[QUOTE=pkbites]
Of course, I personally don’t want it passed nor signed into law.
[/QUOTE]
So? Tell us why not. This is GD, not IMHO.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
She is also planning to pay for it by rolling back to Bush tax cuts to pre-Bush levels and forcing the pharmaceutical companies to charge sensible prices for their product.
[/QUOTE]
that’s funny in a sad way. She’s going to force a company to accept less money for their product. That’s one big-ass magic trick.
So which of the countries with universal health rationing is going to pick up the slack when they stop researching new drugs?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Because it’s worth more to her as a presidential campaign issue than as an accomplishment on her resume, perhaps?
[/QUOTE]
Which proves she’s full of shit. If it’s so important, get rolling with it right now!!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So? Tell us why not. This is GD, not IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
Because nobody owes anyone health insurance! This idea that it’s a civil right is crap (IMHO).
[QUOTE=Magiver]
that’s funny in a sad way. She’s going to force a company to accept less money for their product. That’s one big-ass magic trick.
So which of the countries with universal health rationing is going to pick up the slack when they stop researching new drugs?
[/QUOTE]
Well that is always the million dollar question. What does it specifically say in her plan?
Well it looks like her own summary is empty of content on this point. I would guess that she will be able to do little more than work out large purchase deals and put all long term drugs on mail order purchases.
Jim
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Because nobody owes anyone health insurance! This idea that it’s a civil right is crap (IMHO).
[/QUOTE]
So what? No one owes anyone an education. That does not mean tax-funded public education is a bad idea. Every modern industrialized state, without exception, has come down on the other side of that question. And every modern industrialized state except this one has some form of tax-funded universal health care or health insurance, and in most of them it seems to work pretty well.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Which proves she’s full of shit. If it’s so important, get rolling with it right now!!
Because nobody owes anyone health insurance! This idea that it’s a civil right is crap (IMHO).
[/QUOTE]
Which shows that you think she is full of shit because you strongly disagree with her position on this policy.
Now it happens that despite being Republican, I actually think that universal health care in the long run is good for the long term health of our economy and health care system.
This is why I think a plan might be a good first step.
Jim
[QUOTE=Algher]
Repealing a tax cut IS raising taxes.
Price Controls on pharma are also a form of raising taxes.
[/QUOTE]
First, we shouldn’t kid ourselves - none of the democratic candidates are going to let the Bush tax cuts continue. None of them. Getting past that, the question now becomes how can those funds be used in a fruitful way? We could pour it into Iraq or we could use that money to improve our situation domestically. I like the second option better.
The pharmaceutical industry is burdened by a FDA that forces them to expend an inordinate amount of money in R&D. I can see both sides. The FDA must have high standards for medicinal therapies and the pharmaceutical companies need to be able to recoup their investment. There needs to be a middle ground - There is no reason why the government cannot subsidize the R&D cost of promising treatments that are of national and global importance. There is no reason why the government and the pharmaceutical industry cannot work hand-in-hand for the well-being of Americans. It’s a pity that there is such an antagonistic relationship.
[QUOTE=Algher]
Very true, but there are many companies that pay for preventive care because they have found that it pays off. The problem with companies paying for preventive care is that employees do not stick around long enough for it to always pay off.
[/QUOTE]
Can you give an example of this? I am not sure if I understand what you’re saying here.
[QUOTE=Algher]
Gee, like Mitt Romney - the only person around to actually get a coverage model enacted?
[/QUOTE]
I just visited Mitt Romney’s website and I am unable to pull up his plan to address health care. He gives soundbytes about the plan he employed as Governor, but doesn’t indicate the feasibility in implementing that plan in the United States. It is inadequate (and frankly insulting to the political process) to bemoan the Hillary Clinton’s health care plan without presenting their own.
I am very eager to read any of the Republican plans to address health care in the United States.
- Honesty
[QUOTE=Algher]
Very true, but there are many companies that pay for preventive care because they have found that it pays off.
[/QUOTE]
This bolsters the opinion that health care is good for the country, and therefore it should be provided.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Back in 1993, Hillary Clinton chaired the committee that came out with a health care reform package – not “socialized medicine” by British or even Canadian standards, but a remarkably tepid “managed care” proposal that would have left the private health insurance industry substantially intact (exactly what was wrong with it, IMO). Nevertheless, the Pubs scuttled it – partly for ideological reasons, partly in service to those who butter their bread, and partly, I’m sure, out of an evil determination to deny the Clinton Administration anything that might be considered a success.
Now she’s trying again, making a new health care plan a centerpiece of her own presidential campaign, and promising to pay for it by repealing W’s tax cuts. Summary of the plan here.
-
How is this plan better or worse than the 1993 plan?
-
How will it play politically? Has the public mood grown more accepting of the idea?
[/QUOTE]
the plan is a light version of her 1993 plan; something to eventually build on and grow into the 93 plan…
People who are for small government and lower taxes won’t buy into it.
