Was HRC right? (Thots on "Hillary-care")

[DGS49]

As you oldsters may recall, early on in President Clinton's tenure, FLOTUS embarked on a major project to craft a healthcare/health insurance programme that would seek to solve the intractable problems of (a) rapidly escalating healthcare costs, and (b) the growing population of un-insured.

She made a couple of tactical errors and the U.S. Public was not prepared to accept the realities that brought HRC's task force to its conclusions. Hillary-care crashed and burned. Violently.

Holding secret policy meetings with bigwigs from the healthcare industry was a bad idea. Taking over "one-seventh of the Economy" was an unpalatable concept. Forcing doctors to buy-in was unacceptable.

But she was definitely on the right track, as subsequent history demonstrates.

Many in the U.S. (mainly Democrats) look longingly at the relatively-successful socialized medicine systems that most westernized countries have, and wonder why we couldn't do the same things here. There are basically two valid reasons: (1) Our Constitution forbids it; and (2) our healthcare industry has grown and thrived on a certain set of rules (mainly profit-making rules), and it is not possible to force doctors and hospitals and labs and treatment facilities to change the business model on which they were created and have thrived.

Also, if you are going to say that healthcare is a "right" (assuming you can get past the Constitutionality hurdle), the Government must have the capability to deliver it. Just like, you have a "right to counsel," and Government has to employ lawyers who can be summoned. Otherwise, individual doctors could be compelled, against their will, to treat patients. Not good. And if Government starts to employ large numbers of doctors, then they will also have to own Med schools, hospitals, and so on. And if history is any guide, those doctors are going to be (a) mainly foreigners, and (b) not the best.

But Hillary-care saw this and provided for it. Doctors would be prohibited from refusing patients in the system, and also prohibited from providing higher-cost care to their patients who could afford to pay for the best. Sounds like slavery, doesn't it? America recoiled from the thought.

Obama-care was sold on a series of lies and designed to be so bad that after a few years experience, people would demand some form of socialized medicine. In baseball parlance, it is not the "closer," it is the setup man. You cannot force coverage for pre-existing conditions and remove lifetime caps without rates eventually skyrocketing - which is what we will see in 2016 and 2017. And the skyrocketing rates will impact the cheapest insurance, covering the people at the bottom of the pile. Rates will increase by 30-100% and people will demand relief, in the form of European/Canadian-style socialized medicine, funded by payroll deduction.

Mark my words.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The current "Obamacare" is 100% based upon the Republican alternative to "Hillarycare".

The rightwing Heritage Foundation came up with the current healthcare system and yes, they included the "mandate" of "forcing" people to buy into the system.

Obama, like Hilary, wanted a Single Payer system similar to Medicare.

When the current system collapses all that will be necessary is simply to remove the starting age from Medicare and America will have a national Single Payer system.

Yes, that will raise taxes but nowhere near as much as the current rightwing FOR PROFIT system is costing in premiums.

Once the profit overhead is eliminated the costs will be controlled the same way they are in the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Sonny Clark]

As you oldsters may recall, early on in President Clinton's tenure, FLOTUS embarked on a major project to craft a healthcare/health insurance programme that would seek to solve the intractable problems of (a) rapidly escalating healthcare costs, and (b) the growing population of un-insured.

She made a couple of tactical errors and the U.S. Public was not prepared to accept the realities that brought HRC's task force to its conclusions. Hillary-care crashed and burned. Violently.

Holding secret policy meetings with bigwigs from the healthcare industry was a bad idea. Taking over "one-seventh of the Economy" was an unpalatable concept. Forcing doctors to buy-in was unacceptable.

But she was definitely on the right track, as subsequent history demonstrates.

Many in the U.S. (mainly Democrats) look longingly at the relatively-successful socialized medicine systems that most westernized countries have, and wonder why we couldn't do the same things here. There are basically two valid reasons: (1) Our Constitution forbids it; and (2) our healthcare industry has grown and thrived on a certain set of rules (mainly profit-making rules), and it is not possible to force doctors and hospitals and labs and treatment facilities to change the business model on which they were created and have thrived.

