Hillary Care round 2
 

The worlds smartest woman introduces a her "brilliant" new plan.

article on the plan

CLIFF NOTES: "solves" the heathcare "crisis" by forcing everyone to have insurance and expands medicare. cost = $110 billion per year


obv i think this idea sucks. I would like to hear what you guys think.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

OMG I'm still pissed I have to have car insurance. How the [censored] can the government require me to buy health insurance.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

A few highlights of the plan:

An "employer mandate" requiring employers with more than 10 employees to provide insurance

An "individual mandate" requiring people who aren't covered to buy health insurance

Subsidies for low income people to purchase insurance

Open Medicare and the insurance program for federal employees to the public, but not require people to participate in them

Forbid insurers from denying coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. (I'll bet they can still charge exorbitant rates though. The subsidies will have to be tailored for this.)

She tries to avoid some of the failures of her 1993 plan: no new agencies are created and she throws a sop to the insurance industry by throwing lots of new customers and federal money their way.

Personally, I'd like to kill off the insurance industry and switch to single-payer, but the plan is certainly better than the existing situation. Edwards and Obama have similar plans, except Obama does not have an individual mandate.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
An "employer mandate" requiring employers with more than 10 employees to provide insurance

[/ QUOTE ]

OK what if I want to work for someone who doesn't take money for insurance. Or if the plan my boss gets is crap now I loose money, my boss looses money, and I still need to buy insurance.

We have been over and over this idea. But I think it is obvious to most that the biggest problem with health insurance is tying it into your job rather than having real competition.

[ QUOTE ]
An "individual mandate" requiring people who aren't covered to buy health insurance

Subsidies for low income people to purchase insurance

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO .... force everyone to have a plan and then pay for it. Instant government bloat by mandate.

[ QUOTE ]
Open Medicare and the insurance program for federal employees to the public, but not require people to participate in them

[/ QUOTE ]


Fine ... If people want to buy into the federal system that is their own stupidity, just don't ask me to pay for them.

[ QUOTE ]
Forbid insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. (I'll bet they can still charge exorbitant rates though. The subsidies will have to be tailored for this.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fine as long as insurance is unlinked from your job. In a real competitive environment I can see several "high risk" agents dealing allot with pre-existing conditions.

By artificially reducing completion insurers just go for the easiest dollar and try to get only healthy people and find loopholes to ditch the unhealthy. Basically it goes like this , I work for a company w/ 10,000 employees the company has insurance w/ AFLAC. I have the fatal disease "iron81ism". AFLAC will just find a way to exclude Iron81ism because the company has to keep the other 9,999 covered. If all 10,000 of us could choose coverage you bet your ass I would be covered, or someone would cover me.

[ QUOTE ]
She tries to avoid some of the failures of her 1993 plan: no new agencies are created and she throws a sop to the insurance industry by throwing lots of new customers and federal money their way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant figure out any part of this that is not a power grab and a huge payoff to the insurance industry. The key here being that she tried this crap before and the insurance companies nearly buried her. This time she get her boated government and they get bloated bank accounts .. everyone's happy ... except us.


[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd like to kill off the insurance industry and switch to single-payer, but the plan is certainly better than the existing situation. Edwards and Obama have similar plans, except Obama does not have an individual mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way this plan is "better than the existing situation" is if you are Hillary

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

"It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs."

Yes, that's EXACTLY what socialized health care will provide!

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

Problem: People can't afford health insurance.

Solution: Force people to buy health insurance.

See how easy it is?

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

Here's a better plan :

Allow more medical schools to open so we can train more doctors, de-regulate the health care industry to open up competition, abolish the FDA so that we don't have beaurocrats arbitrarily limiting the supply of drugs...

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Problem: People can't afford health insurance.

Solution: Force people to buy health insurance.

See how easy it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've left out a pretty important aspect:

Problem: People can't afford health insurance.

Solution: Force people to buy subsidized health insurance with subsidies provided by those that can afford insurance.

Despite the 100% BS that this plan somehow helps "consumers", it really does help poor people in the very short term. Of course, it won't take very long for insurers to change higher and higher rates as the government keeps covering the cost - why wouldn't they? Then we'll need some MORE government regulation to stop the insurers from "gouging consumers". Then we'll need some MORE government regulation for the War on Black Market Insurance. In any event, it's nothing that can't all be fixed with an 85% marginal tax rate, so I'm sure it would work out fine in the end.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

Sorry, Good Call. That doesn't benifit the insurance companies OR Hillary. Better luck next time!

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

what's the penalty if you don't buy health insurance?

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
what's the penalty if you don't buy health insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]
Her reps say she doesn't know.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, it won't take very long for insurers to change higher and higher rates as the government keeps covering the cost - why wouldn't they?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the government won't want to pay it. The government buys services from companies all the time and particulary for the feds these contracts are competitively bid. In a competitive field like health insurance, the margins these companies make will be small.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
what's the penalty if you don't buy health insurance?


Her reps say she doesn't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

if there's no penalty then it's kinda not a law, it's more of an available social program, I don't have a problem with that. I mean I would rather have taxes wasted on social programs than on military systems/boondoggles like star wars.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because the government won't want to pay it. The government buys services from companies all the time and particulary for the feds these contracts are competitively bid.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL good one!!

how does that theory explain all the bridges to nowhere, $500 toilet seats, and $100 bolts the government buys? Congress spends money like Paris Hilton on crack.

Anyone who has ever worked around government contracts knows that they just become a big puzzle. You figure out which hoops to jump through to milk the most out of the government imbeciles.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the government won't want to pay it. The government buys services from companies all the time and particulary for the feds these contracts are competitively bid.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL good one!!

how does that theory explain all the bridges to nowhere, $500 toilet seats, and $100 bolts the government buys? Congress spends money like Paris Hilton on crack.

Anyone who has ever worked around government contracts knows that they just become a big puzzle. You figure out which hoops to jump through to milk the most out of the government imbeciles.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because a tiny fraction of government spending is represented by the scandals you're talking about. They're in the news precisely because they are so unusual.

I have worked around government contracts from both sides. There is plenty of competition for contracts and the contracts are tightly worded to ensure quality delivery at a reasonable price. The contracting process is one of the things the American government is good at.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
The contracting process is one of the things the American government is good at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, figuring out what things to buy using that "tight" contract process is not one of the things the american government (or any other one) is good at.

Getting the best durn deal ever on a purple monkey dishwasher isn't as important as deciding not to buy a purple monkey dishwasher in the first place.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because a tiny fraction of government spending is represented by the scandals you're talking about. They're in the news precisely because they are so unusual

[/ QUOTE ]


I challenge you to find me one single government program without extravagant waste. These types of waste are S.O.P. for the government.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

CBO Report (PDF, Page 2)

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>. Annual Admin Cost % Reduction in assets
Social Security: $11/participant 2
TSP (Govt 401k): $25/participant 5
Mutual Funds: 1.09% of assets 23
Private Defined $24-$103 + 0-1% of assets 9-30
Contribution</pre><hr />

The government completely owns the private sector in terms of efficiency for retirement funds.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

I'm not sure that comparison is at all valid because:

1. The government gets to leverage off of the admin that's already been done in other government filings.

2. Directly comparing the administrative rates assumes administrative services are of equal quality. It's like saying McDonald's delivers beef food more efficiently than Morton's because it costs less.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

Comparing SS to a mutual fund is just silly. The gov't doesn't invest SS money in anything.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
what's the penalty if you don't buy health insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shrill and Billary are your house guests until you do.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shrill and Billary are your house guests until you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

like they live/sleep in the same house lol.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that comparison is at all valid because:

1. The government gets to leverage off of the admin that's already been done in other government filings.

2. Directly comparing the administrative rates assumes administrative services are of equal quality. It's like saying McDonald's delivers beef food more efficiently than Morton's because it costs less.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL fuzzy math FTW!

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
CBO Report (PDF, Page 2)

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>. Annual Admin Cost % Reduction in assets
Social Security: $11/participant 2
TSP (Govt 401k): $25/participant 5
Mutual Funds: 1.09% of assets 23
Private Defined $24-$103 + 0-1% of assets 9-30
Contribution</pre><hr />

The government completely owns the private sector in terms of efficiency for retirement funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one thing almost everyone that pays taxes is aware of and that is that government is uber effecient in collecting them. The easier the tax is to collect, the more effeciency the government has. Not to hard for the government to collect taxes from w-2 workers.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
CBO Report (PDF, Page 2)

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>. Annual Admin Cost % Reduction in assets
Social Security: $11/participant 2
TSP (Govt 401k): $25/participant 5
Mutual Funds: 1.09% of assets 23
Private Defined $24-$103 + 0-1% of assets 9-30
Contribution</pre><hr />

The government completely owns the private sector in terms of efficiency for retirement funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not apples to apples comparisons. Social Security does individual contribution record keeping, periodic benefit estimates, a final retirement determination, and annual cost of living increases. Other than gathering the contribution information there are maybe a dozen "touches" preretirement, and one a year post retirement, for a total of 30 or so over a persons lifetime, call it 40 years.

The Govt 401(k) costs are in line with but a little cheaper than private Defined Contribution, and while I dont know anything about the govt 401(k) my guess is that it has fewer investment options than the private DC plan, and lower administrative costs in terms of annual compliance. Also included in that private DC cost is investment advice, which may not be included in the govt number.

The mutual fund comparison is totally irrelevant, they are totally different animals.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

you guys realize social security has a negative rate of return, right? that don't seem too efficient to me.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
what's the penalty if you don't buy health insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the new Massachusetts individual healthcare mandate, the penalty is loss of your individual deduction on your state income tax, or about $80-90 a month.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary's "plan" is obviously a nightmare for a multitude of reasons, but the preceding isn't one of them. The "fast food eating fatasses" actually reduce health care costs, since those people tend to die young and quickly due to cardiovascular disease.

