And will they actually be able to implement it? I'm not just referring to "socialized" plans- all the candidates have something to say about health care, I'm just wondering who people most agree with. The one who is willing to keep the government out of health care (insurance) is by far the best. The U.S. already has safety nets in place for those who need necessary health care. We already have a good health care plan. It is called the Law. Call your local hospital and and ask them if they can deny anyone health care if they can't pay. They will say no, because it is against the law to deny health care to anybody. Shouldn't the term "Best Health Care" plan be considered an oxymoron? It is not the government's job to provide health care. On top of that, every government aid/welfare program they run is a bloated, inefficient, bureaucratic mess that always costs 3-4 times more than promised. Any candidate who promises a "Health Care Plan" in my book should be avoided like Ebola. Both will make you bleed out. Ron Paul:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.
Combined with his taxing ideas, I think this is better than the rest. However, it will not likely be implemented, because he will probably not be elected president. But thats always how it goes. None of them. They are all variations of the same idea, and that is socialized medicine which will ruin our health care system as it has elsewhere in the world. Sweetheart, the ABSOLUTE BEST social program is a job. If you think for one second that the government is competent enough to run a program as large as, and as important as National Healthcare, just take one more look at Welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and... pretty much any other government institution.
I am NOT bashing our Fed. Government whatsoever. I am just affirming that it was NEVER intended to be as large as it has become and it was NEVER meant to take up the roles that private enterprise traditionally handles or to be a charity institution for those who simply choose not to better themselves or obtain the healthcare that they need.
There are already MANY various ways to obtain government substidized healthcare... Medicare, WIC, CHIP, MATI, etc. The problem: These systems are not sufficient to meet the demand of those trying to get on them, who in reality can afford healthcare in the first place.
As long as these people are buying Playstations, Manicures, and SUV's and houses they can't afford, There is ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION for taxpayers to be FORCED to pay for other people's healthcare.
I am by no means independently wealthy. The most important thing in my life is my health and that of my family. There are so many things that I would like to have, but sacrafice in order to be sure we have good healthcare coverage. I still live comfortably. If I absolutely needed it, I know where I can get it, but until I have exhausted every other means, I do not want taxpayers to bear my burden. That is not right when there really are those who need help. As I suggested earlier about democracy, there should not be any who's anymore. Its the team that we people have elected to work on our issues. We people should share our problems regarding the health care and then the team (members that we have elected) works honestly to find the best possible solution that meets our requirement and budget. Since these members are the people elected by us who we trust so they will always work for benefit of all of us. The best health care plan doesn't require a presidential candidate to arrive there. It is called insurance.
Could a plan be implemented? I think Edwards is thinking well, but insurance HAS to be the primary insurance for long term care in hospital or hospice.
I would point out that for every five dollars that goes to Washington for a Social Welfare Program, only one dollar gets out of Washington and is applied. At the State Level, the health programs are manipulated and stressed until they wind up in trouble. The Massachusetts Program, for example, was expanded to include too many dead beats and now it is in a lot of trouble. Anyone who has presented a market-based solution and who allows for (1) more individual responsibility and incentive in choosing plans and (2) more market competition.
Much of the present problem is due to distortions of the market. More government control would almost certainly make it even worse. Frankly, of all the plans, Dr. Ron Paul makes the most sense. Giuliani's got some decent points, but they're all missing the boat because NONE of them are dealing with KEY problems in the current rigged system:
the large insurers get breaks no one else does--from deep discounts that are NOT taxed to them to the ERISA shield protection (read Jamie Cort's "HMOs: Making a Killing") and more.
Plans have ridiculous low caps on needed procedures thus denying care as they will only pay a tiny amount of a HUGE bill.
Insurers squirrel out of paying what was covered--sometimes try to pull that even after giving a pre-auth for a procedure. Too many people don't understand how to appeal or are too sick to jump through all the hoops.
Stupid creations like Medicare D with the dumb "donut hole" AND prohibition on negotiations for price breaks.
The list goes on and on.
Want a workable plan that makes sense? Read the PDF (not the blurb, click the link) here:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
Offers a way for AFFORDABLE catastrophic coverage for all AND a physical and follow-up and one ER visit (if needed) for reasonable co-pay per year. That covers 80+% of the public's needs. The very ill will end up being properly covered for legit medical expenses better than they are now. i think they all get free gov healthcare Hillary has the best health care plan vs obama's.
That Obama health care plan is a dog's breakfast of bad ideas from Left, Right, and center, topped with an unhealthy amount of wishful thinking. If enacted it would cost Americans dearly 鈥?in higher taxes, lost jobs, reduced freedom of choice, and lower quality health care.
Obama鈥檚 health care plan is not universal (Hillary鈥檚 plan is universal), and it lacks audacity. Obama鈥檚鈥?plan is like himself 鈥?full of hope but not deliverable.
Compared to John Edwards, who had a detailed plan, and Hillary Clinton, whose fluency with the subject is unmatched among the contenders, he seemed uncertain and adrift. An Associated Press article asked, "Is Obama all style and little substance?"
Number one, he didn't make sure everybody is in. There is perhaps no more surprising fact about Obama's plan than that it is not universal. It is certainly sold as if it is. In his speech unveiling the proposal, Obama bragged that, "[m]y plan begins by covering every American." But it doesn't. To say otherwise is rhetorical overreach, the appropriation of a popular and broadly-supported goal without an attendant mechanism for achieving it.
There are a few ways to achieve universal health care. You can create a single-payer plan that enrolls the population automatically. This is what Canada does, and how Medicare covers the elderly. You can create an employer mandate, where the primary responsibility falls on workplaces, and smaller mandates mop up the remainder. That was the approach showcased in the Clinton reforms of the early '90s. You can create an individual mandate that charges every American with procuring health insurance, and penalizes them if they don't. This is the approach favored by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, Ron Wyden in the Senate, and John Edwards in the presidential campaign. Obama's plan offers none of these approaches.
Instead, it seeks to make care cheaper and more accessible, assuming that, if it succeeds 鈥?and that's a big if 鈥?Americans will enroll of their own volition. It is a plan with the potential to be universal, rather than a universal plan. In that respect, it is very much like Obama himself.
Few are looking to Clinton for details, as her public record is so well-known, and her policy commitments so lengthily expressed. It is Obama who has remained a relative cipher, the interplay of his ideology and political instincts opaque. Obama鈥檚 plan lacks details, and skeptics say Obama is merely an inspiring speaker than a practical health care advocate.
Obama鈥檚 failing, somewhat ironically, is a lack of audacity. It accepts the sectioning off of the market into the employed, the unemployed, the old, the young, and the poor. It does not consolidate the system into a coherent whole, preferring instead to preserve the patchwork quilt of programs and insurers that make health care so difficult to navigate. It does not sever the link between employment and health insurance, nor take a firm step towards single-payer, despite Obama's professed preference for such a system.
Obama's plan is not dissimilar from Obama himself 鈥?sold with stunning rhetoric and grand hopes, but never quite delivering on the promises and potential. And so he remains the candidate of almosts. |