Also, if you are going to say that healthcare is a "right" (assuming you can get past the Constitutionality hurdle), the Government must have the capability to deliver it. Just like, you have a "right to counsel," and Government has to employ lawyers who can be summoned. Otherwise, individual doctors could be compelled, against their will, to treat patients. Not good. And if Government starts to employ large numbers of doctors, then they will also have to own Med schools, hospitals, and so on. And if history is any guide, those doctors are going to be (a) mainly foreigners, and (b) not the best.

But Hillary-care saw this and provided for it. Doctors would be prohibited from refusing patients in the system, and also prohibited from providing higher-cost care to their patients who could afford to pay for the best. Sounds like slavery, doesn't it? America recoiled from the thought.

Obama-care was sold on a series of lies and designed to be so bad that after a few years experience, people would demand some form of socialized medicine. In baseball parlance, it is not the "closer," it is the setup man. You cannot force coverage for pre-existing conditions and remove lifetime caps without rates eventually skyrocketing - which is what we will see in 2016 and 2017. And the skyrocketing rates will impact the cheapest insurance, covering the people at the bottom of the pile. Rates will increase by 30-100% and people will demand relief, in the form of European/Canadian-style socialized medicine, funded by payroll deduction.

Mark my words.

How much does the health care industry spend to lobby Congress, finance campaigns, and otherwise influence laws and policy? What are the chances of real, true, and beneficial affordable health care? Are members of Congress bought and paid for?

 

[Derideo_Te]

As you oldsters may recall, early on in President Clinton's tenure, FLOTUS embarked on a major project to craft a healthcare/health insurance programme that would seek to solve the intractable problems of (a) rapidly escalating healthcare costs, and (b) the growing population of un-insured.

She made a couple of tactical errors and the U.S. Public was not prepared to accept the realities that brought HRC's task force to its conclusions. Hillary-care crashed and burned. Violently.

Holding secret policy meetings with bigwigs from the healthcare industry was a bad idea. Taking over "one-seventh of the Economy" was an unpalatable concept. Forcing doctors to buy-in was unacceptable.

But she was definitely on the right track, as subsequent history demonstrates.

Many in the U.S. (mainly Democrats) look longingly at the relatively-successful socialized medicine systems that most westernized countries have, and wonder why we couldn't do the same things here. There are basically two valid reasons: (1) Our Constitution forbids it; and (2) our healthcare industry has grown and thrived on a certain set of rules (mainly profit-making rules), and it is not possible to force doctors and hospitals and labs and treatment facilities to change the business model on which they were created and have thrived.

Also, if you are going to say that healthcare is a "right" (assuming you can get past the Constitutionality hurdle), the Government must have the capability to deliver it. Just like, you have a "right to counsel," and Government has to employ lawyers who can be summoned. Otherwise, individual doctors could be compelled, against their will, to treat patients. Not good. And if Government starts to employ large numbers of doctors, then they will also have to own Med schools, hospitals, and so on. And if history is any guide, those doctors are going to be (a) mainly foreigners, and (b) not the best.

But Hillary-care saw this and provided for it. Doctors would be prohibited from refusing patients in the system, and also prohibited from providing higher-cost care to their patients who could afford to pay for the best. Sounds like slavery, doesn't it? America recoiled from the thought.

Obama-care was sold on a series of lies and designed to be so bad that after a few years experience, people would demand some form of socialized medicine. In baseball parlance, it is not the "closer," it is the setup man. You cannot force coverage for pre-existing conditions and remove lifetime caps without rates eventually skyrocketing - which is what we will see in 2016 and 2017. And the skyrocketing rates will impact the cheapest insurance, covering the people at the bottom of the pile. Rates will increase by 30-100% and people will demand relief, in the form of European/Canadian-style socialized medicine, funded by payroll deduction.

Mark my words.

How much does the health care industry spend to lobby Congress, finance campaigns, and otherwise influence laws and policy? What are the chances of real, true, and beneficial affordable health care? Are members of Congress bought and paid for?

What are the odds that 1/7th of the economy doesn't lobby Congress, finance campaigns and influence laws and policy?

 

[Sonny Clark]

As you oldsters may recall, early on in President Clinton's tenure, FLOTUS embarked on a major project to craft a healthcare/health insurance programme that would seek to solve the intractable problems of (a) rapidly escalating healthcare costs, and (b) the growing population of un-insured.

