November 13, 2006
Hillary's Dream Is All Wet
Just reading this Drudge-dredged story from Beitbart:
In her remarks, Clinton outlined a range of challenges she said Democrats would tackle in the coming months, such as trimming the federal deficit, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and improving the image of the United States abroad. [Say, reducing dependence on foreign oil: does that mean the Democrats now support drilling in ANWR and widespread construction of clean, safe, modern nuclear power plants?]
She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care -- a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.
"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."
(Wait for it...)
-- And a nightmare for America!
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 13, 2006, at the time of 11:29 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1478
The following hissed in response by: Smitty
Like we forgot her aborted attempt to do that back in 1993!
Some have maybe.
Oh Lord help us.
The above hissed in response by: Smitty at November 14, 2006 1:52 AM
The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin
"Health care is coming back."
Five words that could end her presidential ambitions. I hope.
The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin at November 14, 2006 4:23 AM
The following hissed in response by: Cowgirl
OK, let's review this.
Socialized health care has been an collosal failure in the UK, the EU, Canada, and everywhere else it has been instituted.
It further divides societies into classes, as those who can afford private health care choose not to wait months and years for the second-rate government provided services.
Canadians swarm into the US, rather than wait a very painful year for a root canal appointment.
It is glaringly obvious that the Democrats are so stuck on their socialist/communist agenda, that they will just keep on trying to force it on the American people.
We had better be just as tenacious in rejecting it....again.
The above hissed in response by: Cowgirl at November 14, 2006 6:09 AM
The following hissed in response by: Big D
The general problem (as I see it) is that there is no connection between use and payment. We all pay the lowest possible amounts to insurance companies, but expect in exchange unlimited care. Better yet, those who pay nothing are still mandated to receive care. On top of that add a tremendously complicated paper system, huge liability costs, and huge drug development costs.
But heck, it seems to be largely broken in every first world country. Socialized medicine certainly isn't the answer.
The heath care system in this country is clearly busted, but Hillary is possibly the least qualified person in this country to fix it.
The following hissed in response by: septagon
It is unconstitutional. The US Federal government is supposed to be one of delegated and enumerated powers. You will not find healthcare or insurance mentioned anywhere in the US constitution. This, of course, will not matter to Hillary Clinton. She will employ some tourtured logic based on the commerce clause or she will use a general welfare excuse for the legislation. Such an action would truly be an abrogation of her duty and an impeachable offense.
The following hissed in response by: RRRoark
I heard the Dhimmicretin candidate for lieutenant governor campaigning here in Atlanta, say that small employers couldn't buy health insurance and the dhimmicretins needed to help them. I am an insurance agent that specializes in entrepreneurial companies with less than 50 employees. I consider them small employers. Under current FEDERAL law, a group health insurance company is not allowed to refuse to offer coverage for employee groups from 2 to 50. The rate increase allowed for medical conditions existing in the group must be filed with the state insurance commissioner and the maximum ranges from 48% to 67% increases from the preferred rates here in Georgia. So just whom was he talking about? I don't think he knows other than it sounds good. Which I think is the actual condition of most people that blather about health insurance.
For example, I had a group of 35 that had three cases of HIV in the group. I was able to offer their group single rates from $175 per month to $320 per month. They chose the most expensive because they wanted the insurance company to pay the most. And no, there was no exclusion of coverage for the HIV positive members.
The other thing that is worth noting is most people have higher deductibles on their car insurance than they do on their medical insurance, because they do not buy car insurance to pay for their oil changes, but they do buy medical insurance so that they can pay $20 instead of $60, for a physician to say. "Why yes, you do have a cold, no, you don't need antibiotics unless it gets worse, because you'll heighten your resistance to the antibiotics.”
Another thing they need to consider is this new health plan is going to be brought to you by the same people that brought you Medicare and HMOs. Oh did you forget that the much maligned HMO was a creation of the government? You ain't seen nothing yet.
The above hissed in response by: RRRoark at November 14, 2006 12:10 PM
The following hissed in response by: nk
If I remember correctly, in 1993 she wanted "universal healthcare". I wonder if she has moderated her position and now wants it only for the people of Earth.
The above hissed in response by: nk at November 14, 2006 2:11 PM
The following hissed in response by: MarkD
I happened to recently go to the doctor for my "once every 5 years whether I need to or not" physical. Lab tests - list price $459. Price negotiated by my insurance company - $89.
There is NO WAY anybody should be charged five times what somebody else is for the same thing.
The problem, beyond the "insurance pays for everything" mentality, is that there is simply no way a consumer can compare prices.
I would like to see universal catastrophic coverage available, transparent pricing, and let the consumer pay the first few thousand anyway to keep the hypochondriacs away. Right now I coordinate benefits with 2 plans, help my uninsured son pay for his private insurance and wonder what I'm getting for the ungodly sums being spent on my behalf and by me.
We won't mention the whole business with uninsured and illegals and the hospital emergency rooms. It's bad, and going to get a lot worse, Hillarycare or not.
I suppose some politician could die from a disease for which the demon drug companies never developed a cure because the politicians took the money out of it. Imaginary, but amusing speculation.
Perhaps they think the government will save them.
The following hissed in response by: nk
I believe it was Medicare which shoved assignment down health providers' throats. They took it and said "thank you" because it (along with Medicaid) gave them at least a guaranteed baseline income which self-pays did not. Private health insurers jumped on Medicare's band wagon. There are still "boutique" health providers and "boutique" health insurers. I am told that members of Congress have the "boutiquest" of all (Blue Shield?) although I have not had the interest to investigate it?
The above hissed in response by: nk at November 14, 2006 4:25 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
No matter what the problem with health insurance is, the solution is never "have the government take it over!"
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at November 14, 2006 5:06 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved