http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/washington/17cnd-clinton.html?hp
These are the rules: you must post your own thoughts and you must comment on the thoughts of someone else. This requires that you know what the article is about and that you formulate an opinion about what you’ve read. Find a way to shape your own unique voice – don’t simply repeat the comments of others or say you agree. Be specific – what works? What doesn’t? What would you do differently? Is there a solution? What is it? – are some questions you might contemplate as you read and comment. I want us to dialogue about the news rather than simply try and memorize what’s happening. Dialogue begins with knowledge and is always respectful, but I hope also controversial! Don’t be afraid to have an opinion – that’s the point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
In my opinion, although Hillary Clinton's proposal sounds and looks good on paper, there are some issues not addressed in the article. Also Hillary's proposal seems to me a little overly-ambitious, and most-likely could not go through due to a few changes which certain groups of people will not go along with.
One issue i realized that was not addressed was the health-care consideration for illegal immigrants. A nation-wide health care proposal should cover an already large problem in our country which is that of illegal-immigrants who work in the US and do not have health care. Therefore the issue regarding illegal immigrants must first be resolved. Are these approximate 4.8 million people citizens or not? Will they be included in this health care plan? Many questions which are not once mentioned in Hillary's plan.
Moving on, Hillary talks about making large companies pay for their employees' health care. The problem with this idea, is what makes Clinton believe that these large corporate businesses are willing to pay millions of dollars for health care that they never before had to pay. Finally, Hillary assumes that taking extra taxes from higher income citizens will be deemed acceptable by the country. However, the people she'd be taking money from, would, so it seems, get the same health care as the poor, yet they would have the obligation of paying for the poor citizen's health care.
In all, I believe that a plan like Hillary Clinton's would be good for our country, however a few flaws in her plan, deems her plan not necessarily a great change for our country.
As always, politicians present ideal plans which make them look good in order to persuade you to vote for them. It seems to me that Hilary Clinton’s plan to make healthcare affordable did just that. Affordable and accessible healthcare most Americans feel is a right. Is it really our right or is it a privilege for those who can afford it? Her plan to give quality healthcare to every American costs billions of dollars, but she simply outlines a few methods on how to pay for her proposal. I seriously doubt that her financing plan will work. Big businesses will not want to cut into their revenue to provide insurance for their workers. If the government is granting subsidies to help smaller businesses pay for their employee’s healthcare where is the government going to get this money from? Surely only partially ending the tax cuts for higher earning individuals will not provide enough money. And why would they agree to increasing costs if they would be entitled to the same level of healthcare as someone who does not pay nearly as much for it? If insurance companies were not to reject anyone who wanted coverage based on pre-existing health conditions what would happen to them? Would insurance companies collapse because of a mandated obligation to pay for expensive medical treatments?
Overall, Hilary’s plan acknowledges our health care crisis, and introduces some good ideas as to what needs to be done, but I do not feel that she proposes a feasible way of ensuring that changes will be successfully accomplished. Hillary’s plan for healthcare makes her appear to be just another politician trying to win our vote.
Hillarys plan seems almost utopian. She even said herself that it would work great if everyone followed the rules. I hate to be an unwelcome burst of reality, but of course not everyone is going to follow the health care rules that woyld make her plan successful. Already many people cheat the health care system. Though many people would want this to work, there will always be people in our country who want to cheat the health care systems so it benefits them.
She puts extra emphasis on how her plan is not a bureaucracy, which is a smart idea to defend herself. I also like the many choices and options she presents to everyone (the option of keeping the same healthplan, doctors, etc).
The one thing that struck out to me was the extra taxes she wanted to put upon those who make more than $250,000 annually. While some may believe that those who earn more should be taxed more for her healthplan, those who make more money won't exactly be thrilled about the extra taxes.They probably already have good benefits and coverage, so essentially they are paying more so others can benefit. Are these people willing to pay more for he good of others? Will they be able to get over the extra taxes for a good long term goal? Or they only see a larger number in the taxes column of their paycheck? This needs to be considered, especially if Hillary plans to rely upon their cooperation.
Many of those without coverage are illegal immigrants?does Hillary plan to include them in her plan? How will that affect her plan?
