Tuesday, September 18, 2007
If Hillary Clinton had crafted Medicare in 1965 ...The elderly would be required to purchase health care. UPDATE: Hillary Clinton's healt hcare plan is for the middle class, not for the poor.Somewhat related: In California there is a law, Proposition 13, which makes life very good for all homeowners. Their taxes are capped and do not rise in proportion to inflation. So where does the money come from to pay for stuff? Sales taxes are a big factor (especially cigarette taxes). Hillary Clinton's health care proposal is like Proposition 13 in that it gives middle class employed people a better deal, but for those below, there's not much and it could even be worse with an "individual mandate" that could end up involving the IRS garnishing wages. That's not to say that Hillary Clinton's campaigning for the middle class vote isn't good politically, but it's not liberal in spirit.
posted by Quiddity at 9/18/2007 12:39:00 AM
12 comments
It's not 1965. Her plan may be the only hope for 47 million without insurance. If those who don't get exactly what they want disparage her plan, the problem will only exacerbate.
"If those who don't get exactly what they want disparage her plan, the problem will only exacerbate."
This comment is both grammatically and logically incorrect, and morally suspect.
charlie, charlie,charlie
correct it! please explain the morally suspect.
also, you might take note of your own grammer before worrying about others.
morally suspect? sick
Don't patronize me, and don't use my name if you're not using yours.
You misused exacerbate, your if... then... statement is a non sequitur, and the implication that we should accept Clinton's proposed health plan without discussion appears to be the liberal version of "dissent is unpatriotic". I believe that implication is immoral; I believe your statement is morally suspect.
charlie, charlie, charlie
possibly the clinton health care plan will provide psychological help and you can be included.
(grammar was misspelled)
Hillary's plan should be labeled "health insurance for all" not "health care for all." Big difference. BTW, those on medicare do pay for it but most are ignorant of that fact. Because the benefits are so limited (and becoming more so), it is almost mandatory that seniors purchase supplimental insurance.
It is unfortunate that in the richest country in the world, we have third rate medical care (and I am being kind) unless one is very wealthy and can pay high premiums for insurance or pay privately or if your employer just happens to pay for you while the poor and uninsured subsidizes the rest.
Those on Medicare "pay" 25% of the premiums as a deduction from their Social Security check. The other 75% is funded via a payroll deduction on younger workers' paychecks.
On my blog I compare Hillary's plan with Medicare For All. Short summary: RomneyHillaryCare (Hillary's plan is basically Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan) creates not one, not two, not three, but *FOUR* new bureaucracies, increases the percentage of medical spending going to administrative costs, and does nothing to resolve the problem that 15% of our nation's economy is going towards health care costs but we're only getting 7.5% worth of health care out of it (yep, half of all our current health care spending is going to waste, corporate profits, and administrative expenses!). In short, it's a giveaway to the health insurance companies (by forcing people to subsidize them at gunpoint -- c'mon, do you really think Hillary's "universal" government-provided alternative will be allowed to provide competitive care?) without solving the real problem -- that the bloated profits of the health care industry in our nation put our nation at a competitive disadvantage against nations that are NOT spending 15% of their GDP on health care.
Oh, BTW, it's not "universal" health care by any means. I estimate that at least 10% of people living in America will still remain uninsured after its passage, whereas Medicare For All would automatically cover everybody.
Regarding 1965 vs. today -- yes, today is not 1965. In 1965, America knew that America and Americans could do anything they set their mind to, even something as seemingly silly as going to the moon within the next four years. Today, whenever you propose doing something, everybody whines that it "can't be done". But the only real difference is attitude, not ability. The defeatist loser whiner "I caaaan't!" attitude of today is irritating, because America of today is far wealthier than in 1965. But for some reason most Americans today are losers whining that things can't be done, rather than winners making things happen. When did America become a nation of losers, I ask you?
-- Badtux the Health Care Penguin
When did America become a nation of losers, I ask you?
April 30, 1975?
H.M.
So we should have "stayed the course" in Vietnam instead of "cutting and running". Now we should do the same in Iraq.
Can we really afford to "export democracy" all over the globe at the point of a gun? Our national debt is $9T and rising at the rate of $1.41 billion per day which amounts to $29,726.99 for every man woman and child in this country.
The war in Iraq is costing $10B a month. That's not such a "small price to pay", especially for failure.
Next up: Hillary's proposal for ending homelessness. A law will be passed requiring the homeless to rent apartments. That'll work, yessiree!
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Great post.
Anon v Charlie...good points anon.
another anon.
Yet, I'm still with Quiddity in spirit.
I JUST HATE GRAMMAR DISSES in blog comments.
another anon
|
