http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/washington/17cnd-clinton.html?hp
These are the rules: you must post your own thoughts and you must comment on the thoughts of someone else. This requires that you know what the article is about and that you formulate an opinion about what you’ve read. Find a way to shape your own unique voice – don’t simply repeat the comments of others or say you agree. Be specific – what works? What doesn’t? What would you do differently? Is there a solution? What is it? – are some questions you might contemplate as you read and comment. I want us to dialogue about the news rather than simply try and memorize what’s happening. Dialogue begins with knowledge and is always respectful, but I hope also controversial! Don’t be afraid to have an opinion – that’s the point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Clinton's ideas for her health care plan, while ideal, are slightly impractical. Her plan includes the increase of taxes for those making more than $250,000 a year. While it seems like a good idea, those that are making more money won’t be to willing to participate. In addition, they most likely already have their own health care plan with good benefits. So for the wealthy, Clinton’s plan may not catch much interest.
However, for those who can't afford decent health care, this seems like a dream come true. However, a lot of those without a healthcare plan are illegal immigrants. What many had come to America for was getting a chance at a better life. So naturally, it would be backed by those who need the help.
Nicole -- would you back it? I want to hear your personal views as well....
Who wouldn’t believe in the ideal goal of having a “universal health care plan”? According to Clinton, every citizen in the United States should have “quality, affordable health care.” The poor are waiting in agony for a resolution like this. And since this lofty $110 billion-a-year plan would come from the taxing the rich who already have health care, this plan would be extremely appealing to the majority of American citizens, right?
The major error in Clinton’s plan is that it overlooks quality of healthcare that would immediately deteriorate. If she plans to attack these medical companies to make their coverage cheaper, or more “affordable”, these companies would only resort to making lower-quality products and services. Drug companies compete against each other by striving to produce better and more appealing products to their customers. They try to make their services cheaper, but it’s not easy. If millions of citizens with small pockets are already subscribed to their services, health companies wouldn’t need to produce any good quality products. Companies would constantly be looking for the next cheapest thing. Eventually, the quality in health care would be so poor-quality that even more people would get sick.
At the depth that this article viewed the plan, I lean towards supporting it. I strongly support the idea of universal healthcare, and I disagree with the republican sentiment that she is trying to create a new government bureaucracy (especially after Bush's introduction of the Homeland Security Administration and the TSA). However, she comments that coverage is dependant upon following a set of unkown rules, and I could very well see the government using health insurance coverage as leverage against the american people. In addition, the article doesn't go in depth into the alternatives, of which there may be a favorable one. As for the tax on thos making more than $250,000 a year, it really shouldn't be that big of an issue. Especially considering it's going towards insuring the rest of the american population, as opposed to, say, billions of dollars a year going towards a never ending oil war overseas.
I believe that Clinton’s idea for the new health care plan is a very good idea. Although I do not know very much about the current heath care system we have right now, affordable coverage for everyone is a good idea. I believe our country needs this kind of change in order to create a better life for everyone. But this system would also be a large endeavor that could possibly take a turn for the worst, not that I know how but I know that no plan is perfect and can have some problems. I'm sure that if she can get this plan up and running that it will make the country, as a whole, a better place.
after i read andrews comment i have to say that i think that even with the lower prices that the companies would still compeat in order to get more ppl to choose the service that would get them paid. just because the amount ppl would be getting paid is lower they would strive to attract more ppl to their service in order to make more money. i believe that ppl are more greedy than lazy.
Personally, I would back it. Everyone having sufficient and affordable healthcare would be beneficial to many people. However, Clinton says that it would work if you followed certain rules. Depending on what these rules are, will make my decision more solid. But, for now, I do back her plan.
