- 307
Having partial Jewish ancestry, I didn't love the "jewish babble" comment but found CTInsure's comments quite amusing.
Clinton to offer health care plan, only $110,000,000,000 a year
- Thread starter STIBROKER
- Start date
- 403
Back to the thread topic (at least, what I thought it was about):
The $110B annual cost of Hillary's new plan, if close to realistic, must preserve a large part of the current insurance and healthcare system. (By my estimates, a bare-bones single-payer government plan would cost at least 10 times that -- and even Hillary's not talking trillions.) It's described as a Federal version of Romney's Massachusetts plan (which might have fit that state, but Mitt says won't work nationally). I don't like federal mandates, but people who buy insurance and pay for healthcare now have to pay for the uninsureds & deadbeats whom emergency rooms are required to treat. So I do favor making health insurance required, to spread the cost a bit more fairly.
The $110B annual cost of Hillary's new plan, if close to realistic, must preserve a large part of the current insurance and healthcare system. (By my estimates, a bare-bones single-payer government plan would cost at least 10 times that -- and even Hillary's not talking trillions.) It's described as a Federal version of Romney's Massachusetts plan (which might have fit that state, but Mitt says won't work nationally). I don't like federal mandates, but people who buy insurance and pay for healthcare now have to pay for the uninsureds & deadbeats whom emergency rooms are required to treat. So I do favor making health insurance required, to spread the cost a bit more fairly.
- 142
I still would love to know exactly what the "Jewish Babble" is...very interesting term. As opposed to, I guess, the "Catholic Ramble" or the "Baptist Soliloquy". There is also the "Muslim Rant" and the "Buddhist Blather". The "Shinto Shuffle" is known in Asia and is very rare, but nothing is as perplexing as the rarely seen/heard "Satanist Mumbojumbo"; it's been known to put people in a trance and cause them to paint all their eggs black (if they have no eggs in the fridge I hear they usually go for the other dairy items).
Of course, the most distressing and terrifying version of the Jewish Babble is undoubtedly the "Atheist Yatta Yatta", wherein a known Atheist somehow "yatta yatta's" over everything a creationist believes and then makes them start to doubt their religion. It can be very powerful, except on Evangelicals in an election year.
The logic fails in practicality though. Making auto insurance 'mandatory' hasn't made everyone go get auto insurance. While I don't remember the actual percentage, a LARGE portion of auto accidents involve individuals with no insurance.
Beyond saying its required, how do you actually make it happen? Only when there is an answer to that question, is there a plan that can be discussed. Of course, its okay to make it mandatory. The line forms to the left outside of my office. I don't mind having to go buy some of those rope thingy's to keep the line in a straight line. If it gets long enough, I'll bring in some entertainment for people while they are waiting
I agree with the general sentiment of your numbers. Of course, you can't come out and say trillions, people wouldn't like you, but politicians (any party) are never held to the numbers they say during an election.
Dan
- 2,152
Jewish Babble, okay I was not real clear here, I was referring to the Left comments of the Jewish influence on the Neo Con. Usually negative and anti Isreal by the left. I was not meaning to attack the Jewish in general or in any other manner.
- 2,152
McGovern tapped into the strength of the Anti War Movement in '72? Exactly how many States did he carry??? It was a blow out, making the entire Watergate thing mindboggling on why the Nixon Administration was so paranoid at the time. Yea, well I really don't know where you are coming from. Were the Southern Conservative along with others, force out are had too leave because the Democrats went so far to the left.
I was referring to how far Left the Democratic Party went since the 60's. That moderate Liberals or moderate Conservatives no longer could call it a political home, as in the sting of the label of "Liberal". Which was in reference to how Liberal Hillary is in reality.
Last edited:
- 307
"Were the Southern Conservative along with others, force out are had too leave because the Democrats went so far to the left."
What does that even mean? James you're cut off until you start readling these posts objectively and explaining things in a way we can all understand. Back to insurance.
What does that even mean? James you're cut off until you start readling these posts objectively and explaining things in a way we can all understand. Back to insurance.
- 2,152
I can completely understand it, guess you need to go back to school? Okay would you like this better:
"Were the Southern Conservatives along with others, force out of the Democratic Party, or did they leave on their own accord, because the Democratic Party went so far to the left?"
Yet I was simply responding to this statement: Also, you make it sound like conservative southern Dems were kicked out. Many were mad at the party and left on purpose. Their ideas no longer matched the party so they eventually converted to the GOP which came to full fruition only during the 1980 election. However this this was years in the making going back to decades prior. So in all honesty you knew exactly what I meant, now if they were kicked out or driven out by the newer Liberal extreme is really not a note worthy to get all hot and bothered about. Forced or Driven out? You tell me, some say Nixon had a lot to do with it, go figure! Was there ever a more liberal Republican President than Nixon? I don't know, honestly don't feel as Bush has gone that far yet.
