How Hillary will pay for her universal healthcare plan

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by rpm
I'm sorry, could someone remind me how much money we had when Bush came into office and how much we have now? While you're at it please explain how it's the Democrats fault we're broke?

I have'nt read any good fiction in a while. This could be interesting.

No but I could remind you that we were already in a recession that started while the Democrats were still in office.
And that the surplus was only a projected surplus.

Im not broke. im not rolling in dough. but Im not broke either.
actually Im duing better now then I did during the Clinton reign.
But not nearly as well as I did during the Regan reign.

ahhh those were the days.

I was able to walk into almost any store. Point at an item and say "mine" and pay cash money for it.
I used to actually pay to have my laundry done. Im not talking having suits dry cleaned. I dont and wont wear a suit.
Im talking everyday jeans T-shirts and underware.
Used to get them washed and folded for $25 a week.

Yup was great while it lasted.
but then the thing happened to the economy that always happens reguardless of the political party in power after a great rise in the economy.

It deflated.
Late 80s Started a stint lasting 10 years in a "job" I loathed
Durng the runaway economy of the mid to late 90s I did ok
 but nowhere near what it was for me in the 80's. But Managed to take advantage of the poor economy in the early 90s to buy our house
Late 90s went back into my own business
a good first  1/2 year in business
 But things started to go downhill during Clintons last year and a half. and you could almost feel disaster was on the horizon even though the markets didnt show it yet.

Managed to stay afloat in it. and aside from a couple of rough winters during the 2000's I've done pretty good

[DiabloTX]

This is the closest that I've found:

"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

[Yeager]

hillary is a liar and a thief who wants to impose socialist medicine on every American and garnish the wages of any American who attempts to opt out of her mandatory welfare state.  She is dangerous and needs to be defeated no matter what.

osama is dangerous too, but he is like a snake out in the open.  easy to spot.  hillary is the cunning one. watch out for her.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Bronk
Yup R.I. is an excellent example of this. don't believe it, just look it up.

Look up NJ for example for that matter.
Dispite being the highest taxed state in the US
the State is $3 Billion Dollars in debt.

Oh and I forgot to mention we have legalised gambling in NJ

Which makes us the only state in the nation that has legalised gambling running a deficit.

And it aint looking to get better.
The Democrates of course will blame the Whitman administration.
and to a certain point they would be right.
But.
the Democrates have now had control of the state pretty much lock Stock & barrel for 6 years now
Taxes have gone up. But the debt hasnt gone down

[DREDIOCK]

BTW
According to a graph someone posted in one of the other threads.

Health care related costs already make up 24% of the US annual budget.
That is the single largest portion of the budget.

And Hillary wants to make it even larger?

Dispite a Democratically controlled congress.( they cant properly manage the money they have now. and they want to add to it?

Now before anyone screams "Republican budget under Boosh"
Last time I checked. congress still had to approve the budget

So he aint doing it all by himself

[Charge]

There was a strange passage in this series of vids about the legislated need to pay taxes... part two of five.  

Is this really true or some strange fabrication?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

-C+

[lazs2]

See Rules #4, #5

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by lazs2
Defense is what it is..  the reality is that we need it.  it is number one.. it protects our human rights.   having other people pay for your health care and forcing doctors to do it... is not a "right".

If we want lower taxes we need to cut social spending not raise it.. defense will go up and down depending on the world but at least.. there is some profit in it.. we are after all.. the wolds biggest arms dealer... people make things for defense..  social welfare creates do nothing jobs and more missery...  social welfare creates poverty and dependence and semi billingual idiots.   It creates drug addicts and broken homes.

You know what, health and medical industry is worth $3 trillion annually, worldwide.  That's roughly 3 times more than $s spend for defense. In most cases, it is also more profitable.
Domestically, ratio is only 2 to 1. Even if you don't adjust that with the rest of the world, you could just cap the profit to certain percentage (much like for defense industry deals with DoD). That in itself would lower the costs of medicaid and medicare programs for about $150 billion annually.

If you would break the pharma cartel and open up the market, which is (domestic figure) worth $200 billion annually (not including drugs sold in hospitals etc), you'd save another $50-60 billion per year.

It would be very easy to balance the budget if we stop corporate welfare programs and invest in people instead.

