Clinton Outlines Legislative Priorities: Hillarycare Back On Table

[BoogyMan]

SOURCE: Link Here (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/13/D8LCB6GO0.html)

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday outlined an ambitious agenda of legislative priorities while continuing to deflect questions about her presumed presidential ambitions.
"I will look at the possibilities, but I ... haven't really had the time to talk to people about it," Clinton told a breakfast gathering hosted by the Association for a Better New York. "It's been a busy election season that worked out well, so I will think about it. I'm open to thoughts."

Clinton was returning to Washington on Monday to participate in a lame-duck session of Congress in which lawmakers will tackle several pieces of unfinished business before ceding control of both the Senate and House to Democrats early next year.

But the New York senator was clearly looking ahead to the next Congress, which she, like other Democrats, has vowed will operate on a more bipartisan basis than it had under Republican control.

"We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with our Republican counterparts. Our country works best when we govern from the vital, dynamic center," she said.

Since cruising to re-election last week against a weak Republican challenger, Clinton has parried repeated questions about her political future. While she hasn't disclosed her plans, polls show her the clear front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, with a national infrastructure of strategists and advisers and at least $10 million in her campaign account.

"Before, I didn't have time to think _ I was too focused on what I was doing," she later told reporters. "I'm thrilled by the results, and now I'll have some time to think."

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.

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."

[Buck Laser]

"Hillary Care," huh? I have to say you certainly have a nice unbiased way of approaching the issue. Once again, I think your actual approach completely falsfies the Buckley quote you use to attack us poor liberals.;)

[sbannon]

BoogyMan, I'm just curious why your thread focused on the one thing I assume you oppose--though we have absolutely no idea what it might actually be or encompass at this point--and not these items of importance Hillary outlined:

1) Returning to fiscal conservatism and paying our bills
2) Reducing dependence on foreign oil
3) Improving the image of the United States abroad

[ECW]

4) Six years with no plan to help those Americans with no health insurance.

Now, someone comes along to do something about it and all the rightwingers whine and bitch. What's your plan? How are you going to provide health care for those people who have none? You had SIX YEARS to deal with the problem and you did nothing. All that screaming before the elections about "Democrats have no plan" seems to have gone out the window when it is crystal clear that it is the Republicans who lack the plan. Wait, the GOP does have a plan. I'm sorry. I forgot...

The Republican Health Care Plan
Say NO to everything the Democrats propose.

[BoogyMan]

"Hillary Care," huh?Â*Â*I have to say you certainly have a nice unbiased way of approaching the issue.Â*Â*Once again, I think your actual approach completely falsfies the Buckley quote you use to attack us poor liberals.;)


Buck, did I post any commentary? No, I created a thread to spur discussion.

Poor liberals? Thats pretty funny.

[BoogyMan]

BoogyMan, I'm just curious why your thread focused on the one thing I assume you oppose--though we have absolutely no idea what it might actually be or encompass at this point--and not these items of importance Hillary outlined:

1) Returning to fiscal conservatism and paying our bills
2) Reducing dependence on foreign oil
3) Improving the image of the United States abroad


Hi Scott,

I am opposed to governmentally provided health care. The government simply has no place in providing health care. I actually, as I previously stated, posted this thread to get some discussion started.

I welcome handily the idea of a return to fiscal conservatism as I truly think we have been spending out of control like a drunken sailor. As a matter of fact items 1 through 3 of your list are high on my "atta boy, go get em" list.

[ECW]

I am opposed to governmentally provided health care.Â*Â*The government simply has no place in providing health care.Â*Â*

I got two words for ya (two words that scare the crap out of every private insurer who is making tons of money off of sick people):

Medicare Medicaid

Most two most efficient government programs and you don't like them?

Where's the Republican plan? (It's called "Don't Get Sick.")

[Labrocca]

I am for a national health care system. The only reason we don't is because of the health industry lobbyists. Most Americans want health care to be affordable and it's simply NOT. The current system of insurance is a freaking joke. Only the wealthiest are able to get solid coverage.

Looks like we may have a new hot button issue. To me this is 10 times more important than immigration.

[ECW]

I am for a national health care system.Â*Â* The only reason we don't is because of the health industry lobbyists. Most Americans want health care to be affordable and it's simply NOT.Â*Â*The current system of insurance is a freaking joke.Â*Â*Only the wealthiest are able to get solid coverage.

Looks like we may have a new hot button issue.Â*Â*To me this is 10 times more important than immigration.