Last edited:
- 2,152
Clinton to offer health care plan, only $110,000,000,000 a year
So now I hear the obvious, we all knew it was coming! According to the math by several groups this is way underpriced! Gee, imagine that! Newt did bring up a good point, why would Hillary put out a plan in the shape of a Bill? This would encompassed 16% of the economy and she puts out a 10 page Omni Bill? No, I don't think Hillary learn anything from Hillary Care 1.0 debacle. Plus, why would she attempt to defend it? She could of just said it was a starting point and everything is on the table, maybe that would be considered a Moderate statement? I'm sure as time goes by and negative reactions start growing she will temper her rhetoric.
Ps, maybe she is starting to believe the Dem's rhetoric of her being sooooo smart?
So now I hear the obvious, we all knew it was coming! According to the math by several groups this is way underpriced! Gee, imagine that! Newt did bring up a good point, why would Hillary put out a plan in the shape of a Bill? This would encompassed 16% of the economy and she puts out a 10 page Omni Bill? No, I don't think Hillary learn anything from Hillary Care 1.0 debacle. Plus, why would she attempt to defend it? She could of just said it was a starting point and everything is on the table, maybe that would be considered a Moderate statement? I'm sure as time goes by and negative reactions start growing she will temper her rhetoric.
Ps, maybe she is starting to believe the Dem's rhetoric of her being sooooo smart?
- Thread starter
- Staff
- #80
Bloomberg.com: Opinion
Hillary and Health Care Prove a Toxic Mix Again: Kevin Hassett
By Kevin Hassett
Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) -- When Hillary Clinton last took a stab at repairing America's health-care system, advertisements featuring ``Harry and Louise'' -- a fictional couple struggling to comprehend her proposal -- aroused nationwide hostility. An overwhelming majority of Americans rejected her grand vision of an enormous government-run health-care bureaucracy.
There is no question that her plan was one of the single biggest domestic-policy political blunders of the past 50 years. We would not have had a House Speaker Newt Gingrich if there had not been a Hillary health-care plan.
But as a frontrunner in a race where every challenger for the 2008 presidential election has a health plan, Clinton has decided she must have one, too. So here we go again.
Putting Hillary in charge of the Democratic health-care plan for the election is a little like asking Mike Dukakis to be in charge of military photo ops. Dukakis, one might suppose, would tell candidates they should stay away from tanks, and if they ever get near one, to at least refuse the headgear. Clinton, for her part, has taken a similar tack, using the 1993 plan like a chart of troubled waters.
The problem is, even without the ludicrous headgear, the famous Dukakis photo would have been a disaster because it showed Dukakis in a tank. It wasn't the headgear that was the problem, it was the nerdy candidate.
Likewise, a look at the Clinton plan suggests that the fundamental problem from 1993 is still with us: Hillary Clinton and health care do not mix.
The Plan
The crux of Hillary's plan is an ``individual mandate,'' which requires that all Americans buy health insurance, but guarantees that the government will make insurance available to everyone at ``affordable'' prices.
To accomplish this, the plan will create a government- regulated national pool through which individuals can purchase insurance. Those who are already insured would get to choose whether to keep their current health coverage or purchase the new national plan.
Additionally, Clinton would force big businesses that don't offer health insurance to pay a tax.
In order to sell to the national pool, the government would demand that insurers cover all applicants (``guaranteed issue'') and that premium levels would have to be indiscriminate, regardless of people's health status when they apply (``community rating.'')
What's more, premiums wouldn't be allowed to exceed a predetermined fraction of total household income.
She estimates that her plan would cost $110 billion per year -- which is probably low, but who's counting?
Goodbye, Tax Cuts
To pay for it, Clinton hopes to exploit the significant savings from improved health-care technology, particularly from electronic medical records. She would also use some of the revenue from the repeal of President George W. Bush's tax cuts. Additionally, she advocated a cap on the tax deductibility of health insurance for wealthy Americans with expensive insurance coverage.
In other words, Hillary is telling every American that they must purchase a health-insurance product the government likes. This is inconsequential if you already have a plan the government will like, but a serious problem if government makes you purchase something you don't want.
Although Massachusetts is the only state to try out the individual mandate, there have been a variety of experiments with community rating and guaranteed issue by state governments. States with these regulations tended to experience higher premiums and lower rates of coverage, particularly among the healthy.
Failure in Kentucky
In 1995, Kentucky implemented community rating and guaranteed issue for individuals. Two years later, the market for individual insurance collapsed, as almost all the non-group insurers chose to leave the market. In response, these regulations were abolished in 2000.
In 1993, community rating and guaranteed issue were introduced in New Jersey's non-group health-insurance market. Premiums skyrocketed and coverage rates declined precipitously. In 2003, in order to counter this trend, the government approved high-deductible ``basic and essential'' plans, permitting adjustable premiums, which immediately became popular.
Today, in the tiny New Jersey non-group market, consumers have two choices: purchase a ``basic and essential'' plan with minimal coverage or buy a standard health-insurance plan they can't afford.
Forced Into Pools
The lesson: individuals with costly health problems will want to gravitate toward generous and costly plans. Healthy individuals, especially the young, will want to avoid getting stuck with big insurance bills, either by purchasing the narrowest coverage possible, or by avoiding the purchase altogether.