[TwentyFo]

See Rules #4, #5

[sluggish]

See Rule #2

[moot]

See Rule #4

[TwentyFo]

See Rule #2

[TwentyFo]

See Rule #2

[sluggish]

See Rule #2

[indy007]

Why "universal health-care" is a lie, and stupid idea to begin with.

One week ago, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "universal" health-care plan was shot down by a committee in the state's Senate, 7-1. The most vociferous opponents were not fiscal conservatives, but labor unions that launched a last-minute revolt against its most crucial feature: an individual mandate that would have forced everyone to buy coverage.

This defeat has national political implications. Hillary Clinton, for example, has denounced Barack Obama for refusing to include an individual mandate in his health-care plan. Yet many California unions argued that a mandate would force uninsured, middle-income working families to divert money from more pressing needs toward coverage whose price and quality they cannot control.

The unions are correct: This is exactly what is happening in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney enacted a similar plan two years ago as governor. (And Mr. Romney's plan is the inspiration for both the Schwarzenegger and Clinton plans.) The experience in the Bay State deserves a lot more scrutiny than it has been getting.

Massachusetts uses a sliding income scale to subsidize coverage for everyone up to 300 percent of the poverty level—or a family of four making around $60,000. Everyone over that limit is required to pay for their own coverage if their employers don't provide it. All this has inflated demand, which, combined with onerous regulations on insurance suppliers, has triggered premium increases of 12 percent for this year—double last year's national average.

No one is escaping the financial sting. The state health-care bill for fiscal 2008-2009 is expected to be $400 million more than originally projected—an 85 percent increase. Still the state won't be able to full shield those it subsidizes from the premium increases. But uninsured folks who don't qualify for government help really get pounded. Before the hike, the cheapest plan for uninsured couples in their 50s cost $8,200 annually. Now, unless government bureaucrats hand them an exemption, they might well find it cheaper to pay the penalty—up to half the price of a standard policy—than purchase insurance. That is, pay to remain uninsured. This is legalized extortion: TonySopranoCare.

The government response to rising premiums is, unsurprisingly, price controls. The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority—the bureaucracy created to oversee RomneyCare—is considering prohibiting underwriters from raising premiums more than 5 percent for unsubsidized plans, meanwhile requiring them to cover 40-odd benefits from hair prostheses to chiropractic services. If companies can't scale back coverage, they'll have to compromise care; and the Connector is perfectly willing to assist.

As reported in the Boston Globe, the Connector is encouraging insurance companies to include only a limited network of cheaper physicians and facilities in some plans to hold down premiums. Patients who wish to see more expensive providers will have to dig into their own pockets. Dr. Steffie Wollhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, worries that the Connector will revive Gov.
Romney's original idea of enrolling poor people in plans that only offer access to neighborhood health centers ill-equipped to treat anything beyond routine ailments. Forcing people to buy substandard care they cannot afford is not universal care, she says. "It is a hoax." And so Massachusetts is marching toward a system of two-tiered medicine—the alleged market inequity that universal care is supposed to cure.

How about enforcing the mandate? In Massachusetts, non-compliers lose their personal tax exemption—about $220—the first year, followed by fines in subsequent years.California was planning to garnish the wages or impose liens on the mortgages of the uninsured to pay for coverage. "This bill was like telling someone who is in need of help, 'I'm going to give you food, but I'm going to take away your clothes," Leland Yee, a Democratic senator from San Francisco, told the California Chronicle.

The problems with RomneyCare have prompted Mr. Romney himself to abandon it. And Mr. Obama is surely correct that part of the reason 45 million Americans are uninsured is not that no one is forcing them to buy it, but that they can't afford it. It may be too much to hope that Mr. Obama would embrace market-oriented measures—such as deregulating insurance markets, giving patients more control over their health care dollars, and fixing the federal tax code to let individuals, like employers, buy health coverage with pre-tax dollars—to bring down insurance costs. But unlike Mrs. Clinton, he at least seems to understand the perverse side effects of an individual mandate.

Should Hillary Clinton ever be in a position to bully people into buying coverage, a coalition of labor and fiscal conservatives might well do to HillaryCare what it just did to GovernatorCare.