Hillary Clinton is definitely moving in the right direction by striving to achieve universal coverage,but it is easier said than done. There are both ups and downs to her plan. For the most part, I support her health care plan and would be more than happy to see it up and running. Although I do not see a problem with increasing the taxes of the wealthier Americans, I am sure they would have some complaints about it. Knowing how stingy people can be, they wouldn't support the idea of a tax increase even if it is helping less fortunate people. I fully support that large businesses should be required to help pay for the insurance of their employees. That is definitely a plus because it would gurantee the coverage of a huge portion of our population.The article also mentions that Clinton would be netting billions of dollars into our savings by reorganizing the healthcare system. What would these billions of dollars pay for instead? One point that is stressed in this article is the fact that people would be able to keep their current health care insurance. I think this point will gain a lot of support from the public since fear of losing their insurance was one of the main problems with Hillary's last attempt.I love how there will be no need for the creation of a new government bureaucracy but rather that people can make their own decisions. I am also worried about the increase in competition between the insurance companies. Yes, the competition will keep prices down, but how will it affect the companies overall? Will they have the same benefits and quality as they do now? I support her health care plan so far, but would love to hear about it in more detail later on.
I support Clinton's healthcare plan because I believe in universal healthcare. I personally don't know much about current healthcare, and am a bit bias because I am more on the democratic side, but I believe that the universal healthcare can't be a bad idea. Yes most of the wealthy wouldn't be willing to pay for the poor's healthcare, but what happens to the poor when they need healthcare? Don't the poor deserve just as much as the wealthy? Also in Clinton's new plan she said that if the wealthy wanted to keep their healthcare plan they are able to, so it wouldn't lower the quality of the rich's health care plans. Yes it will be hard for Clinton to be able to get this plan to succede because many people would be against it because they want to keep their money. But the people with no money need a health care plan more than the rich need to keep their money.
-Sayumi
Hillary's health care plan is really beneficial for the many people without it now. Would illegal immigrants be able to get the insurance? If they are, having citizen's taxes pay for illegal immigrants' insurance would soon become a problem, which is going on in Public Schools. People would be even more enticed to move to America.
When she so cleverly says that she is not running for the insurance industry’s woman of the year, it is becuase the insurance companies would be paying so much for everyone's charges. However, wouldn't they get a sudden increase in money flow because almost all American's would be paying for it? Also, insurance companies sometimes deny giving insurance- would that continue the same way with Hillary's plan?
But in my opinion, I like her plan because everyone can get the medical assistance they need. Many are suffereing and not seeing doctors because they can't afford it and end up spending more to fix their problem now that it is in the late stage. With her plan, more people would be healthy even though others would not be happy with the extra taxation on those making more than $250,000 a year.
Paulina Leah Shahery
P.S. Hillary Clinton shook my right hand, thank you very much.
I personally think that providing everyone with a health care plan is extremely important for improving the lives of many individuals. The less wealthy citizens of this country will buy into this plan. They will finally be able to purchase affordable insurance for their family but I wonder how good the quality of the new health care system will turn out to be. Having insurance companies and drug companies lower their prices, it will put a big dip in their business. I feel the quality of health care will decrease substantially. As for the wealthy in our country, the majority of them will not want to be responsible for financially aiding their employees nor will they want to pay more taxes than already asked of them. Although universal health care is important, I don't believe it will ever fully work.
I agree completely with Nicole. When it comes to regards of those with a higher income. They are not going to want to participate in this plan. Majority of them will not want to help benefit the less wealthy. As for the less wealthy, again, I think she is right when she says they will back Clinton because they have been wanting an affordable health care plan for themselves and their family. But I do have one question. Will the illegal immigrants be considered in this universal health care plan?
What Marg said was really enlightening. If everyone has health care, then companies will compete for the most affordable prices. With this, individuals will be getting less personal attention but on the same token, more people will be getting the help they need. Big businesses would provide the bare minimun insurane for their employees and that won't be good either.
With more people in demand for doctors since they culd now afford it, the economy would benefit because of all the doctors other people involved to create and maintain new hospitals would be empolyed.
But once again, I think it will be problem because everything will decrease in price and possibly quality.
Despite the fact that universal health care is appealing to many people, especially the poor, I think Clinton's plan will fail just as it did in the early 90's. As one of the wealthiest industries, insurance companies will persuade congress to vote against universal health care. Insurance companies are the middle men between Americans and health care companies, and if universal health care was put into action, companies such as Blue Cross would go out of business. Also, doctors would be against this proposition because they would lose money as well. Overall, I support Hilary Clinton's healthcare plan, however, I dont think it will go into effect.