I'd love to see universal health care, but this plan should have its kinks ironed out before, not after.
Nick, Alison and Angela -- thank you for getting us started. These are well thought out comments. Very interested in hearing from everyone!
Nick -- a question for you. Do you think we should provide health coverage for "illegal" immigrants? Should they be citizens?
Alison -- do you think universal health care is a good idea? Would you like it?
Angela -- would you be willing to pay more to benefit others?
start thinking about all of these questions personally. I want to know what YOU think.....
Rock
I totally would pay more to benefit others. When my parents first came to the US, they were not well off. Life was really hard for them, especially when they were earning minimum wage or less. I am for universal health care, I would be willing to pay more, and I'm sure my parents would support itand be willing to pay more.
In regards to the immigration problem, i believe something must be done. In my opinion, the amount of people immigrating into the US (and LA specifically), is too many. I do feel that it would be unjust to "kick" the people who are currently here with family, out of the US, and i therefore feel that there must be some sort of organized efficient way to stop the current immigration flow. We should really tighten up the borders and allow all current illegal immigrants citizenship. Although any real straight-forward solution(like one i propose) to this problem will be difficult, almost impossible, to pass in congress, some sort of change must occur. As for a health care plan for these people, whom i believe should be citizens, there should be different levels of health care. I do believe in an idea for universal health care, but i believe the amount of coverage can and should differ. I feel that companies should pay for a less amount of coverage for higher salary person than a minimum wage employee. I also believe that the companies should pay for less coverage for a part-time employee than a full-time one. Also the health care plans should differ from the richer to the poorer, that way the higher income citizens aren't paying the same for their health care as for other's.
The Us must first straighten up a big problem in our current health care plans before they go ahead and revolutionize our health care.
Angela, in response to your idea of taking money from the richer people, an idea such as this is not logical. The percentage of US citizens making over $250,000 per year is just above 3%. That means that these 9 million people would be responsible for paying for the other 291 million US citizens, who make under 250 thousand dollars, health care. Now granted that many current citizens already have health care, these numbers account for US citizens only, not for the immigrants currently living in our country without health care. Yes the wealthy would not be the only to give money but just in general, Clinton's plan is not feasible. It would be a great change for the US; however, Hillary hasn't calculated where she will get this money. Not to mention that our country already has large debt problems, and liquidating another hundred million dollars for this project won't help our current budget issues.
I do believe that her plan sounds good, however it is so unreasonable.
I do support the concept of universal healthcare, but looking at examples of the Canadian system and the British system, I am not sure Americans would be satisfied. Our westernized system has the best technology and is capable of providing the most advanced care in the world. The countries that have a universal healthcare system ration their medical treatments to those who need them most and meet their criteria. For example, my friend’s grandpa who lives in Canada needed a heart bypass. He was denied this procedure even though he was healthy except for his heart, simply because he was over 65 years old. This system of rationing care would have Americans very upset because we are used to receiving the care we need regardless of age.
In response to Nick’s comments on illegal immigrants, I believe that they are entitled to at least basic healthcare. However this brings up the question of how are we going to pay for it? Since we are providing job opportunities in this country for illegal immigrants, more and more will come for a better life. If America is going to provide an incentive for immigrants to come to the country, we also need to provide them with healthcare. Although this slightly off topic we also provide illegal immigrants’ children with education, welfare, etc. The costs are overwhelming the budgets of our state and federal governments. Where will we be able to find enough money to support all these things for illegal immigrants let alone the citizens of our country?
Allison, i don't think that Clinton plans to change the health care standards, lowering the amount of coverage. I think she wants to give everyone full-covering health care, no matter the age or health-records.
of course those three percent would not be able to cover everyone else. I ask whether they would be happy if that were to happen. I agree with the point you bring up as to where Clinton plans to get enough money to give everyone health care coverage. I feel that money will be a huge issue when it comes to Clinton's plan, not only starting it but also maintaining it.
Allison, if we were to ration health care, wouldnt that be sort of against Clinton's plan. Her goal is for everyone to have health care. She even mentions she would like yo remedy the turning away of others because of their age, so to ration healthcare would be going back to square one.
Sorry for any typos, Im on my iPhone and I wanted to post before I forgot what I was going to say...
Angela and Nick,
I understand your points, but in order to give everyone care, it has to be affordable for the goverment and taxpayers. The only way to make it within our means requires the rationing of care. Idealistically everyone would recieve the best care regardless of the cost. In Hillary's proposal she does not realistically say how the budget could provide for the best standard of care. She merely says that everybody will recieve care. However, if you look at the other countries that have universal healthcare, expensive procedures are rationed in order to save money, and the general quality of care is not the same standard we would expect.
Well i believe our current system is better than revolutionizing health care only to limit the amount of coverage to different individuals. What good does that do; spending millions to give people who don't need health care as badly, this support. The people who need it most are the people who already have health problems but were too poor to buy health care before and are now out of luck. These unfortunate people should be the ones focused in these reforms. And Allison, your plan excludes the people who should be helped the most. Yes a plan giving all poor health care will prevent problems such as these in the future. However, such a plan, as said before, is fiscally improbable.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you are saying Nick. First of all what I said was not a plan it was just looking ahead to the potential consequences of Hilary's proposal as exemplified with other countries that began with the same idea for universal healthcare. The plan that Hillary is proposing is once again very idealistic, and as you say is "fiscally improbable" therefore it will have to be modified. From experience, the modification is most likely to consist of limiting (rationing) care.
I disagree with Hillary Clinton’s proposal of universal health coverage. Requiring that all Americans have health insurance is a bit over the top. It would cost too much money for the country to carry out this plan. We are already billions of dollars in debt, so we really don’t have the money to ensure that every American has health insurance. I also think it is unfair that big companies have to pay for their employees’ health insurance. Company executives should not be obligated to use their well deserved money to pay for others. The only part I agree with is drug companies to provide lower cost care so that more people can afford medical drugs. If I could do it differently, I would not make it mandatory that all Americans have health coverage and suggest that health care companies subsidies . I just think that it would simply cost too much money when we don’t have enough money to spend.
--Nina Kim
At first glance, Clinton's plan seems as though it would solve almost every aspect of the heathcare problem - lower the cost of health care insurance to a rate that everyone could afford. The cost would be payed by requiring healthy people to purchase insurance and having the government pick up some of the costs by subsidizing premium costs for lower income earners. But the truth is that health care can not be provided to everyone if the insurance industry continues to soak up a huge share of the funds available as profits. If insurance carriers are forced to take less in premiums, they will be forced to make their profit (they are businesses after all) by providing less benefits. On the other hand, if the government payed for health care for everyone with only the goal of enhancing quality of life (and not making a profit) US citizens could recieve the best health care for the least cost. Citizens would still pay a certain percentage of their income on health care but the government could pay the rest buy eliminating eliminate tax cuts for the rich like in Clintons plan to help it undertake the provision of health care for everyone.
Allison what i was saying is that your reference to other countries' problems in their health care wouldn't apply to Hillary's. You were talking about how other Countries' limited the coverage of health care to already ill/disabled people and that a system like that wouldn't cope well here in the US; however, what leads you to believe that such a system would be implemented here in the first place; If anything the opposite would occur. Clinton wanted to make sure everyone, including previously denied applicants got health care, and she would want to change health care in a more universal fashion that Canada's.
I think it is very interesting that Hilary would bring this issue up again, since it was such a big controversy in 1994 for her husbands administration, like a "lead ballon". She makes a few points people would not disagree with such as; there should be universal health care and there shouldn't be children in a civilised nation that don't have acces to medical health care. I also thought her comment about Americans having the same health care plan options as our senators and congress that we elect was simply meant to create a media moment, although it sounds catchy it is unrealistic. One problem i had with her proposal was that of her promising that she wouldn't add to the federal bureaucracy, because in 1994 she had orginally said she was going to create a new departement. Many politicans make the same promise which they can't keep.
Nick,
I was not referring to pre-existing conditions as you implied with "disabled/ill" Rather, I was basing my opinion on what has happened historically in other countries which have chosen to ration care because top quality care became unaffordable for the government to provide. All of the universal care plans which are in place in other countries began with similar goals to Hillary's plan, but when the costs soared, rationing was the only option. Again, this has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions, just what happens to you in universal care coverage when you become sick and need the best treatment. Universal plans are a good idea if we can give everyone excellent care. However, we can't afford to do this, so those who can afford top care will pay out of pocket for better quality care, and then we have a two-tiered system. Is that fair when only the rich can afford the best care? Without adequate funding, universal care will stratify people which I think is most unfair.
got it allison, thanks for clarifying.