This may be the only time you will ever see this from me concerning an opinion of yours Labrocca: I agree 100%.

Insurance companies have so much to gain from this but they are a greedy bunch. They have it real good now and they don't want to have to pay out for the old, the truly sick and the disabled. It's gonna have to be jammed down their throats the same way voting rights laws were jammed down the throats of segregationists. This will not be pretty but it is necessary.

[Mayberry]

I agree we just need to get the lobbyists the hell out of Washington, but disagree completely with a national healthcare system. Ever been to a military doctor? I have. There was nothing wrong with American healthcare 30 years ago, it's just been bastardized by special interests. Government does NOT have any business getting into healthcare, they just need to fix the corrupt system that is currently in place. Personally, I don't want some mediocre government doc. I like my doctor. I like to CHOOSE my doctor. I like to CHOOSE my hospital. Think you'll be able to choose anything with socialized medicine? I doubt it. Medicare Medicaid

Most two most efficient government programs and you don't like them?
Are you serious? Those two abominations need to be deep-sixed ASAP!

[ECW]

And replaced with what?

We did this once before. People were in county tax supported Poor Houses. People died in destitution, alone because they could not afford medicine, health care, or the basic neccesities of life. That's what you want to go back to?

HMOs spend 20% of what they bring in on overhead. Medicare and Medicaid spend 2% on overhead. Keep your doctor. Spend your money on your health care. But what about those who work full time and have no health care? What about those folks? Should they sign up for the Chimpy "Don't Get Sick" health plan? What is your solution?

That's the problem with the Naysayers: all they can do is say NO. They don't have a plan to cover the ever increasing numbers of people without health care. Time to put up or shut up. Whip it on me: I'm listening.

[Mayberry]

But what about those who work full time and have no health care? What about those folks? Find a job that does provide health care. Don't go to the emergency room for every sniffle. Scrutinize your medical bills. I get mine reduced by refusing to pay $5 for a bandaid. Medical costs will come down if people would do these things. They would also come down if hospitals didn't have to eat bills for illegals and bums. Removing the government from medicine would reduce costs the most, and make health care affordable for everyone again. Lastly is capping lawsuit settlements nationwide as we have here in Texas to reduce the amount of junk lawsuits that drive up medical costs. Essentially we need to turn the clock back 30 years to the way it was then. Affordable. Consider yourself whipped.

[ECW]

With fewer than half the full time jobs providing health care and none of the part time ones, telling people to find a job that does have health care is ludicrous. Do you actually think that people don't want health care for themselves or their families?

Medical bills? Those are for people with health care. We're talking about people WITHOUT health care. They go to the emergency room not because they have the sniffles but because they have been sick for weeks and they hope that it will go away so they can keep working because they are in jobs that don't give paid time off to go to the doctor because THEY DON'T provide health care.

Medical costs would come down if low cost health care was provided for everyone thru a regulated program. Allow those that want more extensive care to pay extra for it but provide basic care for all. You won't have no-pays at the ER anymore. You'll have people going to the clinic when they are sick and getting treated instead of waiting until their illness costs thousands to treat instead of hundreds of dollars.

Allowing the private sector to run health care exclusively will just gouge the consumers just like they are being gouged now. With overheads running at 20% instead of the 2% that Medicare runs ought to show you that private care is run by the bean counters who only care about making money, not healing people.

Yep. We capped lawsuits here in Texas but it didn't change things one bit. Costs did not go down like the backers of that plan promised. All it did is let the people who made egregious mistakes and ruined people's lives to get off the hook from paying for it. It is a pass for the incompetents and malpracticed and the GOP led state legislature let them get away with it. Proof you say? Here (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/13/13winslow_edit.html) and here (http://www.texaswatch.org/media/wp060606.htm) and here. (http://www.texaswatch.org/media/hced052206.htm)

Among the Developed Countries of the world, only the US has no health care plan for it's people. If you cannot afford it or cannot find a job that offers it, you are no better off than a person in the third world. That may be your idea of how America ought to be but it is not mine. Consider yourself thumped.