Initially I thought that the concept of universal health care was somewhat a far-fetched idea; however after reading about Hillary Clinton's plan for the future, I support it. It only seems fair that everyone in our country can have the option of something like health support. I don't have too much knowledge of the status of our current health care situation but I can imagine that there a millions of people who cannot afford it. For people who are financially challenged, an opportunity like this could literally save lives. Although I do think this is a good idea, I think that it might be hard to gain a lot of support. There are plenty of people who won't be happy about something like higher taxes but all in all I support Clinton's plan and hope that she can pull through for universal health care. Everyone deserves the opportunity for health care, not just the people who can afford it.
I agree with Nicole with the idea that the wealthier people might not agree with this plan. For a lot of people, if you can afford health care as it is, it's just an extra burden to have to pay a little bit more for the benefit and well-being of others. And because of this I also must agree with Candace -- I don't think that Clinton's plan will succeed. While it's a great idea that could help thousands, I think that people haven't changed enough since her plan was first proposed and rejected.
In response to Andrea's comment, I would suggest to Senator Clinton that she ask for a tax increase from the "really" wealthy people in America. How about those who make 1 million or more a year? The people making 250,000 a year are already contributing about 50% of their income to taxes, so I wouldn't necessarily call them stingy.
In agreement with Andrea, I also like the sounds of Senator Clinton's proposal for people who like their health insurance, keeping their health insurance. Personally, I like the doctors I see and trust them: I've established a relationship with them because I've been seeing them over the years for most of my life. I would hate to start over and not be able to choose the doctors I see.
I wish I could ask Senator Obama about his idea that not "all adults must be covered." How does he think that plan would benefit the American people? The whole idea of this article is that there should be universal health care and everyone should have affordable health insurance. What about a mother who gets a life threatening disease and she has no health insurance to assure her treatment? Should her children lose their mother?
Mr. Edwards proposes an interesting plan: to end health care coverage for the members of Congress and even the president himself until they come to a decision regarding the health care of the American people. If a member of Congress gets sick and has no health insurance, he might back down from arguing and want to support one of these plans more quickly. Even though I'm not sure Mr. Edwards as president could make this happen, this new idea amused me and I would like to see what would happen if he accomplished this part of his plan.
Nicole makes a good point which also supports my ideas: many wealthy Americans aren't willing to pay for universal healthcare if they already have it. A large number of these people are probably republicans who are not in favor of Clinton in the first place, and therefore will prevent her plan from going into action. The opinions of the wealthy Americans combined with the support of republican lobbyists hired by insurance companies will most likely overrule the votes of "poorer" Americans.
A $110-billion project is a little hard to fathom, but it seems as though Clinton has stabilized her approach to the issue of United States health care.
If this project were passed, I think that a dip in the quality of insurance is inevitable. The sole idea of increasing insurance accessibility by lowering prices indicates that there are many people who obviously cannot afford insurance currently provided today. And so, even if it were of poorer quality, this project is intended to be a gateway for the underprivileged to acquire at least some medical security, while, of course, leaving the option for those already with the more pricy insurance to keep it.
A problem I see with the following project, however, is regulating and sustaining such a wide-scale health care program. Without a separate federal agency, which is said to be unnecessary, I cannot really connect, let alone see, the dots that represent the project in effect. I understand the preparation, the intentions, the favorable ideas, and all the other preiliminary steps, but regulation remains a question.
I completely agree with nicole. If Hil's plan were to be executed it would ideal for people who need help with healthcare but a true annoyance to wealthy people. It's a tricky situation, should people who have worked hard to have the high income that they have today be taxed more in order to help others? But then again there are people that are wealthy by inheritance or spend their money on ridiculous things. In the ideal world everyone would want to help others who are in need, but the issue is we DONT so people would get pissed and not support this plan. Also the people that would get pissed about this are the ones with the most money who have the most say so I don't think Clinton will be able to be successful. However, I support her because she is not just saying what people want to hear, despite her fortune she is willing to sacrfice and help those less fortunate. GO HIL!
When I read the first paragraph of that article, I felt pretty skepticle about the 'universal health care.' Of course it sounds good and is definately beneficial for the majority, but 110 billion a year? I'm not sure if that's a lot or a little in regards to our country's financial situation but the first thing I thought was "that's a lot of tax money."