Why can’t each state take care of or create their own state plan? Why does it have to be national? New York state kind of has something in place by Pataki … Child Health Plus… although I’m not sure if this new governor is continuing with it.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
And every modern industrialized state except this one has some form of tax-funded universal health care or health insurance,
[/QUOTE]
Then fucking move there. If this is such a rotten country to be in and others are so great , why are so many people trying to emmigrate here?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
and in most of them it seems to work pretty well.
[/QUOTE]
Now THAT statement is subject to debate!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So what? No one owes anyone an education. That does not mean tax-funded public education is a bad idea.
[/QUOTE]
National health care will suck just like public schools suck. All of my children went to private schools. After paying tuition I still had to pay property taxes so the rest of you could send your kids to school on my dime.
You’re welcome. (not really.:rolleyes: )
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Then fucking move there. If this is such a rotten country to be in and others are so great , why are so many people trying to emmigrate here?
[/quote]
West Europeans and Japanese are not so eager to immigrate here, not any more. Immigration pressure comes from countries much poorer than the U.S., such as Mexico. In any case, what you’re saying is irrelevant to the question of whether universal health care would make this a better country or a worse one.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Now THAT statement is subject to debate!
[/QUOTE]
This is purely anectdotal, but I attended the 2003 World Science Fiction Convention in Toronto. At one of the panel discussions, I forget on what topic, the floor was thrown open to questions and I found some reason to justify asking, as somehow related to the topic, “Is there any downside to Canada’s single-payer health care system?” Given what I had been exposed to from the U.S. media, I was expecting that question to open a lively, even furious, debate. Instead, each and every one of the panelists – all writers or editors – said, one after the other, “No.” “No.” “No.” “No.” “No.” All responded with a sort of shrug, as if slightly surprised the question would even be raised. And nobody in the audience – which was well over 200 persons – ventured a contrary opinion.
Now, granted, SF writers, editors and fans might not form a scientifically representative sample of the Canadian population, but none of them are desperately poor or ignorant. Most are middle-class or higher. If there is any widespread resentment in Canada over its health-care system, I would expect it to be well represented among exactly those people.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
National health care will suck just like public schools suck. All of my children went to private schools. After paying tuition I still had to pay property taxes so the rest of you could send your kids to school on my dime.
You’re welcome. (not really.:rolleyes: )
[/QUOTE]
Gee, if you hate America so much why don’t you move some place without public schools? Do you see how silly your arguments look?
BTW: I moved to a town where the schools were damn good so I would not have to pay for private school. Why didn’t you? That was my right as a proud and loyal American.
Jim
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
This is purely anectdotal, but I attended the 2003 World Science Fiction Convention in Toronto. At one of the panel discussions, I forget on what topic, the floor was thrown open to questions and I found some reason to justify asking, as somehow related to the topic, “Is there any downside to Canada’s single-payer health care system?” Given what I had been exposed to from the U.S. media, I was expecting that question to open a lively, even furious, debate. Instead, each and every one of the panelists – all writers or editors – said, one after the other, “No.” “No.” “No.” “No.” “No.” All responded with a sort of shrug, as if slightly surprised the question would even be raised. And nobody in the audience – which was well over 200 persons – ventured a contrary opinion.
[/QUOTE]
And yet you came back to this hell hole? You’ve got guts. You’re my hero! 
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
BTW: I moved to a town where the schools were damn good so I would not have to pay for private school.
[/QUOTE]
So you’re proud to be a parasite?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
At one of the panel discussions, I forget on what topic, the floor was thrown open to questions and I found some reason to justify asking, as somehow related to the topic, “Is there any downside to Canada’s single-payer health care system?” Given what I had been exposed to from the U.S. media, I was expecting that question to open a lively, even furious, debate. Instead, each and every one of the panelists – all writers or editors – said, one after the other, “No.” “No.” “No.” “No.” "No." ** All responded with a sort of shrug, as if slightly surprised the question would even be raised.** And nobody in the audience – which was well over 200 persons – ventured a contrary opinion.
[/QUOTE]
:eek: what are they, braindead?
jk
It seems as though the culture or “personality type” of our country is to be argumentative, to question most everything - powerful choleric. I read that somewhere, actually.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
All of my children went to private schools. After paying tuition I still had to pay property taxes so the rest of you could send your kids to school on my dime.
[/QUOTE]
As you should, even if you had no children at all – or, at least, that seems to be the consensus of this thread, and a wise consensus it is.
[QUOTE=JohnnyEnigma]
:eek: what are they, braindead?
jk
It seems as though the culture or “personality type” of our country is to be argumentative, to question most everything - powerful choleric. I read that somewhere, actually.
[/QUOTE]
Which country is yours?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
As you should, even if you had no children at all – or, at least, that seems to be the consensus of this thread, and a wise consensus it is.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t recall voting for anyone on that thread to represent me. Therefore, it’s opinions are null & void.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
So you’re proud to be a parasite?
[/QUOTE]
I moved into a town with high taxes and great schools. I would rather pay the taxes than for a private school. Your interpretation is infantile however. I cannot help it if you are resentful for unwise choices you made. It is the system you grew up with and knew about. You made a choice, private schools in a shitty school area. You do realize that on schools you are very out of touch with the American norm, do you not?
But, please continue to make this personal, I will be happy to oblige you.
Jim