[Mayberry]

With fewer than half the full time jobs providing health I don't buy that number. Large companies all provide health coverage for full timers, and so do a lot of small ones. It may not be great coverage, but it is something. They go to the emergency room not because they have the sniffles but because they have been sick for weeks I've been in the emergency room before, and I know quite a few nurses. They all say the same thing, that people without insurance use the er as a doctor's office, and come in with colds, flu, small cuts, sprains... all things you can take care of yourself at home. Medical costs would come down if low cost health care was provided for everyone thru a regulated program. I doubt it. I do know that quality of care will come down. I was in the military and have seen first hand how government run medicine works. No thanks. Allowing the private sector to run health care exclusively will just gouge the consumers just like they are being gouged now. The private sector ran health care just fine until recently. Increasing government regs and an ignorant population are what has driven up costs in the last 20 years. Proof you say? Here and here and here.
2 editorials and a "study" are not proof of anything. If you cannot afford it or cannot find a job that offers it, you are no better off than a person in the third world. The things in life you need are readily available, you just have to get off your ass and go get them. If you don't like your job, find a new one. If they don't provide coverage, find one that does. If you can't get a job, educate yourself for a better career. The only person with the responsibility of taking care of you is YOU. I am not willing to pay for everyone else's medical bills. If you would like to start a private charity to pay for people's medical care, be my guest. But the already overburdened taxpayers should not have to foot that bill too. Maybe you should move to one of those socialist countries with "free" health care if you don't like it here. Consider yourself thumped. I think not.

[lily]

Mayberry

I don't buy that number. Large companies all provide health coverage for full timers, and so do a lot of small ones. It may not be great coverage, but it is something.

Other than union run, most places don't entirely pay for decent health care. Non-union will play with the worker and give him just less of full time status, just so they don't have to pay for insurance. Smaller companies paying less will offer insurance, but the amount paid out of your small paycheck is a sizeable chunk. People working in that pay grade, simply can't afford it. HMO's when first started was the best thing since sliced bread. Now they are just paper pushers, deciding on what they will pay and how much it's worth.......or if you're worth the test.

I've been in the emergency room before, and I know quite a few nurses. They all say the same thing, that people without insurance use the er as a doctor's office, and come in with colds, flu, small cuts, sprains... all things you can take care of yourself at home.

......and Medicade or some type of universal health care would free up the emergency rooms. They could go to their own doctors.


The things in life you need are readily available, you just have to get off your ass and go get them. If you don't like your job, find a new one. If they don't provide coverage, find one that does. If you can't get a job, educate yourself for a better career. The only person with the responsibility of taking care of you is YOU.

This is the argument I find the most amusing. It seems you think that people love their manual labor, low paying jobs. The fact is Mayberry, not all of America is educated enough to go get those high paying jobs people talk about and like it or not, those jobs are needed.

[Mayberry]

The fact is Mayberry, not all of America is educated enough to go get those high paying jobs people talk about And this is my problem? I'm not "educated" either. Just a lowly high school graduate. I have still managed to get a decent job. You start off low, gain knowledge and experience, and eventually find a good job. Do I make 50 grand a year? No. But I make a decent living. Other than union run, most places don't entirely pay for decent health care. Hardly anyone does. Should they? I don't think so. It's not the company's responsibility. Medicade or some type of universal health care would free up the emergency rooms. It doesn't now, why will it when everyone is on it?

[ECW]

With fewer than half the full time jobs providing health I don't buy that number. Large companies all provide health coverage for full timers, and so do a lot of small ones. It may not be great coverage, but it is something.

Well, you don't have to buy that number but it's true. Large companies make up only 1/10th of the workforce with small businesses comprising the rest. Only half of those businesses provide health care benefits and mostly only to full time workers. That comes to less than 50%. Some companies just give their employees money to cover doctor bills when they get sick because it is cheaper than insurance but that does not qualify as health care.

They go to the emergency room not because they have the sniffles but because they have been sick for weeks I've been in the emergency room before, and I know quite a few nurses. They all say the same thing, that people without insurance use the er as a doctor's office, and come in with colds, flu, small cuts, sprains... all things you can take care of yourself at home.

I have been to the ER as well on a number of occasions. I have seen gunshot wounds, stab wounds, gashes that required stitches, people diagnosed with pneumonia but I have not seen the colds, flu, small cuts and sprains you describe. I did see a guy with a broken leg who hobbled out of the ER untreated as soon as the nurse said they had called the cops. He was back 30 minutes later in handcuffs but I didn't wait around to see whether he was treated or not or whether they just sent him home.

Medical costs would come down if low cost health care was provided for everyone thru a regulated program. I doubt it. I do know that quality of care will come down. I was in the military and have seen first hand how government run medicine works. No thanks.