If we want to avoid the New Jersey experience writ large, government will have to force many people into pools they don't want to be in, or stick taxpayers in general with the soaring costs of the plans that attract the sick.
The hand of government will have to be heavy indeed. The most likely outcome is that federal law will require proof of insurance of every individual, even those without a job. Penalties for those without insurance would likely be monetary, and steep enough to force many individuals to purchase insurance products they otherwise would avoid.
It would probably take a little while for Hillary's plan to make a complete mash out of the current health-care universe. When it does, you can bet that the ``fix'' will be something that looks very much like her 1993 plan. The difference is, this time voters might not see it coming.
Hillary and Health Care Prove a Toxic Mix Again: Kevin Hassett
By Kevin Hassett
Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) -- When Hillary Clinton last took a stab at repairing America's health-care system, advertisements featuring ``Harry and Louise'' -- a fictional couple struggling to comprehend her proposal -- aroused nationwide hostility. An overwhelming majority of Americans rejected her grand vision of an enormous government-run health-care bureaucracy.
There is no question that her plan was one of the single biggest domestic-policy political blunders of the past 50 years. We would not have had a House Speaker Newt Gingrich if there had not been a Hillary health-care plan.
But as a frontrunner in a race where every challenger for the 2008 presidential election has a health plan, Clinton has decided she must have one, too. So here we go again.
Putting Hillary in charge of the Democratic health-care plan for the election is a little like asking Mike Dukakis to be in charge of military photo ops. Dukakis, one might suppose, would tell candidates they should stay away from tanks, and if they ever get near one, to at least refuse the headgear. Clinton, for her part, has taken a similar tack, using the 1993 plan like a chart of troubled waters.
The problem is, even without the ludicrous headgear, the famous Dukakis photo would have been a disaster because it showed Dukakis in a tank. It wasn't the headgear that was the problem, it was the nerdy candidate.
Likewise, a look at the Clinton plan suggests that the fundamental problem from 1993 is still with us: Hillary Clinton and health care do not mix.
The Plan
The crux of Hillary's plan is an ``individual mandate,'' which requires that all Americans buy health insurance, but guarantees that the government will make insurance available to everyone at ``affordable'' prices.
To accomplish this, the plan will create a government- regulated national pool through which individuals can purchase insurance. Those who are already insured would get to choose whether to keep their current health coverage or purchase the new national plan.
Additionally, Clinton would force big businesses that don't offer health insurance to pay a tax.
In order to sell to the national pool, the government would demand that insurers cover all applicants (``guaranteed issue'') and that premium levels would have to be indiscriminate, regardless of people's health status when they apply (``community rating.'')
What's more, premiums wouldn't be allowed to exceed a predetermined fraction of total household income.
She estimates that her plan would cost $110 billion per year -- which is probably low, but who's counting?
Goodbye, Tax Cuts
To pay for it, Clinton hopes to exploit the significant savings from improved health-care technology, particularly from electronic medical records. She would also use some of the revenue from the repeal of President George W. Bush's tax cuts. Additionally, she advocated a cap on the tax deductibility of health insurance for wealthy Americans with expensive insurance coverage.
In other words, Hillary is telling every American that they must purchase a health-insurance product the government likes. This is inconsequential if you already have a plan the government will like, but a serious problem if government makes you purchase something you don't want.
Although Massachusetts is the only state to try out the individual mandate, there have been a variety of experiments with community rating and guaranteed issue by state governments. States with these regulations tended to experience higher premiums and lower rates of coverage, particularly among the healthy.
Failure in Kentucky
In 1995, Kentucky implemented community rating and guaranteed issue for individuals. Two years later, the market for individual insurance collapsed, as almost all the non-group insurers chose to leave the market. In response, these regulations were abolished in 2000.
In 1993, community rating and guaranteed issue were introduced in New Jersey's non-group health-insurance market. Premiums skyrocketed and coverage rates declined precipitously. In 2003, in order to counter this trend, the government approved high-deductible ``basic and essential'' plans, permitting adjustable premiums, which immediately became popular.
Today, in the tiny New Jersey non-group market, consumers have two choices: purchase a ``basic and essential'' plan with minimal coverage or buy a standard health-insurance plan they can't afford.
Forced Into Pools
The lesson: individuals with costly health problems will want to gravitate toward generous and costly plans. Healthy individuals, especially the young, will want to avoid getting stuck with big insurance bills, either by purchasing the narrowest coverage possible, or by avoiding the purchase altogether.
If we want to avoid the New Jersey experience writ large, government will have to force many people into pools they don't want to be in, or stick taxpayers in general with the soaring costs of the plans that attract the sick.
The hand of government will have to be heavy indeed. The most likely outcome is that federal law will require proof of insurance of every individual, even those without a job. Penalties for those without insurance would likely be monetary, and steep enough to force many individuals to purchase insurance products they otherwise would avoid.
It would probably take a little while for Hillary's plan to make a complete mash out of the current health-care universe. When it does, you can bet that the ``fix'' will be something that looks very much like her 1993 plan. The difference is, this time voters might not see it coming.
Similar threads