But after reading the entire article, I feel like there are few disadvantages to this health plan. I do think, though, that it is wishful thinking. In regards to the raised taxes, of course people aren't going to favor a plan in which they need to pay more, but one of the best parts about the plan is the choice. I feel like Clinton thoroughly looked at all aspects of her plan and took into consideration many people's point of views. From what I've read about it so far, I would most likely back this plan.
ohhmy gosh i just wrote an entire comment but it got deleted.. lamesauce.
anyways,
I think that Andrew brings up a great point about the quality of healthcare.. with basically everyone covered by this health plan, there's a tonnn of people that are now able to go see doctors and stuff so there will most likely be a decline in quality.
also, this is kind of a specific question, but from what I recall, in the past few years there has been a definite shortage in shots (aka flu shots).. and i'm sure the majority of people demanding these shorts are/were insurance holders... what are we gonna do when pretty much everyone is gonna want a flu/whatever shot?
I agree with Brit.. I really like the plan but I doubt it will be successful.
oh and another thing, the plan seems almost "too perfect" as someone had mentioned. With so many benefits, there's bound to be corruption and people who are gonna abuse them.
It's brutally true that, generally, the wealthy may regard this project with discontent and reluctance in fulfilling its requirements. The fact is we, as in literally we, make up one of the wealthiest communities in the entire nation. As much as we may find flaws and disadvantages within the plan at hand here and there, holistically as a group, we find at least the intents of the project to be positive. We would like universal health care.
Most of us have become aware of Clinton's proposal just now, and some of us have just realized there exists problems with the health care system in the United States. What if privileged people, like us, were informed and educated as to make aware of the true problems and deprivations surrounding the outskirts of our own communities? Would it help?
My point is, I see that most, if not all, of us like the core idea of the plan at hand. I guess this would mean if we were making 250 grand a year, we would pay the extra taxes set forth by the plan. If not, are we hypocrital and lying to ourselves that we actually like the plan?
Like Neha and Brittany said, this idea of universal healthcare is a great idea. I support it fully but I feel that making this plan pass would be very difficult. I believe that because our government is corrupted in many ways the wealthy will find a way to not let this plan go through
-Sayumi
I completely agree with Candace's comment. Although Hillary Clinton says that she would try to convince the insurance companies to lower their prices to the people, it doesn't necessarily promise that they would go through with it. Why would insurance companies allow for more competition? The companies would do the best they could to stop this healthcare plan from passing through. Once again, easier said than done.
In response to Amanda's first comment. I'm pretty certain that individules who make 250,000 a year aren't hit with a 50% income tax. I googled it, and within a few minutes I found a number of sites saying that income tax falls somewhere between 10% and 35%. In addition, I think we as a community loose sight of the norm, and how wealthy we really are. The average american makes 26,000 a year. Thats how much our tuition is. In addition only 1.5% of americans make more than 250,000 a year. If the bracket under which higher taxes were imposed was raised, i would imagine that number would drop exponentially, rendering the excess tax really useless as it would only tax a relatively tiny number of individules.
I support this proposal completely. Affordable health insurance has always been a necessity for the poor, and with this proposal we are inching closer towards that goal. The only flaw i see in this plan is the funding. I may be wrong, but i don't believe that an 110 billion dollars A YEAR plan can be mainly funded by simply ending a tax cut for people earning $250,000 or more a year. Our country is in enough debt already thanks to the war we're currently fighting, so we may not have efficient funds to support this plan. However, if somehow Hilary Clinton's ideas to raise money for the proposal are very efficient, then by all means the plan is essential for the poor and should be used. Maintaining the health of U.S. citizens should be a main priority.
I agree with Margaux wholeheartedly. Even if this proposal works out, as i stated it probably won't, the possibilty of it fully working is slim. I completely agree with her when she says that the quality of health care services, especially the ones given to the poor, will be mediocre compared to before the plan was issued. I hadn't thought of that before but after she brought it up it gave me more reason to believe there are faults in this plan.
Although Clinton's plans are extremely ideal, they are unrealistic. Of course it would be nice to have steady, affordable insurance for all, but that's simply not the case without depriving others for the greater benefit, and some people will just not go for that! I believe that if this plan even were to be put in to action, the quality of health care insurance would immediately drop. They have to take care of a greater number of people and it's simply impossible to do so with a lower income of money per person!