Senator Clinton's proposed plan has its strengths and weaknesses, just as both other proposals from democratic candidates. She proposes to simply make insurance provision necessary for everyone. This has some extremely obvious problems:
First and foremost, how do people that don't already have insurance get assigned an insurance company? Companies would presumably "bid" to treat people... however, this will inevitably lead to companies cutting corners in order to achieve a lower bid. Thus we will end up in a system little better than the first, where the rich get to pay extra for better coverage and the poor are left with little or no coverage at all.
Second, there is a blatant contradiction in the wording of Clinton's proposal; She says first that companies have to give coverage as long as people pay premiums (which is exactly the same as it is today, since she doesn't explicitly make the premium constant), and that the company has to pay whatever the person can pay. This doesnt make sense-- what if a person can't make a premium payment at all? Is the company forced to take them on for free? This is clearly ridiculous, as no company, no matter how efficient, could make money off of 0 investment, and Hilary's claim that they could make money another way goes clear out of the window. Clearly a brightline minimum premium is necessary, or at least some way of calculating the premium, as the idea of "paying what they can" is entirely subjective; without a metric, people could prioritize minor needs before their premium, then claim that they couldn't pay anything at all.
In addition, the idea of mandatory healthcare and making people pay is curious... what happens if they dont? Must the company keep providing healthcare or be prosecuted? Can the person be arrested and prosecuted for not making their payment, can their houses be foreclosed because they couldn't pay something that they are forced to pay? If this is to be on par with tax, so that peoples houses can be foreclosed and so forth, it seems that actually the people at the lowest end of the spectrum would be far more burdened than the very rich, who would have a much smaller percentage added (actually added BACK).
These are only the very first problems that can be associated with her plan, and this is only at the practical level... we must now look to the theory of the proposal.
Her idea is to create a fundamentally socialist system, where people pay what they are able... This will inevitably lead to prices being raised for those whose prices are disproportionately low compared to their wages (the very rich). In this way, in addition to the tax rate, healthcare premiums would presumably also be raised.
Her plan, creating a safety net for the lowest level of people, puts a ceiling on the cost of healthcare, which will allow for greatly increased demand, but also, according to the law of the market, greatly reduce supply, as fewer people want to buy into a market that is so much less profitable. In this way Hilary may strain the economy of the US to near breaking point by forcing companies to comply-- what if there isn't enough supply... who is to blame? Certainly not the former Healthcare companies whose investors choose to sell out of the company, since the company must be loyal to its stockholders, and the individual stockholders, as people have no great duty to put THEIR money into a losing business-- especially since those people's taxes have likely already been raised.
In all of these ways, although Senator Clinton's plan may seem normatively to meet the needs of the people, looking at it from a more descriptive, real-world viewpoint it has many problems which may accentuate the Healthcare crisis in America instead of solving it.
Harry, you said "On the other hand, if the government payed for health care for everyone with only the goal of enhancing quality of life (and not making a profit) US citizens could recieve the best health care for the least cost."
I'm a little confused as to what your stance is on this subject. Do you think Hillary's plan has flaws, but the above quote might be able to fix them?
As to Dr. Rock's question of whether to pay more to benefit others:
Normatively, people should be willing to pay to help those disadvantaged, based on John Rawls' "original position" and "veil of ignorance", which states that at the beginning of society people basically went through a lottery to see what would become of them, and they would agree to care for the disadvantaged in case they might become them.'
However, normativity has many, many flaws, and for the individual, it is unrealistic to expect them to on their own pay to help someone else, when they almost certainly have personal goals for their improved financial state. People typically don't have a legal obligation to help others in need (unless it is a situation of guardianship or a felony, where negligence comes into play, or for "healthcare" workers such as lifeguards (who protect peoples lives) and nurses), and they will see it as unfair in our rampantly capitalist, individualistic society.
