses to work but considers it a right to have health insurance…You keep talking about universal healthcare as if it will somehow be the cureall…will I still have my same top doctors, or will I need to pay more for better care? Are you going to regulate how much doctors can charge?…I asked a question about 2 weeks ago…Why is it that the left sees the need for universal health, but somehow there is no call for universal heating/electricity/fuel? On an as needed basis, ones survival depends on my list rather than healthcare.
Re kelf @21:
“I’m not totally sure that I’m following the argument here.”
Well, let’s see if I may assist you although I can only speak for myself in my response.
Is it the idea of universal health care (perfectly executed, however utopia that may be) that you object to or is it that you think that the specific proposals (proposals that have yet to be made) will be particularly awful?
Ahh, and here in lies the crux of the issue.
I object to neither, though I agree that it is indeed Utopian (much like pure democracy and communism) and there for impractical. What I object to is government control and/or expanded intervention.
Presumably, most of you want the government to protect its citizens; in fact, many of you use this argument to support the war in Iraq. Taxes (yours and mine) pay for the war, although I’m not convinced that “everyone benefits”from it.
This is intermixing two separate concepts: that of the government’s duty of protection and that of taxation.
The concept to address here is that of protection. This was first generally addressed in the Declaration of independence. Although not a legal document, it is a point of reference for the concept. Let me quote the pertinent section I am referencing:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Gives me chills, to this day.
Of course, the actual legal document that solidified the concept in our laws is the Constitution. The first part of the Constitution simply defines the government branches and their powers. But what is truly interesting is what comes next.
Fearing tyranny of the old empires, the writers of the Constitution moved to add 12 Amendments that limited the government, and what they could impose upon the people.
Let me repeat the VERY important part of that last paragraph: limiting the government.
Really, think about this. What is at the root of this health care problem we all face? What caused it, you think? Is it the free market economy gone amok? no, I don’t think so.
It is the imposition of the government, as they pass laws that restrict upon the rights of the individual while protecting corporation, such as insurance companies and credit card companies and whoever lobbies in officials back pockets.
So, with it established that government is the problem you actually want the government to intervene MORE? This is yet more expansion of government power. Do you honestly think instead of being the problem, they can become the solution?
Are you nuts?!?!
Look, I am all for the government protecting the little guy from the corporations, but this isn’t the way kelf. you need to remove the lobby, re-establish the government free from the corporate entities and the let the free market take it;s course.
How was that folks?
If I had a clapping smiley face..I would use it..in it’s absence I will just clap…
hmm…I think I just may have created my first original politically based post for my blog
There are a number of things that would bring down the costs of healthcare. Getting rid of the illegals would help. Many of the border states have large numbers of emergency rooms closing or having incredibly long wait times because of the numbers of illegals and their children ,legal and otherwise, using the ER as a substitute for a family care physician because they can’t be turned away and then they skip out on the bill.
Malpractice Insurance, Illegal Aliens, Welfare recipients and fraud are driving medical costs through the roof. And who do the Democrats cater to for votes? Trial attornies, illegal aliens, and welfare recipients. Exactly why would anyone think that anything this complicated can be solved by the very people who are beholding to the people causing the problems in the first place?
TedintheShed,
Your response was indeed thoughtful and I’ll try to do it justice. I think that I can locate our specific difference in what you describe as the root of the health care problem:
“It is the imposition of the government, as they pass laws that restrict upon the rights of the individual while protecting corporation, such as insurance companies and credit card companies and whoever lobbies in officials back pockets.â€
I agree that this is the problem, but its source isn’t the government; it’s the corporations. The government ought to be protecting living men, women, and children; instead, the government is protecting the interests of corporate entities.
This fact is particularly awful because businesses are defined by instrumental rationality”-the end (profit) always justifies the means. If the “means”actually harm people, diminish the quality of life, etcetera, so be it. This doesn’t mean that corporations are “evilâ€; they’re just corporations and (insofar as they’re behaving as corporations) their decisions aren’t based on the same ethical practices that we take for granted. This also doesn’t mean that corporations can never act ethically; nonetheless, any ethical act will be the product of some intervention from outside of the sphere of instrumental reason.
I’m willing to accept that the grocer on the corner will charge me as much as possible for as little as possible, but I’m not ready to accept hospitals or schools acting according to the same logic. Even Adam Smith, the poet laureate of the “hidden hand,”saw the dangers of all of society bowing to the pressures of an unchecked market. If the government is given over to the “bottom line,”God help us.
“You need to remove the lobby, re-establish the government free from the corporate entities and the let the free market take it’s course.â€
I agree completely with the first two comments. I want to see a government free from corporate interests, but I want to see it freed in the name of human interests. Where these human interests conflict with corporate interests”-as I believe that they inevitably will, at the very least in cases of trusts, etcetera”-I’d like to see the government intervene. I don’t want to drink milk tainted with hormones or take untested drugs or whatever, regardless of whether it makes some millionaire CEO an extra dollar. If it takes the government passing a few laws, fine. Better that than a thousand more Thalidomide babies.