Also, why does Clinton have to apply this new policy to the whole country? She should be concentrating on helping those who need insurance. Unfortunately, some people who make $250,000+ a year are just not willing to increase the tax they pay enough to be fueling for the whole country's insurance, but maybe they would at a smaller increase to help those who need insurance.
I find that she's asking a bit much from those who have worked/functioned and lived the same way their whole lives (the drug/health insurance companies, $250,000+ annual income people, etc). Yes, change is necessary, but why such a dramatic one? People will not be able to stomach it easily nor quickly, and I don't believe Clinton has taken in all of the negatives of her plan.
I agree with Margaux and Andrew about the aspect of quality for the health care. It simply is impossible for the companies to be pumping out high quality products to care for more Americans when they're recieving less money to do so.
In response to Charlie's response to someone else, he brings up the aspect of competition between the companies, which would FURTHER lower their prices and further make it harder to provide for the people they're serving!
In response to Brittany, I would hardly say the majority of the wealthy people are of the former that you mentioned (worked hard to get there). And I don't really think she's just "telling people how it is", but really she's been too blinded by the brilliance of her plan to have noticed its faults. Perhaps she IS willing to give up a bit of her money to help America, but this is why she is a presidential candidate! She needs to have a want to better America! And just because she wants to give up some of her money to help others, doesn't mean that a majority of other wealthy people do (which is not to say I wouldn't, but it's impractical to think that one woman would be able to change the morals of a vast amount of other people)!
I agree with Andrew and Jon for the most part. The main problem I see in this article is that the plan seems vague. Universal Healthcare is something to strive for, but I just don't see how her plan is going to work. Maybe it was just how the article was written, but I don't think the plan is really foolproof. Like Andrew said, there is too much room for the deterioration of actual healthcare. Clinton's plan sounds good on paper, but would it really work? I don't think so. I would really like to learn about Obama's plan as well, to contrast the too, and definitely read the fine print of Hilary's proposal.
It all just seems so general. Tax the rich, pass some laws, and everyone will get along because it's for the good of the "American people". But the problem is, that won't work. The rich aren't going to like these tax increases and Clinton will at least lose a portion of her vote, and even if Clinton is elected and the plan is approved and tax increases and laws to force insurance companies to cover "everyone", the healthcare system will just find ways to save money on actual care, by greatly reducing quality of care. Insurance companies would find ways to undermine the new system.
I really need more information than just this article to really determine how I feel about the plan, because it's ultimate goal, if realized, might finally bring universal healthcare, but I just don't think it's as easy as she makes it sound.
(P.S. Clinton really likes using glittering generalities and buzzwords in her speeches.)
Clinton's ideas are incredibly optimistic and if they were realistic then they would be great; however, it is unrealistic because it would take money from the healthcare companies as well as from the rich. Although it is nice to think that healthcare companies would lower prices in order to make healthcare universally available, it is simply not feasible because the company's sole goal is to make as much profit as possible. Taxation of the rich is also very unrealistic due to the fact that the wealthy have such a strong hand in our society and country. Most of the 1% or 2% who earn that kind of money would be unwilling to support this plan and would certainly go to great lengths to prevent it. As these people have so much wealth it would not be difficult for them to influence others and possibly be the main reason that this plan does not work.
-Jack
I believe that Andrew makes an excellent point in saying that while healthcare could become universally available, it would deteriorate rapidly. While the companies may pretend as if they care about the customer and believe that everyone deserves their service, they really only care about earnings. It is also extremely undesirable for these companies to engage in a competition to see who can create the cheapest medicine. This would only result in a massive decrease in quality of medicine and quality of care for all companies.
-Jack
I really appreciated reading all the various opinions here. Just personally I like to know what you think – so those of you who said I support it or I don’t get kudos from me. I prefer not leaving things in the abstract. Many of you said that the quality of medical care would decline with the approval of a plan like this. Why? No one really offered any explanation – it was just stated as fact. What proof do you have? What are you basing your opinions on? Do just a little research. Even the two second internet search Jonathan did to find out the tax brackets for those making $250,000 was interesting – and added fuel to his argument. And no one contradicted him or did their own research to contradict him. I’d love to see that – the practice of informing your opinions with facts! Overall I was incredibly impressed by your writing and your insights.
Post a Comment