However, it might actually be not only normatively and legally right but economically feasible in this day and age for healthcare companies and the government to supply at least a baseline level of care for the lower classes, even at a slight loss. My syllogism goes like this:
(1)lower class workers are far more likely to contract a highly contagious illness than some exec in an air conditioned office.
(2)People with healthcare are more likely to seek treatment sooner, since they don't have to worry about money.
(3)illnesses treated fast are less likely to become epidemics and the pandemics.
(4)Treating a pandemic costs healthcare companies far less than offering baseline coverage at a small loss, especially considering the increasing risks associated with diseases like avian influenza and SARS.
Thus, offering baseline healthcare to all those unable to pay for it might actually save the Healthcare industry and the government money. I don't have hard evidence to support this, but it makes logical sense (all of the steps of the syllogism seem true, and there is no syllogistic fallacy), and I would be happy to research it if people think that what I am saying is completely wrong. I think that at the least this is worth looking into. It is sort of like reverse externalities to protect the company from harmful long term effects. What worries me about this setup is that, given the number of Healthcare providers in America, it is a tragedy of the commons in the making, where each wants the other to provide the baseline, sharing in the profits but not the cost. I think that this is where the government should come into play: prevent a tragedy of the commons by doling out parts of the populace for each company to support.
P.S. My John Rawls terms comes from his 1999 book "A Theory of Justice." It is a great read for anyone interested in normative politics.
For the record, I personally would have no problem giving up some of my wage to support healthcare for the poor, for the simple reason that equality of opportunity is one of the best ways to foster progress.
sorry, that last comment was me
In my opinion, the idea of universal healthcare and insurance sound like a good idea. If no one would would be denied due to lack of income or health status, the country would probably run better. However, I feel that there are some problems with her plan. First I don't really feel that it is fair to put a cap on the medical and insurance companies. If a person cannot aford the payment the company should not be penalized. They should not have to reduce their price to help everyone out. This country was built on capitalism and everyone being able to charge what they feel. I also feel that by her taxing everyone she is being unfair to the wealthy. They are the ones that can afford the health care yet, they have to pay to help fund everyone else. I feel that if you make the money you should be able to keep it for yourself. Finally, I think Hillary Clinton may be trying to use this bill to get elected. She says that she could have it done during her first term in office. I think that means that her motives might not be as pure as they seem. I feel that the idea of universal health care is a good idea but, i don't feel that Hillary Clinton has everything working right yet.
Well, I am going to say that the U.S. should take up universal healthcare. We’re the richest country in the world, and it’s about time. In light of this, I suppose that I support Hillary Clinton’s plan. However, I can’t help but feel that there are some definite holes in the system. Clinton’s plan takes healthcare out of the hands of the government and into the hands of private insurance firms. I can’t help but feel as though her plan encourages privatization on some levels. This may not be a bad thing, but private firms seem to be mainly interested in increasing profits and decreasing costs. But lower costs come with poorer service, generally. And even if the government subsidizes citizens, that’s merely the citizen’s own tax money that they are paying back. It is my belief that tax money should go directly to serve a person’s own needs. They should not have to pay additional taxes AND purchase healthcare (and I don’t think that simply ending the Republican-issued tax-cuts will be enough to fund this plan; surely, new taxes will be imposed). By now you’ve probably realized that I believe the government should provide free healthcare, using our taxes for that instead of building war machines. Then again, I’m also hoping that more of our tax money goes to public education, ecological restoration, and job creation. Dare to dream, eh?
Anyhow, I’m getting sidetracked. Now, I do like the idea of banning insurance companies from refusing people because of pre-existing health problems. That comforts me a little, though I wonder if such people would be granted care of a goodly quality. I feel that Hillary's plan is a good first step, but it just has too many possible setbacks. I remember a proposal about healthcare co-authored by Kucinich that I liked much better...
Phoebe-
You said that you beieve Clinton's plan is beneficial because it takes health care out ofthe government's hands and into the small companies hands. If anything, isn't the opposite. Right now the health care companies can reject their customers as they please (you even said this lower). This power gives the companies the most power. And by allowing the government to force different changes to allow Clinton's plan to work, wouldn't that be the government taking charge?
Sorry about those typos, i forgot to check it.