She made a couple of tactical errors and the U.S. Public was not prepared to accept the realities that brought HRC's task force to its conclusions. Hillary-care crashed and burned. Violently.

Holding secret policy meetings with bigwigs from the healthcare industry was a bad idea. Taking over "one-seventh of the Economy" was an unpalatable concept. Forcing doctors to buy-in was unacceptable.

But she was definitely on the right track, as subsequent history demonstrates.

Many in the U.S. (mainly Democrats) look longingly at the relatively-successful socialized medicine systems that most westernized countries have, and wonder why we couldn't do the same things here. There are basically two valid reasons: (1) Our Constitution forbids it; and (2) our healthcare industry has grown and thrived on a certain set of rules (mainly profit-making rules), and it is not possible to force doctors and hospitals and labs and treatment facilities to change the business model on which they were created and have thrived.

Also, if you are going to say that healthcare is a "right" (assuming you can get past the Constitutionality hurdle), the Government must have the capability to deliver it. Just like, you have a "right to counsel," and Government has to employ lawyers who can be summoned. Otherwise, individual doctors could be compelled, against their will, to treat patients. Not good. And if Government starts to employ large numbers of doctors, then they will also have to own Med schools, hospitals, and so on. And if history is any guide, those doctors are going to be (a) mainly foreigners, and (b) not the best.

But Hillary-care saw this and provided for it. Doctors would be prohibited from refusing patients in the system, and also prohibited from providing higher-cost care to their patients who could afford to pay for the best. Sounds like slavery, doesn't it? America recoiled from the thought.

Obama-care was sold on a series of lies and designed to be so bad that after a few years experience, people would demand some form of socialized medicine. In baseball parlance, it is not the "closer," it is the setup man. You cannot force coverage for pre-existing conditions and remove lifetime caps without rates eventually skyrocketing - which is what we will see in 2016 and 2017. And the skyrocketing rates will impact the cheapest insurance, covering the people at the bottom of the pile. Rates will increase by 30-100% and people will demand relief, in the form of European/Canadian-style socialized medicine, funded by payroll deduction.

Mark my words.

How much does the health care industry spend to lobby Congress, finance campaigns, and otherwise influence laws and policy? What are the chances of real, true, and beneficial affordable health care? Are members of Congress bought and paid for?

What are the odds that 1/7th of the economy doesn't lobby Congress, finance campaigns and influence laws and policy?

Well, what are the odds? The economy is a mixture of business and the private sector. John Q. Public doesn't have the money to lobby Congress.

 

[WelfareQueen]

There is a two tier system is those countries with national healthcare. One for the haves....and one for the have nots.

I live amongst many Canadians and generally they say their system sucks.

Need a knee replacement? You're gonna wait 6-9 months. Need an MRI? Two months. The wealthier folks buy private insurance and get care when they need it. The rest are subject to Jim Crow substandard doctors, hospitals, and care.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Canada ranked last among OECD countries in health care wait times CTV News

The organization found that 42 per cent of Canadians agree that on the whole, their health care system works fairly well and only minor changes are needed, while in 2004, only 22 per cent felt the same way.

More than 60 per cent of Canadians also rate their health as very good or excellent.

Other findings include:

• Accessing medical care after hours without going to an emergency room is difficult for 62 per cent of Canadians
• Between two and 20 per cent of Canadian women have never had a Pap test, and up to 34 per cent of women have never been screened for breast cancer
• 61 per cent of Canadians do not get reminders when they are due for preventive care; the rate has gone unchanged since 2004
• 20 per cent of Canadians hospitalized overnight left without written instructions about what they should do and what symptoms to watch for at home

The authors of the report say the "big message" to take home is the lack of progress in many areas of the health care system across Canada.

"Although Canadians have more confidence in the health care system, access to care has not substantially improved and patients are not reporting that their care is better integrated or more patient-centred," the authors conclude.

The report, titled "Where You Live Matters: Canadian views on health care quality," compared findings among the 11 OECD countries that took part in the survey between March and June 2013.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Canada ranked last among OECD countries in health care wait times CTV News

The organization found that 42 per cent of Canadians agree that on the whole, their health care system works fairly well and only minor changes are needed, while in 2004, only 22 per cent felt the same way.

