Log in

I forgot my password

Better on Day One... hmmmmm...

Go down

Better on Day One... hmmmmm...

Post by Diva_Bleu on February 18th 2008, 12:39 pm

Okay, so Billary keeps saying she'll be a better President on "Day One" than Barack Obama... I'm sorry, am I the only one who has taken a look @ the way her shoddy and sporadic campaign has been run and thought, "Maybe your wrong, Colonel Sanders!" Seriously, the mishandled (and unaccounted for) money that her campaign has HEMORRHAGED since the end of '07, the ever-present Bill who has recently said some of the most offensive remarks I have heard in a long time, the way Hilary had to lend her own campaign money (and made a HUGE deal about it to take away from Obama's fundraising prowess by garnering sympathy) and the fact that on one hand shesaid it was no big deal yet made sure to speak about it @ EVERY press conference and stump speech, the way her staff is in constant limbo since 2/5... It bothers me that a candidate, male or female, would be viewed as a great leader if they cannot lead their own campaign... FOR LEADERSHIP PRIVILEDGES!!!

Plus, I just cannot say I agree with her on the issues... Making health insurance a MANDATORY buy??? But what if you cannot afford it??? How about reading about the current system in Massachusetts, which is FAILING MISERABLY and mirrors Clinton's model almost EXACTLY... The fines imposed on a person who doesn't have insurance are REDICULOUS, but the fact that it is often times unaffordable doesn't enter the equation... hmmmm... SHADY!!!!
The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions. State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011. Those figures would far outstrip the original plans for the Commonwealth Care program, largely because state officials underestimated the number of uninsured residents.

The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program's cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding. Commonwealth Care provides free or subsidized insurance for low- and moderate-income residents.

"The state alone cannot support that kind of spending increase," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded budget watchdog group.

Even with federal backing, the state may not be able to afford the insurance initiative as designed, because the law did not make any attempt to trim wasteful health spending, said Alan Sager, a Boston University professor who specializes in healthcare costs.

Massachusetts Mandatory Health Insurance program will provide health coverage as follows for the state's 500,000 uninsured:
-- 100,000 poverty-level residents qualify, but have not yet signed up, for Medicaid. They will be legally required to sign-up. Price Tag: $225 million a year, half to be repaid by the federal government.

-- The incomes of 200,000 resident families are too low to afford health insurance, but they don't qualify for Medicaid. Nationwide, this group comprises about 70% of the 45 million Americans.

Massachusetts plans to partially or fully subsidize health insurance premiums for this group. Those earning between 100% and 300% will pay part of their premiums, calculated on a sliding scale. Those earning 100% of less of the federal poverty level will have their premiums paid by the state.

Price Tag: $720 million a year, initially to be funded by a $1 billion fund already set-aside for uninsured care.

-- The remaining 200,000 uninsured are deemed to be able to afford health insurance, and will be required to do so by 2008 or be assessed substantial annual tax penalties and/or wage garnishments. -- Looming questions remain about the long-term financial viability of the plan.

-- The program grants enormous power to special interest groups to collect health care data on all citizens, and imposes stiff fines on health care providers who fail to fully share "confidential" patient data. It's unclear with whom patient data may be shared or who holds legal ownership of the data.

-- The program ensures public access to basic health care, but it doesn't grant equal access to high-quality health care. Inevitably under any "personal payment" plan, the wealthy will obtain higher quality and timelier health care services, and will have access to a broader range of services and tests.

-- As health costs rise, services for the poor under this plan could be cut, and for those paying the partially-subsidized premiums, costs and deductibles could significantly rise .

-- The program is administered by a "health-care quality and cost council" composed entirely of unelected bureaucrats and political appointments. The council does not answer to the state Health & Human Services department.

-- Libertarians, who are usually fiscal and political conservatives but social moderates, balk at government mandates that override individual decision-making freedoms.

These articles shed some light on the problem Massachusetts faces... The "idea" is that only those who can afford healthcare but chose not to purchase it will pay the fines... This simply isn't true. If you can afford it "on paper' but it truly doesn't fit your budget, you can be fined up to $4000 by the state. How does that help??? I don't see it...

So yeah, WTF makes her think her plans are better??? Or that Bill will make a better right-hand rep for the Presidency than Michele Obama??? This is just a small piece of her policies that I have extensively researched over the last month and found it wanting... WUT GIVES??? Suspect

True Fan

Number of posts : 51
Age : 39
Location : Upper Deck
Registration date : 2008-01-28

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum