Posted on 09/18/2007 2:33:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“Hillary Care will cost 1.26 Trillion!”
Perhaps not, since you won’t get access to many procedures our insurance covers now. And, most likely, if you’ve done things that Hillary deems to be unhealthy, like eat beef, carry a couple of extra pounds, etc., you will not get treatment because you failed to perform your societal duty to be healthy. Then when you’re old, you’ll just have a duty to die for the good of the country, so they won’t cover any procedures or treatments for the elderly.
Key words here are "at this point".
After the election will be a completely different point.
Yeah, it’s a stretch, but it does express the feelings of the poster who said that, doesn’t it?
He has not made that claim himself, not exactly, but it comes up on Romney threads here. Staunch Mitt supporters don’t see it as “mandatory”, but rather “market based” instead. The Heritage Foundation white paper describes the theory behind Romneycare as being market based.
No. It won't cost us anything. And healthcare will become perfect. Read the NYT and listen to ABCCBSNBCCNN.
In reality, she will buy the insurance for poor folks (read medicare and medicaid) and will probably set things up so that middle class and rich folks must go seriously out of pocket to afford plans that are inferior to what they have now. Either that or massive tax increases. There will probably be some attempt to hide the costs by putting the expense on employers. But the details about how she is going to pay for it won't be revealed until after she is president. They will be most unpleasant.
Almost certainly, she will completely centralize control over medical decisions into the federal government. So your knee replacement will wait upon the whims of some minority lesbian bureaucrat in the ministry of health. If that isn't in the initial plan, it will proceed inexorably there as the left struggles to fix a system that will never work and blames everyone but their beloved federal government.
Unless of course, you are poor or a minority.
So you're not planning on reaching age 65 I take it?
lovely
What does that have to do with anything? If I'm a healthy 65, then why waste money on something I don't need? If my needs are narrow (say I need prostate medicine, but everything else is fine), why spend money on a Big Plan when it will never get used. Throughout my working life, I have variously accepted and rejected medical plans. The only one I use regularly was eyecare, to get a new pair of glasses every few years. Anything else was a waste.
Socialists accomplish their goals through incrementalism, and IMO, Medicare has paved the way for the acceptance of Hillarycare. What most people don't understand is that the only reason Medicare hasn't totally imploded long ago is that private carriers have been picking up the slack created by the low reimbursement levels associated with Medicare and Medicaid
If the hospital I work for could dump our healthcare benefit and let us buy our own they would. This plan of hers sucks.
Strictly speaking, both can be true; the term "market based" simply accentuates the positive, i.e., the extent to which the plan respects free-market principles, rather than the extent to which it violates those principles.
A Massachusetts insurance commission sets minimum rates and minimum coverage for the insurance providers (not the insurance companies, the rules come from the state).
Then, everyone must sign up or they will charge you through your taxes.
If it were market based, there would be no rate setting, the insurance providers would compete for your business, and the deals would be so good you’d sign up.
Health insurance rates in MA are going up between 8 and 12% for the next fiscal year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.