I thought I said that was the reason I DIDN'T like the plan, or was I not clear? I DON'T like the idea of her placing healthcare in the hands of private firms because that's privatization. We're on the same page, Nick. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Wait Phoebe you said "Clinton’s plan takes healthcare out of the hands of the government and into the hands of private insurance firms". This means that you believe that she'd be putting health care into private insurance firms; however that's what is happening right now. The private companies have all the power to decide who to give health care to, the government has no say. But if Clinton's plan were to be utilized, she would be allowing for the government to make regulations, thus making the government control the health care system.
When I first read over this article, it was like a dream come true. Hillary's plan simply sounds utopic: health plan for everyone (even the poor) at very low prices. Although such a plan sounds like such a farout ideal, when thinking more closely about the matter it almost seems as though universal health care should be a given for the wealthiest nation on the planet. Unfortunately, although our country is so strong economically speaking and although there are many tychoons in the US, the super wealthy persona is a misrepresentation of the average American, and there are millions of poor people who cannot afford health care. So much money each year is spent on the entertainment industry and on lavish lifestyles, and if we could take a chunk of this money and donate it towards improving our health system that would be great. As for Hillary's proposal, however, as good as it sounds it is simply unrealistic. Way too many gray areas are left, and I agree with all that has already been mentioned. There is of course the dilemma of illegal immigrants and even legal immigrants. Also, with the huge debt that our country is in, where is the money going to come from? And although in a theoretical sense this plan sounds incredible, what will people be saying when taxes sore? I know that on my part I would be more than willing to pay more so that others will receive medical care, but there are many more out there who would refuse. All in all, although Hillary's proposal possesses a great appeal (and will certainly increase the number of presidential votes she receives), it is simply impractical. I hope, though, that more plans regarding improving US healthcare, not as drastic but beneficial nevertheless will be put into action soon.
Then that's good. I admitt that I'm partially judging this plan based on my own ideal plan, where universal healthcare is provided by the government. So perhaps what I should say is that I think it would be better if private firms were out of the picture. I feel that with Hilary's plan, the government is not so much in control of the private firms as it is in partnership with them. And in that way, the government itself risks being partially privatized (in this particular aspect). It also encourages private firms to try to move into the government... and that strikes me as sort of troublesome, since businesses have to look out for themselves and their profits. So it comes back to me saying that the government should provide healthcare, I guess.
That last comment of mine was in reply to Nick, by the way.
Although Hilary's health care plan is great idea, I don't believe it will become anything more than an idea. I believe this due to the fact that if you tax people more, they wont like it. This health care plan would only go through if the "rich" people are taxed more for the poor peoples benefit. Although I think this would be good for our economy and state of living, most wealthy people probably would not.
I also believe that Hilary's plan to have large companies supply this health care is idillic but nearly impossible. Large companies are, for the most part, interested in making money rather than the health and well being of their employees. Millions of dollars of what could be profit would have to go to the "little" people in their company.
Making health care universal is overall a great plan, however there are many issues that Hilary has to address before moving on with this. There are many people who would not want to cooporate with this type of system and honestly their vote counts.
Although we live in the wealthiest country in the world, we have one of the worst health care plans and I do believe that a plan like Mrs. Clinton's could make it better, however there are a few kinks that she needs to work out.
Hey Molly-
I agree with what you're saying and how interesting it is that she is bringing this up in her campaign once again. I agree with you about politicians and their lying habbits, however I think we should give Hilary a little more credit and wait it out. If she says she can do this without affecting the federal bureaucracy maybe she has some sort of plan to make that possible. Also, I completely agree with what you said about all Americans having the same health care benefits as our senators and congress, although I, and many others I'm sure, would love for this to be true, It hink it would be impossible to achieve.
I have a question for people: Don't you find it a little odd that Hilary announces her plan a while after the other Democratic Candidates? It seems almost as if she's afraid of being ridiculed for her plan like she was in 1994. It seems to me that she waited for the other plans to come out so that hers doesn't seem so out of the blue. That aspect just makes her seem like shes afraid to promote such a drastic change. How could we then trust her to make executive decisions in office? Is this a sign? Will she wait to see what other politicians believe before she makes any important decisions or plans in office. I had no presidential bis going into this blog; however this idea just sort of dawned on me as a little peculiar.