As you can probably guess, I also continue to take Eisenhower’s infinitely prescient comments about the military-industrial complex pretty seriously.:wink:
I’m not afraid of more government intervention, per se; I’m afraid of the intervention of a government that has become nothing more than the military arm of corporate interests. The government is, at least ostensibly, a representative body”-in other words, an immense, terrifying sock-puppet. In the last instance, though, it’s the folks working the puppet that you have to watch out for.
I’ll respond to some of the other comments when I have more time.
Go Bucks.
Kelf@32:
Your response was indeed thoughtful and I’ll try to do it justice. I think that I can locate our specific difference in what you describe as the root of the health care problem:
I apopreciate that kelf. Nowadays,it is difficult to find a political discussion that centers around legitimate discourse rather than an “I’m right, you’re wrong!” mentality.
I agree that this is the problem, but its source isn’t the government; it’s the corporations. The government ought to be protecting living men, women, and children; instead, the government is protecting the interests of corporate entities.
Stop and take a hard look at what you wrote here. In this part “but its source isn’t the government; it’s the corporations.” you say the problem is the corporations but in this part “The government ought to be protecting living men, women, and children; instead, the government is protecting the interests of corporate entities.” you are placing blame on the government.
The failure by the governement is the interaction of it’s officials with the corporations.
This fact is particularly awful because businesses are defined by instrumental rationality”-the end (profit) always justifies the means. If the “means”actually harm people, diminish the quality of life, etcetera, so be it. This doesn’t mean that corporations are “evilâ€; they’re just corporations and (insofar as they’re behaving as corporations) their decisions aren’t based on the same ethical practices that we take for granted. This also doesn’t mean that corporations can never act ethically; nonetheless, any ethical act will be the product of some intervention from outside of the sphere of instrumental reason.
This is a truism, but I ask you: if corporations are defined by instrumental rationality then how can blame be placed upon them? They can never act in an ethical manner, but by extension they can not act in an unethical manner either. This touches upon the second part of this paragraph: “any ethical act will be the product of some intervention from outside of the sphere of instrumental reason”. . By extension, this also applies to any unethical behaviour by corporations, as it is also the product from outside the sphere of instrumental reason.
I submit to you that the sphere of outside influence that you referred to is the government.
It is similar to the arguement “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”. A corporations and guns are simply the tools used within a sphere of influence. Left alone, they are neither good nor evil. A gun, when placed in an “unethical position”, can produce disaterous results such as murder. However, when in the hand of a ethical person such as most police officeer, can be an ethical tool. In the instance of corporations, the unethical user is the governement. Therefore, the source of the problem is the governement, and NOT the tool (the corporation).
I’m willing to accept that the grocer on the corner will charge me as much as possible for as little as possible, but I’m not ready to accept hospitals or schools acting according to the same logic.
Public chools are not corporations- they are instrument installed to insure a right defined by our laws.
Hospitals are a differnt story though, for the most part. These ARE corporations and perform a task for profit. A doctor makes a living, just like you and I. There is no difference between a doctor and a grocer, as they both make a living.
Even Adam Smith, the poet laureate of the “hidden hand,”saw the dangers of all of society bowing to the pressures of an unchecked market. If the government is given over to the “bottom line,”God help us.
I agree completely with the first two comments. I want to see a government free from corporate interests, but I want to see it freed in the name of human interests. Where these human interests conflict with corporate interests”-as I believe that they inevitably will, at the very least in cases of trusts, etcetera”-I’d like to see the government intervene. I don’t want to drink milk tainted with hormones or take untested drugs or whatever, regardless of whether it makes some millionaire CEO an extra dollar. If it takes the government passing a few laws, fine. Better that than a thousand more Thalidomide babies.
Adam Smith was correct, but the bottom line here is that the source of the problem is the lobby and the influence it weilds upon governement officials. This is the root of the problem- the governement is allowed to accept money (aka “bottom line”) from the corporations. Take away this aspect, and the cost problem will disappear, and the market will once again be free and thus dictate lower prices as it will purged from an inequal influence.
The problem is the market is unbalanced and thus, not truly a free market. To balance it again is the best for human interest. They only way to do so is to kill the lobby. Passing new laws will only entangle it further, causing even MORE problems as all most all governement intervention does.
Again the tried and true “Governement is not the solution, it is the problem” applies. Can you not recognize the correlation between a bigger governement=fewer rights for the individual? Which brings us to…
I’m not afraid of more government intervention, per se; I’m afraid of the intervention of a government that has become nothing more than the military arm of corporate interests. The government is, at least ostensibly, a representative body”-in other words, an immense, terrifying sock-puppet. In the last instance, though, it’s the folks working the puppet that you have to watch out for.
It is a regression actually. The regression is to that of a new out take of an old favorite: the fuedal society. In the old day, fuedalism was the center figure, the king, who granted lands and power to the nobilty who then collected taxes the peasants who lived on those lands. That is why America was such a radical idea at conception: we could actually own land and had an inalienable right to do so (thus, the birth of the Fourth Amendment). The regression is tht the governemet = the king. Corporations = the nobilty and the peasants = us.