I have seen first hand how government medicine works as well and it works pretty well. Not being able to explain to me the difference between private sector's 20% overhead and Medicare's 2% overhead tells me you don't have a real answer for this.

Allowing the private sector to run health care exclusively will just gouge the consumers just like they are being gouged now. The private sector ran health care just fine until recently. Increasing government regs and an ignorant population are what has driven up costs in the last 20 years.

The private sector still runs fairly well but not as efficiently as Medicare does. People are no more ignorant now than they were 20 years ago. I can't believe you would try and use that as an excuse for not having a national health plan.

Proof you say? Here and here and here.
2 editorials and a "study" are not proof of anything.

More proof than you brought to the table. Don't pull a Flea Bit Monkey on me and try to tell me that just because you said it that I should disregard my own beliefs and instead believe your way of thinking. Bring countervailing proof to the table next time. Untll then, my assertion that tort reform just made it easier for malpracticing doctors to get off the hook stands.

If you cannot afford it or cannot find a job that offers it, you are no better off than a person in the third world. The things in life you need are readily available, you just have to get off your ass and go get them. If you don't like your job, find a new one. If they don't provide coverage, find one that does. If you can't get a job, educate yourself for a better career. The only person with the responsibility of taking care of you is YOU. I am not willing to pay for everyone else's medical bills. If you would like to start a private charity to pay for people's medicalÂ*Â*care, be my guest. But the already overburdened taxpayers should not have to foot that bill too. Maybe you should move to one of those socialist countries with "free" health care if you don't like it here.

Not everyone that would like health care can go out and find a job that has it. Remember, less than 50% of full time jobs offer any health benefit whatsoever. What about the other 50%? Are they supposed to crowd into the first 50%'s jobs just so they can get coverage? Why don't the other 50% just provide health care, too?

Because they cannot. It costs too much. Therefore, what the people cannot do for themselves the government must help out. It is the role of government to do that.

No one is asking you to pay for anyone else's health care. That old righttwing scare tactic won't fly here, man. Save that "THE SKY IS FALLING" act for some one who ain't heard it before.

People would be more than willing to pay their own way IF THEY COULD GET INTO A PROGRAM. That's where the government comes in to provide just such a program or let private insurers sign people up for insurance under goverment regulation. Your people did it with the Prescription Drug Program. Why didn't they take it a step further and extend it to health care? Because the GOP is in the Insurance Industry's back pocket, that's why. They could gouge seniors for their medicine but they did not want to do anything to help the poorest and most needy in the land. Just like the GOP to look out for their rich benefactors and piss on everyone else. Thankfully, those Social Darwinistic days are over.

And take your suggestion about moving to a "socialist countries with "free" health care if you don't like it here" and shove it up your wazoo, pal. I'm an American and if I see something that is wrong, I work to fix it, no matter how many rich SOBs toes I have to step on to do it. I didn't take that "Love It Or Leave It" crap from you Archie Bunker types back in the day and I certainly don't stand for those kind of suggestions now.

Consider yourself thumped. I think not.
Think again.

[ECW]

link (http://sbinformation.about.com/od/insurance/a/ucHSA.htm)

Employer health care costs have risen an average of 15% each year over five years to an average of about $700 per month per employee, according to surveys by The Kaiser Family Institute and The National Association of Health Underwriters. Small wonder that 47% of America's small business owners provide no health care coverage at all.

And here's your proof on the percentage of businesses that provide health care to their employees.

[ECW]

Highlights of the poll include:
* 77 percent of Americans support increasing funding for a health insurance program for children from low-income families that would be paid for by the federal and state governments.
* 69 percent support expanding the Medicaid program for the poor to cover all adults, including single adults, who make less than the federal poverty level.
* 65 percent support establishing a new tax-free health account for all Americans which could be used to buy any type of private health insurance.
* 69 percent support giving a federal tax deduction for money paid by individuals to purchase private health insurance.
* 85 percent support giving a tax credit to any low- and moderate-income parents who can show that their children are covered by health insurance.
* 71 percent support providing incentive grants from the federal government to encourage states to develop programs to provide health insurance coverage for the uninsured.
* 63 percent support modifying the current system rather than replacing the current system with a government-run health care system.

Insurance Industry link (http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_news&id=71435)

Even the insurance industry acknowledges that there are problems in how care is doled out in this country and their own surveys show that people want things fixed. Notice that nowhere in any of this is the suggestion that a solution to better health care is "finding a job that does offer health benefits" or words to that effect.