Harry, I agree with your point about the insurance industry. I don't think it is fair for people who can afford to have insurance to have some of their benifits cut to accomodate everyone else. I think there has to be a better way to figure out how to help people get insurance but, I don't think its fair to hurt everyone who has worked hard for it
On the surface, Hilary Clinton's universal healthcare plan seems like a good idea, who does not want the safety and security of knowing if you get hurt or sick, you will automatically be taken care of? One would expect that if you live in a westernized, free, and economicaly secure country like the United States, you will be protected by the governemnt. Security and safety are always number one in everyone's mind, and idealy Clinton's plan would provide each American that desired security.
However, when one looks more closely at the plan, instead of the one sided, short view of HIlary Clinton, one will see that the plan is amazingly flawed in practicality and principle. Why should the richer, more successful Americans have to suffer because there is a good chance they work harder and thus make more money? Why should Americans who make more money pay more tax dollars to compensate for the people who are likely less diligent and ambitious. This country is based on capitalism and meritocracy, getting to where you want to be in life based on merit. By taxing wealthier businesspeople, Hilary Clinton is punishing men and women who took advantage of one of the greatest principles and ideals our country was founded upon, meritocracy. This country is also democratic, not socialist, healthcare should not be given to people, it should be earned. In truth its not even socialsit, because the rich are suffering by having to pay more tax dollars than everyone else, so it is not as if everyone is getting the same healthcare plan, because the rich will have to pay infinite amounts of tax dollars more to have that same healthcare plan as the poor who are getting it for nothing.Practically, this plan would never work either because none of the "upper class" business people would not want to pay these increases in tax money, not to mention the INSURANCE industry which would plummet somewhat if Hilary's plan went through. But before I end this I want to clarify that just because some people are poorer than others doesnt necesarily mean I think all the poor in this country are lazy. Most of the lower classes dont have the same oppurtunities as upper class citizens have, which is why I would pay increased tax dollars as a rich business man if it was going to the education sytem and was truly making a difference. However, unfortunately, I believe that there is a great portion of the poorer classes who dont make as much money as the upper classes because they are lazier or not as ambitious, and therefore making it unfair for them to recieve free healthcare because they are not as hard working as others.
In response to brandon wilton,
I completely agree with you, this country was founded on the idea that you get to keep what you earn, not give it out others who might have not worked laboriously. And on the point of the INSURANCE and med companies I agree as well, because why should they have to suffer because some people cannot make the money themselves?
While I believe that the United States needs some form of universal health-care, I don't believe that this is the correct approach. Hillary's plan comes at a cost that the US government just cannot afford right now, considering the current budget deficit. She says that she would "net billions of in savings" by reorginizing the health-care system. If she can manage to change the way that our health-care is run in a way that keeps the same level of quality while reducing the overhead, that is great. I just don't know how Hillary assumes that she will be able to restructure one of the most broken government agencies in the US, when so many others have failed. On the other hand, I whole-heartedly support Hillary in her attempt to force the drug companies to lower their prices for drugs, since America has some of the highest prices in the world for medicine, despite the fact that most of the medicines are developed in the US by US scientists. One of the major drawbacks is that the US economy is still reeling from the Subprime Mortgage mess, and the strain of forcing every person in the US to pay premiums might push consumer spending even lower than it is now. I think that if Hillary revamped her health-care plan to a more moderate point of view, she would have a much stronger backing and might be able to change the way health-care in the US is run.
Hey Clare-
I have one little question if Hilary had a plan for the bureaucracy why wouldn't she have presented it already?
Nick: I agree with your question. I also believe that Hilary is some what hiding behind the other canidates because of what happened in 1994. THe Republicans were really against it and it showed with the outcome. Maybe she is just hiding behind the other canidates for this particular case, maybe it will continue we don't really know. But i think mainly she wanted support from her peers just in case another incedent like 1994 were to occur.