More than 60 per cent of Canadians also rate their health as very good or excellent.

Other findings include:

• Accessing medical care after hours without going to an emergency room is difficult for 62 per cent of Canadians
• Between two and 20 per cent of Canadian women have never had a Pap test, and up to 34 per cent of women have never been screened for breast cancer
• 61 per cent of Canadians do not get reminders when they are due for preventive care; the rate has gone unchanged since 2004
• 20 per cent of Canadians hospitalized overnight left without written instructions about what they should do and what symptoms to watch for at home

The authors of the report say the "big message" to take home is the lack of progress in many areas of the health care system across Canada.

"Although Canadians have more confidence in the health care system, access to care has not substantially improved and patients are not reporting that their care is better integrated or more patient-centred," the authors conclude.

The report, titled "Where You Live Matters: Canadian views on health care quality," compared findings among the 11 OECD countries that took part in the survey between March and June 2013.

So the above information is consistent with what Canadians have told me anecdotally.

The care is deeply rationed and generally substandard. It sucks.

Per Gallup 69% of Americans think their healthcare is excellent or good, only 60% of Canadians do per the link above.

The key quote from Gallup:


"69% of Americans rate their personal healthcare coverage as excellent or good."


Americans Views of Healthcare Quality Cost and Coverage

Socialized anything always sucks. Guaranteed. If Americans want free healthcare for the uninsured they must work for it imho. Clean highways or public parks, work in community centers. Something. As long as you are working, fine. Not working and able bodied....tough shit.

 

[chikenwing]

As you oldsters may recall, early on in President Clinton's tenure, FLOTUS embarked on a major project to craft a healthcare/health insurance programme that would seek to solve the intractable problems of (a) rapidly escalating healthcare costs, and (b) the growing population of un-insured.

She made a couple of tactical errors and the U.S. Public was not prepared to accept the realities that brought HRC's task force to its conclusions. Hillary-care crashed and burned. Violently.

Holding secret policy meetings with bigwigs from the healthcare industry was a bad idea. Taking over "one-seventh of the Economy" was an unpalatable concept. Forcing doctors to buy-in was unacceptable.

But she was definitely on the right track, as subsequent history demonstrates.

Many in the U.S. (mainly Democrats) look longingly at the relatively-successful socialized medicine systems that most westernized countries have, and wonder why we couldn't do the same things here. There are basically two valid reasons: (1) Our Constitution forbids it; and (2) our healthcare industry has grown and thrived on a certain set of rules (mainly profit-making rules), and it is not possible to force doctors and hospitals and labs and treatment facilities to change the business model on which they were created and have thrived.

Also, if you are going to say that healthcare is a "right" (assuming you can get past the Constitutionality hurdle), the Government must have the capability to deliver it. Just like, you have a "right to counsel," and Government has to employ lawyers who can be summoned. Otherwise, individual doctors could be compelled, against their will, to treat patients. Not good. And if Government starts to employ large numbers of doctors, then they will also have to own Med schools, hospitals, and so on. And if history is any guide, those doctors are going to be (a) mainly foreigners, and (b) not the best.

But Hillary-care saw this and provided for it. Doctors would be prohibited from refusing patients in the system, and also prohibited from providing higher-cost care to their patients who could afford to pay for the best. Sounds like slavery, doesn't it? America recoiled from the thought.

Obama-care was sold on a series of lies and designed to be so bad that after a few years experience, people would demand some form of socialized medicine. In baseball parlance, it is not the "closer," it is the setup man. You cannot force coverage for pre-existing conditions and remove lifetime caps without rates eventually skyrocketing - which is what we will see in 2016 and 2017. And the skyrocketing rates will impact the cheapest insurance, covering the people at the bottom of the pile. Rates will increase by 30-100% and people will demand relief, in the form of European/Canadian-style socialized medicine, funded by payroll deduction.

Mark my words.

How much does the health care industry spend to lobby Congress, finance campaigns, and otherwise influence laws and policy? What are the chances of real, true, and beneficial affordable health care? Are members of Congress bought and paid for?

What are the odds that 1/7th of the economy doesn't lobby Congress, finance campaigns and influence laws and policy?

Slim very slim

 

[pillars]

You should be careful about how you use the term thot.

Urban Dictionary Thot