I don't recall the exact statistic, but a large proportion of the average person's health care costs over a lifetime are incurred during the last few years, usually due to various degenerative conditions. Those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle, on average, don't as often enter that phase of life, and thus they end up costing less. You can't incur health care costs if you are dead.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary's "plan" is obviously a nightmare for a multitude of reasons, but the preceding isn't one of them. The "fast food eating fatasses" actually reduce health care costs, since those people tend to die young and quickly due to cardiovascular disease.

I don't recall the exact statistic, but a large proportion of the average person's health care costs over a lifetime are incurred during the last few years, usually due to various degenerative conditions. Those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle, on average, don't as often enter that phase of life, and thus they end up costing less. You can't incur health care costs if you are dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree with this. It is definitely 100% true that most health care costs occur right at the end of life. I am not sure that:

- When that end of life occurs matters; i.e. I'm not sure there's an "early death discount" for people who voluntarily life an unhealthy lifestyle
- That the cost at death is not related to the lifestyle of the person.

In order for your assertion to be true, unhealthy people have to somehow have "cheaper deaths" than healthy people. It's not at all obvious that that's true.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
you guys realize social security has a negative rate of return, right? that don't seem too efficient to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, ask the family of the guy who dies a week before collecting Soc Sec what his rate of return was.... this fact alone is a great arguement for privatization.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary's "plan" is obviously a nightmare for a multitude of reasons, but the preceding isn't one of them. The "fast food eating fatasses" actually reduce health care costs, since those people tend to die young and quickly due to cardiovascular disease.

I don't recall the exact statistic, but a large proportion of the average person's health care costs over a lifetime are incurred during the last few years, usually due to various degenerative conditions. Those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle, on average, don't as often enter that phase of life, and thus they end up costing less. You can't incur health care costs if you are dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree with this. It is definitely 100% true that most health care costs occur right at the end of life. I am not sure that:

- When that end of life occurs matters; i.e. I'm not sure there's an "early death discount" for people who voluntarily life an unhealthy lifestyle
- That the cost at death is not related to the lifestyle of the person.

In order for your assertion to be true, unhealthy people have to somehow have "cheaper deaths" than healthy people. It's not at all obvious that that's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and when a 75 year old enters "the end of life" phase, there is absolutely no way he is going to live for another 30 years. When a 50 year old enters "the end of life" its at least possible that he will. So even if these younger people die more quickly than the older people, these rare outliers who spend 30+ years in this phase are going to have an impact.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary's "plan" is obviously a nightmare for a multitude of reasons, but the preceding isn't one of them. The "fast food eating fatasses" actually reduce health care costs, since those people tend to die young and quickly due to cardiovascular disease.

I don't recall the exact statistic, but a large proportion of the average person's health care costs over a lifetime are incurred during the last few years, usually due to various degenerative conditions. Those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle, on average, don't as often enter that phase of life, and thus they end up costing less. You can't incur health care costs if you are dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree with this. It is definitely 100% true that most health care costs occur right at the end of life. I am not sure that:

- When that end of life occurs matters; i.e. I'm not sure there's an "early death discount" for people who voluntarily life an unhealthy lifestyle
- That the cost at death is not related to the lifestyle of the person.

In order for your assertion to be true, unhealthy people have to somehow have "cheaper deaths" than healthy people. It's not at all obvious that that's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet it's a safe assumption that more than a few dollars are spent trying to save the life of the "fatass" via some surgery or other. It's possible that they may not be on life support as long, but they may undergo more invasive surgeries, which are costly, I might add, that the elderly couldn't undergo, given their frail state.

I'd like to add that, while I was excited to hear Hillary was interested in a form of Universal Health Care again, this plan of hers just sounds like a bloody trainwreck! I mean, can she just stop trying to please everybody all the time? Just for a second? (I'm flashing back to her in Alabama trying to talk like a black.. man? Woman? I'm not even sure what that was)

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I'd like to kill off the insurance industry and switch to single-payer

[/ QUOTE ]

Millions of people, like myself, voluntarily choose to buy the services of health insurers and are very happy to do so. You want to "kill off" these companies somehow (I assume by legislating them away ie. outlawing them)?

Why would you want to do this and why do you think it is an acceptable intrusion into my free choices?

natedogg

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Forbid insurers from denying coverage for pre-exisiting conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The level of stupidity it must require to make these kinds of suggestions (or support them) is astounding.

I would LOVE to be able to buy fire insurance AFTER my house burns down but guess what, that's not what insurance means.

If YOU were in business selling fire insurance to homeowners and suddenly there was a law forcing you to provide "insurance" to homeowners who houses had already burned down, would you:

1. Stay in business for a few more months unti you run out of money
2. Change your line of work


Of course, what's brilliant about Hillary's plan is that it is explicitly designed to destroy the industry. This will allow congress/Hillary to claim that "the free market is failing us" and then government can step in completely to fix the problem. As always.
natedogg

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

How do other countries handle this? Does Japan and France
require citizens to buy health insurance?

Why does healthcare = health insurance?

It's unfair to healthy people. Do healthy people get
a price break?