To me, this plan looks good for the most part. The question of how this plan will be paid for doesn't seem to be that big of an issue to me. Having the big businesses help pay for their employees' insurance may seem unfair and expensive, but in the end, healthy and happy employees will boost productivity. Also, the demand for the jobs in the big businesses would go up because the health care is provided. As a result, the businesses would likely be able to hire higher quality employees, which would also boost productivity. As for the insurance companies, they would just need to sell a higher quality product. As Hilary mentioned, current insurance holders would not be forced to dump their private plans, so if the insurance companies can add more benefits to their private plans, then people will still buy them. A problem with Canada's system is that there's not a large enough supply of doctors for the demand of health care from the people. A reason why people will buy the private insurance plans is that some just wouldn't want to wait for health care, while some just wouldn't be able to wait for health care because their lives are on the line. I think that if executed correctly, this plan could be positive for everyone
Brandon and Cary, In response to both of you, you both said that you believe that people shouldn't give away what they earn (and in the case of Hillary Clinton's plan i agree); however isn't that what taxes are. Some of people's tax money goes toward welfare etc. So are you addressing Clinton's plan or in general. Because i don't think that you both disagree with taxes.
I agree with Claire in that we should give Hillary a chance and see where this plan of hers leads us. After all, if we don't have a plan then we definitely won't have a solution. Also even though politicians are known for their lying (especially before presidential elections) maybe Hillary is truly on to something. I am in favor of the spirit of her law, but its practicality worries me. I think this health plan is a little extreme of a change for our country to make right now. I hope, though, that politicians will use it as a stepping stone on the path of finding a more reasonable plan that significantly improves our health care system (because we need that desperately). I hope that our next president, whoever he/she is, will formulate such a plan.
lian, I dont think its a good a idea to follow a plan and see where it leads us. This plan wil have a huge effect on all of us. Before it is implemented, all he poiints people brought up should be acknowledged, especially he immigration issue.
Jonny, i think money will be an issue. Im not quite sure i agree with your thoughts on increased employment and prpductivity. Do you think that the increased prpductivity will make up for thevast amount of money necessary to provide health care? And if more people are hired it would cost more money for health care. I think there are more outside variables you didn't factor in that could affect productivity that the head of companies or an increase of employees will be able to control.
Cary, in response to what you said about how unfair it is to tax the rich more to help pay for this medical plan, I think it's the fairest option. For the rich americans, raising their taxes probably wouldn't affect their lifestyles. I feel like if several levels of taxes were set, based on income, we could make the tax affordable for everyone. I'm glad that you mentioned that poor people aren't necessarily lazy, but just don't have opportunities, but i disagree with your statement that there still is a great portion of the poor that are lazy. I worked a crappy minimum wage job this summer at a frozen yogurt shop, and I really learned the value of the dollar. I worked my butt off and dealt with so many people that i just wanted to kill, and I'd come home exhausted having made barely enough money to fill a tank of gas. I had such great respect for my co-workers because they had to work this job that they hated full-time, and make almost nothing for it. it's just really hard to make a decent living. I think that the poor deserve health care just as much as the rich because they are still big contributors to our society in many ways
Claire, in resonse to what you said, i agree that it would be tough to raise taxes on the rich, consevative members of congress, many of which come from rich backgrounds themselves, would probably not support any plan that involved taking more money for people of high socio-economic status. It also makes sense that any plan involving consession from companies determined to make a profit would not go over well - the funds need to come from somewhere else.
Your commentary rocked! I so enjoyed hearing not only your opinions but the facts you used to substantiate those views. Well done. Thank you for all those folks who really went above and beyond – I felt that it shifted the caliber of the whole debate and analysis. I really have only positive feedback for you. I’m impressed. Curious to see what you will do with Iran for the next blog.
This proposal seems really good it would probably be ideal but there are many holes in it as well. First of all as much as she claims it wouldn't be government run, there would have to be some sort of government interference. She expects large companies to be very happy go lucky and willing to accept the large cost of expanding their eployees health insurance, I know i would hate to be forced to cover all these new cost and it would most likely cause them to raises the prices of their products. Also as complete as it was there are many things occuring in our country that would be fun to see how this plan deals with such as the immigration problem and their children as well.
Juan
I think Bens comment about being willing to give up wages for equality of the porr, its something that sounds like everyone should do. Our nation is too money riven for that to ever happen and not many wealthy people seem to care about the poor otherwise they could have done something about it by now but they are greedy
JUAN
Post a Comment