Why we hate Hillary

[Merkinball]

Shady Lookin'.

Do you think that the government will be more efficient than insurance companies? What on earth makes you think that they are innefficient in the first place? And what makes you think that they are the main reason that healthcare is so expensive? I would fathom a guess that it has more to do with the Pharmecuetical industry, nefarious lawsuits, and doctors insurance more than anything.

 

[Shadylookin]

Shady Lookin'.

Do you think that the government will be more efficient than insurance companies? What on earth makes you think that they are innefficient in the first place? And what makes you think that they are the main reason that healthcare is so expensive? I would fathom a guess that it has more to do with the Pharmecuetical industry, nefarious lawsuits, and doctors insurance more than anything.

why I think it's inefficient? the fact that Americans pay 3 times more per capita for healthcare than any other western nation. Private insurance companies try to get out of paying for medical care whenever possible which leaves a mess for doctors and patients to have to sort through. My physician has to pay several staff members just to sort through all of the insurance hassles and paperwork.

I would love to be able to go to the doctor and just give them my social security number without having to fill out pages worth of forms everytime.

I think the government could create a more efficient system(since other countries have managed to pull it off)

 

[El_Machinae]

My physician has to pay several staff members just to sort through all of the insurance hassles and paperwork.

This is the most common complaint I've seen. As well, insurance agencies have to directly get their 20% ROI and can't get payment via feedback mechanisms

 

[Stewbert 08]

"We're going to take things away from you for the common good." -Hilary Clinton

Not a good statement coming from someone looking to be president of the United States.

Jesus Christ, they're like moths. Go back to the Let's Bomb Iran thread, we already took care of your quotemining.

She doesn't have any convictions, which goes hand in hand with the flip-flopper thing

Yup as said 1000 times in this thread.

It's on about the same level as Rudy "Join the GOP in hopes of a job" Giuliani and Mitt "Running for President? Time to become prolife!" Romney.

It's only in comparison to nonhypocritical candidates (like, you know, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Paul) that she looks hypocritical.

Obviously, if elected, she'll inherit all the wonderful bits of that "robust" executive from the current administration and I doubt she'll want to let that go.

Personally I can't WAIT for Michelle Malkin to be 'disappeared' under the Patriot Act.

Amadeus did dig up some quotes that hint that she'll have a hard time not using the expanded powers for her own agenda.

First of all, less "dug up" more "forwarded what Dick Morris sent him."

Second, less "that hint" more "completely slander".

The quotes as a whole are assembled to "hint" that Hillary will interfere in the free market in unprecedented, unpopular ways. The majority of the actual quotes, in context, have ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN NOTHING to do with "the free market."

The best example is "the free market has failed" where she was talking about how "churches, schools, government, and the free market" have failed to give young women good advice about whether or not to get an abortion.

Come ON.

I know that some people want to look "moderate" and thus will always try to split the balance between two opinions on any issue. And yknow what? That's why emails like these succeed. Because people always want to look like they believe "there may be a hint of truth here."

No. There isn't.

Even if those aren't accurate quotes, I have heard her hint at similar things in the past.

So it might be fake, but it's accurate?

she isn't proposing universal health care. she's proposing mandatory insurance laws and then subsidizing the poor's insurance bill. I think it's a terrible idea

It's an AWFUL IDEA.

And she's proposing it because she's the candidate the insurance companies have bought out.

There is not a goddamn spark of reform in her. If you want universal insurance, vote for a candidate who actually proposes it, like Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich.

Look, I don't have any special feelings for Amadeus

taptaptap

Do you think that the government will be more efficient than insurance companies?

Pop quiz:

1. For every dollar that goes to a Social Security recipient, how much does the SS program spend? (i.e. on bureaucracy, administration etc.)

2. Is there any private life insurance program with a similar efficiency rate?

 

[Merkinball]

Shadylookin, do you think anything would change? Do you think anything is different for Medicare and Medicaid recipients?

Our healthcare is expensive for a multitude of reasons, health insurnace companies being innefficient is not one of them.

 

[Stewbert 08]

This is so hilarious. I probably have more cause to hate Hillary Clinton - you know, on sane, reasonable grounds than anyone since Shane & the other liberals stopped posting on p.3.

Yet here I am defending her honor from people whose arguments are "She's a wimmin!" and/or "She's the secret reincarnation of Karl Marx."

This thread really shows why Hillary will never win the White House. At least half the people are strongly opposed to her on policy grounds, and the remainder of the country is bat-shiz insane.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Other than aneeshm, who isn't eligible to vote because he is, you know, a citizen of another country (right?), who has said that she is a bad choice because she is female?

 

[Integral]

she isn't proposing universal health care. she's proposing mandatory insurance laws and then subsidizing the poor's insurance bill. I think it's a terrible idea mainly because private insurance companies are vastly inefficient and the reason the average American pays 3 times more for healthcare than anywhere else in the world. I also have little doubt that the private insurance companies will raise prices when demand becomes artificially inflated to 100% of the population.

I personally believed the insurance system needs completely revamped not patched up as Clinton is pushing for. So I feel by taking the middle ground she's kicking her self in the rear because right-wingers spit venom at any proposal to provide subsidized healthcare and left-wingers won't like it because simply telling people to get health insurance is not a real solution.

I tried to be very specific in my langauge, since I know that universal health care != universal health insurance. Apparently, I slipped; my apologies. I am still unsure that universal health insurance is that cheap; although it would be cheaper than any universal health care plan. Perhaps I'm just pessimistic.

But I agree with you that the amount Americans pay for health care is ridiculous. Canada's per-capita universal health insurance spending is $2,700* per year; in America, it's $7,000 per year. There is no reason for that differential to exist, aside from a shoddy American system.

If the American system only cost $2,700 per person per year, that would add up to about $810 billion per year. Current government health spending is already $840 billion, so the "Canadian system" could cover all Americans and actually reduce government spending. That, of course, assumes that economies of scale don't kick in and cause costs to rise.** That's right: if the Canadian system is perfectly transferable, then universal health insurance would actually cause a reduction in government spending. That's having your cake and eating it too.***

And yes, just saying "You must have insurance!" is not a solution. They can't afford insurance. How is demanding that they get it going to work?****


-Integral


* Thanks to El_Machinae for the Canadian statistic.
** Not that I actually trust the American government to run anything efficiently. See: defense, education, medicare, social security, the Iraq war...
*** I've tried to be careful with my wording of "care" vs "insurance". If I haven't been, I apologise. Consider this a pre-emptive strike against my shoddy terminology.
**** I'm still not in any way, shape, or form endorsing any universal health care or universal health insurance plan that is run at the Federal level.

 

[Stewbert 08]

Other than aneeshm, who isn't eligible to vote because he is, you know, a citizen of another country (right?), who has said that she is a bad choice because she is female?

Quite a few people if you check out teh poll.

I was surprised too. I figured that (as with... you know... Obama being black) they'd try to figure out a less obviously :WTH: way to say it.

 

[Amin001]

I think I voted for six of them?

Yeah to put it simply, Im into liberty and video games, not a socialist nanny state.

Free Market for the win.

 

[Whomp]

It bugged me when we were told we were getting a 2:1 deal in 1992...a lot.

 

[Merkinball]

But what's going to be the real cost of that Integral?

Doctor drain? Loss of medicinal research? Pharmecuetical outsourcing? Wage stagnation for employees swallowed up into the system?

What happens to places like John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic?

 

[Ecofarm]

That's right. I'm still irritated at the previous president devaluing my American savings "for the common good". Plus taking away my Habeas Corpus "for the common good".

I wonder what she's referring to?

She was talking to a rich group of democrats about eliminating the Bush tax breaks.

Surprised? Neither was I.

 

[El_Machinae]

I meant "what is she taking away, and what is the goal of taking it away"?

But what's going to be the real cost of that Integral?

Doctor drain? Loss of medicinal research? Pharmecuetical outsourcing? Wage stagnation for employees swallowed up into the system?

What happens to places like John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic?

Isn't California going to be a micro-experiment?

 

[Integral]

But what's going to be the real cost of that Integral?

Doctor drain? Loss of medicinal research? Pharmecuetical outsourcing? Wage stagnation for employees swallowed up into the system?

What happens to places like John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic?

Once again, I have never endorsed a Federal-run health program for the United States.

I'm not nearly well-informed enough to make a strong stance either way, but I am currently quite opposed to a grand single-payer system a la Kucinich.

The cost-cutting motive only works if the gains are perfectly transferrable, and in all likelihood they are not. The American government has managed to screw up enough times that it's untrustworthy in large-scale matters such as these.

Isn't California going to be a micro-experiment?

There are several state-level universal insurance programs, IIRC. I'm not familiar with their implementation or results, though.

-Integral

 

[bigdog5994]

i dont like her because shes a freaking socialist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5BwfK2mcIo&mode=related&search=

how in the hell are you gonna take the profits away from a private business?

 

[Ecofarm]

She wants to take away the tax break (from those rich democrats she was talking to). The goal? More government revenue.

See what I mean about derangement?

There's plenty to hate about Hillary, but Mr. Froth-At-The-Mouth here thinks he has to make up crap?

As it turns out, "Mr. Froth-at-the-mouth" did not make things up. Go to the link provided in the quote. It has the context for all of those statements. You will not be suprised by any of the contexts - there is no misconstruing of her words and the context is exactly what each quote would imply.

 

[Elrohir]

Other than aneeshm, who isn't eligible to vote because he is, you know, a citizen of another country (right?), who has said that she is a bad choice because she is female?

I did, but I suppose that isn't very accurate - I don't think I would have a problem with a female president if her politics were the same as mine. It's just this female that irritates me.

 

[Integral]

She wants to take away the tax break (from those rich democrats she was talking to). The goal? More government revenue.

It won't bring in enough revenue to pay for half of what she's proposing.

Each 1% increase in income taxes on the top bracket of earners brings in $6 billion, and that's likely an overestimate. Her health-insurance package costs $110 billion (or is it $180 billion?). Just raising taxes on "the rich" ain't going to bring in that kind of dough. It'd require much more than that. Now, raising the income tax by 1% on all earners would bring in about $100 billion. But that's a general tax increase, not just on "the rich".

The $110 billion is 'cheap' when compared to overall spending, but when trying to actually raise the revenue it's quite expensive.

 

[The Yankee]

But what's going to be the real cost of that Integral?

Doctor drain? Loss of medicinal research? Pharmecuetical outsourcing? Wage stagnation for employees swallowed up into the system?

What happens to places like John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic?

I figure the Mayo Clinic would be more insulated from ill effects than your neighborhood hospital. I don't believe the Mayo takes in emergencies. I'm assuming subsidies for insurance (Billary's supposed plan, I think) would cover your basic patch-up work and nothing else. People go to the Mayo for more care....and they pay for it one way or another. That, plus its research division will keep it isolated from many of the effects of having to serve lower-class Joe Blow.

I suppose you could make the argument that there'd be a brain drain anyway, as doctors that might work their way up to the Mayo would have less of an incentive if they did indeed take in less, for whatever reason.

I suppose more effects would come in if this plan were calling for better than lowest standard insurance, but somehow I doubt that'd be the case. And I do doubt it'd only take $110 billion in subsidies to provide such insurance.

Will go reply to Stewbert later, just came across this one first.